Chamber and committees

I will take both interventions in a second. I want to make my point first.

If you want to put that provision in the bill, which is about bail, not sentencing, there are other mechanisms for doing so. Whatever your views are of the Scottish Sentencing Council, it exists. Other directions can be given to judges for when they consider sentencing.

The provisions in section 5 do not lie within the parameters of what the bill is all about. Part 1 is about changes to the bail test—we have had a full conversation about that—and part 2 is about what happens when someone is released. The bill is not about sentencing; it never has been. I do not know where the idea came from, but I think that it is quite bonkers. I am happy to have a proper chat with other members about it.

I was not sure whether we could speak to the group before the amendment was moved. That is the normal way to do it.

I move amendment 67.

Perhaps I can use the opportunity to speak about the rationale for that.

The point is echoed by the commentary from victims organisations. With serial or repeat offenders, there is a history. It might not necessarily be relevant to the case that is in front of the court when a decision has to be made about remand, but it might well be. I guess that the victims organisations seek some comfort and security that that will still be a factor somehow.

The question is how existing legislation or the bill provides for that and how we ensure that it does not remove the judge’s ability to consider a pattern of behaviour—domestic abuse is a good example—and say that, because of that pattern, perhaps with other parties or previous partners, there might be a risk to the complainer in the case that is in front of them on the day. Is it technically possible and legal to do that? Is there a mechanism for that information to be made available to the judge when he has to make the remand decision?

The victims organisations have a valid concern. I am not sure whether the statement that has just been given will give them any comfort. We will not know until after the meeting, of course.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Is it the plan that, using intelligence, the police will stop and search prior to entry to the stadium? If fireworks, pyrotechnics, flares or other devices are found on persons, will they be denied entry and the items removed, or will the items be removed but the persons still be allowed entry to the football game? I ask in order to be clear.

Would they actually be charged at that time?

I am sure that we will all support that.

In the policy briefings that came with the SSIs, the sections on the financial effects for each instrument state:

“The Minister for Community Safety confirms that ... the instrument has no financial effects on the Scottish Government, local government or on business.”

I have two questions on that. First, multiple ministers have claimed that the financial effects of the legislation were the cause of the delay. That seems to contradict what we are asked to do today. Clearly, there is a financial effect, so I refer to the passing of the act in 2022. What did the financial memorandum claim as the forecasted cost of the legislation? Has it crept up since then? If so, will you provide some numbers? If you do not have that information to hand, I will be happy for you to write to the committee.

Given how difficult it is to bring charges and achieve convictions and successful prosecutions, and that we already have a wide-ranging set of laws prohibiting misuse of such devices, would the Government support a lengthy or lifetime ban from entering a football stadium anywhere in Scotland as a deterrent or incentive not to bring devices into sporting stadiums? Will the Government actively discuss that with clubs?

I dare say. We heard lots of evidence on some of the localised issues. Do you not think that there may be slight confusion among the public, because they are getting the legislation in a very piecemeal way? There was the aggravator offence around attacking emergency service workers, which I will not go into today. There was the banning of sale to minors, then the firework control zones, then the banning of pyrotechnics and flares. Then there is the restricted sale, purchase and use. All that is taking place at different times and in different places. Is there a risk that we are undermining the underlying objective of the legislation by causing confusion around what people can and cannot do? A lot of people simply do not know what the rules are.

That is great.

I have questions on a few other bits and bobs. The first is about the public awareness campaign. The provisions will commence in June this year, but the committee passed the bill last year. Would it not have been helpful to start the public awareness campaign a little earlier? Is there any reason why it has been delayed until after the commencement of the legislation?