Chamber and committees

Violent crime is a serious problem and it blights many lives. I know from my work in and with the women’s movement that that form of crime is often gendered. It is a way of men expressing power over women. We see it, also, in the corporate negligence that leads to all too many deaths and in the racism that is endemic in our society. It is a form of crime that we should all condemn.

However, it is important that we understand the causes of crime. If we do so, we can better understand how to tackle it. The evidence is clear: the higher the level of inequality in a society, the higher the level of crime. That is why we cannot solve the problems of crime without addressing poverty and inequality.

The work of Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson sets out in devastating detail how closely related levels of violent crime are to inequality. That is why, as long as we have a Westminster Government that acts consistently to increase inequality through measures such as the increase in national insurance contributions, we are fighting an uphill battle to reduce violent crime.

We know that inequality drives a wide range of other social problems, too, so equality is good for everyone. Our policy approaches to justice must reflect that. That is why a whole-Government approach is necessary.

The Labour amendment rightly points to the role of the violence reduction unit in tackling violent crime. The key is that that approach is not enforcement led but understands the contexts in which people live. That must be central to any serious approach to reducing violent crime. Creating a culture where men are not violent to women, a culture that gives people opportunities and hope rather than driving them to substance misuse, and a culture where community and individual health and safety is taken seriously will be much more effective at reducing violent crime than the measures that Jamie Greene champions.

What is to be done? We need to have more space, time and support in public services for the sort of innovation that led to the establishment of the VRU. We know that support in the early years can have lifelong benefits, including reducing offending and reducing the propensity for someone to be a victim of crime. We know that interventions such as the circles of support and accountability programme can help offenders to avoid reoffending. We know that the work of organisations such as Families Outside can help to resettle offenders and reduce offending. We must find ways to allow public service workers to take those steps and to encourage voluntary action to support projects such as those run by Families Outside, Circles UK and many others.

We must also seek a genuine approach to reducing dependence on drugs and the violence associated with their supply. Again, that is a policy area on which we need co-operation from the UK Government, not the head-in-the-sand carceral approach that it favours.

I echo Audrey Nicoll’s acknowledgement of the Space art Scotland project that is currently in the exhibition space outside the chamber. An artist who was involved in that creative project said:

“Hope is something that prison steals from you. Art is something that restores the broken mind.”

We need hope. We need a society-wide approach to reducing inequality. From that will flow a reduction in violent crime, as well as so many other benefits. A more equal society is better for everyone.

We need to see violent crime as something that happens in a context and is the result of our decisions as a society, as well as seeing it as the actions of offenders. That means that we need to take responsibility for those decisions. The Scottish Government’s strategy moves us in the right direction, but in a context where there is much that we cannot control. I accept Jamie Greene’s concern about violent crime, but we need to use all the levers that are available to us, including those that are controlled by Westminster—not least the levers to reduce poverty and inequality. I hope that Jamie Greene will join us in calls to have those levers devolved to this Parliament.

I thank everyone for coming, especially the people in the gallery. I also thank everyone who contributed to the work of the committee in drafting the stage 1 report, which we discussed in the chamber a few weeks ago.

On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I, like others, really welcome the bill. It is a whole-hearted welcome, but one that is tinged with sadness. I wish that the bill had come years ago and that it covered the whole of the United Kingdom, not Scotland only. I hope that other legislatures in the UK will follow suit.

I agree with comments that others have made around the importance of standing in solidarity with trade unions and with workers who are on strike and who are seeking to improve conditions for themselves and for those who come after them. The bill allows us not only to express that solidarity but to take stock of where things have gone wrong in the past. In itself, the pardon is very important.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the work that he has put into the amendments that we are discussing. As a committee, we have pushed him into lodging some of those amendments and that shows that it has been a positive, constructive discussion. I thank him for that. I am more than happy to support the amendments in the cabinet secretary’s name.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for the comments that she made in relation to her amendments. I hope that over the next few weeks we can talk about how we incorporate the spirit of what she is trying to achieve in those amendments at stage 3. However, this morning, I will support the amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Can I bring in Stuart Mackinnon on that question, and on the question about infrastructure? What are your members telling you about what is or is not there?

Good morning, panel, and thank you for being here. I just want to follow on from Colin Beattie’s questions about skills and training by looking at that issue with regard to retail businesses themselves. Peter Mowforth and Carolyn Currie have both talked about the lack of skills in that respect, but I also note that, according to the digital economy business survey, only 50 per cent of businesses seem to have any interest in training their own teams. What do we need to do to shift that? Linked to that, is one of the barriers or one of the things slowing everything down a lack of adequate access on our high streets to the digital infrastructure that businesses and wholesale providers need? Perhaps Carolyn Currie can respond first.

