Chamber and committees

Does the cabinet secretary believe that handing the education staff who kept schools running during the pandemic what is effectively a pay cut is helping to build a Scotland that is, in the words of the First Minister,

“wealthier, fairer and more resilient and better”?

Amendments 35 and 36 would enable local authorities to designate an area as a firework control zone in which fireworks could not be used by any person, as no person or organisation would be exempt. That means that fireworks would be banned and nobody, whether they were part of a professional organisation or an individual, would be able to use them. I believe that that is what many people who have been campaigning for fireworks reform are looking for.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government has taken heed of the arguments that were made at stages 1 and 2 and has added the provision that private operators will not be exempt within the proposed firework control zone. That is stronger than what was in the bill previously, but it still means that public displays will be permitted within those areas. I ask the minister to elaborate on that and to clarify what the definition of a public display will be.

My amendments stipulate that fireworks would effectively be banned in any area that the local authority designated as a control zone. That could be a small area, it could be a number of streets or it could be in the vicinity of a particular facility where the use of fireworks is likely to cause concern. Organisations such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the National Autistic Society and the Scottish Community Safety Network support the amendments. I think that that speaks to the harmful impact of fireworks, whether they are used at a public display or set off by a private operator or, indeed, an individual.

I ask the cabinet secretary to explain why the bill does not contain provision for local authorities to take such action, given the extensive concerns that have been raised by communities. Of course, I completely understand the reasons why people might want public displays. The minister said at stage 2 that public displays foster community spirit and bring people together, and I agree with that, which is why the amendment does not propose an outright ban. Displays would still be possible outwith the areas where local authorities had designated that they should not be used.

I move amendment 35.

The intention of my amendment 36 is to enable local authorities to use their discretion. Situations in which such a ban might be appropriate would perhaps be near a facility that is run by Combat Stress, where there are veterans who might be distressed by fireworks; near a post-traumatic stress disorder care facility; and near an animal rescue centre or stables. Surely, there is a case for a complete ban when a council feels that that is appropriate in the particular circumstances.

I am grateful to the minister for her further clarification. However, it is clear that the current legislative framework has not been effective, which is why the various campaigners have been campaigning for the ability to have a complete ban. I think that having such a wide definition of public events as the minister described, whereby the organisations need to be established and the events must be open to the public, reinforces the argument that local councils need to be able to intervene, using their discretion and their knowledge of local communities, and must have the ability to say that there should be no fireworks use by any organisation in specific areas. Therefore, I will press amendment 35.

That is correct. [Applause.]

Not moved.

Of course, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Indeed, I agree with the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. As I have already said, some individuals will apply for a licence and will not use fireworks for the rest of the year. The issue is whether the licensing scheme will effect the culture change that the cabinet secretary has spoken about; I plan to move on to that after I have taken this intervention.

A lot of what I was going to say has been covered, particularly the pension points that we want to understand.

It is important that we get on top of exactly where we are on the police, given the spending review and what I understand to be real-terms cuts of in the region of 20 per cent that are coming between now and 2026. Not everything is to do with money; a lot of it is to do with morale, and the two can be intertwined. It is a useful opportunity for the committee to leap ahead of where it would have been in considering budgets and consider how much money the police service will have, because pay must be one of the major ways in which that money is spent.

I am sure that the situation is not all about pay. It will be far more complicated than that, but pay will be one of the factors and it is intertwined with morale. Therefore, it would be useful for the committee to gather as much information as is available on that and make more inquiries so that we can take an early view on it rather than waiting until the end of this year or until next year, when we examine the budgets in more detail.

I do not really have time to take an intervention. I am happy to take interventions but I do not think that there is time.

Scottish Labour is prioritising, and is saying to the Parliament that we should prioritise, this particular action, given that we see it as one of the priorities that we should be setting.

We already know that there are many good examples of councils that are taking steps to address the issue. For example, as has already been mentioned, while it was under a Labour administration, North Ayrshire Council brought forward flat rate charges regardless of income to include meals at homes and telecare. As has been said, earlier this week, West Dunbartonshire Council unveiled an ambitious cost of living plan that includes ending non-residential social care charges and which would put more than £1 million back into the pockets of some of the most vulnerable people.

We know from SPICe that the cost of removing charges would be in the region of £51 million, and we already know that charges for services that are not considered to be free personal care vary tremendously across Scotland, with different councils having very different charging policies.

The national care service will address many of those issues, but as we also all know, it will be a number of years before any national care service is in place. The debate is about what we can do in this financial year, within the budgets that exist, that will help people who are in real need and support some of the most vulnerable against a backdrop of a massive cost of living crisis. I ask colleagues to support the motion.