Chamber and committees

Exactly. As far as police officers’ mental health is concerned, do you feel that there is enough support in the police service for officers who find it hard to deal with such really difficult situations?

As the minister said, the Scottish Government has already taken steps to improve transparency by introducing the organisational duty of candour in 2018. Will the minister outline the further steps that the Scottish Government is taking to improve transparency and to further strengthen public confidence in the police? As she has suggested, when the standard of delivery in public services falls short, individuals and their families should rightly be able to get answers and justice.

The Conservative Party’s motion reads a bit like a hit list of top Tory grumbles, with no coherent thread: it throws a multitude of subjects up into the air and lets them land to form a motion. I will try to address each area, but I have limited time to expand in detail.

First, crime is down 40 per cent since 2006-2007, and it is at one of the lowest levels since records began in 1974. I will focus on numbers for a minute. Despite cuts from the central budget in Westminster, the SNP has protected Scotland’s police officers, with around 32 officers per 10,000 of the population in Scotland, compared with around 23 in England and Wales. Plus, Scotland’s officers are the best paid in the UK, with a new constable in Scotland having a starting salary of £26,737, compared with—

No, thank you.

That compares with £21,654 in England. The 2022-2023 policing budget provides a total investment of more than £1.4 billion, and a total of £3.1 billion will be invested in the justice system to strengthen front-line services.

The motion claims that hours of community sentences have been written off or have not been carried out yet, which completely ignores the fact that we are emerging from a two-year pandemic when it was impossible to carry on business as usual—but why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Organised crime and domestic abuse are serious problems—about that there is no argument. However, the Tories are well aware of on-going work in those areas, with organised crime high on the list of the Criminal Justice Committee’s priorities and our exemplary record of funding and fighting the scourge of domestic abuse, where there is much that is still to be done.

The Tories’ tired mantra of “soft justice” is wearing thin and it simply does not wash. There are more than 8,000 people in prison or on remand. Scotland incarcerates more people than any other country in Europe. Do the Tories really want to keep doing that? Has it not moved on from its “lock ’em up and throw away the key” thinking? We know that prison does not work for the majority of offenders.

The Scottish Government’s vision for justice, which has been debated recently in the chamber, has been widely welcomed by stakeholders, including the legal profession and third sector organisations. We are working towards a far more effective and enlightened justice system. As we have heard, the Criminal Justice Committee this morning visited the Wise Group in Glasgow, which runs a throughcare mentoring service that works with prison leavers to help them to reintegrate into society and examine what led them into the criminal justice system in the first place. That organisation does amazing work, through its new routes initiative and calls for early intervention, alternatives to custody and simply giving offenders a second chance to have the life that we all aspire to.

In its chaotic motion, the Conservatives appear to prejudge the forthcoming bail and release bill, which, again, has been widely welcomed by stakeholders.

Victims do matter. Our new vision places victims at the heart of the justice system, and I am pleased to see that, with the move to alternative sentencing, there is an increased investment of £47.2 million in community justice, which has a crucial part in the transformation. There is no question but that dangerous criminals who pose a risk to the public will always be given a jail sentence. That will not change. I think that the Tories know that to be the case, but are deliberately misinforming the public.

The Scottish Government’s vision for justice will transform the way that justice is done, making it fit for the 21st century. We will ensure that services are person centred and trauma informed and focus on early intervention and alternatives to custody for people who are not putting the public at risk. The Tories really should join us in progressing that enlightened vision for justice instead of talking it down.

To ask the Scottish Government when it last held talks with the United Kingdom Government to discuss devolving immigration powers to Scotland. (S6O-01043)

I thank the minister for that answer. My office manager and his husband have been asked by a Ukrainian family friend to sponsor their 16-year-old while his parents are trapped in the Donbas region. It has been 10 days since the application was submitted, and they are still waiting on an update from the Home Office. Does the minister agree with me that powers over immigration must be devolved to Scotland, so that we can waive the requirement for visas and allow refugees to get here as quickly and safely as possible?

