Chamber and committees

Our next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. I refer members to paper 1. Do members have any questions on the content of the instrument?

I, too, associate myself with the comments that Fulton MacGregor and Katy Clark have made. It is a welcome step forward, and the spirit of it seems to be perfectly sound.

On that basis, members are content not to make any specific recommendations to the Parliament on the instrument. I thank members for their views.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. We move into private session.

I am very pleased to speak in the stage 3 debate on the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill. In the short time available, I want to make a few points about public expectation, scrutiny and the harm that is caused by fireworks.

I again thank the Criminal Justice Committee clerking team, Scottish Parliament information centre colleagues and our community participation and communications team colleagues, who supported members throughout what was a challenging journey, given the tight timescales and the breadth of the provisions that were being considered.

I also acknowledge the collegiate and good-humoured way in which members of the Criminal Justice Committee worked together, discussing and probing issues, challenging and disagreeing with one another, but always respectfully and always in the spirit of making the best law that we could with the provisions that were set out.

The bill does not ban fireworks—such a provision would be counterproductive and an unwelcome overreach in legislation. Rather, it seeks to bring about a culture shift that will enable us all to enjoy fireworks, while recognising that the public mood has shifted and that greater controls are sought to address the antisocial use of fireworks, the causing of distress to people, pets and livestock, and, of course, the targeting of emergency services workers who are simply trying to do their job.

There was strong support for increased control over supply and use in the majority of the 16,500 responses that the Scottish Government received to its consultation back in 2019. Subsequently, the firework review group made 11 recommendations, all of which sought to tighten legislative provision around fireworks.

Similarly, a desire for tighter controls was reflected in more than 1,600 comments in the Criminal Justice Committee’s digital engagement process. The emergency services, animal welfare organisations, the National Autistic Society, local authorities and the Blackburn bonfire night action group were all consistent in their desire for change.

That all helped to inform the committee’s strong desire to shape the bill. As was evidenced by the volume of amendments that were lodged at stages 2 and 3, members across the chamber were invested in the issue and truly represented their constituents and communities.

The fireworks industry was less supportive. Understandably, it voiced concern for the future of its businesses, in the event that the bill is passed. The bill makes provision for compensation to be paid to affected businesses. If the bill is passed, I am pleased that the Scottish Government intends to work with the industry to “lay the groundwork” for how support can be delivered to help businesses to adapt.

I turn to the issue of burn and blast injuries, which the minister highlighted in opening the debate. I feel that the issue received limited scrutiny during stages 1 and 2 but is a crucial driver for change.

The British Society for Surgery of the Hand highlighted the devastating life-changing burn and blast injuries to the face, hands and limbs that fireworks can cause—preventable injuries that are commonly sustained by children and young men and in communities where there is increased deprivation, adding to the long-term burden of disease and disability in our communities.

Care of Burns in Scotland stated that

“Despite public information and injury prevention campaigns, these fireworks injuries continue to occur at a steady rate. What could be considered as minor injuries cause suffering and devastate families’ lives.”

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow considered that

“multiple elements”

in the bill

“would make a substantial difference in reducing harm”

including

“fireworks licensing which changes purchase from impulse to one of planned decision.”

The bill’s journey has not been straightforward, and there were many diverging views on the provisions. Should the bill be passed today, it is now for the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislation delivers on its intention of facilitating a culture change that supports tighter control of fireworks, but still allows the safe and enjoyable use of fireworks in all our communities.

How does investment in fee uplifts in Scotland compare with that in England and Wales? For those who are seeking access to legal representation, how does Scotland’s legal aid system compare with that of England and Wales in terms of scope and eligibility?

The creation of a national care service might provide opportunities to give greater statutory oversight of ADPs in the delivery of MAT standards. Now that the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill has been introduced, will the minister outline what steps will be taken to determine whether greater statutory powers are needed in this area?

I agree that there was significant discussion on this issue in the committee, but I think that the member may also be aware of correspondence that has come in from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow that sets out that firework licensing will change

“the purchase from impulse to one of planned decision, with the burden of responsibility on the purchaser to provide proof of age/suitability to purchase fireworks.”

Would the member agree that that makes a strong case for having a licensing scheme in place?

That was a helpful discussion and a lot of legitimate points were raised. Without diminishing what is happening, because this is an exceptional departure of police officers in terms of the numbers that are involved, Police Scotland ordinarily has an exodus of officers year on year, as members know. The numbers of officers leaving is to a certain extent dictated by 30 years ago. In the 1970s, a high number of officers were recruited, courtesy of pay and conditions improving. To a certain extent, divisional forces before Police Scotland and now Police Scotland have experience of managing that changing staff profile, but I agree that this is an unusual set of circumstances, which arises out of the change in pension provisions and arrangements.

It is important that we have been able to put our views on the record. We have published the letters that we received from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation, which were helpful. It is also important to note that the Scottish Police Authority has an important role in managing and responding to the issue.

Given that we are a couple of weeks away from recess, if members agree, I propose to follow up by asking Police Scotland for its initial response to the correspondence from Scottish Police Federation and to comment on the concerns that it raises. We can consider the potential underpinning budget issues in our forthcoming budget scrutiny process. At this point in the year, if members agree, as a starting point, we should ask Police Scotland for its response to the SPF’s comments, keep the situation under review and revisit it when we feel that that is required. Do members agree with that?

Thank you. Jamie Greene wants to come back in.

Thanks. My proposal is that, in the first instance, we write back to Police Scotland and to the Scottish Police Authority. I will park the idea of writing back to the federation for the moment, because we have a clear idea of its position on the matter. We can review that in due course. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am keen for us to have a discussion about members’ views on the content of the two letters that we have received.