Chamber and committees

That is the obvious thing to have, is it not?

I want to ask about resource implications, and I will put the question to David Hamilton. Rona Mackay asked about the distress to officers, and I will quote one of the statements that is made in the SPF’s submission:

“I have seen my hands shaking on my way into some nightshifts knowing I may only have 1 or 2 cars available, just that added stress of increased call volume and low staffing levels is shocking.”

Further on, there are comments from other officers about not being able to get leave, which impacts on the service. As we know, if we lose a lot of police officers under the McCloud judgment, we will be left with a lot of less experienced officers. That would have a huge impact on the mental health of officers, who are having to deal with other individuals who are experiencing mental health issues. Is resourcing for mental health a big issue in the police service?

Good morning. I want to explore any gaps that there might be in the law and what lies at the root of all this. I have to say that I found your submission quite shocking; the issue is shocking anyway, although it is perhaps not surprising or shocking to see the extent to which girls and females are the victims and men tend to be the perpetrators. That said, I was surprised to learn in your submission that the amount of

“self-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material”

has gone

“up 374% in the last two years, ... disproportionately affecting ... girls.”

We are talking about imagery that is produced on webcams by children themselves, but adults are taking advantage of it, and the child is still the victim. Can you attempt to give us any insight into why such a rise has happened over the past two years? What do you think is driving children to do this?

I have written to the minister on many occasions about my constituents in Glasgow who welcome the fact that they have been prioritised for the single building assessment. Other constituents will have to wait until 2023. In both cases, my constituents can still not get adequate buildings insurance, which is quite dangerous.

In view of that, will the Scottish Government consider indemnifying those owners—standing behind them—while we wait for the final outcome? If the minister is confident that we will get to that point, the Scottish Government should not find that too risky.

The Tory motion has a lot of important issues packed into it, and it is impossible to address all those very serious issues in five minutes. We agree with many of the points in the motion, although we believe that robust alternatives to custody are important. On this morning’s committee visit to the Wise Group, we saw its throughcare programme, which is ensuring that we do something about the revolving door of offending.

In the short time that I have, I will focus on three themes. I agree with the Conservatives that it is concerning that police numbers have fallen to their lowest level in 14 years. The cabinet secretary is, at least, not contradicting that. However, it is even more concerning that, as Jamie Greene alluded to, police officer retiral rates are expected to be 70 per cent higher than normal due to the McCloud judgment. The effect of that judgment is that officers aged 50 and who have 25 years’ service have no financial incentive to complete their 30-year service, which is normally required. There are alarming reports that around 1,600 officers of all ranks will seek early retirement.

That will arguably be the single biggest blow to the Scottish police service, and it is time that we started talking about the impact that it could have, as a significant number of experienced officers will go. Low morale has also been cited as a factor that is driving officers to seek early retirement. We must have more discussion on the issue. Police Scotland is already operating under challenging circumstances, having lost 140 police stations in the past decade.

I want to comment on the crime figures and specifically the figures on violent crimes against women, which we have discussed many times in the chamber. On that issue, I am at one with the cabinet secretary. He will know that, between 31 March last year and 31 March this year, the number of sexual assaults rose by a third, which is a staggering figure. We all need to work together on that issue and use this parliamentary session to reverse the trend in crimes against women.

At the Criminal Justice Committee, we have heard testimony from women who have been the victims of sexual violence and who say that, as victims, they felt that they were treated as criminals. We cannot forget that. That is why Scottish Labour wants to look at how we balance the support for victims in the court process. There should be one point of contact for victims in the court system and the police—that is the only answer that I can see. How do we make that happen? Do we need to legislate or can we bring it about in other ways?

We also need to broaden the scope of the circumstances in which victims of sexual offences are given free legal assistance beyond the scope of the trawl of a complainer’s medical records, which is the narrow matter for which they can get legal aid at present.

We want to explore a one-stop-shop for victims that would also provide on-going support. We simply cannot go on as we are at present, because what the committee heard in that testimony is not unusual. We therefore call on the Government to introduce proposals, or at least to discuss the matter on a cross-party basis.

I also want to talk about the shocking statistics from fatal accident inquiries into deaths in custody. There were 54 deaths in custody in 2021, with the figure more than doubling since 2015. Only six weeks ago in HMP Addiewell, Calum Inglis died alone in his cell from Covid, after reportedly pleading for help from prison officers for four days. He was only 34 years old.

