Chamber and committees

Amendment 76, in the name of Mr Greene, seeks to place a requirement on the Scottish ministers to be satisfied that the information that is provided on previous convictions, revoked licences and a successfully completed training course is accurate.

During stage 1, no concerns were raised that the bill as drafted left any gaps or issues regarding the information that is to be provided during an application and whether that information will be considered when the decision is made to grant a licence. It has always been our intention that that will occur in practice as part of the process of considering and, most importantly, verifying applications. Section 18 provides for regulations to be made about exactly how information that is contained in licensing applications is to be verified, which will allow for a more nuanced and detailed approach to be taken.

Amendment 78 sets out that a fireworks licence will be valid only if it contains information about the licence holder’s purchase history. I do not consider it to be necessary to require licence holders to upload information on each purchase that has been made using the licence. The licence will be held by an individual for a period of time, rather than being linked to specific transactions involving fireworks.

It would not be particularly cost effective to incorporate that very specific requirement in the bill with, for the most part, no appreciable benefit from the information that it captured. If amendment 78 was accepted, I would be concerned that it could lead, for instance, to all licences being invalid if the purchasing history could not be uploaded due to unforeseen circumstances, technical issues or something of that nature. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 79, in the name of Mr Findlay, seeks to restrict to no longer than two years the length of time for which licences can be given. Stakeholders have expressed varied opinions on the length of time for which a licence should be valid. It is important that we strike a proportionate balance and have robust checks without being overly restrictive and requiring licences to be renewed too frequently.

The working assumption is that the licence will be valid for five years, which was carefully considered during the development of the bill. That consideration included looking at responses to the 2021 consultation and at other similar licensing schemes in Scotland, such as the air weapons licensing scheme, under which licences are valid for five years.

Ultimately, however, the licence term will be set out in subsequent regulations. The amendment would pre-empt the consultation that we are going to undertake to inform the licence term. That consultation is really important, because it will allow us to get the views of the public and stakeholders and take them into consideration before we determine what the licence term should be.

The amendment would also limit the ability to adapt to future circumstances and to change the licence term in a timely manner to either reduce or increase the time period, if it was determined that that was more appropriate.

I am not convinced that amendments 76, 78 and 79 are proportionate or necessary, or that they would strengthen the bill, so I do not support them.

Amendment 15 will remove the requirement for disclosure, during the application process, that covers only spent convictions, and widen the provision to include any relevant conviction, whether that conviction is spent or unspent.

The Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019 reduced the periods in which a conviction becomes spent. For example, a fine is considered spent and therefore does not need to be disclosed after 12 months, rather than the previous period of five years. For those who are under 18 when they are convicted, the disclosure period for a six-month prison sentence has been reduced from three and a half years to one and a half years, and for a fine from two and a half years to six months.

Following careful consideration during stage 1, I consider that amendment 15 is a proportionate and balanced way to strengthen the effectiveness of the licensing system while ensuring that only relevant offences are taken into consideration.

I want to make clear that a person’s having a previous conviction does not lead to a blanket ban on their holding a fireworks licence, nor will disclosure of such a conviction lead to an automatic refusal of a licence application. The purpose of the amendment is to allow an informed and balanced decision to be made on each application.

Although I understand that Mr Findlay is keen to ensure that a robust system is in place, I consider that amendments 70 to 74 adjust the wording of the disclosure requirement in a way that could cause confusion and which does not substantively change the requirement on applicants, and, therefore, I do not support them.

However, in relation specifically to the requirement to disclose convictions for offences involving fire, I can see the potential value in progressing an amendment to that effect. That would include offences such as wilful fire raising, and I consider that there is a valid point to be made that it may not be appropriate for those who have demonstrated such past behaviour to be able to hold a fireworks licence. I would welcome further discussion with Mr Findlay to explore that specific point further ahead of stage 3.

I do not consider amendment 77 to be necessary or appropriate to include in legislation. Scottish ministers will, of course, take into account all disclosed convictions when making an assessment of whether to grant a licence.

