Chamber and committees

I have a final question. I am absolutely playing devil’s advocate, because we have heard evidence about attacks on emergency services and the effect that they have on a community. Everyone acknowledges and accepts that those attacks are abhorrent, but people will question whether we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Is there a reason why we are introducing laws to restrict the purchase, sale and use of fireworks across the whole of the population when it is a minority of people who misuse and abuse them, in the same way that a minority of people misuse kitchen knives or alcohol, and third party objects are used to fuel antisocial behaviour? Are we punishing the majority because of the minority? That is a valid question that we will have to answer as the bill progresses.

Perhaps the problem here arises in the move from simple possession of a pyrotechnic to possession while

“travelling to, in the immediate vicinity of ... a designated venue ... or ... a public procession, or ... a public assembly.”

Public processions and assemblies happen in public places such as George Square or Princes Street. The fact that the term “travelling to” is so vague is perhaps part of the problem. After all, anyone could reasonably say that they were not “travelling to” a venue or procession. That would be the immediate defence; it would be argued that what was illegal was not possession of the item itself, but possessing it while “travelling to” an event. Is that the sort of vagueness that you are trying to avoid?

To be honest, I think that these questions are probably for the minister, but I get the impression that the problem that we are trying to fix is people chucking flares at football games or certain religious processions.

As no one else has a view on that, I will move on to the issue of giving flexibility to local authorities, which you mentioned.

Do you think that it would be beneficial if, outwith the sale and use periods that are defined in the bill, individuals, groups and organisations, religious or otherwise, could apply, on a local authority by local authority basis, for exceptions for specific events under the other measures in the scheme? I am thinking, for example, of the Edinburgh festival, jubilee celebrations or other events at other dates and times that may be outwith the defined periods. That might make it easier to cover the issue of people who may feel excluded because of the very specific and narrow periods that have been included in the bill. Would there be any benefit to that?

I hope that I am not taking your question, Fulton, although I have no idea what you are going to ask. I will try not to do that again.

This is a similar line of questioning to the one that I took with the previous panel of witnesses. The majority of people use fireworks safely, enjoy their use and do not purchase or use them with the intent of causing violence or harm to others or engaging in antisocial behaviour. It could be argued that we are restricting the sale, purchase and use of something because of the actions of a minority in society who do not respect the rules of normal social behaviour or the law. What would you say to that argument?

We have had evidence from people who sell fireworks—normally, they are sold in traditional family-run small businesses—who say that the best place to sell fireworks is in a controlled place such as that, because they know who their customers are. They see the customers and could check for licences, if such a scheme is put in place. They could check people’s age, identity and so on and make individual decisions whereas, if they go bust because the bill shuts down their business or restricts it to the point of making it commercially unviable, that will fuel the black market, which none of us wants. Does anyone have a view on that?

I can vouch for the fact that your dog running on to the road is the most terrifying moment of your life—it is horrific.

Rob, do you have any comments on the points that I was making?

On 21 March, most, if not all, Covid-related emergency measures will be relaxed in Scotland, so why do ministers need another two and a bit years of powers to extend time limits other than simply as a result of the backlog? The power is not necessarily directly related to health emergencies; it is simply a means to the end of clearing the backlog and ensuring that cases do not time out. That is a fair criticism.

That is helpful. I am all for consultation, as the cabinet secretary knows.

Some of the other issues raised were about the practicalities. We have heard criticism of how some business has been conducted virtually or electronically. The main gripe from the defence sector seems to be about the inability to work one to one with an accused—the inability to sit with them in the same room and counsel them appropriately. Has that concern been taken on board? There seemed to be much disagreement among the members of the earlier panel about how much of a problem that is for solicitors or the bar, who seem to think that the whole thing is just an unmitigated disaster, according to the evidence that has been given to us. On the other hand, other witnesses seem to think that it has been an unmitigated success.

I do not know where the reality sits; it seems to be one witness’s word against another. Where does the Government think the reality sits?

I do not—it is not a rhetorical question; I do not know the answer. I am sorry that I missed the figures you gave earlier.

That is helpful, as was your analysis of the differences.

I have a wider question for the cabinet secretary. As a society, we are—to use the phrase that is used—learning to live with Covid. As you said, there were 11,000 cases yesterday, but we are heading on a path that involves moving away from restrictions and, we hope, life being back to normal in as much as it can be, although Covid will still be around.

That does not seem to be the case in the prison environment, where higher levels of restrictions are being maintained relative to those for wider society. Is that a proportionate use of temporary powers, given that we in society are no longer in a temporary emergency and are simply living with a long-term pandemic, with the virus becoming endemic?