Seòmar agus comataidhean

Cabinet secretary, thank you for outlining the rationale behind the amendment. Initially, on reading it, you might think that you would not want to depart from the general need to get a balanced panel. I am reasonably familiar with the difficulties in getting people to sign up. Will you say more about what the Government will do to correct that, so that we can have mixed panels in the future? How long will the measure be in place before you review it?

I will move this and amendment 1048, convener. I hope that I did not mishear members saying that they would support them.

Amendments 1047 and 1048 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

I strongly support Katy Clark and Jamie Greene in trying to get a commitment from the Government. There needs to be an evidence base not just on the experience of witnesses, victims and the accused, but on the outcome of cases. It is important to have that debate.

I am keen to move amendment 1036, and I will say a few things about why. I would be happy to take an intervention from the cabinet secretary. I want to be clear in my own mind because some of the timescales are confusing.

The Law Society of Scotland is clear. It has been said that

“The physical separation of the accused, their solicitors and the courtroom has had a deleterious impact on the overall process. The separation has made it harder for the solicitors to communicate effectively before and during hearings with the Crown”.

I have not heard anything to indicate that the Government is concerned about that. It is surely not satisfactory in anyone’s book.

If the timescale was shorter, I might say that we should put up with the situation for a bit longer. I need to clarify the timescale. I thought that it was 2023 or, potentially, up to 2025. It would help me a lot to know the answer.

That would be helpful. I am going to take it in good faith that the cabinet secretary knows where I am coming from, just as I know where he is coming from. For Jamie Greene’s benefit, my understanding was that the amendment that I asked to be drafted sought to remove virtual appearances as the default. As it was not my intention not to allow flexibility, I want to be sure about what such an amendment does.

If the Government is willing to open channels and have further discussions—I would, for example, even accept a shorter time period or the Government having much more responsibility to review the provision before 2025—I am, on that basis—

I talked about the licensing scheme, which Jamie Greene’s amendment 90 refers to.

I agree 100 per cent.

To continue the debate that Jamie Greene has begun, it is important to be clear about what we are attempting to do. I make it clear that my amendments in the group are probing amendments, for that reason; I want to hear all the arguments.

The minister made a fair point when she said that a lot of the requirements around dates are already in existence. To be honest, however, I am not sure that members of the public understand that those are the dates on which fireworks are permitted and that some additional dates have been provided. I am happy to be contradicted if I have misunderstood this but, in my mind, bonfire season is in November, when you expect to hear fireworks going off in people’s back gardens more than at any other time of the year.

Even if the dates are in previous legislation, we should debate why the period in which fireworks are permitted is from 27 October to 12 November, which is quite a long period. People might be concerned about the social aspect of fireworks going off in people’s back gardens and the nuisance that it causes. People also want to set off fireworks at new year, so why is one of the dates 26 December, which is not new year? I am just probing the issue. I know that those are the existing dates, but what is the logic of that?

I will take a slightly different tack from the one that Jamie Greene has taken. My understanding is that the dates have been chosen not necessarily to capture all religious festivals but to capture festivals, whether they are religious or not, that have a traditional firework element to them. I am happy to be more informed on what those festivals are. I am aware that the minister was asked in Parliament why Eid is not included, and I felt satisfied with her answer. I would be concerned if Eid was included, because there is more than one Eid and the dates move. Given that the dates of other festivals also move, we can see why we need to debate the issue. How will the public understand on which dates setting off fireworks is an offence and on which dates it is not?

On the basis that I think that the minister said that the issue is covered in the bill, I will not move amendment 5.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 24—Compensation for specialist firework businesses affected by section 22

Amendment 9 is again about firework control zones. It relates to who can make representations in order to apply a control zone. I am concerned about situations in which a local authority chooses not to apply a control zone. There is other legislation—for example, on rent pressure zones—in which local authorities are the only bodies that can decide to apply a zone. People might be asking for a zone, but there is nothing that they can do about it. In this case, I think that ordinary people should be able to make representations to their local authority that a control zone is needed. Of course, it will ultimately be for the local authority to decide, but it is in tune with the notion of community empowerment that people should have a say, and the bill does not currently allow for that.

I am very keen for community bodies that are not already covered by the bill to have a right to put the matter in front of the local authority. I am seeking to find more than one route to a control zone, with a route other than the local authority being the sole initiator, if you like. The local authority will be the arbitrator in making a final decision as to whether a zone is justified. However, given the nature of the bill, the widespread public interest in it and people’s concerns about fireworks in their communities, it makes sense for individuals to be able to make representations.

I move amendment 9.

In summary, I am disappointed that one of the reasons for the minister not supporting my amendment is that it would place a resource burden on local authorities. I would argue that we must strike a balance in what is a serious piece of much-needed legislation. Of course some burden will be placed on local authorities.

Unfortunately for back-bench members, because we had to lodge amendments in a very short timescale, there may well be flaws in our amendments that might not exist in the Government’s amendments. However, I do not think that that is a good enough reason for the minister to reject amendment 9. I accept that it might not be drafted perfectly, but its purpose is clear.

I feel really strongly about the issue. If we were to pass the bill such that only local authorities, and not communities, could initiate the designation of a firework control zone, that would go against the grain of what we are trying to do.