Chamber and committees

I presume that we will look at the issue in detail, as part of our scrutiny in the budget review process. As I said earlier, my understanding is that, across the board, budgets for the justice sector are being cut by approximately 20 per cent. That will not necessarily be an even cut, and that figure was given before we had the current information on expected levels of inflation. I presume that we will see a lot more detail on the cuts so that we will be able to scrutinise them and see what their impact is likely to be in specific sectors.

We should call for more evidence so that we can consider that. We should know how the police intend to respond and where the cuts are likely to be. They will be making strategic decisions about how to respond. Certain types of work might be given more protection than others and certain staff might be prioritised over others. It would be interesting to have more information on that as part of the budget process.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about operational decisions for this year, but Scotland’s two richest families have as much wealth as the poorest 20 per cent of the population. What work is being done to consider how the Scottish Parliament’s existing tax-raising powers—for example, over land-based taxes—could be used to target the super-rich, whose wealth has increased substantially during the pandemic?

The substitute vessel that is being used on the Ardrossan to Arran route is 38 years old. Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd says that it has looked at more than 600 vessels in recent years but has managed to procure only one. Will the minister confirm when the work on project Neptune will be published, and will the Scottish Government commit to bringing forward a more sustainable plan to build capacity and construct vessels here in Scotland?

I associate myself with what Fulton MacGregor has said. It is a development that we welcome, and we are interested in finding out a lot more about how it will work. I am happy to support the statutory instrument.

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.

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.