I do not support amendments 70 to 74 and 77. I encourage Mr Findlay not to press amendment 70 and not to move the others, and I hope that the committee does not support them if he does so. However, I clarify to Mr Findlay that, on amendment 74, I would be happy to work with him ahead of stage 3 in order to create an amendment for stage 3 that I can support at that point.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that the broad regulation-making powers at section 18(1) should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I welcome the committee’s recommendation, and amendment 21, in my name, gives effect to that. However, I believe that section 18 also contains powers on administrative and operational points of detail, to which it would be disproportionate to apply the affirmative procedure.

Therefore, amendments 14, 18, 19 and 20 make adjustments to other sections to ensure that the change does not disproportionately impact on the administration and operation of the licensing system, while ensuring that enhanced scrutiny applies if section 18 is used to make any further provision about licensing that might be required.

I believe that, collectively, these amendments reflect the DPLR Committee’s recommendation, so I hope that committee members will recognise the balance that is being struck and will support the amendments.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, amendment 58, in Mr Greene’s name, seeks to make the regulation-making power about persons with “specialist knowledge” at section 2(2)(b) subject to the affirmative procedure.

Where the DPLRC has recommended a change of procedure, I have lodged an amendment to ensure that Parliament is afforded the appropriate levels of scrutiny. I do not consider that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate or necessary for section 2(2)(b). That section provides Scottish ministers with the power to make further provision in respect of persons demonstrating “specialist knowledge” for the purposes of the definition of a category F4 firework.

The requirements for specialist knowledge are currently set out in the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015. The power in section 2(2)(b) should be required only if we need to respond to any changes to the requirements made by the United Kingdom Government on such persons, to ensure that high-hazard fireworks remain subject to the required stringent safety measures.

That provision does not enable amendment of the bill. The requirements are technical in nature, and it is appropriate that regulations to change them are subject to the negative procedure. Therefore, I hope that members do not support amendment 58.

Amendment 89 seeks to include a list of specific groups that the Scottish ministers must consult when making regulations about the licensing system. The bill sets out that the Scottish ministers must consult those who

“are likely to be interested in or affected by”

the licensing system. That was deliberately drafted to ensure that a wide-ranging and effective consultation takes place.

It was always intended that the listed groups would form part of a wide-ranging consultation on regulations. However, I believe that actively identifying and engaging with groups who are most likely to be affected is a more effective approach than listing a limited number of groups in the bill. Therefore, I do not support amendment 89.

I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 58 and not to move amendment 89. If he does, I hope that the committee does not support them.

Amendments 47 to 51 seek to make a change so that the regulation-making powers in part 2 of the bill that are currently subject to the negative procedure are subject to the affirmative procedure instead. The consultation requirement set out at section 19 means that Scottish ministers will have a duty to consult before making any regulations under part 2. That provides the opportunity to gather views on proposals for what may be included in the regulations, such as, for example, the licence fee.

It is not intended that any of those powers will be used frequently. However, when they are used to set out administrative or operational detail in the system, it is necessary that that is done in a timely manner in order for the system to continue to operate efficiently and at an optimum level. I do not consider the affirmative procedure suitable or proportionate for those types of regulations and, as such, it would not be a good use of valuable parliamentary time.

On amendment 52, the regulations made under section 3 are already subject to the affirmative procedure. The provision is a technical regulation-making power, which will be used if necessary, to adapt to changes to the categorisation of fireworks or if new classifications or types of fireworks enter the market. It is important to be able to utilise such a power in a timely manner and ensure that the system covers relevant fireworks. That is paramount in ensuring safety and that the system operates as required.

If the power is used, relevant stakeholders such as the fireworks industry, experts or trading standards will be consulted. However, it is not necessary to include that in the duty to consult under section 19.

Amendment 53 seeks to include a new section setting out certain requirements for Scottish ministers before laying regulations in relation to part 2 of the bill and the licensing system. I am open to enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the licensing system. I have demonstrated that by accepting the DPLR Committee’s recommendations and having included a requirement to consult on regulations about licensing from the start. However, the matters to be covered in regulations under this part of the bill are not of a nature that require such a super-affirmative procedure, which amendment 53 would apply. In most cases, there are powers to set out operational details or administrative procedure.

