Chamber and committees

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. Pauline McNeill and I have sought to amend the bill, both at committee and here in the chamber, with a view to making it more effective and workable. We recognise the significant problem that Scotland has with antisocial use of fireworks, which we believe to be a growing problem. Indeed, we have heard from a number of members today about the extent of the problem. We know that most people simply want to enjoy fireworks, and we believe that the best place to do that is at public events.

We believe that the bill will reduce use of fireworks, and we welcome the creation of a new offence to criminalise supply of fireworks to under-18s, to ensure that adults do not supply fireworks to children.

During the passage of the bill, we have outlined our concerns that the licensing scheme might have the unintended consequence of creating a black market in unregulated fireworks, with all the greater safety risks that they carry.

As Pauline McNeill has said, a similar scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland. There, it has been reported that fireworks are widely available on the black market, and there is no evidence that there has been a decline in fireworks-related antisocial behaviour. At stage 2, I spoke about Italy, where a similar licensing scheme was introduced that seems to have done nothing to address the problems there of very dangerous unregulated use of illegal fireworks.

I lodged stage 2 amendments to strengthen the bill to enable local authorities to create no-fireworks zones, in which all fireworks use would be banned. I believe that that is what people who have been campaigning for fireworks reform were actually looking for. That would have been far simpler legislation. The amendments that I lodged were not successful. I know that other members lodged amendments that would have had a similar effect.

We have, indeed, had this discussion previously. The fact that we are able to lodge amendments that would have the effect of banning fireworks shows that we do have that power. We can ban—indeed, the bill does so—sale of fireworks for most of the year, and the bill bans use of fireworks for most of the year. In reality, we can ban fireworks. I appreciate the point that the minister makes, however; it is a point that I think she made at stage 2.

I do recall that. As the minister has said, we have had extensive debate about these issues at various stages.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened to some of the arguments that have been made and that it has added private operators to the proposed firework control zones.

Public displays will not be banned by the legislation, however. There is no way to do that unless the Scottish Parliament legislates further. I hope that the Scottish Government will revisit the issue later, so that it is possible to ban fireworks where councils believe that doing so is necessary—in particular, near facilities such as hospitals, care facilities and animal shelters.

From the outset, Scottish Labour has been clear that it wants the bill to succeed and to be effective.

Fireworks misuse is already illegal but, despite the many hundreds of complaints to the police every year, there are very few prosecutions and even fewer convictions, as we have already heard. Between 2016 and 2020, there were only four solemn and 16 summary fireworks offence convictions and, as Jamie Greene said, there were no fireworks offence convictions in 2020-21.

We have real concerns that some of the provisions of the bill will be confusing, unworkable and expensive, and that therefore the public will not comply or might inadvertently fall foul of the law. I very much hope that the Scottish Government is correct that the bill will result in the culture shift that it is seeking, but that will happen only if the Crown Office and the police put resources into implementing existing legislation.

As we have said, we are disappointed that the Government did not respond further to the stage 1 report, but because of the new offences that will be created and because we believe that the bill will reduce the use of fireworks, we will support the bill when it comes to the vote.

I will speak about amendment 74 slightly later. First, I will speak about amendments 82 to 91. Those amendments seek to change the time limits in criminal courts, which were extended under the emergency Covid legislation, by creating shorter general blanket extensions in all criminal cases. Of course, under Scots law, it is always possible to go to court to make a case on cause shown as to why the Crown does not have sufficient time, and needs further time, to prepare a case for trial. Therefore, cases would not time out as a result of any of my amendments being agreed to.

In today’s debate, we have heard a considerable amount about human rights and the European convention on human rights. There can be no doubt that the extensions that were granted during the Covid pandemic, and the increasingly extensive period in which people are held in prison without appearing in court, have real human rights ramifications, and that they could, indeed, easily be challenged under human rights legislation.

Scotland’s criminal law has a proud history of protections, but the legislation that has been enacted during the pandemic has had the effect of increasing the number of people in prisons. That is on top of significant increases in prison numbers over the past two decades. Scotland has the highest number of people in prison in Europe, and we have the highest number of people on remand. During the pandemic, the proportion of the prison population on remand has increased from 18.7 per cent to something in the region of 30 per cent, now.

The whole criminal justice system works towards the time limits that are set out in legislation. My submission is that the effect of those time limits—because the people who work in the system work to those limits—will put us in a situation in which individuals are in prison who would not be there if they had appeared before a court. The courts look at individual circumstances in each case and grant bail when they believe it to be appropriate.

Practitioners in the legal profession say that the time limits in the bill are not necessary. Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland is asking that we go back to pre-Covid time limits. We know from research that was undertaken before the pandemic that many prisoners who appear from remand do not receive a prison sentence when they are sentenced, or receive a shorter prison sentence than the period that they have already served, or are found not guilty at that point.

