Chamber and committees

To put it simply, that is not accurate; the justice system is working through and reducing the Covid backlogs. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed that the trial backlog has reduced by nearly 1,500 trials since April, and cases concluded are above pre-Covid levels in the High Court and the sheriff courts.

The court recovery programme is progressing in line with the expected pace. Our recent offer to the profession in May represented an increase of more than 20 per cent over four years. Unfortunately, that was rejected by the profession, but I can update members that we have drafted a new proposal, which will be put to the Law Society of Scotland this week.

I am afraid that I have not seen those comments, but I will endeavour to have a look at them. I can then come back to Jamie Greene on them.

As I said, we are in active negotiations, and I am very committed to finding a way forward. I have also reminded members that Scotland is a leading jurisdiction in Europe on legal aid. We have put forward to the profession a substantial package of investment, and we have, of course, retained the scope and eligibility in Scotland. I remind Jamie Greene that that is not the case in England. More than 70 per cent of Scotland’s citizens are eligible for some form of legal aid; in England, the figure is just 25 per cent, following some quite dramatic cuts there. I do not think that anyone in Scotland would want me to follow the example of the Conservatives on legal aid.

Unfortunately, we were not able to accept the profession’s previous ask, which it raised with me prior to May, of a 50 per cent rise in legal aid fees. That was in addition to the investment that the Government had already put in. We put forward a rise, the total of which, as I mentioned in my previous answer, amounts to a 20 per cent increase. For context, that is much more than what has been offered in England and Wales.

Members will understand that the process is time consuming.

We are in active negotiations, and I am committed to finding a way forward.

The Scottish Government has provided fee uplifts and grant funding that are much greater than what has been offered—it has not yet been accepted—in England and Wales. Combined with our latest offer to the profession, that totals 20.5 per cent since 2019.

I will pick up a couple of the member’s points. There was a substantial set of reforms over many years prior to 2008. For clarity and purposes of discussion going forward, it is probably best if we stick to fee rates since 2008.

One point that the member raised was about DASA—Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018—cases. I have said in the chamber previously that prior to notification about action by the profession, DASA cases and the fee rates for those cases had not been raised with me. Had they been raised with me prior to that point, I would certainly have tried to address the issue.

The Scottish Government is, and continues to be, in active negotiations with the profession. Members will understand that I need to balance interests across the justice landscape and that I am operating in a very challenging public finance environment. Nonetheless, our actions and our investment in legal aid to date show that we are a Government that is listening and that wants to work with the profession to find a way forward.

I understand that the amendments in this group seek to enhance scrutiny and consultation around the licensing system, but I believe that my openness to increased scrutiny has already been demonstrated by my accepting the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendations on the use of affirmative regulations and by including from the outset—in section 19—a consultation requirement. That requirement ensures that there will be an opportunity to gather views on proposals for what may be included in regulations—for example, in relation to the licence fee, which we discussed earlier.

Amendments 5, 7, 11, 18 and 20 seek to make the regulation-making powers in part 2, which are currently subject to negative procedure, subject to affirmative procedure. I do not consider that the use of affirmative procedure is suitable or proportionate for the type of regulations in question, which will be used to set out operational and administrative details of the licensing system.

It is not intended that those powers will be used frequently, but it is necessary that, when they are used, they can be used in a timely manner, so that the licensing system can continue to operate efficiently and at an optimum level. In my view, it would not be appropriate to require the use of affirmative procedure for regulations that made operational and administrative changes.

Amendment 32 seeks to extend the consultation requirement to regulations that are made under section 3 of the bill, which sets out the categories of fireworks that are covered by part 2 of the bill, which relates to the licensing system. The regulation-making power in section 3(2) has been included to future proof the licensing system, and it will enable any changes that are made to the categorisation of fireworks, or the addition of new classifications of fireworks in the future, to be taken into account.

