Chamber and committees

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

I would like to address openness and transparency, particularly with regard to how they affect the issues that were raised in the Audit Scotland report. The Scottish Government has the power to lift non-disclosure agreements. It has been reported that at least one figure was keen to pass on evidence to the Auditor General but was held back from doing so. Will the Scottish Government today confirm that current and former employees—and any other person who is covered by a non-disclosure agreement into which the Scottish Government entered—should not be prevented from speaking out on the issue?

It is clear that the management of the project to build hulls 801 and 802 has been shambolic, with bad and politicised decision making, poor appointments and a culture of secrecy. Islanders and the workforce were not involved in decision making, and representations that were made for smaller vessels to be built were ignored. It is vital for all of us, and for the taxpayer, that we learn the lessons of the procurement process. Openness and transparency are issues of principle and it will be impossible for lessons to be learned from the fiasco unless the public and the Parliament have access to the facts.

Six years ago, the First Minister attended the launch. Since then, the cost has reached two and a half times the original budget. Senior managers have been paid eye-watering sums—we repeatedly hear about the £2 million that we understand was paid to Tim Hair.

It is clear that Scotland needs proper explanations and access to information and documents, to enable proper scrutiny to take place. That is what this debate should be about. That is why Labour lodged an amendment that asks us to focus on that issue in today’s debate.

Labour is committed to Ferguson Marine. We are committed to the workforce. We are committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. We are committed to investment, to rebuild the sector.

None of what has happened in this fiasco is the fault of the workforce. It is the fault of poor management and poor political decision making. None of what has happened is the fault of the islanders, who rely on lifeline services and are paying the price for the mistakes that have been made.

We need the Scottish Government to waive the non-disclosure requirements in the contracts and to come up with a long-term plan that includes procurement of ferries in Scotland, with an industrial strategy to rebuild our shipbuilding industry as part of a wider green agenda.

Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been spent, and misspent. We need transparency and an undertaking from the Scottish Government today that it will waive the requirements of the non-disclosure agreements, so that this Parliament can discover the truth.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

It is clear that any crime of violence is unacceptable and that the levels of violent crime in Scotland are completely and utterly unacceptable. However, we also recognise the connection between poverty and violent crime, and the role of male violence in particular. As Daniel Johnson pointed out, these issues are not simple and are not binary.

As of January this year, there were approximately 13,400 sheriff court trials outstanding. We know that offences involving serious sexual violence make up about 80 to 85 per cent of crimes that proceed to trial in the High Court. Because of that, we also know that the backlog has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Clearly, the situation has been impacted by Covid, but we had significant problems in the criminal justice system before that.

Although Scottish Labour broadly supports the Scottish Government’s approach, and we recognise that there will probably always be a need for custody and prison, we are also concerned that, over a period of time, the resources for alternatives to custody have not been put in place.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary met the Wise Group this morning. As Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, has advised, members of the committee also met the Wise Group and people who use its services this morning. We very much welcome the emphasis that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary are putting on a trauma-informed, person-centred approach and on recognising that the system as it is at the moment fails victims.

We also support the emphasis on addressing the issues affecting women and girls, particularly the plans to introduce a misogyny law and to implement Lady Dorrian’s recommendations. As Pauline McNeill said, we also think that the current experiences of victims of rape, attempted rape and serious sexual assault cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, we are asking the Scottish Government to consider the proposals that we are making to provide non-means-tested advice and representation to such victims from the initial stages of cases. We recognise that there are a range of ways in which that could be done. Legal aid is one of them, but there are other ways, and we would like the opportunity to discuss those issues with the Scottish Government. That is something that Rape Crisis Scotland is calling for—the proposal comes from the victims themselves.

Liam McArthur was correct to say that alternatives to custody need to be properly resourced. We were told this morning that prison costs £40,000 per individual. However, it is absolutely clear that we are going to need significant changes in resourcing if the Scottish Government’s policy—which, as I say, we broadly support—is to become a reality.

We welcome much that the Scottish Government has said, but we recognise that the £0.5 billion cut in legal aid between 2007 and 2019 represents a real challenge that must be faced.

We look forward to hearing what the Government says in response to the debate, as we are broadly sympathetic to its approach but, as we have indicated, we have a number of concerns that I hope that the cabinet secretary will address.

The public inquiry into the death of Sheku Bayoh has commenced, more than seven years after his death in custody. An inquiry would probably not have happened if his family had not fought for it.

Research suggests that only 31 per cent of families are represented at fatal accident inquiries. Will the Scottish Government review the rules, particularly the legal aid rules, to do with representation of families where there has been a death in custody?

Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being present at the beginning of portfolio question time. I was late returning from a committee visit.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve the effectiveness of fatal accident inquiries into deaths in custody. (S6O-01060)

Scottish Labour is at one with the Scottish Government in wanting action to be taken on the antisocial misuse of fireworks and on the need for a cultural shift. However, as Pauline McNeill outlined, we have serious concerns about some of the detail—and, indeed, the lack of detail—in the bill, which has been rushed through on a truncated timescale. Many of our concerns are outlined in the Criminal Justice Committee’s report, which Audrey Nicoll has spoken about in detail.

The licensing scheme is to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our concern is that there is a real risk that there will not be proper scrutiny at that stage, given that it will not be possible to amend regulations. I would be grateful if the minister could speak not just on the engagement with stakeholders in the consultation on the regulations, but on the involvement of politicians in the chamber, whose role is to ensure that the detail of legislation is correct and that we do not introduce bad law.

Most people who use fireworks do so responsibly, and they will want to comply with the legislation. However, as has been pointed out by more than one member, they could inadvertently fall foul of the legislation. That said, the main problem, as we see it, is the use of fireworks by people who probably will not comply with the licensing system and probably do not comply with the criminal law. The focus needs to be on how the legislation will impact on that group.

We know that there are health and safety concerns about the use of fireworks, even when they are used responsibly, and we know that the misuse of fireworks has a dangerous impact on local communities and specific groups. Many members have spoken about that. Stuart McMillan and Siobhian Brown spoke about the impact on veterans and refugees, in particular, and others spoke about the impact on people with autism. Collette Stevenson spoke about the impact on emergency workers, and others spoke about the impact on the people who discharge the fireworks themselves. We know that there is a real human health cost in the use of fireworks—indeed, one national health service board put the cost of dealing with firework injuries at £40,000 a year. Members have also spoken about pets, wildlife and farm animals being adversely affected by fireworks.

Scottish Labour supports many aspects of the bill—in particular, the creation of new offences such as that of proxy purchase—which is why we support its general principles. However, we have major concerns that the bill will not necessarily make the situation better, particularly given the lack of enforcement of the legislation that is already in place. A number of members have spoken about that.

Earlier this month, we finally received the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service data on that, and we found out that there were no convictions last year, despite the fact that many hundreds of firework-related incidents are reported each year. There have been very few convictions—a number of members have spoken about that. That must be because Police Scotland and the Crown Office are not giving the enforcement of the existing fireworks legislation the priority that I believe the Parliament would want them to give it. Before the bill was introduced, we should have had far more detailed information on the context of that disparity and on how existing legislation is used. As they stand, the proposals are complex and bureaucratic, and they will confuse the public—in particular, the law-abiding public.

The licensing scheme will require people to take a course, but we do not need a licensing scheme to require that.

I would be happy to do so, but I suspect that I do not have time. I apologise.

If a person is really determined to use a firework or pyrotechnic illegally, they will do so. That is the meat of what the Criminal Justice Committee considers regularly. We need to ensure that the Scottish Government produces a bill that has the right details and will not create bad law. Our fear is that the proposals that are before us require substantial amendment and that there simply will not be enough time at the next stage to enable that amendment to take place.

I was going to ask the minister about that, because some members have indicated that they believe that it is outwith the scope of this Parliament to ban fireworks. My understanding is that this Parliament could not ban the sale of fireworks but does have powers in relation to banning and restricting the use of fireworks. I fully understand that we do not have the full range of powers that could be used in relation to fireworks.

As I say, the main concern about the bill is that it will bring in complicated rules that, in reality, will not work. John Mason spoke about control zones and argued for having no-firework zones, and I agree that that needs to be considered. My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament could make the whole of Scotland a no-firework zone should it wish to do so. No doubt, the minister can come back to that legal point in due course.

The licensing scheme must be workable and effective. If the public see it as being confusing, unworkable or unaffordable, they will not comply with it. As Martin Whitfield outlined, there are real risks that a black market in fireworks will emerge as a result of the bill. The minister has said that there is not much evidence of a black market in Scotland at the moment, but we know that one emerged in the Republic of Ireland when it banned fireworks.

I will ask about drafting and the importance of having precise wording in any legislation that we consider, which I suspect this committee will do in detail in due course.

The same debate is happening in many other jurisdictions—unfortunately, it is not just a Scotland-wide problem. Have you considered the debates that are happening in other countries, and what options did you look at with regard to how the legislation could be drafted? You specifically use the terms “prejudice” and “contempt”.

What advice would you give the committee on how we can ensure that the legislation is as robust as possible and that it covers as many scenarios as possible, which may mean a longer definition with different options? How should we be looking at these issues? Is there anything in particular that we might want to look at to make sure that the legislation is usable and makes a difference?

I am happy to come in later.

Almost half a billion pounds was cut from the legal aid budgets between 2007 and 2019, so any increases since 2019 do not compensate for that scale of cuts.

As the minister knows, the dispute relates to domestic abuse cases. Does she agree that such cases can be complex and time consuming, that solicitors are raising legitimate concerns, and that the dispute undermines the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls?