Chamber and committees

I was going to ask the minister about that, because some members have indicated that they believe that it is outwith the scope of this Parliament to ban fireworks. My understanding is that this Parliament could not ban the sale of fireworks but does have powers in relation to banning and restricting the use of fireworks. I fully understand that we do not have the full range of powers that could be used in relation to fireworks.

As I say, the main concern about the bill is that it will bring in complicated rules that, in reality, will not work. John Mason spoke about control zones and argued for having no-firework zones, and I agree that that needs to be considered. My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament could make the whole of Scotland a no-firework zone should it wish to do so. No doubt, the minister can come back to that legal point in due course.

The licensing scheme must be workable and effective. If the public see it as being confusing, unworkable or unaffordable, they will not comply with it. As Martin Whitfield outlined, there are real risks that a black market in fireworks will emerge as a result of the bill. The minister has said that there is not much evidence of a black market in Scotland at the moment, but we know that one emerged in the Republic of Ireland when it banned fireworks.

Scottish Labour is at one with the Scottish Government in wanting action to be taken on the antisocial misuse of fireworks and on the need for a cultural shift. However, as Pauline McNeill outlined, we have serious concerns about some of the detail—and, indeed, the lack of detail—in the bill, which has been rushed through on a truncated timescale. Many of our concerns are outlined in the Criminal Justice Committee’s report, which Audrey Nicoll has spoken about in detail.

The licensing scheme is to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our concern is that there is a real risk that there will not be proper scrutiny at that stage, given that it will not be possible to amend regulations. I would be grateful if the minister could speak not just on the engagement with stakeholders in the consultation on the regulations, but on the involvement of politicians in the chamber, whose role is to ensure that the detail of legislation is correct and that we do not introduce bad law.

Most people who use fireworks do so responsibly, and they will want to comply with the legislation. However, as has been pointed out by more than one member, they could inadvertently fall foul of the legislation. That said, the main problem, as we see it, is the use of fireworks by people who probably will not comply with the licensing system and probably do not comply with the criminal law. The focus needs to be on how the legislation will impact on that group.

We know that there are health and safety concerns about the use of fireworks, even when they are used responsibly, and we know that the misuse of fireworks has a dangerous impact on local communities and specific groups. Many members have spoken about that. Stuart McMillan and Siobhian Brown spoke about the impact on veterans and refugees, in particular, and others spoke about the impact on people with autism. Collette Stevenson spoke about the impact on emergency workers, and others spoke about the impact on the people who discharge the fireworks themselves. We know that there is a real human health cost in the use of fireworks—indeed, one national health service board put the cost of dealing with firework injuries at £40,000 a year. Members have also spoken about pets, wildlife and farm animals being adversely affected by fireworks.

Scottish Labour supports many aspects of the bill—in particular, the creation of new offences such as that of proxy purchase—which is why we support its general principles. However, we have major concerns that the bill will not necessarily make the situation better, particularly given the lack of enforcement of the legislation that is already in place. A number of members have spoken about that.

Earlier this month, we finally received the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service data on that, and we found out that there were no convictions last year, despite the fact that many hundreds of firework-related incidents are reported each year. There have been very few convictions—a number of members have spoken about that. That must be because Police Scotland and the Crown Office are not giving the enforcement of the existing fireworks legislation the priority that I believe the Parliament would want them to give it. Before the bill was introduced, we should have had far more detailed information on the context of that disparity and on how existing legislation is used. As they stand, the proposals are complex and bureaucratic, and they will confuse the public—in particular, the law-abiding public.

The licensing scheme will require people to take a course, but we do not need a licensing scheme to require that.

It is clear that there have been multiple failings relating to the contract and that islanders—particularly islanders on Arran this week—are paying the price. Does the minister not accept that any review cannot be delayed and that there must be a full investigation, conducted independently of ministers?

Almost half a billion pounds was cut from the legal aid budgets between 2007 and 2019, so any increases since 2019 do not compensate for that scale of cuts.

As the minister knows, the dispute relates to domestic abuse cases. Does she agree that such cases can be complex and time consuming, that solicitors are raising legitimate concerns, and that the dispute undermines the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls?

I took an intervention from the member, so I am very grateful to his returning the favour.

To be absolutely clear, I am arguing against the fragmentation of the current structure. I am arguing that the ferries, CalMac, CMAL and the ports should be in public ownership, which would then enable better decision making. In my speech, I used some examples of the poor decision making that occurred as a result of the failure to have a model of that nature and to involve islanders and the workforce in that decision making.

