Chamber and committees

I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee. I put on the record the committee’s thanks for the hard work and support of our clerking team.

I will first provide an overview of how the bill has been scrutinised at stage 1, before I outline the committee’s key findings in its stage 1 report.

The wide-ranging nature of the policy areas that are engaged by the bill arguably reflects the profound impact that Covid-19 has had on our society and our economy. As we enter the recovery phase of the pandemic and much of the temporary coronavirus legislation expires, the bill invites us to consider what lessons we have learned since 2020 and which measures should be retained to ensure that we can respond to future public health threats effectively and proportionately.

We worked with relevant subject committees to ensure that the bill received thorough and informed scrutiny to answer that question. I am grateful to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for working jointly with our committee to scrutinise the bill. I am pleased that the conveners of those committees will take part in today’s debate, and I will therefore focus my contribution on the provisions that our committee scrutinised in parts 1 and 3 of the bill.

Part 1 contains powers to co-ordinate a national response to a public health threat. Those powers formed the backbone of the Covid-19 response but they are broadened by the bill to enable the Scottish ministers to respond to any infectious disease or biological or chemical contamination in the future.

We do not often consider legislative provisions that have had such a profound and direct impact on all our constituents, and I think that that is reflected in the high response rate to our consultation. We received more than 3,900 responses to our survey, and nearly 100 written submissions. A clear majority of the responses to the short survey were opposed to the bill. For example, more than 80 per cent of responses argued against the provisions in part 1 being made permanent. Although the responses to our survey do not form a representative sample of the population’s views, they highlight that there is significant public interest in the bill.

The committee was therefore keen to reflect on how the powers were used in response to Covid-19 and whether they provide the right framework for dealing with a future threat. I thought that it was interesting that an expert in public health drew an analogy with preparations for war, noting that

“military planners are always planning for the previous war, not the next war”.—[Official Report, COVID-19 Recovery Committee, 3 March 2022; c 4.]

When we looked into the legislative template that has been used, we found that the provisions implement the World Health Organization’s international standards for public health legislation. That is an important point. The framework was developed internationally in response to the experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—and similar powers have been in place in England and Wales since 2008.

Part 1 of the bill largely mirrors the English and Welsh legislation, but it includes some substantive differences. The key difference that we focused on was the inclusion of the Henry VIII powers that are found in parts 1 and 6, which would enable the Scottish ministers to amend any legislation for a purpose related to the scope of the bill.

The committee noted that there are alternative approaches to the inclusion of the Henry VIII powers in the bill. The provisions could be removed entirely and brought forward in emergency legislation in the future, if required. Another approach would be to delay the commencement of those provisions until a public health emergency arises, and to give the Parliament a role in scrutinising the decision to commence the powers in those circumstances. The committee did not come to a consensus on that matter, but I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has considered it, and I welcome the update from the Deputy First Minister in his opening speech.

Some members of the committee agreed with the general purpose of the provisions in chapter 1 of part 1, which is to enable the Scottish ministers to co-ordinate a national response to future health threats. Other members considered that the Scottish Government had not made a sufficient case as to why those powers should be made permanent. Instead, they considered that the powers could be brought forward quickly in primary legislation, if required, in the future.

However, committee members were in agreement on many aspects of the bill. We all agreed that the role of the Parliament in a public health emergency is paramount, notwithstanding the challenges faced by the Government in responding to such threats. That is why we argue that part 1 could be strengthened, including in relation to the use of the made affirmative procedure. On that, we are in agreement with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. My colleague Stuart McMillan will contribute to the debate, so I leave it to him to explain those recommendations in more detail.

The COVID-19 Recovery Committee would also like some of the best practice that was developed between the Parliament and the Government to be reflected in the bill, such as the reporting requirements that were contained in the temporary Covid-19 legislation and the requirement that the reviews of the use of the legislation be reported to the Parliament. We also ask that the Government consider amending the bill to require that an appeals process be created if the requirement to use the powers in part 1 is triggered. I note that the Government has indicated that it does not support those recommendations, and we may return to the reasons for and against them during the debate.

I conclude by commenting on part 3 of the bill. The non-justice measures in part 3 are aimed largely at ensuring that our public services can be delivered remotely and are intended to ensure that our public services are more resilient to any disruption in the delivery of in-person services. The committee agreed with the general principles of those provisions, but we argue that the bill should also include a requirement for local authorities to provide a choice between remote and in-person services. We also ask the Scottish Government to give further consideration to how it is going to work with local authorities and the third sector to ensure that sufficient and appropriate support is available to users of online services, particularly those who are digitally excluded. I welcome the Scottish Government’s agreement, in its response to our report, that we cannot disadvantage those who do not want to, or cannot, access public services online.

The bill also deals with the nomination of a named person under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. We consider that the bill could be strengthened by requiring a nominated person to confirm that they have read and understood the guidance on their role, when they take it on. We also recommend that more needs to be done to ensure that people take up what is an important safeguard, and I note that the Scottish Government intends to take forward some of our recommendations in guidance.

The committee recommends that the Parliament approve the general principles of the bill. We came to that decision through a vote.

I look forward to hearing more detail on the Scottish Government’s response to our report during the debate.

Last week, the chancellor said that it was “silly” for the Tory Government to help households who are struggling with their bills. Yesterday, Boris Johnson admitted that he has not done enough to alleviate the pain of the cost of living crisis, and today, the Secretary for State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that to cope with the cost of living, people should choose value brands, and that the Government intervening would be throwing money at a crisis. Does the First Minister think that the Tories do not understand or simply do not care about the pressure that people face?

