Seòmar agus comataidhean

My apologies.

With the exception of amendment 1021, which is on reporting, all the amendments that I have lodged in the group are probing amendments that relate to the current extension of time limits, which the Scottish Government suggests should continue. The examples that I will give are illustrative. I will not speak to every amendment, because there are so many of them, but I will provide a flavour of them.

Allowing the bill to pass would have the effect of extending the 11-month pre-Covid time limit for the time from appearance and petition to pre-trial hearing to 17 months, as provided for in the emergency legislation. The lead amendment in the group suggests that, instead, that period should be increased to only 13 months. I will provide another illustrative example. The emergency legislation extended the time for which someone was allowed to remain on remand until the pre-trial hearing from 110 days to 290 days. Amendment 1016 proposes that that should be allowed to increase to only 200 days.

The periods that I have chosen are arbitrary and not evidence based because I have not seen any evidence to justify why, for example, 290 days are required to prepare between the time when someone is taken into custody and the pre-trial hearing. The purpose of amendments 1011 to 1020 is to try to tease out from the Scottish Government the reasoning and justification for why the amount of time that is specified in the bill is necessary.

It must always be said that, in Scots law, there is provision for time limits to be extended on cause shown. It is therefore always possible to go to court to make a case as to why the Crown does not have sufficient time and needs further time to prepare the case for trial. However, the effect of the legislation that has been in place during Covid is that the amount of time for which people are held in custody before they are taken to court and their case is heard has been extended significantly. Many organisations have raised human rights concerns and many consider the time extension to be draconian. The issue before us is whether the extensions are necessary and will continue to be so during the period for which the bill’s provisions will be in place if it is enacted.

The backdrop is that we still have the highest number of people in prison in Europe. I say “still” because it is an historical issue, and it is important for the Parliament to explore it. Why is it that, historically, Britain in general has had high numbers of people in prison, but Scotland in particular has always had higher numbers of people in prison than the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the rest of Europe? We also have an historical problem of high remand rates, which increased staggeringly during the Covid pandemic. We were informed in evidence a number of weeks ago that the remand rates in Scottish prisons are currently at 30 per cent. We were previously told that the figure was 27 per cent. It would be interesting to know whether it has increased again.

The extension of the time limits will almost inevitably lead to an increase in prisoner numbers. We already have a huge problem with prison overcrowding, and it will simply not be possible to build more prisons and create more prison spaces under the timescales in the bill.

Some people are found not guilty at trial after lengthy periods in custody or receive lesser sentences than the period for which they were held on remand. The committee has spoken about that previously and mentioned it in previous reports. Also, given that there is always a tendency in almost any establishment for people to work to deadlines, the concern must be that, if the deadlines are longer, there will be less pressure to ensure that cases are prepared as speedily as possible.

Amendments 1011 to 1020 are probing amendments. They are not evidence based, in the sense that I have not taken evidence on or been able to justify the time limits that I propose. However, I submit to the committee and put it to the Government that the Government has also not presented evidence as to why the time limits in the bill are necessary. Indeed, many people in the legal profession insist that the amount of time that is provided for is not needed by the Crown or the defence. The impact of the time limits on the system has been very significant and it has in large part resulted in some of the problems that the committee has discussed on many occasions.

I might come back to the issue at a later stage but, at this stage, I ask the Scottish Government to justify why the specific lengths of time extension in the bill have been sought, are in place and should be continued.

Amendment 1021, which is on reporting, is similar to the amendment on reporting that I spoke to earlier, but it relates to the issue of remand. As I said, we already have the highest remand figures in the whole of Europe. I will not rehearse all the arguments about that, as members have already heard them.

Amendment 1021 seeks to require the Scottish ministers to lay before the Scottish Parliament

“as soon as practicable at the end of each reporting period”,

which is every six months, a report that sets out the number of prisoners who are being held on remand, the average length of time for which prisoners are being held on remand pre-trial and information on disposals—in other words, whether people received a custodial sentence or a non-custodial sentence, or were found not guilty. The first period for which that requirement would be in place would be the period from royal assent until 31 January 2023.

