Seòmar agus comataidhean

The idea that a victim should have to pay £3,000 or £4,000 to get access to records is utterly ridiculous. Everything that we have said this morning will be online by 9 o’clock tomorrow.

On the wider point about what we do next in relation to the discussion that we have just had, a number of issues have been raised, not just on the suggestions in paragraphs 11 to 13 of paper 2, which were made before we had the discussion. I would appreciate it if the clerks could help us to collate those issues so that we can write to the Government about the general feedback that we have given today.

Are we still on page 8?

Thank you, convener.

We wrote to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office about the potential for police officer liability if an officer was involved in the administration of naloxone. We asked whether the Crown Office could make it clear whether it perceived any potential or theoretic liability if, for example, someone were to approach the procurator fiscal’s office with a complaint, and whether it would deem it to be in the public interest to pursue that in law, or even whether that was something that could be pursued in law.

The response states:

“It is for the Police Service of Scotland through training and policies to provide comfort and confidence to officers in relation to their legal liability”.

I find that a slightly odd comment to make. I am not sure which bit of Police Scotland’s training policies would address the issue of legal liability. Surely that would be for the Crown to decide, and not for the police service through its human resources and training processes.

I understand the point. There is a similarity with, for example, the good faith use of other medical interventions by police officers, but it would be fair to go back to the Crown Office and ask whether, in that theoretical scenario, there would be the potential for liability if a police officer administered the drug.

I would also be interested to hear the response to that comment from the Scottish Police Federation, which represents a large number of front-line officers, and whether it is content that the current Police Scotland training policies are adequate to provide reassurance to its members.

I am not sure whether this relates to paper 1; it is hard to keep track sometimes. My question relates to the Lord Advocate’s response to our letter on naloxone use. Is that an appropriate issue to raise?

You go first, Russell.

What is the scale of the problem? That is what I am trying to get to. How many offences are reported to the police or local authorities per year? How many of them convert into some form of judicial action, whether that is prosecution, being taken to court or being settled out of court? What are the outcomes of those prosecutions, using the existing maximum penalties that are available? Are those penalties being used to their full extent?

We are now in 2022, and we are creating new legislation.

I have some questions on relativities. How many offences occur each year? That can be an average or a total over 10 years—whatever you have available to you. How does that convert into prosecutions, and what are the outcomes of those prosecutions? Specifically, how many of those offences result in non-court outcomes, and how many of them proceed to court and are prosecuted? For those that proceed to prosecution, what sort of penalties are given?

We know what the existing legislation—the Explosives Act 1875, the Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and so on—is and does, and we know what the maximum penalties are. I am keen to understand whether those maximum penalties are being utilised as things stand under the existing legislation before we start introducing new legislation.

Minister, you have talked quite a lot about the firework review group and its various members. Last week, I raised with industry representatives an issue that one of the witnesses had raised in their written evidence. In that evidence, they said that they believe that

“too much weight has been given to the voices ... in the ... Group who wanted to see more restrictions, and woefully insufficient weight has been given to the industry who have been warning of the serious unintended consequences”

of the bill.

I challenged the witness on that. Basically, I said, “You would say that, wouldn’t you? Your interest is in the commercial success of your members.” Interestingly, the British Pyrotechnists Association said that the majority of its members put on professional displays and have no vested interest in the retail market, or in the restriction of the sale, purchase or use of over-the-counter fireworks. It said that its views on the bill’s unintended consequences on the black market and other aspects on which the legislation will impact are purely based on their professional judgment and decades of experience in the firework industry. How do you respond to that?

I am sure that that would be very welcome. What struck me was how adamant the BPA was that its opposition to the Government’s plans is based not on the commercial interests of its members but on its direct experience of the fireworks industry in this country and overseas. That point was very pronounced, and it came through in the evidence, which is why I asked about it.

The sale, use and purchase of fireworks are the three prongs that the Government is using to introduce restrictions. I have two questions. First, are you cognisant of concerns that people will stockpile fireworks by purchasing them and then storing them in their homes or other locations outwith the prescribed periods for legally purchasing them? Secondly, are you confident that there will be no legal challenges to the rather arbitrary dates for the sale and use of fireworks that are prescribed by the bill?

That sounds like something that would have made a marvellous amendment, which we would have introduced anyway.

Is it the case that, under the proposals, the only way that someone who wanted to use fireworks to celebrate an occasion outwith the defined periods could do so would be through an organised display company or someone who is exempt from the regulations? If so, will that lead to a bizarre situation in which someone who can afford to celebrate with fireworks can do so but others will be restricted? Are we not just creating a class division in relation to fireworks? Does that seem fair and proportionate?