I am grateful to the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place in the chamber today; to islanders, including members of the Arran Ferry Action Group; and to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, with which I have worked on this issue.

The contract with public sector operator CalMac comes to an end in October 2024, and Parliament needs to debate what will happen at the end of the contract. Ferry services are currently in crisis. Yesterday, for example, all 10 ferry services on the Ardrossan-Brodick route were cancelled due to the withdrawal of the MV Caledonian Isles from service, which is causing havoc to islanders and, indeed, to the economy.

CalMac operates a fleet of 33 vessels across a network of 49 routes. Most industry experts agree that the average life expectancy of a ferry is about 25 years, but half of the working state-owned ferries are older than that. For example, the Caledonian Isles is 29 years old.

Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd owns and procures vessels, and ports are owned by a mix of trusts, private companies and public bodies, under a model that is the result of an obsession with privatisation over many decades. Some will try to blame the problems with the ferry service on public ownership but, in reality, the problems are a result of a failure to invest in new fleet for many years, the fragmentation of the service, a series of poor appointments of key decision makers, appalling management and political failures.

The motion argues that our ferries should remain in the public sector, and polling has repeatedly shown that Scots overwhelmingly support that model of ownership.

It may be that the minister is coming on to this point, but is she going to address the issue of ownership of ports? She will be aware, for example, that in Ardrossan, the ownership of the land and the harbour rights by Peel Ports has caused massive problems, with more than four years of delay. Is she also sympathetic to looking at how we bring ports back into public ownership, because that will make decision making easier in the public sector?

I am not saying that at all. If the member listens to the rest of my contribution, that will become self-evident.

In 2017, the Scottish Government’s procurement policy review stated that it was the Scottish Government’s intention to

“build a case for making a direct award to an in-house operator for the Clyde and Hebrides services”.

Last year, I asked the previous transport minister to confirm that that was still the Scottish Government’s policy, but he failed to give that undertaking. I hope that the current transport minister will confirm today that she is committed to a public sector model.

Despite the Scottish Government’s commitment in 2017, it commissioned the private accounting firm Ernst & Young to review the structure. It has paid the firm more than half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money since 2015. Documents that were leaked to the media from the project Neptune review revealed that ministers explicitly asked Ernst & Young to consider the unbundling of routes and privatisation as an option. Despite journalists having written articles quoting sections of the report weeks ago, the report has still not been published. Can the minister confirm today that it will be published?

We need a long-term plan for a publicly owned ferry service, and we need to learn from the mistakes of the past by having a structure that involves communities—particularly island communities—and the workforce in decision making.

We also need to address the problems that have been caused by the fragmentation of the structure. For example, vessels 801 and 802, which were debated yesterday, would not have been commissioned if the Scottish Government had been required to involve the Arran community in decision making and had listened to the representations that were made at that time. The delay of more than four years to the regeneration of Ardrossan harbour would not have happened if the harbour had still been in public ownership, rather than in the ownership of Peel Ports.

There is a widespread view that we need standardisation of the fleet, with smaller vessels. That will cut maintenance costs and ensure that ferries can operate across routes. Can the minister confirm that the Scottish Government is actively looking at that?

Today’s debate follows on from yesterday’s debate on the procurement of vessels 801 and 802, which are being built at Ferguson Marine. They are projected to cost £240 million. They are two and a half times over budget, they are four years late, and they have been described as “a catastrophic failure” by a Scottish Parliament inquiry. Audit Scotland’s report said that ministers chose not to restart the process after CMAL expressed concerns. The First Minister raced to Port Glasgow to launch the 801 all the way back in 2016. The Scottish Government continues to hold responsibility for a catalogue of bad decisions, poor appointments and eye-watering sums being wasted on executives. No minister—and definitely not the First Minister—has been willing to take responsibility.

We need the Scottish Government to come forward with a plan for a ferry service that will deliver for islanders and support the community. We know that the current structure is not working and that change is required, but we will get the best service only if we involve islanders and the workforce in a publicly owned service. I ask the minister to respond in detail to the points that I have made and to the other points that will be made in the debate. I look forward to hearing members’ speeches. I hope that the Government will commit to developing a publicly owned model with a structure that will deliver for communities.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am grateful to the minister for seeming to be sympathetic to the idea of islanders on boards, but is she sympathetic to the idea of workplace and trade union representatives on boards, too?