Chamber and committees

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.

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.

One of the main things that we have done to address the issues that the member has raised is provide £9 million of grant funding during Covid. Some of that money was specifically for business resilience and to help businesses adapt to the situation in which they found themselves, so that they could invest to find solutions to any issues that they might have.

The profession has approached us on capacity. To help to resolve that situation, we set up and invested £1 million in a fund for trainees that is co-run with the Law Society of Scotland. More than 40 trainees are in that system, and 75 per cent of them are women, because we recognise that gender was a potential issue. That is another way in which we have attempted to resolve the issues that the profession has raised.

Not much time has elapsed since the start of the action that some solicitors are taking on DASA cases. I am therefore sure that members will accept that, at this point in time, it is quite difficult to predict what impacts, if any, it will have.

The Scottish Government has taken a large number of actions. Most recently, we set up a fee package that was targeted specifically at areas of concern that the profession had raised with us. We also made an additional offer of an across-the-board fee rate rise to legal aid rates of 5 per cent, but that has not been accepted so far.

We are working at pace to put in place measures to address any shortfall and, as I outlined to the member, there does not seem to be a shortfall at the moment, but we will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that we address any shortfall that occurs in the availability of solicitors.

We are committed to continuing engagement to seek a resolution with the profession. However, I remind members that the profession’s demand is for an increase of 50 per cent in addition to the increases that the Scottish Government has already made, which amount to a significant investment of more than £20 million in the past few years. That would add an increase of about £60 million per year to the legal aid budget and, unfortunately, that is not affordable.

I recognise the concerns that the committee raised about timetabling, and I thank it for agreeing to work to a slightly truncated timetable. Scrutiny is vital in that regard—I am sure that everyone agrees with that. However, that needs to be balanced against the consideration that the public is very keen to see action being taken on the matter. For my part, I commit to constructively engage with and address all the concerns that are raised with me as we go through the parliamentary process. If we all work constructively across the chamber, we will end up with a bill that is appropriate, proportionate and effective at the end of the process.

The operational and administrative detail of the licensing system will be set out in regulations to ensure that we develop an agile, future-proofed system that can be updated in a timely manner, should the need arise, to continue to meet society’s requirements. The bill sets out a duty to consult before making regulations under part 2, which will ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to share their views on the details of the operation of the licensing system.

I welcome the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, reinforced by the Criminal Justice Committee, that consideration should be given to whether further provision about the licensing system should be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure, as currently set out in the bill. I confirm that I will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to achieve that, because I recognise that the affirmative procedure would afford Parliament an enhanced level of scrutiny as the detail is developed and put forward.

The member is right to raise that issue, because there are a number of reasons why people might legitimately be carrying pyrotechnic devices, which include safety flares and marine flares. That was one of the considerations that the Government took into account when drafting the offence. It has been drafted in a slightly narrower way than had previously been suggested in order not to affect people who carry flares for legitimate reasons. We did not want to put them off. Again, I am interested to hear the views of members on that and whether it is felt that the Government has got the balance right on that provision.

I am aware of concerns raised by the committee, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation about the scope of the pyrotechnic possession provisions and their impact on operational enforcement. I agree that we need to address operational challenges to ensure that the legislation is effective. As I said, I am interested to hear members’ views on that. I understand the calls for a wider offence of being in possession of a pyrotechnic article in a public place, but I also recognise the importance of proportionality in creating any new criminal offence, to ensure that individual freedoms and civil liberties are protected and that we achieve our objective in the least intrusive way possible.

I am grateful to Parliament for allowing the bill to proceed at an accelerated pace. Moving forward swiftly is important. We have heard the strong message that people want change and action to be taken on the sustained disturbance and harm that fireworks and pyrotechnics can cause to their lives. The timetable will allow the proxy purchasing offence to be in place for the upcoming bonfire season, and the importance of that provision cannot be overstated.

As I mentioned, we have heard about the issues that some communities face with adults giving fireworks to children, so we must act to close the loophole in current legislation that allows that to go unpunished. We have also heard from enforcement authorities that a proxy offence is a useful preventative tool, as it makes it clear to all adults that that behaviour is unacceptable and criminal. The purpose of the proxy offence is to protect children and young people from harm, which I am sure all members would agree is an absolute priority.