Amendment 78 would require the Scottish Government to provide Parliament with six-monthly reports on the operation of virtual courts.

We know that, in reality, very few fully virtual criminal cases have taken place during the pandemic, although some aspects of cases have been virtual. For example, juries have attended remotely in cinemas.

It has taken some time for the Criminal Justice Committee to get information on the extent of virtual hearings. It is clear that many in the legal profession are strongly opposed to some aspects of virtual courts, particularly those relating to witnesses giving evidence. The cabinet secretary therefore agreed that no virtual cases would proceed without the agreement of all parties. It is therefore unclear how quickly virtual courts will be rolled out across the country. For that reason alone, it is necessary for Parliament to receive regular reports to enable effective scrutiny.

When courts do take place virtually, the Parliament needs to know what impact that has on the balance of justice. Many people are campaigning for virtual courts. We already allow many vulnerable witnesses to give evidence remotely, and many victims would find it less traumatic to give evidence virtually. There is a strong case for taking steps along that path.

It has always been the presumption that virtual hearings might lead to more convictions. However, that is not necessarily what the evidence suggests. Fully virtual courts would mean that the accused and other witnesses would give evidence remotely. During the pandemic, a pilot of fully virtual court hearings, predominantly involving domestic abuse cases, was carried out in the north-east. Albeit that the sample size was small, there was an unusually high number of acquittals, with the accused being found not guilty. That issue was raised at stage 2 and the cabinet secretary agreed that more evidence would be needed to build up a picture of the impact of virtual courts before any decisions are made about permanent arrangements.

I think that there is a strong case for virtual courts, particularly for victims of offences such as domestic abuse and sexual violence, who may find attending court traumatising. However, if it is the case that people are more likely to be acquitted in a virtual hearing, I think that we have to look very carefully at whether the accused person should also give evidence in that way. As the north-east pilot shows, we cannot presume the outcome of cases. I believe that Parliament must be clear about whether virtual hearings are actually taking place and should also receive regular reports on the implications of such hearings as well as the extent to which evidence is given virtually and other aspects of cases are dealt with virtually.

For that reason, I move amendment 78.

More information needs to be provided to Parliament and to the relevant committee on the operation of criminal courts. Significant changes are being proposed to the criminal justice system and, indeed, to our fundamental right to a fair trial. We need to have the evidence base to ensure that any permanent changes are the right changes, because a very different approach might need to be taken in cases that involve evidence being given to case management aspects. For those reasons, I will press amendment 78.

Yes, I will press amendment 74.

As we all know, many of the provisions that were brought in during the Covid pandemic were ones that none of us would have accepted in normal circumstances. The pandemic is still with us, but, in many ways, we are moving back to a more normal situation. Earlier, the Government provided information about some of the work that has been done to decrease the backlog of cases. However, it is clear that there are individuals in prison who would not be there if a court looked at their case.

Amendment 82 would shorten the time between appearance in petition to pre-trial hearing from 17 months to 13 months. Amendment 85 would reduce the period to trial from 12 months to nine months. Amendments 87 and 89 would reduce the time on remand until the pre-trial hearing in solemn cases from 290 days to 200 days, and amendments 88 and 90 would reduce that time period from 320 days to 230 days.

It cannot be right that people are spending such extended periods in prison without the oversight of the judiciary through being brought automatically to court. The amendments offer a halfway house between the pre-pandemic limits and the Scottish Government’s proposed limits.

No evidence has been forthcoming from the Scottish Government on the reasons or justification for why the specific time periods in the bill were chosen at the beginning of the pandemic.

I will press some of the amendments to the vote.

I agree with Paul Sweeney’s point. The Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence recently that the cost is in the region of £40,000, so I think that the costs in the sector are suffering the inflation that we have heard about in relation to other sectors. It is absolutely clear that it is cheaper to deal with cases in other ways, but those ways are not funded in the necessary manner.

We all appreciate that there are huge backlogs across the justice system. Indeed, the cabinet secretary spoke at stage 2 of the work that is involved in preparing and adjudicating large numbers of applications in order to extend them case by case. We understand that point, but everybody in the sector knows that the system works to deadlines, and that prisons have to accept any prisoner who is sent to them. The impact of continuing with that regime is that prison numbers will continue to rise—with the problems that that situation brings.

I wish to speak to amendments 74 and 75, which have the effect of limiting the period for which the bill will be in operation, and limiting the extension so that those particular provisions would expire after one year. That would require the Government to come back to Parliament if it wished to continue with the extension of time limits, at that point.

I believe that the amendments are proportionate. They give longer time limits than existed before the pandemic, and enable the court to have the form of scrutiny and oversight that are required.

I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response to the points that I have made. I move amendment 74.

Does the cabinet secretary believe that handing the education staff who kept schools running during the pandemic what is effectively a pay cut is helping to build a Scotland that is, in the words of the First Minister,

“wealthier, fairer and more resilient and better”?