Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I welcome the commitment to a public health approach, as it is clear that the criminal justice-led approach has not worked. It has not prevented the rise of problematic drug use or turned round the lives of those with drug abuse problems.

I think that we all know that drug abuse is a major problem in many of our communities. It is a major problem for our criminal justice system, and it has become a massive problem in our prisons, where drugs are readily available and where many prisoners take drugs for the first time. Many offences are committed while individuals are under the influence of drugs, and many offences are associated with serious drug abuse.

There were 1,339 drug-related deaths in 2020. As a number of members have said, there is no doubt that there is a direct link to poverty, trauma and deprivation.

Scotland has a problem with high-risk patterns of drug use, and we need to look at how that compares with elsewhere. The number of drug-related deaths has been increasing since 1996 and has increased substantially in the past 20 years, when the average age for a drug-related death has increased from 32 to 43. People who live in the most deprived areas are 18 times more likely to have a drug-related death than those who live in the least deprived areas, although the likelihood has been only 10 times greater in the 2020s. We also know that more than one drug is present in a person’s body in 93 per cent of deaths.

We need to be aware of all those factors when we look at how we tackle the problem. More than 10,000 people have lost their lives to drugs since 2007. The crisis is complex, and we need bold action to reduce drug-related harms. We need a holistic approach that is grounded in public health. We also need to recognise the problem of those who are living with addiction being exploited by criminal gangs. The drugs trade has links with organised crime.

The cuts to council services and to alcohol and drug services, which Claire Baker spoke about, and the underfunding of public services more generally are an important factor. Levels of inequality are rising, and the gap between rich and poor in our society is growing.

Last year, the Scottish Ambulance Service attended 2,500 incidents in which street benzos were involved. More than 1,000 of those were overdose incidents. As has been said, we know that the problems are becoming greater for women, in particular, which is an aspect that we need to consider very seriously.

We know that there are no silver bullets, but there is strong evidence that drug consumption rooms and safer drug consumption facilities are effective. They are not a new idea—the idea has been around for many decades—but there has been disagreement over many years as to whether the practice is compliant with the misuse of drugs legislation.

Earlier in the parliamentary session, the Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from the Lord Advocate that she believed that there might be a possible legal route, or a public interest ground, for providing drug consumption rooms in the public sector. She indicated that she would consider a new proposal on public interest grounds provided that it was

“precise, detailed and specific, underpinned by evidence and supported by those who would be responsible for policing such a facility”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 3 November 2021; c 20.]

The Scottish Affairs Select Committee highlighted in its evidence work by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that said that no overdose deaths had occurred in such facilities as at 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government is considering what can be done to address the specific issues that the Lord Advocate raised in relation to drug consumption rooms, which Paul Sweeney seeks to introduce in his proposed drug death prevention bill, to ensure that we can consider how to provide a legal framework in the public sector for drug consumption rooms. That is only one small part of a complex and challenging issue for the Government and all of us, but I hope that it is one aspect on which we can quickly see movement from the Scottish Government.

I will start by addressing the issue of the brevity of amendment 46. I discussed the matter with the clerks: if amendment 46 is agreed to, it is likely that a substantial number of consequential amendments will be required. It was felt that it was better to put the principle before the committee today, and to deal with any consequential amendments at a later stage in the bill process. I hope that that explains the brevity of the amendment.

The effect of amendment 46 would be to leave out section 4 of the bill. The bill would still have firework control zones, restrictions on the days on which fireworks could be purchased and used, and new criminal offences relating to the prohibition of the supply of fireworks to children, as well as all the other provisions of the bill. The effect of my amendment would be such that, although there would be a new framework, the licensing scheme would be withdrawn.

I have no objection to a licensing scheme in principle. However, I do not believe that the scrutiny process has been sufficient, given the lack of detail in the bill and the risk of creating a black market, which the committee has heard about. Therefore, I believe that the Government should come back with primary legislation for a licensing scheme that could go through a proper process of scrutiny and, indeed, a consultation process. That would enable the committee to ensure that any proposed scheme was robust and would address the various concerns that the committee has raised.

We do not have the detail of the scheme, so we do not know exactly what the eventual proposals will look like, but I believe that the provisions of the scheme currently in the bill are such that it is likely that law-abiding citizens will inadvertently fall foul of the law, while people who use fireworks in an antisocial manner, which is the problem that we are trying to address, will simply not apply for a licence but will instead find other routes to acquire fireworks.

The proposal that I am making to the committee is that we take out the licensing scheme provisions, because of all the problems that the committee has discussed, and that the Government, if it feels that a licensing scheme is required, should come back with proposals that would enable there to be a proper scrutiny process. I would want the matter to be put to a vote.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 60, although I have some sympathy with what he said, I have concerns about what it proposes. I will listen carefully to the debate. There are scenarios in which all of us would probably accept that it might be legitimate for someone to have a firework or a pyrotechnic article that falls within the scope of the bill, but my concern is that, if we were to take out the “reasonable excuse” defence and have a prescriptive list, that would be a criminal offence under the bill. It is a technical point, but the removal of the “reasonable excuse” defence would take away the courts’ discretion to look at the facts and the circumstances of every case. I have concerns about having a prescriptive list but, as I said, I will listen to the debate.

