Chamber and committees

There is time in hand.

I thank members for participating in the debate. The need to keep people safe by tackling misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics is abundantly clear and has come out from across the chamber in the debate. That gives us a solid basis for moving forward together constructively.

It is worth reiterating that the bill is a key part of an overarching package of legislative and non-legislative change that is being progressed through the fireworks action plan and our work on pyrotechnics. That work’s purpose is to bring about a cultural shift in Scotland’s relationship with fireworks and pyrotechnics by responding to the calls for increased restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks and pyrotechnics, as we have heard through lengthy consultation and engagement.

I accept that the bill is not a panacea, but it is absolutely central to achieving our objectives of protecting communities from the harm and disturbance of fireworks, and from misused pyrotechnics. That is why we are also taking action through education and awareness raising that build on the work that takes place across Scotland each year. Annual Scottish Government campaigns will support the change in the culture of fireworks.

I will address some of the topics that have been raised this afternoon. Many members, including Pauline McNeill and Jamie Greene, expressed concern about parliamentary timetabling. It is important to address the concerns that have been raised about the accelerated scrutiny timetable that the bill is following.

I accept that the bill is moving at pace and I understand why members have concerns, but I make it clear that the bill follows several years of work—of evidence gathering, multiple consultations and engagement with the public and stakeholders—and it allows us to maintain momentum for the public. Rona Mackay and Stuart McMillan, among others, reminded us that this is what the public want—they want action.

That would be an offence, and I would expect the police to enforce all the offences in the bill. However, the police will exercise judgment in how they go about that. Operational police matters are for Police Scotland.

The bill sets out the core principles about how the licensing scheme will function—it is quite normal to have that in primary legislation—and the administrative details, again quite normally, will be set out in regulations. In order to aid further scrutiny, I have accepted the spirit of what the committees have said to me, and have said that I will change the regulations from negative instruments to affirmative instruments, in order to aid scrutiny and allow members more input to the process. I hope that that will be accepted with good will by members.

For illustrative purposes, the Scottish Government will provide the committee with a mock user journey in advance of stage 2. I hope that that will aid understanding of how the process will work.

The Scottish Government does not hold statistics on the incidence of crimes of dog theft, as data is held only under the type of theft—for example, theft, robbery, theft by housebreaking or shoplifting—not by what is stolen.

Last year, however, the Scottish Government contacted Police Scotland, which confirmed that its internal records showed that 62 cases were recorded in 2019-20, and 88 cases in 2020-21. Police Scotland noted that around a third of those cases were recorded as domestic or ownership disputes, rather than theft for financial gain.

Sanitation is not one of the things for which I am personally responsible.

I will address the issues of crime and young people, youth justice and antisocial behaviour. The Scottish Government is increasing funding for the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. I am sure that the member will be well aware of many of the important and successful initiatives that have been carried out by that body. This year, we have increased funding for the unit by 14 per cent, or over £1 million, to deliver additional violence prevention activity in the area.

The member will also know that the Scottish Government has taken forward the successful whole-system approach to address the needs of young people who are involved in offending. That has contributed to a dramatic change in the way that youth justice is carried out in Scotland, and the number of under-18s who are sentenced has decreased by 93 per cent.

The member has asked a number of questions that I do not think I will be able to answer. I would be happy to meet with him if he wants to discuss more of that in detail.

The member correctly identifies that no single approach will solve the issue. He mentioned youth services. The allocation and planning of resources and services for young people is for local authority partners. However, I understand Mr Sweeney’s concerns and those of the residents of Glasgow about the recent antisocial behaviour in the city and behaviour that is harmful or offending. Such behaviour is unacceptable.

It is important to appreciate that young people have certain rights to associate with one another, whether that is in or outside their home communities. I will ask officials to work closely with leads from the national youth justice advisory group to identify whether there are any gaps in youth service provision. In Scotland, we have a strong focus on early and effective intervention and diversion. Glasgow City Council, the children’s reporter and other relevant agencies are already looking in depth at what they can do about the issue and to offer positive alternatives to antisocial behaviour for young people.

I do not have that data with me today, but I can certainly follow that up with the member in writing. A specific offence of pet theft would of course aid in the data gathering on offending behaviour. However, careful consideration needs to be given to the creation of a different or specific offence. I know that the member is considering introducing a proposal on the issue. That risks creating a large number of very similar offences, covering different types of theft.

I would certainly agree that one theft of a dog is one too many, but I am heartened by the internal figures that I have just shared with the Parliament, showing that dog theft is not a high-volume crime in Scotland, with 88 cases being reported last year. We suspect that that figure of 88 cases—being a slight increase on the year before—is likely to have been driven by the rise in demand for puppies during the coronavirus lockdown.

I am not sure; I would have to give that some thought. I can come back to the member, or perhaps the member and I could meet to discuss the issue further.

Everyone has the right to be and to feel safe in their community. We are aware of reports that young people have been travelling to Glasgow to enjoy the city and connect with other young people; we also know that it is only a minority of young people who are carrying out acts of antisocial behaviour.

The police response will continue to be measured and intelligence led, but robust where appropriate, in order to protect the public and young people and to ensure that businesses and the wider community feel safe in the city centre. That response includes the deployment of anti-disorder patrols, which ensure that there is enough capability to respond to spontaneous incidents; the mobile police office, which provides a physical policing base; and mobile closed-circuit television vehicles, which capture evidence in real time. Local authority community enforcement officers support the police, and city centre exclusion orders can be used to place restrictions on offenders.

As we have discussed already, other parts of the UK are facing similar challenges. The Bellamy review, which concluded recently, recommended a 15 per cent increase in fees on the basis of a comprehensive study that took place with the co-operation of the Law Society down south. We asked the Law Society of Scotland to co-operate with us on a similar analysis, so that we could take a similar evidence-based approach to fees in Scotland, but it did not believe that that process would be of material benefit.

Taking account of the previous two 5 per cent increases, and the further 7.5 per cent offer that we made recently, which has not yet been accepted, the Scottish Government’s offer to the legal profession already exceeds the amount that was recommended by the Bellamy review.