Mental health is one of the major public health challenges in Scotland, and I put on record my thanks to NHS staff and the Scottish Government for ensuring that that has remained a priority throughout the response to Covid-19. Will the minister provide an update on the increase in mental health staff since the Scottish National Party came into office? Will he set out the action that the Government is taking to increase the number of mental health staff, to allow our patients to access support in their communities?

I want to say how welcome the bill is. I was first elected as a councillor in South Ayrshire in 2017. The misuse of fireworks has been a constant concern for all my constituents. That was reflected in the response to the 2019 consultation, in which more than 16,000 people participated. A substantial majority of 94 per cent of respondents thought that there should be more control over the sale of fireworks. Jamie Greene said that the public want progress. Although I do not sit on the Criminal Justice Committee, a lot of questions have been raised today that I hope will be answered at stage 2, so that we can progress the bill, given the appetite for reform.

I grew up in Sydney, Australia, where 26 January is Australia day. We celebrate the day with family, barbecues and, of course, plenty of fireworks. However, in Australia, things are done very differently. For the majority of the country, public possession and use of fireworks are banned in order to reduce the number of accidents, burns, injuries and destruction to property. Only licensed, organised displays are permitted, and plenty of warning is given to allow people to properly prepare themselves.

The bill that is before Parliament takes important steps to make the use of fireworks safer and more enjoyable for everyone across Scotland. It takes a cautious approach, as has been done in other countries throughout the world, to create a cultural shift in how fireworks are used in Scotland. I welcome that the proposal clearly outlines at what times of the year fireworks can be supplied and used by members of the public. That was widely welcomed in the bill’s digital engagement study, which commented that that would allow members of the public who might be impacted by fireworks to mitigate disruption by having a better idea of on what dates to expect firework use.

I do not think that Holyrood has the legislative ability to ban fireworks.

Sorry?

Thank you. I will address Mr Greene’s point further on.

As I have mentioned, since coming into office, I have received many emails from constituents about excessive firework use in the area, and—let us face it—Guy Fawkes night usually turns into Guy Fawkes month.

Over the past couple of years, the pandemic has hit hard on people’s mental health. The COVID-19 Recovery Committee has been taking evidence from experts on that. In no way do I doubt that the excessive use of fireworks will exacerbate that for certain individuals, especially our troops. We all know that post-traumatic stress disorder is a real issue for those who return from the horrors of war. That is why Combat Stress urges the public to buy only silent fireworks—although a loud bang might mark a fun night for some people, it could transport others back to scenes that they would rather forget.

Last October, there was a horrifying explosion in a house in Kincaidston in my constituency of Ayr. Six months on, the Kincaidston community still feels the horrors of that night. Only weeks afterwards, some people decided to let off fireworks locally for Guy Fawkes night. That thoughtless act caused deep distress to the local community, which was still coming to terms with the events of that awful night.

As we have heard, it is not just people who are affected by fireworks; our animals are, too. We are a nation of animal lovers, and that is why some people have an issue with fireworks. We have seen how fireworks can impact on animals, especially dogs, and many of my constituents choose to sedate their dogs around November.

Back in 2018, I remember that fireworks were being let off around Christmas time, and a local rescue dog was so terrified that it managed to escape and run to a very large local park called Belleisle. I and other volunteers spent a few very cold days in our cars, guarding the entrances to the park, in case the dog emerged. Thankfully, after three days, the dog was found safe and sound, but it was still shaking from the experience.

The Blue Cross notes that the current system of easy public access to fireworks and poor enforcement of existing legislation is having a detrimental impact on animal welfare. It further believes that, if administered and enforced strictly, the bill will bring about a greater appreciation of animal welfare and will reduce the numbers of pets and wildlife that are injured or even killed by fireworks in Scotland.

The Dogs Trust, along with many other groups and individuals, believes that firework use in Scotland should be limited to licensed, organised public displays at certain times of year, and events such as weddings. I agree with that principle. However, the issue is largely reserved, and the Scottish Government does not possess the powers to implement a full ban on the sale of fireworks to the public. I therefore hope that the Scottish Government will work closely with our counterparts at Westminster to come to a solution on that. In the meantime, I believe that the licensing system that the bill proposes will stop careless individuals from obtaining fireworks and causing distress to our communities.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer—I know that I am running out of time.

Importantly, the Labour amendment takes note of paragraph 386 of the Criminal Justice Committee’s report, which expresses concerns about the fast-tracked nature of the bill, which may allow for less time for scrutiny and amendments. However, the bill has been a long time in coming, and it is important that we progress it.

My colleague Rona Mackay has said that the people of Scotland want us just to get on with it, and I agree 100 per cent, given the strong feeling in my constituency. That is why I fully support the bill and agree that it will be an important step towards creating a cultural shift in how fireworks in Scotland are used.

The committee will publish a report to Parliament in due course, setting out its decision on the statutory instrument.

That concludes our consideration of the agenda item and our time with the Deputy First Minister. I thank him and his officials for their attendance. That concludes the public part of the meeting.

That is great. Thank you very much.

I am sorry; we do not have time for any more questions. That concludes our consideration of this agenda item. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their evidence.

As we move away from having ministerial statements on Covid-19, I especially thank the Deputy First Minister, Professor Jason Leitch, Elizabeth Blair and all the officials who have attended the committee in the past 11 months. We really appreciated you making yourselves so available to respond to our questions.

Agenda item 4 is consideration of the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 6) Regulations 2022. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any further remarks about the instrument before we take the motion?