Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will, in a second, but it is important that I address my amendment first.

The way in which we can address this issue is via amendment 1022, which seeks to insert a duty to carry out a

“Review on extension of this chapter”.

In other words,

“Scottish Ministers must undertake a review at the end of each reporting period on the operation of the provisions in this chapter”,

which covers criminal procedure time limits and their extension. The amendment goes on to say:

“A review ... must consider whether the provisions in this chapter remain necessary.”

That is the important line.

I have specifically asked for the review to be carried out every three months. It could be argued that that would be onerous, but I point out that the original coronavirus legislation that we passed put a statutory duty on the Government to carry out a review every two months, and it became quite normal practice for the Government. I therefore do not think that three months is an unreasonable period of time.

I will take the intervention, if there is time.

This will be a record-breaking short speech. My amendment would ensure that a prisoner could not be released more than six months before their scheduled release date. It is a one-line amendment and is fairly self-explanatory. The rationale for it will become obvious to committee members. A prisoner being released any more than six months before the scheduled release date runs the real risk of rendering the sentence meaningless, and for all the reasons that have been eloquently expressed by my colleague on his amendments, it feels intrinsically unfair and unjustifiable in that context. For that reason, I will move my amendment.

It sounds like a lot, but it is not. I will deal with amendments 1031, 1032 and 1033 first. On the face of it, these are technical amendments, but they seek to achieve some of what Mr Simpson was trying to do, which is to revert scrutiny of the regulations from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. Regulations made under sections 39, 40 and 41 are currently split between two different procedures, so that is the rationale for those amendments. I do not think that we need to rehearse too much the arguments for why that is helpful and appropriate, given the debate that we have just had.

I will briefly address the other two amendments in the group. Amendment 1029 is on the expiration of the temporary justice measures and their subsequent potential extension. As we know, the measures in the bill that are temporary, as opposed to permanent, are due to expire on 30 November 2023. However, ministers may, by regulation, defer that expiration date by one year, until no later than November 2025. That is fine—we have debated that, too. Amendment 1029 seeks to ensure that such extension may not take place without consultation with victims organisations, to seek their views on such modifications. Again, it will not come as a huge surprise to members that I feel that that is appropriate, given the effect that the extension will have on such organisations, which have been widely quoted in relation to a wide range of issues in our debate. I hope that it is not a contentious proposal, given the subject matter that we are considering.

However, amendment 1030 is slightly different. It would add a new section, “Review of temporary justice measures”, after the bill’s provision on the expiry of such measures. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section sums up the position quite nicely by saying that ministers

“must review and report on the operation and effectiveness of the temporary justice measures in this Act.”

They must then publish a report on the review, lay a copy of it before Parliament and

“consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”

I have intentionally left that wording quite loose—for example, I have not gone into great detail about what should be in the report. We have already had debates about being overly restrictive or specific about what reports can or cannot do and about the people to whom ministers should or should not talk. However, I feel that, if we are to extend the temporary justice measures until 2025—which is a long time away—it would be appropriate that ministers conduct a review of the measures’ operation and effectiveness, report back to Parliament and give members a chance to scrutinise them properly in due course.

I move amendment 1029.

I have a brief question, given that the only evidence that the committee is taking is from the Government. Could the cabinet secretary summarise or paraphrase how the legal profession has received the change and whether the permanent changes that are proposed have been positively received or otherwise?

I welcome the comments that have been made on amendments 1029 and 1030. We all want amendments that are fit for purpose, and I will work with the Government on these particular ones.

That said, the points that I have made on amendments 1031, 1032 and 1033 are important, so I will move them. Again, the Government is seeking to make a technical argument about the affirmative procedure taking too long, but the effect is that it simply avoids the Parliament’s due scrutiny of its proposals.

Amendment 1029, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 40 agreed to.

After section 40

Amendment 1030 not moved.

Section 41 agreed to.

Section 42—Regulations under this Part

Amendment 1031 moved—[Jamie Greene].

My question is more of a technical one. The problem with amendment 1036 as drafted is that it simply removes an appearance from custody as an exclusion altogether, which means that it cannot happen. Notwithstanding the concerns that you have validIy raised, if an accused who is held in custody agreed to and was happy with virtual hearings, would it not be better to have some flexibility in that respect? Perhaps the issue can be addressed at stage 3.

I am happy to clarify that. I have on purpose not said what the Government should specifically do after its review—all I have proposed is that it should make proposals in relation to the scheme as it considers appropriate. That would give ministers a wide-ranging power. If through consultation or analysis—academic or otherwise—it transpires that the fee is putting people off, and the Government makes a policy decision to ditch the fee but to continue with the licence scheme, that will be a political decision for the Government of the day. If it transpires that the fee is too low and does not cover, say, operating costs, and therefore needs to go up—and modelling has been done on the effect that that would have—ministers can do that, too.

