Did Emma Harper agree with or find interesting the points that Rhoda Grant made about the ScotWind contracts and ensuring that we get transparency on the companies that have been awarded options to lease? Does she agree that we need to look at companies such as Amazon that the Scottish Government contracts with? We should surely expect higher standards from them or not award contracts to them if they do not meet standards.

At the committee’s away day events, we discussed consistency in the Crown Office’s position on bail. We presumed that that would not be dealt with in the centralisation process, because people would have to appear from custody at short notice and that simply would not be practical. However, it would be quite helpful to get clarification on how the Crown Office attempts to ensure consistency across Scotland in relation to its position on bail and bail applications, which I suspect are dealt with in a slightly different way from what is outlined in the letter.

There might well be a process for trying to ensure consistency, even in retrospect—I do not know. However, it would be interesting to have that information in time for our scrutiny of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill.

I echo everything that has been said. It seems to me that the Government keeps saying that the rates have been agreed; indeed, the committee has previously heard evidence on that. However, I do not think that that is particularly fair. The profession says that it had no choice, that that was what was on the table and that if it did not take the offer, there would be no increase.

We have some information in the committee papers, particularly on hourly rates. I do not think that we need a huge amount of financial knowledge in order to understand the information on page 10, for example. Obviously, there has been an increase in the use of fixed-fee arrangements, but the hourly rates have not kept up with the rate of inflation or with any other indicator that we might expect.

It is quite apparent that there have been massive cuts in legal aid, and that solicitors in particular are now being paid a lot less, in real terms, than they would have been 25 years ago. It might be that the Scottish Government can provide some justification for that, but I do not think that we need a huge amount of further evidence to be able to see that that is clearly the case.

It is clear that there is a huge amount of anger, as there is in England, where there are similar problems and where barristers are now on strike. We have already had some strikes by the legal profession in Scotland, including the decision not to carry out certain types of work. The situation is clearly very heated, but I do not think that we, as a committee, can be mediators. We cannot perform that function.

In addition, we are going into a period of austerity. We were told that the cuts to the budgets in the justice sector were going to be approximately 20 per cent, and that was when inflation was lower. That backdrop means that the problem is going to get a great deal more serious, because the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans and the relevant ministers presumably have very little financial flexibility at their disposal.

The situation is highly concerning. It is clear that there have been massive cuts. I am not exactly sure what role the committee can play, as we are not mediators, but I think that we have to accept that there have been massive cuts in the legal aid budgets. As a consequence, some of the most vulnerable will not be getting the support that we would like them to have. That is the message that the committee should be sending: that we recognise that there have been significant cuts and that that will have an impact.

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.