I urge Ms Clark not to move her amendments, but if she does do so I ask the committee to reject them.

It is my understanding that no NDA was used in the final settlement of the case that we are discussing. I would also say that the use of NDAs is part of United Kingdom employment law and that there are some legitimate uses for NDAs, but they should not be used to cover up discriminatory behaviour, misconduct or anything of that nature.

The chief constable has responded to this particular case by apologising to the claimant, making it clear that sexism and discrimination have no place in policing and making a personal commitment to lead change in policing in Scotland.

I think we would all agree that the majority of police officers work hard to protect our communities. However, the member is right that, when things go wrong, as they have done in this case, we must have robust and transparent mechanisms in place to investigate complaints. A great deal of work has already been done—I have responded to Daniel Johnson regarding the Angiolini review—but more must be done. The service has accepted that. We will keep Parliament informed of the work done and progress made.

I would have to give that proposal some consideration. I will come back to the member on that point.

In general, we have a high-quality police service in Scotland, but it is right that Police Scotland must be held to account and lessons must be learned when things go wrong. I assure members that the chief constable has taken responsibility and has personally committed to driving and leading change in policing in Scotland to ensure that lessons are learned and improvements are made.

The Scottish Government takes extremely seriously any concerns that are raised about Police Scotland, whether they are raised by the public or by officers. When things go wrong and mistakes are made, the police must be held to account, lessons must be learned and improvements must be made.

The findings of the employment tribunal clearly demonstrate that Ms Malone’s experiences were wholly unacceptable, which has been fully recognised by the chief constable. He has apologised to the claimant, making it clear that misogyny, sexism and discrimination of any kind are deplorable and have no place in society or policing, and emphasising his personal commitment to leading change in policing in Scotland.

I thank Daniel Johnson for raising his personal experience with Police Scotland in reporting an incident such as this. I would expect the chief constable to reflect carefully on what Daniel Johnson has said in the chamber today.

On the substance of the question, in the days after the judgment was issued, the chief constable made the commitment to commission an external police service to carry out an independent review of this particular employment tribunal decision and to make recommendations on performance, culture or conduct that will require action by Police Scotland. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is finalising that work.

Police Scotland has recognised that improvements are needed, and it has established a strategic oversight board to push forward the progress that is needed on equality and diversity in policing.

Many of the things that Daniel Johnson has just mentioned are under consideration by the Government. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans to respond in detail to the points that Daniel Johnson has raised.

The Angiolini review was an action that the Scottish Government took—in 2018, admittedly—to review police complaints handling, investigations and misconduct in Scotland, recognising that there was a potential issue in that regard. The Scottish Government accepted the majority of the recommendations, and we will shortly consult on legislative proposals with a view to delivering new laws to improve transparency and further strengthen public confidence in the police. We will consult on areas such as the duty of candour and co-operation, gross misconduct proceedings and adopting barred and advisory lists to strengthen Police Scotland’s vetting processes. Those measures would aim to ensure that anyone who did not meet the required high standards would not be able to continue working in policing.

I note Daniel Johnson’s comments about the implementation of the Angiolini review recommendations, although I gently note that it has been less than six months since the latest thematic report. A significant amount of work has been under way on implementation, with 34 of the recommendations having been implemented to date.

In 2018, we commissioned Dame Elish Angiolini to review police complaints handling investigations and misconduct in Scotland. Her recommendations provide a strong platform from which to drive forward meaningful improvement in collaboration with our partners across the policing sector in Scotland.

We will soon consult on further legislative proposals, with a view to delivering new laws that will improve transparency and further strengthen confidence in the police. Those measures will aim to ensure that anyone who does not meet the high standards that are required will not be able to continue working in policing.

Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which criminalises coercive and controlling behaviour, has been in operation for more than three years. Last year, section 1 cases accounted for 5 per cent of all domestic abuse cases. The latest data from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service shows that accused in recent DASA cases have been represented using current capacity of the Public Defence Solicitors Office and private providers who continue to work on such cases. As has been the situation throughout, we still aim to seek an appropriate and affordable resolution to the issue in the interests of vulnerable victims and those accused of such crimes, who are barred from defending themselves.