Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

I extend my thanks to Mr Kidd for the opportunity to discuss such an important issue. No one can disagree with the premise that we want to make Scotland hostile to trafficking and a safe place for Ukrainian refugees. His moving speech to us this afternoon contained a strong call for action, which I heed.

Scotland has a proud history of welcoming refugees and people seeking sanctuary from war and from violence, but ensuring the wellbeing and safety of those who are arriving from Ukraine is critical to that aim. Under our supersponsor scheme, displaced people are accommodated safely in temporary accommodation until disclosure and property checks have been completed, mitigating the risks that are unfortunately inherent in the UK system. Those checks interrogate national and local systems and have been designed to maximise opportunities to identify and remove host applicants who may be unsuitable. We have pressed the UK Government to replicate our scheme and to develop a public sector matching service, which was mentioned by a couple of speakers, and we will continue to do that.

We have also published public protection guidance to support all operational partners that are involved in safeguarding. The guidance was developed with stakeholders and it takes into account the need for a gendered approach, which was mentioned by Ruth Maguire. I note the many other practical suggestions that she made during her speech.

Additionally, we have established a new trafficking and exploitation strategy group to ensure that risks and concerns that are identified are understood and addressed in a multiagency approach. The Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance and JustRight Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government, have developed a leaflet including information on indicators of trafficking. The leaflet has been translated into Ukrainian and Russian and it is available at welcome hubs and has been shared widely. I think that that is very relevant to the aspirations of the Ukrainians Welcome website of Hope for Justice and its anti-trafficking partners, which has been referenced. I also want to highlight the practical information that is available in the Ukraine section of the Scottish Government’s website for those fleeing Ukraine and for potential hosts in Scotland.

I know that this is not a time for complacency and we will continue to do everything that we can to stamp out all forms of trafficking and exploitation arising from this conflict and otherwise. My vision of Scotland is one where all women and girls are treated with respect and not one where we turn a blind eye to abuse, violence or trafficking. Tackling sexual exploitation is key to realising that, and a key part of that work is our programme for government commitment to develop a model for Scotland that effectively challenges men’s demand for prostitution. That commitment is in line with our international obligations to incorporate the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women into Scots law. Article 6, in particular, compels Scotland to

“take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.”

War in Ukraine has tragically highlighted—Rhoda Grant’s speech brought this out this evening—the need to take action to challenge and deter men’s demand. The conflict is putting women and girls at further risk of exploitation. We have seen the disturbing reality of that with the reports of the 200 per cent increase in UK internet searches for “Ukrainian women” that was mentioned by a number of speakers this evening, including Mr Kidd.

In addition to the international crises adding to the pressures that can fuel sexual exploitation, tackling the systemic disadvantages and inequalities that women face is critical. The development of our model takes that into account and the reality that that demand is linked to human trafficking. The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 gives police and prosecutors greater powers to detect and bring to justice those who are responsible for trafficking, as well as strengthening protection for survivors. Police Scotland actively investigates any reports concerning human trafficking and exploitation and will continue to work closely with partners across the UK and internationally to share intelligence and to co-ordinate work to tackle it.

It is important that we tackle exploitation wherever it happens, whether that is online or offline. Procuring for the purposes of prostitution is still an offence if it is committed online and Police Scotland will actively investigate all reports of sexual exploitation, including those of online sexual exploitation. The online aspects are at the forefront of our minds in the development of the model. We are continuing to liaise with the UK Government and Ofcom on the UK Online Safety Bill.

Our work to challenge men’s demand will continue to require a collective response right across Government, the wider public and the third sector. A short-life working group with representation from key stakeholders was tasked with developing the fundamental principles to underpin the model. It held its last formal meeting in April, with further targeted stakeholder engagement to follow as part of finalising those principles, which will be published later this year. The principles will help to create a solid foundation on which we can uphold the aspirations and values that we want to see reflected in the model. They will also help to draw together our efforts to challenge and deter men’s demand and raise greater awareness of some of the challenges that those who are involved in prostitution can face.