It is important that that power can be used in a timely manner so that the licensing system can continue to operate effectively. It is a technical regulation-making power, which it is intended will be used only if that is required in order for account to be taken of legislative change elsewhere or industry developments. If it is used, relevant stakeholders, such as firework industry experts or trading standards, will be consulted, in line with good practice for all regulations, and it is not considered necessary to include it under the duty to consult in section 19.

We have to make sure that the measures are proportionate, because we do not want to put people off from applying for a licence. If applicants have committed an offence that involves fireworks under the six terrorism acts that we are talking about, they will be required to disclose that. That strikes the appropriate balance.

I will start by addressing Mr Greene’s amendments 13, 16, 22 and 25. I thank him for his engagement on those amendments in advance of today’s proceedings and I believe that those discussions have led to revised amendments that capture the intent of his original amendments at stage 2, so I am pleased to support his amendments today.

As I have previously outlined, it had always been intended that, as part of implementation, processes would be put in place to ensure that people have access to information regarding appeals when they need it. However, as I set out at stage 2, I see merit in placing a duty on the Scottish ministers to share that information with licence applicants and holders at key points when a decision is made. I am happy to support amendments 13, 16, 22 and 25 and I encourage other members to do so as well.

I turn to Mr MacGregor’s amendments regarding the difference between additional mandatory conditions that must apply to all licences and optional conditions that the Scottish ministers will have the discretion to attach to individual licences. I believe that those amendments provide clarity and put beyond doubt what has always been intended to be in the bill. As Mr MacGregor outlined, the amendments change neither the powers of the Scottish ministers to prescribe and apply licence conditions nor the appeal rights of individuals from the position that has always been intended in the bill. I thank Mr MacGregor for his engagement on those amendments before lodging them. I am pleased to support amendments 15, 17 and 26.

Lastly, I turn to Mr Findlay’s amendment 77, which seeks to require a review of the licence term one year after the regulations that set out the term are made and each year thereafter. I consider that requirement to be excessive. In particular, if a licence term longer than one year is set following consultation, I am not clear that such a review would provide meaningful results, as the licence term will be consulted on and set out in regulations. As I have outlined before, our working assumption is currently that the licence term will be five years.

Ms Stevenson’s stage 2 amendment 56, which Mr Findlay will remember, requires a report on the effectiveness of the act within five years of royal assent. When the package of measures in the bill has had the opportunity to bed in following implementation, I consider that a constructive review of the licensing system as a whole can take place at that point. However, should any issues or concerns about the licence term arise before that, the Scottish ministers will be able to progress a change through consultation and further regulations, if that is necessary. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 77 and I ask other members not to support it.

To summarise, I support all the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendment 77.

Jamie Greene has made a legitimate point. We will keep the fee under review. The modelling that we have done, which he will no doubt have seen, shows a likely reduction in fireworks sales. We will keep that under review; if there is evidence to suggest that the situation is as he suggests, we will reconsider the level at which the fee has been set.

I reiterate the point that I made earlier: I remain committed to ensuring that the licence fee is proportionate and fair. It will be set, following a wide-ranging consultation, at a rate that will ensure that, although robust checks and balances are in place, it is not a restrictive barrier to safe and lawful use of fireworks.

I will move on to Russell Findlay’s amendment. I do not consider amendment 71 to be necessary. The bill already requires the fee to be set with regard to the “reasonable costs” of the licensing system, so any impact of inflation on those costs will, of course, form part of the fee level that is determined. Consultation on the fee, which will be required before any regulations are made, will ensure that the fee amount is reasonable, and will allow other cost pressures on individuals to be reflected.

I understand that the requirement to obtain a licence and pay a fee will mean that people who wish to buy and use fireworks will incur additional costs. Again, I reiterate that I remain committed to ensuring that the licence fee is proportionate and fair.

Ensuring safe and responsible use of fireworks is imperative in terms of achieving the policy aims of the licensing system. I believe that, through the illustrative modelling in the financial memorandum, a balance has been struck between, on one hand, introducing a licence fee and, on the other, avoiding overly restrictive barriers to lawful purchase and use of fireworks.

Will the member take an intervention?