Obviously, legislation will have to work, and we will have the chance for scrutiny at stage 2. It is quite clear that the public just want us to take action now. It is clear that something had to be done about the burgeoning use of fireworks, which were, at one time, set off only on 5 November but are now being used regularly throughout the year.

Let us start at the beginning. The purpose of the bill is to protect public and community safety and wellbeing by ensuring that fireworks and pyrotechnics do not cause harm, distress or serious injury, because, unfortunately, that is all too often what they do.

The bill introduces a cultural shift in how fireworks and pyrotechnics are used in Scotland, and it is a cultural shift that the people of Scotland clearly want. Speaking personally, I would have preferred the changes to mean licensing for organised displays only, but it is not within the Scottish Government’s powers to ban the purchase of fireworks, as consumer law is not fully devolved to Scotland.

The bill that we are debating today will introduce licensing, restrictions on the supply and use of fireworks and pyrotechnic articles and firework control zones, designate certain venues or events and deal with exemptions and enforcement. There is a lot in there, and six minutes is not long enough for me to go into detail on every aspect.

As we have heard, most provisions will be introduced next year, but the bill is being fast-tracked in order to plug a gap in current legislation and ban the proxy sale of fireworks or pyrotechnics to young people under the age of 18 this year.

It is crucially important for the Scottish Government to respond to the wishes of the public, and this bill is the start of a framework, developed in conjunction with the independent firework review group, that will shift the landscape for the public buying and using fireworks for years to come.

The committee asked why it was not possible to introduce this year’s relatively minor provision by secondary legislation, but the Fireworks Act 2003 relates to commercial supply and, again, is reserved to the UK Government. However, as I said earlier, that will be of little or no interest to the general public, who just want us to get on and do something.

The committee heard compelling evidence from Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the SSPCA and the National Autistic Society Scotland, all of which supported restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks, and here is why: neurodiverse people, war veterans, the elderly and, of course, pet owners and livestock owners dread the noise and disruption that fireworks cause. Whole neighbourhoods sound like war zones, and the emergency services are on high alert. I vividly remember the terror that my dogs went through with each ear-splitting bang. Fireworks might be lovely to look at, but why do they need to be so loud and disturbing? Is all that noise and distress really worth it?

That brings me to a line of questioning that my colleague Collette Stevenson articulately pursued around the possibility of the widened use of silent fireworks. I am sure that Collette Stevenson will address that when she speaks, so I will leave her to expand on that.

As we have heard, there is increasing evidence of antisocial behaviour relating to fireworks, which is why the legislation is necessary. On a committee visit to Blackburn in West Lothian, members heard of serious antisocial behaviour relating to fireworks in certain areas. Something had to be done. However, there are aspects of the bill that need clarification and simplification, particularly around licensing, the no-firework zones and enforcement. I am sure that more on all that will come out at stage 2, and the minister has said that she will listen to views on no-firework zones.

As our report says, much of the detail around those aspects, which are planned for next year, was not available to the committee. The committee asked for those provisions to be proposed under the super-affirmative procedure in order to afford proper scrutiny. I am disappointed that the Government chose not to do that; however, the affirmative procedure will allow some scrutiny.

There are issues around avoiding a potential black market, which is just one of the concerns that were highlighted by representatives of the fireworks industry when they gave evidence. The Government has said that trading standards and the new licensing laws will combat that issue, but it still needs careful monitoring.

There might also be issues with public confusion, and I agree with Pauline McNeill’s point about when people can buy and set off fireworks. It is also vital that the licence fee is reasonable and affordable, and that the regulations are enforced. I note that the Government is committed to introducing a mock user journey of the licensing system ahead of stage 3, to set out in more practical terms how the system is planned to work, which I welcome. It is essential that the Government launches a large public awareness campaign so that people understand the new legislation from the outset.

