Seòmar agus comataidhean

I envisage that the provision will result in an overall reduction in the number of fireworks going off and in the unpredictable and sporadic nature of that. However, I take your point about the use of private displays. I am open to considering the Parliament’s view on that. I am particularly interested to see what the committee says about that provision in its report.

We considered that. In a moment, I will ask David Bell to explain the process that we went through to get to the point that we are now at.

The misuse of pyrotechnics is a growing problem at certain events and in certain places. That was evidenced to us by Police Scotland, so we were really keen to get a provision in the bill that worked to address that. There are gaps in the existing legislation in relation to the carrying and possession of pyrotechnics, which might inhibit the police from taking proactive and preventative action before a situation becomes dangerous and difficult to control. That is key, and that is what we seek to achieve with the provision.

In 2017, Police Scotland had a working group on the issue, which presented recommendations. In 2021, the Scottish Government hosted stakeholder discussions, which proposed

“an offence of being in possession of a pyrotechnic in a public place without a reasonable excuse or lawful authority”.

That proposal was considered and consulted on as part of the 2021 consultation. However, when we were developing the bill, we felt that there was potential for unintended consequences to arise from the wider provisions in the bill as it was drafted at that time. There was potential that it would deter the legitimate and necessary use of pyrotechnic articles for personal safety, such as visual distress signals. That became a concern, so we thought that a more specific offence should be developed, which resulted in the provision that is now in the bill.

Perhaps David Bell will add some more details.

I feel that we have already answered that question; it is very similar to the question that Russell Findlay asked about enforcement and statistics. In fact, Elinor Findlay has already read out those statistics, and we have said—

The scale of the problem is not limited to enforcement and the number of people who would end up in prison. That is not how people in Scotland would characterise it.

The 2019 evidence review.

No, I do not.

Lots of lawyers are still doing legal aid work. This measure represents an attempt to listen to what the profession is saying, and it puts a significant amount of Government funding into legal aid. We take the matter very seriously.

Thank you for that question. One of the instruments that is before the committee today includes, as well as the 5 per cent uplift, a new payment—a supplementary fee for holiday custody courts. That is a direct attempt by the Government to address the matter, having listened to solicitors who told us that they wanted that. Solicitors who work in holiday custody courts have not been getting an additional payment, so if the committee agrees to recommend the instrument, they will get additional money. We listen constantly to the profession. As I have said, we will adjust fees where we think that doing so will have an impact.

You mentioned civil legal aid. I know that this is quite confusing, because we are talking about lots of different things. In the reforms package that we have developed and put in front of the profession on Monday, and on which the committee will have seen correspondence, there are proposals on solemn and summary courts. The proposals on solemn courts represent significant additional funding, which is a response to requests from the profession to change fee rates and so on. We have done that. In a minute, I will ask Denise Swanson to explain a little more about that.

In discussion, it was—I note for the committee’s information—agreed that the civil side would be left to a later date. That is not to say that we think that everything is fine on that front; we have made a commitment to go back to look at fee reforms for the civil side.

I would, therefore, like the committee to think of this more as a starting point; we are starting here and will continue to consult the profession about changes. We are putting money in: the reform package that we have put on the table this week represents several million pounds of additional funding. I ask Denise Swanson to add a little more on that.

I do not know whether you caught our earlier in-depth discussion about those points. I regularly meet representatives of the profession; I met the chief executive of the Law Society yesterday. Those are full and frank discussions; there are no holds barred. The profession talks to the Government and tells us what it perceives to be the issues. We then have to assess the evidence and make policy decisions based on that.

We have listened to the profession, which is why we have given the uplifts that we have given over the past few years. We know that the legal profession, among other businesses and industries, has been impacted by the pandemic, so we sought to give it additional resilience funding.

I accept that the profession feels very strongly about the matter. The Law Society is right to strongly represent its profession and to try to get the best deal. That is completely legitimate. We have talked about the spending review as one way for the Government to decide on priorities and on how to allocate spending across the board. My job is to try to find a way through the matter and to make fee reforms where they will be of benefit.

The instruments that are in front of the committee represent a significant investment. Before Jamie Greene arrived, we had a discussion about the funding package, of which I hope he has been able to see some details. That funding is additional to what is in the instruments.

I am listening to the profession and I am doing my utmost to respond to the concerns that it raises. My officials work with the profession weekly to develop fee packages to respond to concerns that it has raised. I have been trying to work on that over the past year. For instance, holiday custody courts were raised with us; I wanted to resolve that issue so that practitioners who work in those courts get a supplementary payment. That is one of the measures that is in front of the committee.

I have said before and am happy to say again that my door is open. I am willing to talk with the profession and to work with it on fee reforms. That is what we will continue to do.

A 5 per cent uplift is included in one of the sets of regulations that are before the committee—that was a commitment that the Government made during Covid. I will run through what the Government has done in that regard over the past few years. We made a 3 per cent uplift in 2019 and the 5 per cent uplift in 2021 to which I have already referred. There is the 5 per cent uplift for 2022 that is in front of the committee today, and we have put £1 million into funding 40 trainees, which was in response to issues that the profession raised with us about capacity. The training was an attempt to go some way towards finding a solution to that issue. We also invested £9 million in Covid resilience grants.

In general, the Scottish Government considers the profession to be a partner with us in access to justice, in running the courts system and, because of the pandemic, in addressing the backlog, particularly in the criminal courts. The Government is attempting to demonstrate how much we value the profession by continuing to uplift the fees.

We are also working on packages of fee reforms, one of which we referenced in a letter to the committee—we are developing that at the moment. The full package of fee reforms has gone to representatives of the profession—I think that was last week, was it?