The timetable also allows the important work to implement other provisions to commence promptly, should the bill be passed by Parliament. That is paramount in ensuring that further positive change can be put in place as soon as possible. There is no question but that there is a strong desire to see a fundamental shift in Scotland’s relationship with fireworks and pyrotechnic articles. The bill is just part of our journey towards achieving that, balancing the responsible use and enjoyment of fireworks with the need to protect the public from harm and minimise the disruption and intimidation that such articles can cause.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill.

I feel that we have already had this exchange, but I confirm to Jamie Greene that there was extensive consultation in order to address the points that he is making and that the dates that are included in the bill reflect the dates that were provided to us on which fireworks are traditionally used as part of the celebration. I have also already explained to Jamie Greene that we have retained a power in the bill so that, should any further dates come to light that are not covered, the bill can be updated.

I have already taken one intervention on that point.

Progressing at an accelerated pace allows the important work to implement the bill’s provisions to commence promptly, should the bill be passed. That is paramount to ensuring that further positive change is in place for the people and communities whom we all represent, and who, I am sure, have all made representations to their elected members to say that they have a problem with fireworks, as has been discussed this afternoon.

I will move on to the black market, which was mentioned by a number of members, including Jamie Greene, Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark. It is an important issue, but we considered it fully during the development of the bill by—among other things—looking at other countries that have similar schemes. There is little evidence to suggest that the provisions will lead to an increase in black-market activity. There are established enforcement routes in relation to illegal sales—working with partners including trading standards officers, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service—and in relation to importation of dangerous goods, which is a matter for the UK Government. I will write to the UK Government to set out what we are doing and to urge it to play its part with regard to regulation. I assure members that the situation will be carefully monitored; I hope that members hear what I say on that point.

I disagree with Douglas Lumsden. We consulted on the proposals that are in the bill, and all of them received overwhelming support from the people who responded.

The fee is to cover the administration cost of the licence. We intend to consult further on the level of the fee to ensure that we have engaged thoroughly on the issue. The member and I had a conversation earlier about my view that the fee should be set at a proportionate level, to make sure that that is clear.

As we continue with development of the licensing system, I am committed to engaging with stakeholders, as members would expect. Pauline McNeill said that the bill is too complex and that the public cannot be expected to get to grips with it. I do not agree with her assessment of what the public can cope with, and I do not think that we should underestimate the public’s ability to understand what is required of them. After all, the public must adhere to the laws on driving, for example: those laws can change, but the public manages to get to grips with that. It is not beyond people’s ability to understand what we are proposing.

However, I agree that the law needs to be as simple as possible. We need to ensure that people are able to apply for a licence and that they understand what is expected of them. Therefore, I also agree with the committee that awareness-raising campaigns are crucial. We need to help the public to understand the changes to the law, so I commit to doing that.

Countries approach the matter in different ways. It was helpful to hear from Siobhian Brown about the experience in Sydney, and about how having tighter controls on fireworks is quite routine.

Collette Stevenson mentioned low-noise fireworks, which are an interesting development. They have the potential to address some of the issues, particularly around noise disturbance, so I confirm that I will keep the matter under review. If a standard definition is developed, I will be happy to incorporate it in the legislation by regulation, in the future.

On firework control zones, I confess that I thought that they would take up more time in the debate than they did. I will reflect on the points that were raised by John Mason and others. The decisions that were made around firework control zones were an attempt to balance conflicting interests. We thought that community events are generally well regarded and are a good focus for bonfire night activity, so having them in communities was an attempt to balance interests. The provisions about private displays are an attempt to balance industry interests. Ahead of stage 2, I will reflect on what members have said today.

During the debate, we heard about the significant issues with fireworks that communities and stakeholders, including the emergency services, face each year during the bonfire season. Those issues include unacceptable instances of emergency services workers on the front line, who are trying to protect communities and vulnerable people, being attacked and subjected to public disorder and wider antisocial behaviour. I take the opportunity to reiterate that that is not acceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. The fear, alarm and distress that such behaviour causes have no place in a modern and forward-looking society.