We have already discussed in relation to virtual trials the significance of information that relates to the scrutiny process. For the Parliament to effectively scrutinise very serious issues around which there are significant human rights concerns, not just for the accused but for all who are involved in the process, including the victim, the more information that can be provided to and shared with the Parliament, the better. The inclusion of such a requirement in the bill would send a strong message to the civil service and the justice system about the level of scrutiny that the Parliament expects to have in relation to such decisions.

I move amendment 1011.

The cabinet secretary can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is the date when the provisions on virtual courts will initially come to an end, although the officials may want to come in on that point. I can be corrected later if I am wrong, but I believe that that is the case.

Basically, for as long as the provisions are in place, amendment 1034 would require the Scottish Government to lay before Parliament a report every six months. That would enable Parliament to discuss how it is going.

One of the concerns is that it might be very difficult to get virtual courts up and running if the cabinet secretary wants to get agreement on all sides, as that may be difficult to reach. That is exactly the information that should be available to Parliament to debate. If the provisions are not being implemented because defence agents and the prosecution will not agree to them, we need to have that discussion.

I am not prejudging the nature or content of the reports. I am saying that it is appropriate that the Parliament has the information available to it. If the cabinet secretary is not minded to accept amendment 1034, I ask him to consider how he could ensure that the Parliament is fully included and that as much information as possible is shared with it.

I have a specific question on your argument about cases timing out. Something that concerns me about amendment 1001, which relates to time limits on proceedings on sexual offences being extended in “exceptional circumstances”, is the risk of timing out or other unintended consequences. Have you given thought to that? Perhaps the cabinet secretary could also come back on that. Would the impact be as has been described, or could there be unintended consequences?

Yes, and there is a very strong case for them in some situations. We have heard already about the kinds of evidence that are already taken virtually, and I do not think that anything that I am saying would undermine provisions on that.

What I would say is that we cannot presume what the outcome of cases will be, given what happened, for example, in the pilot in the north-east, which was predominately domestic abuse cases. That actually had a high level of acquittals. That might not mean anything, given that it was a very small number of cases, but it shows that we cannot make presumptions about what we think will be the implications of virtual courts, and that they need to be evidence led. The more evidence that the Parliament and the committee has over a longer period, the more likely we will come to the right decisions.

One of the points that Rona Mackay is making is that victims and those giving evidence might find virtual courts an easier and, we hope, less traumatic experience, although it would no doubt still be a very difficult experience for them. That is one of the aspects that we have to look at.

We also have to look at the outcomes of cases, so we need proper evidence with which to move forward.

Potentially, the amendments in this group will make very significant changes to the system. Virtual attendance may lend itself well to case management hearings, but where witnesses and the accused have to give evidence, we might need to be clearer about what the implications are and whether it is possible for the evidence to be tested as well virtually as it would be in an open court.

As the cabinet secretary says, there is not a consensus on how virtual courts should be implemented. The cabinet secretary previously said that virtual courts would proceed only if there was agreement on all sides and from all parties.

My amendments 54 and 55, which are in some ways similar to Russell Findlay’s amendments, would enable local authorities to designate an area as a firework control zone in which fireworks could not be used by any person and no person or, indeed, professional organisation would be exempt. In effect, fireworks would be banned in the area. Obviously, the statutory defence would remain in place. If the provision were enacted, a local authority could decide to ban fireworks in the vicinity of, for example, an animal rescue centre, riding stables, a hospital, a facility for a vulnerable group or a larger area or neighbourhood in which there were particular problems.

I have a number of statements in support of the amendments. I do not intend to speak to the amendments in detail, because I believe that the minister and the committee are well aware of the antisocial impact and, indeed, the health and safety concerns that can relate to the use of fireworks. As I have said, I have statements from, among others, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the National Autistic Society and the Scottish Community Safety Network, which I will provide to the clerk and which go into detail as to why those organisations are sympathetic to the amendments.

I am interested in hearing an explanation from the minister as to why there is no provision in the bill similar to the one that I and Russell Findlay have outlined.

It occurred to me during our evidence taking that one issue is potential challenges under the Equality Act 2010. Jamie Greene has spoken specifically in relation to religious communities, which would be directly covered by equalities legislation. We also heard in evidence that fireworks are being used for gender reveal events. Has there been an equality impact assessment? What consideration has been given to aspects under the 2010 act, given that—as Pauline McNeill has outlined—the 57 days would be a baseline, and that, if challenges under the act were successful, they would add to the number of days?