We have committed to engaging with those with direct or lived experience to shape services and are committed to ensuring that our approach makes things better for all who are involved in prostitution. In the coming months, we will publish lived-experience research, which we have commissioned to better understand the current support service provision and the needs of service users. That will also inform our developing model.

Also to be published this year is an evidence review on international approaches to challenging demand. That is being carried out by the Scottish Government’s justice analytical services and it will inform the development of the model while obviously taking into account Scotland’s unique legal and societal landscape.

I give my commitment again this afternoon that I will continue on this work across Government and the chamber and with stakeholders as our approach to tackling sexual exploitation further develops, contributing to our aim to be a society that treats all with kindness, dignity and compassion. That is reflected in our response supporting those who are displaced by war in Ukraine, and I thank all who are involved in that response.

The date that Pauline McNeill mentioned would be the weekend after bonfire night. Nowadays, we often find—I am sure that this will be true of members’ experience—that the fireworks period is not restricted to bonfire night itself. It usually includes the weekend before and the weekend after. That might be to do with what the weather is like or with the fact that bonfire night is on a Tuesday night, say, and people prefer to have their celebrations later on.

The idea behind the period that is proposed in the bill is that that is the most traditional period for people in Scotland and the UK to use fireworks, and we are trying to align with that. I feel that the proposed period strikes the appropriate balance, but in the event that we want to reduce the period further, as we see how the bill beds in and is used, there is a provision that will allow us to do that, if we think that that is appropriate at the time. However, at the moment, I think that it is best to broadly align the days of permitted use with the dates on which fireworks are most traditionally used.

I ask Philip Lamont to answer that question.

I recognise the potential impact of restrictions on days of supply to specialist firework retailers, and it is right that adequate consideration is given to how such businesses might be supported as a result. I accept the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that regulations relating to compensation are subject to the affirmative procedure, given the interest in such a compensation scheme from those businesses and from Parliament. My amendment 23 proposes that regulations that are made under section 24(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Mr Greene’s amendments 132 and 133 seek to ensure that the restricted days of supply and use provisions cannot come into force until regulations for the compensation scheme have been laid.

In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I accepted the recommendation—although this was already our intention—to commence work with the fireworks retail industry as soon as the bill is enacted, and before the relevant provisions come into force. As the committee’s report notes, that will be important “to lay the groundwork” for how such support can be delivered in a timely and proportionate way, in order to help such businesses to adapt and respond in light of the change. Of course, that will involve working closely with those businesses to understand the potential negative impact. Following that work, the detail of the scheme will be developed, and the necessary regulations will be laid in the Parliament. Therefore, I believe that Mr Greene’s amendments 132 and 133 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them.

I move amendment 23.

That is a different point altogether. The member referred to supermarkets and so on, which represent the vast majority of the retailers concerned—there are more than 300. At the moment, they sell fireworks only at the traditional times of the year. The permitted dates of supply in the bill align broadly with those dates, so these changes to the permitted dates of supply do not involve a huge change for those retailers.

The specialist retailers that Mr Greene has mentioned are, of course, a different category. They sell all year round. There is a very small number of those retailers in Scotland—we estimate that there are nine or 10 such businesses—and we will discuss them when we discuss the compensation scheme. If it is okay with Jamie Greene, I suggest that we leave that argument for now and pick it up as we move through the groups.

Amendment 2, which was lodged by Ms McNeill, looks to shorten the permitted period of supply over the bonfire period to nine days as opposed to the 15 days currently provided for in the bill. The bill will, for the first time, set out the permitted periods in which people in Scotland can be supplied with fireworks. We have set out in the bill the periods that we think, based on the consultation, reflect the right balance between the desire to celebrate special days in our communities while still curtailing the general supply and use of fireworks. I believe that limiting the supply further at that time could risk a situation in which people have a very limited number of days to purchase fireworks and are inadvertently encouraged to store them in domestic settings. It also risks squeezing the supply chain over the very busiest periods for fireworks purchases and retailers overstocking, which could lead to safety issues around storage. If there is evidence that permitted periods of supply should be reduced further in the future, the bill provides an opportunity to do that via secondary legislation. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 2, and I encourage Ms McNeill not to move it.

