Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I thank Jamie Greene for his intervention, and I hope that we have, today, reflected the concerns of all committee members about timescales.

The final area that I wish to cover is the new criminal offence to prohibit possession of pyrotechnic articles, such as distress or signal flares. It is currently legal for people to carry and possess pyrotechnics except when they are in certain venues, including football grounds, or at certain events, such as music festivals. The new offence is included in order to address gaps in the existing law in relation to someone who is travelling to an event being in possession of a pyrotechnic.

The fire and police services support the introduction of the new offence. However, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation have raised concerns about challenges in enforcing the offence as it is drafted. Police Scotland and the SPF both questioned how police officers are to prove that a person is travelling to an event, and asked that the bill be amended to introduce a simpler and more effective possession offence.

Police Scotland also asked for a presumption of contents provision to be included in the bill, in order to address problems that might arise when someone claims that a firework or pyrotechnic that is in their possession is not what the packaging says it is. The committee asked the Scottish Government to address both those issues.

Time does not allow me to cover all the areas that the committee considered. However, it is clear that there is support among members from all sides of the chamber for addressing misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics. Committee members are very keen to engage and to work constructively with the minister in order that the bill can be improved to enable it to become an effective and workable vehicle to achieve legal, safe and—most of all—enjoyable fireworks and pyrotechnics use in Scotland.

I speak on behalf of the committee when it comes to the priorities in the bill—in particular, on consultation. I welcome the fact that the response has been given—as do committee members, I think. Consultation is absolutely critical to our being able to undertake the process so that effective legislation is put in place.

To address the concern that people might not apply for a licence but might instead purchase fireworks illegally, the committee recommended that the licence fee should cover only the costs of administering the scheme.

The second area for which specific details are to follow is the proposal for areas to be designated by local authorities as firework control zones, in which use of fireworks will be restricted. The bill provides for exemptions for commercial operators, community groups and others to use the most powerful and noisiest fireworks in such zones, under certain circumstances.

Rob Holland, from the National Autistic Society Scotland, told the committee:

“If families were able to make the decision to live in an area where there was a no-fireworks guarantee—as far as is possible—I have no doubt that some families would take that initiative.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 March 2022; c 38.]

The committee concluded that the term “firework control zones”—in which firework use is controlled but is still permitted—has the potential to confuse the public. It might also fall short of the public’s expectation that the zones will provide protection for vulnerable populations as well as addressing disorder and antisocial behaviour. The committee asked the Scottish Government to reassess whether the firework control zone provision, on its own, is sufficient, and whether local authorities should also be allowed to establish no-firework zones.

The evidence that we received highlighted significant operational, administrative, enforcement and resourcing challenges, which the committee asked to be addressed during Parliament’s scrutiny of the bill. The committee is keen to scrutinise the details of the licensing scheme and the firework control zones. We therefore recommended that the superaffirmative procedure be used, which will allow us to consider the draft regulations in advance of their being laid in Parliament.

I, too, congratulate my friend and colleague Jackie Dunbar on introducing the debate in recognition of global intergenerational week. I commend the contributions so far, which have reflected just how much we can all relate to intergenerational week. It certainly resonated with me.

Inspiring individuals, groups and organisations to connect younger and older generations makes complete sense, especially given that tackling loneliness and isolation is an increasing policy concern for Government. As was articulated during the launch of this year’s campaign, it offers the chance to change the narrative from connection being just a nice thing to do to being essential practice.

Why? The improvements in older adults’ mental and physical wellbeing and the impact on conditions such as depression, dementia and, of course, loneliness are well documented. It also improves strength, leads to eating and sleeping better and to sharing stories, and tackles stigma, which are all significant health and wellbeing benefits for older people.

Although it is easy to assume that loneliness and isolation impact only older people, as Lee Knifton from the Mental Health Foundation Scotland reminded us, the

“elephant in the room is the ... number of young people ... who struggle to form relationships at a young age”.

Intergenerational practice has many benefits for children and young people, including shared thinking, stronger social skills, the development of empathy and kindness, and learning about local history.

Like many of my peers in the sandwich generation, I care for my parents and my own family at the same time. That is sometimes demanding, but it is an opportunity to build a strong intergenerational dynamic between my son and his grandpa. It was organic and natural for my son to visit his grandpa—my father—when he was in residential care and to take him for a walk to the nearby beach, help to set up the annual summer care home barbecue or just talk with residents in the common room about his school trip to the battlefields in France and Belgium. That was a wonderful opportunity for the residents to reminisce about their own lives and experiences. Importantly, it enabled them to acknowledge their own past, rather than have it be just a photograph on their bedside table or a memory kept but never really shared.

My constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine is home to some fantastic groups and organisations that support intergenerational connections. My friends at Portlethen and District Men’s Shed never fail to amaze me with their sense of brotherhood towards not only each other, but those in their village and beyond. Recently, they prototyped and delivered a tinkering board, or busy board, for the local primary school to support younger pupils to tinker, learn and explore while developing their sensory practice.

I invite the minister to visit the Portlethen men’s shed after she has been to my colleague Emma Harper’s constituency. If she wants to drop in at the Old Torry Community Centre just along from my office any Thursday morning, she will find a fabulous group of physiotherapy students from Robert Gordon University who are running a community physio drop-in, offering older folks in particular the chance to chat about their aches and pains, do some exercises or just have a cup of tea and a blether. At the same time, the students are developing their clinical skills in a real-world environment—a living example of intergenerational practice.

At this point, I acknowledge Generations Working Together in Scotland and its Welsh partner, the Bridging the Generations initiative; Linking Generations Northern Ireland; and the Beth Johnson Foundation in England. I also acknowledge the work of the many charities and third sector and voluntary groups and organisations that are all working to support intergenerational practice. Many of them are supported by the £10 million commitment that the Scottish Government announced last year to support a five-year social isolation and loneliness plan. That will be a pivotal part of our national response as we face the challenges arising from the awfulness of the pandemic.

I wish everyone who is supporting and participating in intergenerational week well, and I look forward to hearing more about the work that they will be taking forward, both in Scotland and beyond.

Sadly, we have time only for one final question. I ask Russell Findlay to be brief, if he can.

The next item is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. I refer members to paper 3. Do members have any comments to make, or are we content with the instrument?

Thank you very much. Sadly, I have to bring the session to a close. I am sure that we could have asked many more questions and had a much longer discussion. I express my grateful thanks to Baroness Kennedy and Mr Brash for joining us. If committee members want to pick up on issues with Baroness Kennedy, we will do that in writing.

We will have a short suspension to allow our witnesses to leave.

Thank you.

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2022 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have not received any apologies this morning.

Our main item of business is an evidence session on the final report of the misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland working group. I refer members to papers 1 and 2. It is my real pleasure to welcome to our meeting Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, chair of the misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland working group; and Mr Bill Brash, misogyny working group team leader with the Scottish Government. I invite Baroness Kennedy to make some brief opening remarks.

I see that no one else has any comments. Presumably, we will come back next week to reconsider the matter.

You mentioned domestic abuse and the aggravation that applies in that type of crime, but, interestingly, you say in your report that the aggravation that you are proposing should not apply to rape, sexual offences, domestic abuse and so on. That might appear to some as being at odds with the spirit of what you are proposing. The rationale for your position is partly that those offences and crimes are already “imbued with misogyny” to a certain extent. Is there a possibility of some confusion in that respect? How do we articulate this particular position?