Chamber and committees

Police Scotland raised issues in its initial response to the committee after the bill’s introduction. That gave me the opportunity to go back to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation to discuss the matter with them. I confirm to the committee that both Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation support this set of amendments.

For information, I say to Jamie Greene that F1 covers all sparklers, which is why F1 products are prohibited at sporting events. Everything is categorised appropriately given the hazard levels and so on, and we fully considered all the technicalities in drafting the bill. That is why there are a number of consequential amendments.

I will waive that opportunity, convener.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

After section 32

Amendment 26 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Section 33—Prohibition of pyrotechnic articles at certain places or events

Amendment 27 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 118 and 119 not moved.

Amendment 28 moved—[Ash Regan].

I share the member’s view that the criminal courts should have the powers that they need in order to respond to assaults on our dedicated and hard-working emergency workers. There is something particularly sickening about the targeting of those who are responding to emergency situations in the service of others.

I have heard what the committee has said, and I note the points that were raised by Fulton MacGregor and others about the current powers that the court has to take such circumstances on board. In relevant cases, a court can and does take into account the circumstances of an offence before deciding on the sentence, but I accept that there may be merit in considering whether some form of statutory aggravation could be assessed, when it comes to the use of pyrotechnics and fireworks against emergency workers, in the context of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005.

There are other issues in relation to the amendment, some of which were alluded to by Pauline McNeill. I cannot support the amendment as it is, but I am happy to engage further on the topic with the member.

Commercial sexual exploitation is recognised as a form of gendered violence within “Equally Safe: Scotland’s strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls”. As part of the delivery of the strategy, the Scottish Government supports a range of measures, including the provision of more than £400,000 through the delivering equally safe fund to address commercial sexual exploitation and support people who are affected. In addition, our victim-centred approach fund provides the TARA—trafficking awareness-raising alliance—project with £622,000 to support women who are trafficked for that purpose.

We are also progressing the programme for government commitment

“to develop a model for Scotland which effectively tackles and challenges men’s demand for prostitution.”

The cabinet secretary and I are kept up to date on the discussions held in the buffer zones working group, which is chaired by the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport. We will make the chief constable aware of issues that have been raised when that group next meets.

The rights to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression are rights that we are committed to uphold, but they should never be used to promote hatred or justify intimidating or otherwise criminal behaviour.

Operational policing decisions are a matter for Police Scotland, as is decision-making on appropriate action to safeguard public safety.

I thank the member for raising a very important issue. The Scottish Government has a multi-agency group that is continuing to make as much progress as possible on the topic of commercial sexual exploitation because, as the member has outlined, there are some such activities going on at the moment.

I say to the member that I am committed to progressing work on this agenda. As she will know, much work is being done behind the scenes here. Unfortunately, I am not able to tell her today what the timeframe is on the issue that she has raised, but I commit to keeping her updated on that work.

I thank the member for that question. She raises some important points, and I am very sympathetic to the intention behind the question.

On the recent incidents at the Sandyford clinic, I can confirm that Police Scotland was called on both occasions on which protests took place. The police asked the protesters to stop using voice amplification devices and took formal statements from members of staff.

Of course, Police Scotland has available to it existing powers to deal with any disorder or criminality that arises from such protests. The Scottish Government has made it clear that the intimidation and harassment of women as they access healthcare is completely unacceptable. Scottish Government officials have already made Police Scotland aware of concerns that have been raised with them and, in particular, the concerning reports about the protests at the Sandyford clinic. I know that Police Scotland has taken statements with regard to what went on there.

The Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport, Maree Todd, has convened a working group, with partners such as COSLA, Police Scotland and affected councils and health boards, to look at how to address vigils and protests that take place outside abortion clinics. I commit to keeping the member updated on progress.

There are lots of examples, so I do not want members to read too much into the particular one that I will use. I use it for illustrative purposes.

Let us say that a parent sees their child with a firework, does not know where they got it from—they certainly did not give it to the child—takes it off the child and then takes it to the police station or goes to destroy it. Under section 4 as drafted, they would not commit an offence because they would have a reasonable excuse for having that firework in their possession without having a licence.

We cannot foresee what situations might arise. I have no doubt that they will be infrequent. However, section 4 as drafted enables people to rely on the reasonable excuse defence to avoid committing an offence and the prosecution and conviction that could follow. I do not wish, and I am sure that the committee does not wish, to criminalise people who have done nothing wrong and find themselves in highly unusual circumstances. The entire section needs to be read to give the context. Section 4(4) already makes it clear that the section is subject to the exemptions that are listed in schedule 1. Therefore, amendment 60 is not necessary.

We also heard from Mr Greene regarding amendment 61, which would require a fireworks licence to be presented at the point of purchase, either online or in person.

There is already a requirement upon suppliers to take reasonable steps to establish at the point of purchase that the person they are supplying has a licence. Rona Mackay made that point. Crucially, that requirement extends to other parts of the supply process, such as a courier who makes a delivery following an online purchase. Other points in that supply chain—for instance, a delivery driver—will have the duty to check the licence. That happens with other age-restricted products as well.

I believe that the maximum penalties that are set out in the bill are proportionate to the offences in the bill. That is the key point. All the offences are subject to level 5 penalty caps. Those levels have not been arbitrarily chosen—they have been deliberately included following careful consideration, and they are based on the types of offences in the bill and the levels of penalty that are applicable in other fireworks legislation. That ensures that there is consistency, transparency and proportionality across the bill and across the legislation on fireworks overall.

I have listened to the arguments from Mr Findlay and Mr Greene. Mr Greene raised an instance in which something very serious had happened involving fireworks. However, it is likely—Mr MacGregor made this point—that, where fireworks or pyrotechnics are used against emergency workers in a very serious offence, that would be taken forward through other legislation, or possibly through common-law offences such as assault or breach of the peace. Under both those offences, long custodial sentences up to and including life imprisonment can be handed down. I hope that that gives Mr Greene some comfort on that point.

No. It was actually consideration, and it was to do with aligning the bill with other legislation that is similar.

We are not aware of any specific or compelling evidence that higher maximum penalties are necessary to deal with the offending behaviour that we are speaking about. Therefore, I believe that there is little justification for increasing the maximum available penalties, and that the penalties that are set out in the bill strike the right balance, are proportionate and give the courts the appropriate powers to deal with people who commit such offences.

Katy Clark raised the issue of other disposals. Of course, other disposals are available, at the discretion of the court, based on the circumstances of the case.

I ask Mr Findlay not to press amendment 62 and not to move his other amendments in the group. Failing that, I ask the committee to vote against them.

The Scottish Government’s policy of having a presumption against short sentences has been debated, but it is important to keep in mind the fact that it is a presumption, not a ban. In any given case, the court can decide to impose a sentence of a short period of imprisonment, but only if no other method of dealing with the person is appropriate.