Seòmar agus comataidhean

That answer is helpful.

I know that some members have questions about exclusion zones, and I do not want to cross into that. However, given what you have said, it seems obvious that exclusion zones might be the only way in which the system could work, as it would not be easy to use the complex rules in the licensing scheme to control or stop antisocial behaviour.

I represent the city of Glasgow, and Pollokshields is notorious for fireworks misuse. I am not confident that all those cases are being prosecuted—reporting is another issue. Is it your understanding that that is the kind of area in which an exclusion zone might be used? If it is not, then how will we use the legislation to home in on a serious misuse of fireworks in some communities beyond 5 November?

I am interested in how easy it will be to enforce a licensing scheme, with further restrictions on sales and the types of fireworks that people can buy.

I have a question for Chief Inspector Robison. There have been many incidents of fireworks being used at celebrations of football match results and at other events. A view could be taken of whether that amounts to antisocial behaviour. Some people think that there should be a complete ban, so we must be able to make the legislation work. In order to make the scheme work, would we have to have robust reporting of use of fireworks outwith designated periods, regardless of whether that use amounted to antisocial behaviour, or would Police Scotland take the view that it would not be worth pursuing such cases?

Where I am coming from is this: in order to make the scheme work, if people are to be allowed to use fireworks on 37 days of the year, they would, in my view, have to be prosecuted for use of fireworks outwith those days. At the moment, fireworks are probably being let off illegally all the time. We have all heard them when there have been victory celebrations. That is certainly true in my city.

I am going off on a slight tangent, here. There have been responses from the public with people telling pet owners—of whom I am one—that they should just train their animals to deal with times when fireworks are being let off. Such people clearly do not know anything about what it is like to protect an animal that is frightened, or a child with autism—on whose situation we received evidence at last week’s meeting.

I take the view that letting off fireworks outwith specified periods—even if it does not amount to antisocial behaviour—should still be dealt with. Is that Police Scotland’s view?

I have a question for Stuart Murray. You said that we should consider the issue of access to justice in relation to the virtual system, and the need to have accusers and the accused person in the same room. Are there any elements of the process for which virtual proceedings would be appropriate? Would you take the same view with regard to witnesses giving evidence virtually? Would a virtual approach work for any part of the process? The Government has indicated that it wishes to go down that road, so I would welcome your comments on that.

Good morning, minister. At the beginning of the meeting, the deputy convener spoke about concern in the profession about the increases—concern that, although they are very welcome, they might not meet all the needs of the service. The minister will be aware that, between 2010 and 2020, the number of firms providing civil legal aid decreased by 16 per cent. I have met firms that have expressed concern that we are losing lawyers from the profession. The number of criminal firms providing legal aid fell by 25 per cent. The committee has been hearing about that for some time.

I have put this question to virtually everyone—the Lord Advocate and many others in the criminal justice system—because we need to keep lawyers, so that those who are accused of crimes have some choice about who represents them, and we need to do what we can to make sure that we have a healthy legal profession. Does the minister have concerns about the number of lawyers we are losing from firms that do legal aid work?

Yes, it does.

I wanted to ask about the extension of time limits. Is that okay?

As Jamie Greene indicated earlier, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill would extend time limits quite extraordinarily from 140 days to 320 days, which gives me cause for concern.

Stuart, in your evidence, you said that, with regard to the cases that are being called, there is no rhyme or reason as to which cases are being given priority. That also gives me cause for concern. Can you give any guidance to me—and other committee members who are concerned—on an alternative way of going about that? At the moment, if we were to agree to the proposed timescale extensions, they would automatically apply to every case, so we can see how that would go. Might it be your view that, if we did not extend those time limits, there would be some discretion? Is there an alternative way? One view is that, in coming out of the pandemic, the court system is going to be such a mess from the point of view of the availability of courts; another view is that, if we simply allow the current situation to go on for almost a year, we might be—I agree with you on this—verging on breaching article 5 in some way. I would welcome a response on that.

Good morning. I have just one question. The committee has been asked to comment on the extension of court time limits. You both expressed concerns about the previous level of adjournments. Are you not more concerned that if the Parliament gave its authority to an extension, we could end up in the same place again, being asked to extend the limits by another six months?

Perhaps it is time that we put some pressure on to fix the system. I am deeply concerned about the extension of court time limits, given the evidence from you both. I am concerned that we may be back here again if we extend the limits for six months. Do you share my concern?

What if we are in the same situation in six months? Will you be saying the same thing? Will we be saying that the system is so broken that we have to extend the limits further?

I would appreciate it if the committee could be kept up to date on that if the Parliament extends the legislation.

My question is for Emma Jardine. You will be aware of this, but I want to put it on the record that the time limit on remand before indictment, if we extend it, will go from 80 to 260 days. Time on remand before pre-trial hearings will be extended from 110 to 290 days, and time on remand until trial will be extended from 140 to 320 days. Do you agree that those are pretty stark figures for any Parliament to be asked to approve, given that those will be the minimum times?

The rationale for the changes relates to the need to conduct

“large numbers of individual hearings on applications to extend time limits or renew adjournments on a case-by case basis.”

The reason why we are being asked to consider the measure is to prevent the Crown, and perhaps also the defence, from asking for an extension on time limits on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it will be automatic. How concerned are you about what the Parliament is being asked to do, given the impact that it will have? Would it not be better to extend the time limits on a case-by-case basis, because fewer people would be impacted?

Are there not human rights implications? You have told the committee that we are in danger of not complying with the requirements of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.