Chamber and committees

I have a point of clarification, following on from what Jamie Greene has said. I am not suggesting that I would vote against the instrument. In fact, I do not think that we can, theoretically, as we are discussing a legal requirement. Would it make any difference whether we voted for or against the instrument? Do you see what I am saying? It feels as though our hands are tied. Even if I was inclined to vote against the instrument—so that we could establish the timeline and so that I knew exactly what I was voting for, as a legislator—I feel that there is a legal requirement on us. The note before us does not say that, however. It would be helpful to get that—

Members might be aware that there was recently some press coverage on the changes to the police pension. I have already written to the chief constable about the matter. I believe that he is concerned about the exodus of police officers, which is totally understandable, because the changes—which I understand are legally necessary—encourage them to go. We are going to lose hundreds of police officers who have reached the age of 50.

Although I think that I am correct in saying that, according to the policy note, there is no additional cost to the public purse, it would be remiss of us not to note that the SSI relates to something that is of deep concern to running our police service. It is understandable that police officers will take retirement, but there will be a huge skills deficit in Police Scotland. I suggest that, at a future point, we might want to think about how the committee addresses that with the Government and Police Scotland.

I have strong feelings about the PDSO, based on past experience. I am not against it in principle, but successive Governments have tinkered with it. I would prefer to see something that deals with both the PDSO and the issue of legal aid rates. I think that, as a nation, we want to have a criminal justice system that serves the interests of the accused. We should not lower the quality of representation just because we have reached a point where we have a problem that has been building up over a number of years.

It is important that the Government recognises that point, regardless of any progress or on-going discussions. I would like the Government to say, as part of its vision, that it believes that that principle is important. I think that the Government has said that, but it is important, whichever path we take to resolve the issue—which might involve the provision of more public funding—that the principle should continue to apply. What kind of justice system would it be if an accused person did not have the best quality of representation or a choice of representation, or if they had deficient representation?

First, I have a quick supplementary question on the data.

You will have heard that the committee is keen to pursue the issue of the data. The culture change that you talked about relates to the general public, but some people are behaving antisocially and using fireworks as weapons. Therefore, I hope that you agree that we need to scrutinise whether we are using existing powers to act against those who will clearly not be applying for licences, given their antisocial behaviour.

I will ask Elinor Findlay about the example of Pollokshields. I have been involved with the Pollokshields community because I am a Glasgow regional MSP. No action was taken in Pollokshields, which is also the evidence that we had from the industry. I have tried to get to the bottom of the matter with the Crown Office, but I have failed to do so.

Pollokshields is one of the communities in which this is an issue—fireworks are being thrown at members of the emergency services, and they are being used dangerously. A serious question for the Crown Office is why are there no prosecutions? If we cannot see the information, or if it does not exist, or if prosecutions are not happening, there is a danger that we might miss the target. Elinor, are you aware that there have been no prosecutions in Pollokshields, and could you pursue the matter? I certainly will do so, but it would help if you could also ask about it. If the evidence that you gave to Jamie Greene is correct and the matter is being taken seriously, that question needs to be answered. Do you agree?

Thank you. I take the point that the system is different, but we had powerful evidence from the industry about concerns that people will turn to the black market. I have a serious concern that we will not have any control over that. That sparks safety concerns. You have probably heard the same evidence. What do you think of that evidence, and do you have any concerns that people will turn to more white vans that might turn up in the streets, because they will not have to get a licence if they do that? They probably think that they are just setting off a few fireworks. The safety checks will not be there. Do you have concerns about that?

Thank you.

I have a quick supplementary to Rona Mackay’s line of questioning.

Minister, you said clearly that you would not want the cost of a licence to be prohibitive. I think that there would be a big difference between £20 and £50, given the cost of living crisis, so it would be useful to know when that information becomes available. I might not be so concerned about a charge of £20, but a charge of £50 would concern me, as I think that, in these times, it would definitely be prohibitive for a lot of families.

Would you expect the police to act against the individual if they did that?

I accept that, but you will be aware that people in white vans turn up in those communities to sell illegal fireworks.

I want to scrutinise the licensing scheme. I support what the Government is trying to achieve but I have the same concern as other members, which is that the scheme might miss the target.

Last week, industry representatives told us about Northern Ireland, which has a population of 1.85 million and where 515 licences were issued. The suggestion was that the people who should be applying for licences were not doing so. If those figures were extrapolated to Scotland, there would be around 1,500 licences, but 250,000 fireworks are bought in Scotland each year. You can see the issue.

I have been trying to get my head around the legislation. I think that I understand it. You are talking about a culture change. Ordinary families and individuals may misuse fireworks, which are not illegal. That is where the concern comes from. They do not realise that the noise can disturb animals or children with autism. That would be dealt with by the licensing scheme. How confident are you that people or families who want to set off fireworks will sit down to apply for a licence and pay the £20, £30 or £50?

I just want to be clear in my mind about how the bill would work. There are 37 days when people would be allowed to set off fireworks. Does that mean that it would be an offence if someone set off fireworks in their back garden on another day? I am hearing a yes to that.

In evidence last week, someone who was representing the retail trade—I think that Jamie Greene mentioned this earlier—talked about the growing desire to set off fireworks for gender reveals, big birthdays or whatever. Personally, that fills me with dread, to be honest. I support the Government’s view that we need a culture change and that setting off fireworks every day of the year causes a nuisance.

I just want to be clear that it would be a police reporting matter if someone’s neighbour set off fireworks outwith the 37 days. Would that be a reportable offence?