These are the issues that we are grappling with. I do not claim to be an expert on the regulation of professional firework displays or how they are defined. They might be carried out by professional organisations that meet very high standards with regard to professional qualifications in a well-regulated sector. It might be that the organisations already have strenuous obligations placed on them with regard to regulations, costs, requirements to keep up to date with safety certification and so on. However, it would be interesting to know more about that.

I am sympathetic to amendment 68, but it would be useful to hear more about the Government’s thinking on the licensing scheme. Was it always the intention that organisations such as community groups and charities would be included in the licensing scheme or are they considered to be the type of organisations that undertake public events? The committee has discussed the definition of public events on several occasions, but one of the concerns about the licensing scheme is that it is not clear who will be included in it. I look forward to the rest of the discussion on the group.

I will start by addressing the issue of the brevity of amendment 46. I discussed the matter with the clerks: if amendment 46 is agreed to, it is likely that a substantial number of consequential amendments will be required. It was felt that it was better to put the principle before the committee today, and to deal with any consequential amendments at a later stage in the bill process. I hope that that explains the brevity of the amendment.

The effect of amendment 46 would be to leave out section 4 of the bill. The bill would still have firework control zones, restrictions on the days on which fireworks could be purchased and used, and new criminal offences relating to the prohibition of the supply of fireworks to children, as well as all the other provisions of the bill. The effect of my amendment would be such that, although there would be a new framework, the licensing scheme would be withdrawn.

I have no objection to a licensing scheme in principle. However, I do not believe that the scrutiny process has been sufficient, given the lack of detail in the bill and the risk of creating a black market, which the committee has heard about. Therefore, I believe that the Government should come back with primary legislation for a licensing scheme that could go through a proper process of scrutiny and, indeed, a consultation process. That would enable the committee to ensure that any proposed scheme was robust and would address the various concerns that the committee has raised.

We do not have the detail of the scheme, so we do not know exactly what the eventual proposals will look like, but I believe that the provisions of the scheme currently in the bill are such that it is likely that law-abiding citizens will inadvertently fall foul of the law, while people who use fireworks in an antisocial manner, which is the problem that we are trying to address, will simply not apply for a licence but will instead find other routes to acquire fireworks.

The proposal that I am making to the committee is that we take out the licensing scheme provisions, because of all the problems that the committee has discussed, and that the Government, if it feels that a licensing scheme is required, should come back with proposals that would enable there to be a proper scrutiny process. I would want the matter to be put to a vote.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 60, although I have some sympathy with what he said, I have concerns about what it proposes. I will listen carefully to the debate. There are scenarios in which all of us would probably accept that it might be legitimate for someone to have a firework or a pyrotechnic article that falls within the scope of the bill, but my concern is that, if we were to take out the “reasonable excuse” defence and have a prescriptive list, that would be a criminal offence under the bill. It is a technical point, but the removal of the “reasonable excuse” defence would take away the courts’ discretion to look at the facts and the circumstances of every case. I have concerns about having a prescriptive list but, as I said, I will listen to the debate.

I am very interested in what you are saying, minister, which seems to be that one of the main purposes of the licensing scheme is to require people to undertake training. Of course, there are other ways in which that could be done. It could be a legal requirement that people have to undertake training, whether that was face to face or online. I would be sympathetic to the idea that that should be done face to face, because I think that that would be a more robust form of training, although I understand that it is probably more likely to be done online. However, that is a discussion that we might have later or in future.

We know that very few people are convicted of fireworks offences—we have heard evidence on that—and, as the bill stands, it is only those with fireworks convictions who would have to declare their convictions for consideration for a licence. Therefore, given that very few people have fireworks convictions, I presume that most people will get the licence if they pay the money. Therefore, the main issues are the money and, as you say, the training scheme. However, the training does not need to be done in that form, does it? It does not need to be attached to a licence with your proposed provisions, including the licence fee.

We will come to the details of who is covered by the licence later, but, for example, it is not clear whether community groups and a range of other organisations would be covered by the scheme. Therefore, are you saying that it is the training that you believe to be the fundamental issue with regard to the licence?