Chamber and committees

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.

Miles, are you able to talk about how big a factor organised crime is?

I was going to ask about organised crime—perhaps we will come on to that later. First, though, I would be interested to hear from those involved in this area how they think perpetrators are created. We have heard that there are a lot of parallels between perpetrators and those who have experienced violence, and there has been a lot of work on violence. We know that experiencing poverty, trauma and violence leads people to be more violent when they grow older. Are there any themes in relation to why people become perpetrators? Is it because they have been victims themselves? That might be one factor, but there might be others. We need to be able to understand those in order to frame a co-ordinated strategy.

Do any of the witnesses who have direct experience have any evidence that might be of use to the committee on that? Perhaps it would be best to start with Stuart Allardyce.

Gina Wilson, do you want to come in on that? From your perspective, is that a major issue on your radar?

That is interesting. It is a massive topic that we do not have the opportunity to explore properly now.

We have been discussing organised crime. Obviously, there are links between organised crime and some of the other issues that we are discussing. Perhaps Bex Smith would be a good person to talk a little bit about that.

I am happy to come in later.

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?