Last October, I asked for a public inquiry into the death of Allan Marshall, who died in Saughton prison in 2015 after being restrained by prison officers. He was on remand and was due for release. A fatal accident inquiry at Edinburgh sheriff court ruled that his death was “entirely preventable”.

In 2020-21, the average length of time that it was taking to conclude an FAI was almost three years, which is totally unacceptable. If we all agree that that is unacceptable, the Parliament must act on it. If families are to get justice, we must reduce the timescales. The independent review of deaths in prison custody, which we debated last year, said that an independent body should have “unfettered access” after a death in custody. In response, the cabinet secretary said that the Government would either look at or enact those changes. I would like to know where we are on that. If we do not put something in place that changes the situation, we will have failed to give justice to those families.

I move amendment S6M-04320.1, to leave out from “recognises that the Scottish Government’s justice strategy is failing victims” to end and insert:

“notes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the criminal justice system, but considers the substantial court backlog, which, according to the latest figures from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, currently stands at 43,016, and issues in the delivery of community justice to be the consequences of long-term policy failures of the current Scottish Government; notes that organised crime and domestic abuse contribute to a deteriorating picture of crimes of violence in Scotland, and urges the Scottish Government to take action to address this; believes that sentencing guidelines and policy should be clear and understandable to victims, their families and the public; recognises the role of custodial sentences in the justice system with regard to serious and violent crime, and further recognises that custody should not be a substitute for effective mental health, drug or alcohol services; calls on the Scottish Government to consider proposals which seek to improve the landscape of support for the victims of crime, such as Michelle’s Law and Suzanne’s law; believes that no victim of serious, violent or sexual crime should face barriers when accessing justice, and calls upon the Scottish Government to bring forward proposals to ensure that every victim in cases involving rape, attempted rape or serious sexual offences can access non-means-tested advice and legal representation from the initial stage; notes the success of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, established by a Labour-led administration in 2006, and understands that the model of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit is now being followed in other parts of the UK.”

When we raised a point of order last week, I listened to the Minister for Parliamentary Business saying that we could fix the bill at stage 2. It is astonishing to find that we will not even have the time to do that at stage 2. As a legislator, I find that totally unacceptable. I will not come to Parliament and stand by, allowing poor legislation to go through, even if I whole-heartedly agree with its intentions, as I do today. That is not what I came here to do. It is not necessary to introduce the rest of the legislation in such a rushed fashion. Had I known that we would be in this position, I would have disagreed at the committee stage.

I plead with the Government to give us time at stage 2 to ensure that the bill is fit for purpose.

I move amendment S6M-04236.1, to insert at end:

“, and, in so doing, expresses reservations in line with paragraph 386 of the Criminal Justice Committee’s 5th Report, 2022 (Session 6), Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill Stage 1 Report (SP Paper 164).”

Of course, but we are setting up such a complex licensing scheme. It has not been tried and tested, but if we look at the main aspects we can see that we may be creating the conditions in which the risk of a black market is something that we need to be live to.

In the Republic of Ireland, the sale, possession and use of fireworks is illegal. Nevertheless, in August last year, the chairperson of Dublin South Central joint policing committee said that fireworks were

“imported illegally and stored in huge quantities in Dublin.”

He continued that those illegal fireworks have been

“terrifying local residents across Dublin, particularly the old and the vulnerable”.

It would be wrong to dismiss the possibility of a black market.

I accept that, but I am saying that such a complicated scheme, especially if the fee is not set at the right level, could amount to or could be seen as a ban. Therefore, we must be alive to the possibility of people going to get fireworks without a licence. We must all be careful of that, particularly because the bill has been rushed and has all the hallmarks of legislation that has not had enough time for scrutiny. Police Scotland has voiced concerns about how to effectively police parts of the bill.

Fireworks-related convictions are very low: in 2020-21, there were 974 fireworks-related complaints to Police Scotland and 29 criminal charges were brought, resulting in no convictions. That is another important point. If we are not using the current law, how can ministers be absolutely certain that this law will be used to bring about more prosecutions? It will be important for the police to feel that the new legislation is enforceable.

The Scottish Police Federation has voiced concerns over the watering down of section 33, which the minister has spoken about. We need serious scrutiny of whether the wording about travelling to

“a designated sporting event, music event, procession or assembly”

is right. The Police Federation pointed out that all the perpetrator would need to say is that they were going somewhere else and then no offence would have been committed. It is not clear how police officers can prove where someone is going.

The bill is one of the first pieces of legislation that will be passed in this session of Parliament and it is important for communities, so we need time to ensure that we get it right. I am really unhappy. I accept that the part of the bill dealing with proxy purchase needed to be rushed, but we should have been given adequate time to scrutinise the rest of it.