Ministers would have the flexibility after carrying out the review to decide what effect the scheme is having on firework safety and whether the fee is playing any part in take-up. That is not an onerous ask. The suggestion that the information would not be available is unhelpful—it should be. In any case, the reason that I have not been specific is to give ministers that flexibility.

I will press amendment 90 for that reason, but I am happy to concede amendment 129 in favour of my colleague’s alternative.

I support Katy Clark’s amendments 54 and 55. They are a simpler method of achieving something similar to my own amendments.

My colleague Russell Findlay has rightly raised the point that what started as no-fireworks zones—which are self-explanatory; there would be no fireworks—have become firework control zones. There is a lack of understanding of what they will be in practice, not only in this discussion but for communities, policing and enforcement.

My amendments in the group—amendments 120 to 123—are to an extent technical and seek to remove exemptions from schedule 1. It is another way of achieving what Ms Clark is trying to achieve. Specifically, they remove the reference to people organising public displays, which I appreciate might be controversial. However, what is the point of having a firework control zone that still has fireworks going off in it? Fundamentally, that is the question that we need to answer in this debate.

It remains the case—and a bizarre consequence of the bill if it is passed as drafted—that there will be 57 days of the year on which members of the public with a licence will be able to privately let off fireworks while, on the other 308 days, they will not be able to do so unless they employ the services of a professional fireworks company. You could argue that that is pointless, because it creates a two-tier system in which people who can afford to put on a display will use that legal loophole to do so. Equally, creating such an exemption makes a slight mockery of restricting the use of fireworks.

Therefore, I seek to remove—or at least probe the removal of—those exemptions. If the Government thinks that they should remain, I am intrigued to learn why keeping them falls within the spirit and scope of the bill that the minister is trying to pursue.

My other point concerns enforcement. My understanding is that there is not unanimous agreement that the concept of a firework control zone or no-fireworks zone is practical. In its response to the consultation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents made two comments that stood out to me. First, it said that no-firework areas

“will only serve to create another battleground”

where

“existing neighbour and community disputes will be fought.”

Secondly, the association feels

“in the strongest terms that this has the potential to cause significant issues.”

I presume that the association is referring to parts of the country where there are concentrated pockets of fireworks misuse.

The creation of firework control zones does not address displacement. It does not address whether people will be driven to move out of control zones into public areas, where, as Russell Findlay has stated, it is already illegal to let off fireworks. My understanding is that at the working group meetings, Police Scotland talked about some issues that it had with the concept of the zones. I do not have the minutes for those meetings; if I can source them ahead of stage 3, I will do so.

Again, no one is against the premise of the zones, but we need to be clear what they are and what they are not. For the reasons that Russell Findlay and Katy Clark elucidated, there is an expectation that, where a zone has been created, the public and those within the zone should not expect to see or hear fireworks and could rightly call the police if they did.

In my view, we will create an absolute minefield if we create these zones and then make a whole bunch of exemptions. If an application to establish a zone in a local authority were to be granted, but someone claimed an exemption under schedule 1 to the bill and proceeded to let off fireworks, it would defeat the point of the zone. That would be the case, especially if the zone was being established for good reason—for example, because it contained a community with problematic behaviour, animal sanctuaries, farms or other things for which having an exclusion zone would have practical benefits.

I like the idea of simply going back to having no-firework zones, which is what Mr Findlay is trying to achieve. The amendments in this group try to do that. It is a very useful group for us to debate.

The minister is talking about national awareness campaigns and the generality of the bill, which is fine. However, amendment 7 is specifically about firework control zones. That is a specific local issue. What the member who lodged the amendment is seeking to do is make sure that people within a local authority area are given adequate information. Amendment 7 will mandate that that happens. It has nothing to do with the national awareness campaign about the bill.

When I read the papers, it was my understanding that the order was intended simply to include so-called zombie knives, as defined, to the list of offensive weapons. However, the impression that I got from the minister’s opening statement is that this is actually a wider exercise and that there will be a more general amnesty for knives and weapons. That might not be understood outside this room. Minister, can you clarify whether we are opening up a wider amnesty for knives and weapons, in which members of the public can go to a police station with something that they think might or might not be a weapon and deposit it safely in return for a promise of no prosecution and possible compensation? The public should be aware of that.

Secondly, what public awareness work will the Government carry out to ensure that people know that that is happening?