You said that 7 per cent of the support that Business Gateway offered last year through the digital boost programme was to the retail sector. Can you tell us a bit more about that and about the challenges that the retail sector brought to you as you supported it? I have a couple of follow-up questions, but I will start with that one.

From what we heard in the earlier discussion, there seems to be a gap between the huge range of support that you provide and the support that retail businesses seek, whether they are bricks-based only or bricks-and-clicks based. Does Business Gateway have any future plans to reach out to retail and other town centre businesses more directly to enable them to access the support that you provide? Should we be aware of any geographical areas that you have identified as places where no support is sought at all?

The Clinterty Travellers site in Aberdeen is already at capacity. Although there are redevelopment plans, which are much needed and welcomed, the improvements will not increase capacity or tackle waiting lists. Will the Scottish Government consider implementing statutory reporting on delivery plans, site provision and waiting list actions, so that a fuller picture can be provided of the community’s needs? Can the Scottish Government do more to recognise ancestral stopping sites? That might help to address some of the issues that the community faces.

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is giving to local authorities for expanding the provision of sites for Roma/Traveller communities and reducing time on waiting lists. (S6O-01036)

We do not have the powers in Scotland to legislate for a full ban as we would see it. That is why I see the bill as a step in the right direction—it is only a step.

I return to the harm that is experienced by animals. We understand that clearly in the case of our companion animals—our pets—so we can also understand that other animals are similarly affected. We should be concerned for their welfare, too.

As we have heard, there are grave concerns about the safe use of fireworks. We have recently seen some of the damage that the misuse of fireworks can cause at mass gatherings, such as sporting events. There are also important health and safety considerations for our emergency services: they should not be put at risk of injury by the misuse or abuse of those explosives. Fireworks should never be used as weapons against any living creature, human or otherwise.

I have heard the concerns that committee members and others have raised about the timescale for the passage of the bill through the parliamentary process. I too would like to see more information on and the detail of the licensing system and fees involved, the definition and allocation of control zones, the training that will be required to qualify to use fireworks and pyrotechnics, and more. There have been some interesting contributions, including from Colette Stevenson, about exploring the use of low-noise fireworks and ensuring that fireworks are clearly labelled with their decibel levels. I hope that the minister will comment on that in closing.

I agree with Rona Mackay and others: there is general agreement that we need to do more to protect public and community safety, and the wellbeing of our pets and other animals, and that people want the anti-social use of fireworks that is becoming more prevalent in our communities to stop now. I look forward to working with others across the chamber as scrutiny of the bill progresses.

I thank the Criminal Justice Committee for all the work that went into its scrutiny of and report on the bill. I have followed the committee’s discussions and deliberations with interest.

I thank, too, all the people who gave evidence to the committee and those who provided briefings and information in advance of the debate, particularly the animal welfare charities. It will not come as a surprise to members that, as a member of the cross-party group on animal welfare and as someone who is totally soppy about animals, I have strong opinions about fireworks and their use.

On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the bill’s introduction to the Parliament and support its general principles. We believe that fireworks ought to be more strongly regulated to ensure that they are used by appropriate people at appropriate times, for the benefit of as many people as possible, while minimising distress as much as possible.

Although regulation of sale is reserved to Westminster, there are steps that can be taken now to achieve stronger regulation in Scotland. The bill takes a step in the right direction by further limiting the sale and use of fireworks and pyrotechnics. We would like it to go further, as our policy is to stop public sales to individuals entirely. However, we will work constructively over the coming weeks to make the legislation as robust as possible.

We have heard already the varied uses of fireworks and pyrotechnics, from the spectacular and celebratory to the functional. Most of us will have encountered and perhaps even enjoyed fireworks around Chinese new year, Diwali and, of course, Hogmanay. Fireworks clearly play an important role in cultural and religious celebrations across Scotland in many different communities.

However, we have also heard about some of the negative impacts of fireworks. Although firework displays are traditional at certain festivals in the year, they are dangerous explosive devices that cause significant amounts of distress to many people, to pets and their owners and to other animals with whom we share our world. Many of us dread certain times of the year that should be celebratory and fun.

There is a wealth of evidence that fireworks can and do cause significant detrimental effects to the health and wellbeing of many people and animals—not just pets but wildlife. Some neurodiverse people and those with stress disorders, panic disorders or sensory disabilities are negatively triggered by fireworks, and the negative impact on pets is well understood. I will not be alone in having personal experience of that: when I was a child, one of our much-loved family pet dogs ran away from home after being terrified by a nearby fireworks display. We were lucky: we found Roly after only four days and, somehow, he had avoided physical harm. However, others are not so lucky.

The briefings and evidence that have been provided by the Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, the SSPCA and others outline the grave psychological and physical harms that are experienced by animals as a consequence of the proper and improper use of fireworks. I stress that harm is caused by all use of fireworks.