I am very interested in what you are saying, minister, which seems to be that one of the main purposes of the licensing scheme is to require people to undertake training. Of course, there are other ways in which that could be done. It could be a legal requirement that people have to undertake training, whether that was face to face or online. I would be sympathetic to the idea that that should be done face to face, because I think that that would be a more robust form of training, although I understand that it is probably more likely to be done online. However, that is a discussion that we might have later or in future.

We know that very few people are convicted of fireworks offences—we have heard evidence on that—and, as the bill stands, it is only those with fireworks convictions who would have to declare their convictions for consideration for a licence. Therefore, given that very few people have fireworks convictions, I presume that most people will get the licence if they pay the money. Therefore, the main issues are the money and, as you say, the training scheme. However, the training does not need to be done in that form, does it? It does not need to be attached to a licence with your proposed provisions, including the licence fee.

We will come to the details of who is covered by the licence later, but, for example, it is not clear whether community groups and a range of other organisations would be covered by the scheme. Therefore, are you saying that it is the training that you believe to be the fundamental issue with regard to the licence?

No, not necessarily. The training could be mandatory and there could be provision in the bill for that.

When the member was looking at that section of the bill, did he consider any other forms of disposal or options for the courts besides prison sentences and fines? After all, a range of other non-custodial disposals, such as community orders and probation, might be available. Has the member given any thought to that? What are his views on expanding the range of available disposals?

The amendments in my name address two sets of issues, and both would enhance the parliamentary scrutiny required for any secondary legislation for a licensing scheme. Amendment 47, and the related amendments, would change the process from a negative process to an affirmative process, similar to that outlined by Jamie Greene in relation to amendment 58 and the other amendments in his name.

However, my primary amendment—amendment 53—goes further, in that it would make provision for a more detailed pre-laying procedure, which would require the Government to lay draft regulations before the Parliament. The Scottish Government would also be required, before finalising regulations, to seek the view of the Parliament’s justice committee on the terms of the regulations. I believe that that is appropriate given the level of interest and the work that the committee has already been involved in. It is also appropriate given the concerns that we raised in our report.

Amendment 53 would offer the possibility of enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. The minister has already spoken about some of the issues in relation to consultation. Amendment 53 is more focused on parliamentary scrutiny of regulations rather than a consultation process with outside bodies, although I support Jamie Greene’s proposal in relation to consultation and welcome the minister’s comments on enhanced consultation on those issues.

The principle of the amendments in my name is that the committee should have a meaningful role in the scrutiny of the regulations, with sufficient time to seek its own views or to take evidence should it wish to do so. Amendment 53 says that the regulations should be laid

“before the Parliament for a period of 120 days, of which no fewer than 60 days must be days which the Parliament is not dissolved or in recess”.

I would be quite happy to consider other timescales if that is problematic.

The principle is not to set the number of days—that is a matter of practicality—but to give the committee the opportunity to undertake effective parliamentary scrutiny. I have lodged my amendments so that we can consider how we ensure that any regulations that are introduced are robust and workable, and do not lead to the kind of problems that the committee has spent weeks hearing evidence about and considering.

The idea is that the Government would have to come back with specific proposals in primary legislation, given all the concerns. It is not a principled objection to the licensing scheme.

Amendment 68 is an important amendment. I hope that it will draw out many of the issues that the committee has grappled with over a number of weeks. It has never been clear exactly what the definition of public events will be, and it is not clear whether groups such as community groups will be included in that definition or whether they will be required to obtain a licence in the same way as individuals. That could have massive ramifications. If community groups and charities are considered to be in the group that will require a licence, there will be financial consequences as well as consequences with regard to the restrictions that will be placed on them about the use of fireworks and when they may organise displays.

Amendment 68 provides an opportunity for us to hear more from the minister on the thinking about how the licensing scheme will operate. I am concerned that community groups will have unreasonable financial pressures put on them if they are covered by the licensing scheme, whereas professional organisations will not face the same requirements and will not have to pay for a licence. We do not know what the cost of a licence will be, but we have been told that it will probably be between £20 and £50.

Given the discussion that has taken place, is Jamie Greene’s understanding that the effect of the bill will be to push community groups down the path of using professional bodies? That is perhaps the direction of travel that we are going in. On the basis of the bill, those bodies can operate all year round. Does Jamie Greene think that that is probably where we are going?

I am worried about the onerous nature of the licensing scheme and, therefore, have concerns about restricting the period to two years, given the additional cost. I wonder whether there is another way of dealing with the matter. For example, if somebody is convicted of a fireworks offence—or, indeed, another offence—there could be an obligation on them to contact the relevant authorities. I put that into the debate for consideration.