We are talking about indiscriminate use. Mr MacGregor made an important point about the provisions in the bill that relate to not only the permitted days for supply and use and the licensing scheme, which is a point well made by the member, but firework control zones. That is another provision that attempts to address the issues that the member raises.

If a member of the public is living in a firework control zone, they will not, once the legislation is enacted, be able to use fireworks. It will be clear to people that they are not allowed to use them at that point. I think that the provisions in the bill when they are taken as a whole, rather than individually, are an attempt to address exactly the problem that Jamie Greene has identified, and will, I think, will go some way towards solving that issue.

That was a good debate. I am very sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s points in raising concerns on behalf of specialist retailers. We recognise the issue, which is why the bill includes a provision to support businesses that may be affected. That support will help businesses to adapt and respond to the change.

Rona Mackay picked up on Jamie Greene’s point that those businesses will be forced to close their doors. I do not think that we can establish that at the moment. Primarily, the businesses will still be able to sell fireworks all year round to community groups and to professional display organisers. A number of the businesses are also professional display organisers.

We need to understand the impact of the provision to restrict days of supply in practice. Only then will we be able to identify the level of support that is appropriate. That is the right approach. I give an absolute commitment to the committee that, if the bill is passed, engagement will take place with those businesses as soon as possible in order to understand the impact that the bill has on them and, if necessary, we will provide them with compensation.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

I, too, support the premise of what Pauline McNeill is trying to achieve. I cannot support the amendments as they are currently drafted, but I have given a commitment, which Ms McNeill has accepted, that we will work on the provision and engage further to get it to the point at which we would be able to accept it at stage 3.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

After section 28

Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.

In developing the pyrotechnic possession offence, we have been conscious of our obligation to be proportionate in our approach and to consider the least intrusive method of achieving our policy objective while still responding to the evidence around pyrotechnic misuse. However, I share the committee’s view that the operational challenges that were raised following the bill’s introduction need to be addressed.

I have continued to work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation on those issues. I have listened to the views of members across Parliament and gained assurances that any extension of the offence to include public places has the necessary safeguards and checks and balances built in to remain proportionate to the issue that is being tackled. As a result of those discussions, I have reassessed the provisions in the bill.

The Government amendments in the group adjust the existing possession offence and create an additional offence of being in possession of a pyrotechnic in public without reasonable excuse. To ensure proportionality and consistency with existing pyrotechnic prohibitions relating to sporting grounds, the amendments set out two offences relating to pyrotechnic possession.

Amendment 26 contains an additional offence that will prohibit the possession of a pyrotechnic article, including fireworks other than category F1 fireworks, in any public place without a reasonable excuse. That recognises that restricting the carrying of F1 items such as sparklers and party poppers in public would be a disproportionate measure given the low risk that is presented by those items.

However, in excluding F1 fireworks from the public place possession offence, we do not want to relax any existing prohibitions relating to them. Current laws prohibit all fireworks, including F1 fireworks, from being taken into designated sporting grounds. Amendments 27 to 29 adjust the offence in section 33 to cover separately the prohibition of all fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles at designated sporting or music venues and events.

Amendments 36, 38 and 40 relate to exemptions to the prohibition on pyrotechnic articles at those places and events. They adjust those exemptions, which are set out in schedule 1, to ensure that people who carry out legitimate business using fireworks and pyrotechnics in designated sporting and music venues and events can continue to do so without committing an offence.

Amendment 41 will ensure that organised, lawful, public firework displays are not unintentionally impacted by the new pyrotechnic articles in public places offence. It provides an explicit exemption from that offence for such organisers and their assistants.

The amendments will ensure that powers are available to Police Scotland to enable it to take a preventative approach to tackling the misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics by using intelligence-led policing and undertaking early interventions to stop misuse.

I move amendment 25.