���˿���

The Crown agent should be given flexibility to change their mind on the day—notwithstanding what it says in the centrally marked papers—if further information that is relevant to the complainer or the victim comes to light during proceedings, and many of us have tried to insert that into the bill through amendments. The Crown might choose to oppose bail on the day, and it should have that power and flexibility. Whether or not the agent has the confidence and experience to do so is an entirely different matter; as we know, that is a whole other kettle of fish. Equally, the Crown might choose not to oppose bail, given further information that comes to light up until the point of the hearing. We know that they rattle through cases speedily on the day—there are many cases to get through—so I am not entirely convinced that everyone is in receipt of all the information that is needed.

Amendment 62 takes it a little bit further, because it says that the prosecutor

“must give the court opinion as to any risk of something occurring”

so that the court can make a consideration on what the impact of granting an offender bail would be.

In essence, all my amendments seek to strengthen the process so that victims’ rights are at the heart of decision making. As drafted, the bill does not do that. I hope that the Government will be open to that, because I am not the only one asking for it. It is not only the judiciary that has voiced concerns; victims organisations have as well. They are on the record as saying that—it is all in the stage 1 report and in the evidence that the committee received.

I am happy to look at amendments 61 and 62 if they are problematic on a technical level. That is absolutely fine, and I am willing to talk to the cabinet secretary about that. However, my other amendments in the group would give judges the flexibility that they need; it cannot be an “and” situation. The new two-step test will tie the hands of judges. It is up to the Government to explain why it does not.

I will let other members speak to their amendments in the group.

Okay. I am just checking my statistics. Over which period was that?

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?