I want to understand the Government’s response on that point. In the licensing scheme, there are 57 days on which fireworks can be used, and they cannot be used outwith those days. Someone setting off a firework outwith those days—whether it is for a football celebration, to use John Mason’s example, or just a back-garden display—would be committing an offence.

Can the minister assure Parliament that she would expect Police Scotland to enforce that? Would there be any distinction between someone setting off fireworks in a football setting and someone doing it in their back garden? On the face of it, there should not be. What is the minister expecting from Police Scotland? It is quite important that we understand that.

Scottish Labour supports the Scottish Government’s intention behind the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill and we applaud the hard work of minister Ash Regan and the stakeholders who created the bill.

We seek, unusually, to amend the motion to agree to the general principles of the bill, as we have serious concerns that the design of the licensing scheme, in particular, might have unforeseen consequences and could unintentionally criminalise individuals, due to its complexity.

One aspect of that is the section of the bill that deals with the days outwith which it will be an offence to use fireworks. That includes the period from 26 December until 2 January, as well as from the three days immediately preceding the first day of Chinese new year until the seventh day after the first day of Chinese new year. Members might know that Chinese new year follows the lunar calendar, so we can see that it will be quite complex for the general public to know on which days they can set off fireworks and when they cannot.

The low number of prosecutions—none in the past year—indicates that there might be a deeper problem with how seriously the issue is taken by the police and the Crown Office. We have simply not had enough time to scrutinise whether the bill will make a difference to that. The lack of time for scrutiny is not justified for an issue that has become so important for Scottish communities.

I agree with the minister that fireworks have become a serious issue across Scotland, with bonfire season often putting the police and emergency workers at risk. Fireworks and pyrotechnics have been used in attacks on officers, and fireworks have been used as weapons in many communities, including mine in Pollokshields in Glasgow. However, it appears as though there might not have been any prosecutions under the existing law, and I question whether the bill will do more to penalise people who misuse fireworks in our communities.

Fireworks distress wildlife, farm animals and pets, particularly dogs, and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has described the bill as “a win for animals”.

Scottish Labour members are clear that we support the Government’s intentions behind the bill. Fireworks are an issue throughout the year, particularly at football matches, where fireworks and flares are regularly smuggled in and let off, which endangers staff, players and spectators. The stated purpose of the bill is to support a cultural shift in how fireworks and pyrotechnics are used in Scotland, while curtailing their antisocial use. However, will people who intend to risk prosecution with their use of fireworks by taking them to football matches or lobbing them at the police be concerned about jumping through all the necessary hoops to purchase them legally? That is a serious question.

What the law will certainly do is make it onerous for people who wish to use fireworks lawfully. The design of the licensing scheme carries risks that we have not had a chance to test due to the lack of time for scrutiny. We need to be careful that the bill does not end up being similar to the repealed Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which was unworkable and inadvertently criminalised great swathes of the public.

Let us consider in more detail what a member of the public will have to do under the proposed fireworks legislation. Anyone wishing to purchase fireworks will have to apply for a licence by taking an online course and paying a fee. I am pleased that the minister has acknowledged that the fee is an important aspect. It might be between £20 and £50 and the licence would be for five years. However, if the fee was close to £50, that would be a barrier and would put fireworks out of reach for many families. There is quite a difference between £20 and £50.

A person wishing to use fireworks would need to find out on which 37 days of the year it is legal to purchase fireworks, and then find out on which 57 days of the year they are allowed to be used.

It does not stop there. They would then need to find out whether a firework zone in their area is live and check whether it is legal to set off their fireworks. Under section 4, it will be an offence to set off fireworks on the wrong day and, rightly, it will be an offence to set them off without a licence. However, it is easy to see that a normally law-abiding member of the public might inadvertently break the law because they set them off either on the wrong day or in the wrong area. More thought must be given to the complexity of the licensing scheme.

Furthermore, individuals might be tempted to buy fireworks illegally out of a white van, because they cannot afford the licence or they cannot apply for one because they are not online. There are many dangers that we have not had a chance to dig into as part of our scrutiny of the bill.

Rather than going to a shop that would require someone to present their licence, some people might find another way. That is why I am concerned that, in the Government’s response to the committee, it was quite dismissive about the potential for the black market to open up, although it rightly says that it is concerned about that. There was strong evidence from the industry on that issue, and we should not dismiss it so easily.