Seòmar agus comataidhean

The legitimate and responsible use of fireworks is allowed, so do the other witnesses have comments to make about the level of the fee and ensuring that genuine collective organisations that want to organise events are not priced out of doing so?

I understand. Thank you.

The intention behind the licensing scheme is to reduce the inconsiderate use and misuse of fireworks. Have you had the opportunity to look at the proposed licensing scheme? Is it, as presented, likely to achieve its outcome? Are you concerned that individuals who are intent on misusing fireworks will just ignore the scheme and carry on?

Perhaps Lorraine Gillies would like to respond first.

You have not actually asked professionals to do that yet.

The bill suggests the use of virtual trials as a default. From what you have said and from the information that we have been able to gather, it sounds as though, up to now, only a very small number of cases have gone ahead. It is therefore difficult to take a view, given that those cases might be the ones that are most suitable for virtual trials and everybody is in agreement.

We are having to grapple with the issue of why the holding of a virtual trial should be the default even when that is not agreed to by all parties, which is my understanding of how the provisions in the bill would work. I presume that, at the end of the day, it would be the sheriff who would decide whether it was appropriate for a case to be virtual. That is quite a massive shift.

The purpose of the bill as it has been presented to us, and the reason that we have been given for why it is going through in a far more speedy process than would normally be the case in the Parliament, is to continue practices that have been taking place during the Covid pandemic. However, the evidence that we are getting is that, in reality, virtual trials have not been taking place in significant numbers, and they have not been the default. There have been only a small number of them. What evidence do we have that the model that is proposed in the bill has been tested?

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think that you are straying into other issues to do with giving evidence remotely. What we are considering in the bill is a default position that there should be virtual trials for all domestic abuse cases, even where parties do not agree. I appreciate that that is your preference and that there may be reasons for that, but we have not really had that tested in many cases, have we?

Sure. That is why I asked whether you were able to use other systems that you have in place to pick out the types of cases that might be of greatest concern. I wondered whether that has been incorporated into the work that is currently going on, so that the cases that were dealt with first were those involving the most serious offenders or offenders who have committed the types of offences that people would be most likely to be concerned about. Are you able to do that with the systems that are available to you?

I have just a short question. On your comment that this is a decision for the judiciary, can you confirm that if the Government felt that virtual trials at summary level were successful and wished the change to be made permanent you would come back with primary legislation?

Sure. So when the powers are used in a particular establishment, you are informed.

Is it the case, therefore, that cases involving serious sexual offenders or individuals who have been involved in serious violence would be the kind that professionals would be asked to deal with first?