Chamber and committees

I strongly support Katy Clark and Jamie Greene in trying to get a commitment from the Government. There needs to be an evidence base not just on the experience of witnesses, victims and the accused, but on the outcome of cases. It is important to have that debate.

I am keen to move amendment 1036, and I will say a few things about why. I would be happy to take an intervention from the cabinet secretary. I want to be clear in my own mind because some of the timescales are confusing.

The Law Society of Scotland is clear. It has been said that

“The physical separation of the accused, their solicitors and the courtroom has had a deleterious impact on the overall process. The separation has made it harder for the solicitors to communicate effectively before and during hearings with the Crown”.

I have not heard anything to indicate that the Government is concerned about that. It is surely not satisfactory in anyone’s book.

If the timescale was shorter, I might say that we should put up with the situation for a bit longer. I need to clarify the timescale. I thought that it was 2023 or, potentially, up to 2025. It would help me a lot to know the answer.

That would be helpful. I am going to take it in good faith that the cabinet secretary knows where I am coming from, just as I know where he is coming from. For Jamie Greene’s benefit, my understanding was that the amendment that I asked to be drafted sought to remove virtual appearances as the default. As it was not my intention not to allow flexibility, I want to be sure about what such an amendment does.

If the Government is willing to open channels and have further discussions—I would, for example, even accept a shorter time period or the Government having much more responsibility to review the provision before 2025—I am, on that basis—

I accept that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service but, as a legislator, I have had arguments over the years that they ought to provide more information because, at the end of the day, we are being asked to make a decision that might impact on the people whom we represent.

I do not disagree with anything that you have said, cabinet secretary, and it might be said that it is a matter for the committee, if it is concerned about this at all, to ask the Crown Office to clarify the situation for stage 3. However, I am clear in my mind that it is not unreasonable for us, as legislators, to ask the Crown Office this question: if we were to extend the fine to £500, albeit on a temporary basis, what breadth of summary offences would it be used for? I have to say that, in my experience, such requests have been refused, and I want to put it on the record that I disagree with the Crown Office if its position is not to provide us, as legislators, with some transparency about how it would use an extra £200.

Also for the record, I totally acknowledge Fulton McGregor’s contribution. Fiscal fines are really important for all the reasons that he has mentioned. My only disagreement is that, as legislators, we are entitled to have an understanding before we press our buttons and say yes or no to the powers that we are giving the Crown Office to prosecute people or not. It is wrong for us to be in the dark on that.

Amendment 1036 is specific to appearances from custody in police stations. It does not interfere with any of the other discussions about the balance for victims in the system. Victims are not involved in that process. If someone appears from custody physically, they get to see their solicitor, they appear in court and, arguably, the process goes more smoothly. For a period, we did not do that. I thought that you might be unclear about that. For that reason, amendment 1036 is the amendment that I am interested to press.

I am very sympathetic to what Russell Findlay is trying to achieve here. I have felt over the years that, when there is a request or a proposal to extend fiscal fines, it is important that, as legislators, we are clear about the parameters of how that is used. I think that it has been difficult to get that information in the past. I also think that it is fair, in those circumstances, for victims to be told.

I know anecdotally of cases in which people have said, “Well, I did have a defence, but I just thought that, rather than go through the court process, I would accept a fiscal fine.”

The member is quite right. I am not opposed to flexibility; I am trying to prevent the kind of automatic virtual appearance that we seem to have at the moment. If the Government was prepared to consider the default position, that would be preferable, but my concern is that it will just say, “It has been agreed by the Scottish Parliament that we can take it up to 2025 and then make the default virtual.” No one will be satisfied with that.

I suppose that it will not be the same in every court, but I have seen the quality of the link in Glasgow sheriff court. If we cannot get it right in the biggest court in the country, what is it like in other places? The cabinet secretary can correct me if I am wrong about that.

I do not know whether the cabinet secretary wants to say anything else before I conclude. I am inclined to move amendment 1036, but Jamie Greene has made quite an important point. It is not my intention not to allow flexibility, but it is my intention not to allow the Government to go to 2025 and then say that virtual appearances are satisfactory, just because we have backlogs. That would concern me a lot.

I agree with the member whole-heartedly on that—there is a bigger picture, and that is the point that needs to be addressed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people pay their fiscal fines because, even though they have a defence, they think, “Well, paying a fine is easier than going through a court process.”

The figure of 39 per cent may include people who wanted to go to court and did not pay the fiscal fine because they felt that they had a defence. There are a lot of different factors involved. However, in principle, I agree that we need more information in that regard.

We have been here before, many years ago, when we extended the bar from £100 to £300. The Parliament is being asked to confer extensive powers, albeit on a temporary basis. If they were to be conferred on a permanent basis, I would certainly be voting against increasing the bar to £500.

Amendment 2 is a consequence of what I am seeking to do in the next group of amendments, which relates to the days on which fireworks can be used. This amendment, which is about the days of supply of fireworks, is consequential to the amendments that relate to the days of use, so I will leave the substantive debate for the next group of amendments.

I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s argument about the arbitrary nature of the days on which fireworks can be sold. That needs to be clear as we approach stage 3. On the connection between the supply and the use of fireworks, my concern is that, given that part of the concept of the bill is to deal with the stress that communities feel around the times when fireworks are used, there is quite a wide range of days on which they can be used. As a consequence, amendment 2 is designed to reduce the number of days on which fireworks are supplied. I will leave my other arguments until the debate on the next group of amendments.

We received good evidence from a retailer, but it was slightly concerning when he said that he was selling fireworks for birthdays and big anniversary events. Are you concerned that there might be a growing culture of people using fireworks for big events that we have not factored into the legislation?

I guess that it would. Again, that would be for the local authority to deal with. You are saying that it would not happen that a council would not act. Why would Glasgow City Council not do that? I do not know the answer to that, but I know that, with previous legislation, councils did not act on pressured areas, whereby the right to buy could be ring fenced. We would have thought that that power would have been used in some areas of Glasgow, but it was not.

Relevant departments that are engaging with ministers may say that they are going to use the provision, but I would have thought that the decisions would be made higher up, by the full council. I do not know where the decision will be taken, but if we do not know the answer to that, we should make it clear that someone can formally ask their local authority to consider—I am not saying that it should be applied—whether a firework control zone is necessary.

I press amendment 9.