Chamber and committees

I will talk about my reasoning for our view that convictions should not be quashed. Although we acknowledge that there has been a legitimate debate about how criminal law should operate in respect of prostitution in the future, if the bill were to quash convictions, it would encroach on the role of the independent criminal courts by quashing legally sound convictions. The Post Office situation was unique, and we know that there were no sound convictions. The quashing of convictions under the 1982 act would be unprecedented in recent Scottish history. Although the Parliament has acted historically to repeal offences relating to offensive behaviour at football matches, the relevant legislation did not quash the convictions. That is because legally sound convictions were achieved under the law of Scotland at the time. The Parliament can change the law for the future, but it should not revisit independent criminal court decisions, as that would significantly impact the independence of the court system.

I will touch on the Post Office. When the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Act 2024 was passed, prescribed conditions were met. However, the fundamental difference is that the convictions were tainted by the fact that the information technology system had not been functioning properly. The Parliament took an exceptional step to quash those convictions in order to ensure that victims could speedily access justice and that they could receive compensation from the United Kingdom Government for the harm that was caused by the use of the IT system. I am not sure whether it was appreciated how much of an unprecedented step that was.

Another issue is that the costs that were involved in quashing the convictions under the 2024 act were £4,000 per person. That is a considerable amount of money, given that there are about 10,600 previous convictions in relation to Ms Regan’s bill. Also considering the independence of the judiciary, that is not something that the Scottish Government or the Lord Advocate would support.

To me, the conclusions are unclear that it is not working internationally.

Yes—I am saying that the international examples, which the committee has heard about in evidence, show that that approach is not 100 per cent working and there are challenges with the implementation of such legislation internationally.

We are committed to protecting survivors of domestic abuse through legislation and by funding support services. Research has found that our groundbreaking domestic abuse legislation, which treats offences more seriously when they involve children, better reflects victims’ experiences. Our £20 million bairn’s hoose programme, which is to be rolled out in increments from 2027, improves support for children who are affected by abuse by providing trauma-informed spaces and co-ordinated services.

As I have just said, it is an operational issue for Police Scotland. The Scottish Government protects the right to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression, which are important rights that the Scottish Government is committed to upholding.

Absolutely. As I said in my opening statement, I thank the emergency services for all the work that they do on operation moonbeam, which goes on for months before bonfire night. Of course, we will engage with Police Scotland about its budgetary requirements.

I agree that it would be better if all the legislation relating to fireworks and pyrotechnics were devolved to Scotland, so that we could fully respond to the needs and concerns of Scottish communities. In that way, we would have full control of all aspects of the sale and use of fireworks, including, potentially, limits to the noise that fireworks make. As that is not the case at the moment, I will continue to press the United Kingdom Government on what more can be done on firework regulation, and I have sought further discussions on that issue.

The rights to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression are important rights that the Scottish Government is committed to upholding.

The right to peaceful public assembly allows us to protest, celebrate culture and hold memorials, and it is right that our communities should be able to participate in such activities. The right to protest is important in a democratic society. Existing legislation sufficiently protects those rights. However, protests should be peaceful and should never be used to justify any form of hateful, violent, intimidating or otherwise criminal behaviour. We fully support Police Scotland’s taking appropriate and proportionate action in response to such behaviour.

I do not know how that relates to peaceful protest, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I will leave it at that.

I fully recognise that the proscription of Palestine Action by the UK Government has been criticised by many groups and individuals across society, and that many people across the UK have chosen to show their opposition to that through protest. However, as the member is aware, this is an area of policy that is reserved to the UK Government, as is the decision to which he refers, and I recognise that the issue is now with the courts. The judicial review is due to take place this month at the High Court in London, and we all want to see what the outcome will be.