As the convener said, the committee will work with the Government on the next crucial stages of the bill to clarify some of the concerns. The Government wants people to enjoy fireworks safely and to reduce the public nuisance that they are becoming. This is the start of the journey towards making firework use safer and less intrusive for everyone, and I urge members to pass the general principles of the bill at decision time.

I thank Russell Findlay for bringing this important debate to the chamber today. As a fellow former journalist, this is a subject that is very close to my heart, too.

Freedom of the press is the foundation of any democracy. Speaking truth to power and exposing injustice would not be possible without that basic right for journalists working throughout the world. On world press freedom day, it is entirely right that we should pay tribute to the 1,516 journalists who have been killed in the line of duty working to bring truth to the public. Those men and women put themselves on the front line in the pursuit of truth and they paid with their lives. We must also remember, among many, Lyra McKee, a young journalist from Northern Ireland, cruelly shot and killed in 2019 during rioting in Derry. It was a senseless death, in her home town, of a remarkable young woman with a commitment to peace and a will to end the strife and tension in her troubled country.

The war in Ukraine is the starkest illustration of just how necessary media freedom is. At the end of last month, at least 14 journalists and media workers had been killed in the line of duty in Ukraine, and I fear that that figure will rise until that horrible conflict is over. With the gagging of the press in Russia, the people there are being hoodwinked and manipulated by a deranged despot who is exercising complete power over the media, and thousands of civilians are dying as a result. That is what happens when the media lose their freedom to tell the truth.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom to have outstanding journalists covering the conflict. We watch them in their protective gear every night from the comfort of our homes, and I think that we all owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their bravery and commitment to the work they do. Of course, we have excellent journalists in Scotland who get to the heart of vital issues in the public interest, with outstanding investigative journalism on a huge range of issues—Mark Daly, Marion Scott, Shelley Jofre, Sam Poling, Alan Little, to name just a few. The Ferret is an award-winning investigative journalism platform for Scotland and beyond, and we have superb writers such as Joyce McMillan, Dani Garavelli and David Pratt, who is also a photo-journalist of outstanding ability. I could go on and on, but time will not allow.

My 25-year journalistic career was in newspapers, and I look back on that with huge fondness, while realising that I was fortunate to work at a time when newspaper circulation was high and good-quality journalism and editing was valued and rewarded with realistic salaries and good terms and conditions. I agree with everything that Russell Findlay said about this issue. I thought he articulated it very well and summed it up exactly as it is now, sadly. I only hope that the new generation of journalists are not corrupted by values that are held by certain so-called newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, which seems to believe that, in 2022, it is acceptable to produce misogynistic, offensive nonsense that demeans the profession and women. Freedom of the press should never mean the freedom to abuse and offend people in public life, such as Angela Rayner, or any other citizen, by any means at all.

In conclusion, I thank Russell Findlay again for bringing this debate to the chamber. Our hard-working and brave journalists should be proud of their profession and their commitment to bringing truth in the public interest. The world is a better place for their work, and freedom of the press should never be compromised in a civilised society.

As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I am pleased to be speaking in today’s stage 1 debate. The bill is a complex one, with many moving parts, so I thank the committee clerks and the bill team for turning the stage 1 report around so quickly. It truly was a herculean effort. I also thank the minister for responding to the report in time for today’s debate.

We have heard in the opening speeches about the challenges that the bill presented to the committee, and there are challenges surrounding the fast-tracking of the bill. However, in all honesty, I do not believe that the general public care very much about our parliamentary processes; they just want the noise and annoyance of fireworks going off in their neighbourhoods with increasing regularity to stop. We know that to be true from the public consultation that was carried out in 2019, which returned 16,420 responses, 94 per cent of which said that increased control of the use of fireworks would be welcome.

To follow on from the last question, can the cabinet secretary confirm that community and stakeholder engagement to promote Scotland’s census will continue until the end of May?