Chamber and committees

In relation to the point about the differing views of local authorities, they have been democratically elected and I do not have a lot of difficulty with different local authorities making different decisions, because they make decisions based on the manifestos that they stood on and what the public in their areas want.

That brings me on to my final question, convener, if that is all right. It is more of a general question. You have put forward a good case and have articulated it really well, but it will not be any surprise to you to hear that it is the opposite from what we have heard up to now. Fraser Stevenson acknowledged that. You have made some good points, certainly, but then I think back to 6, 7 and 8 November and to other dates since I became an MSP, when my inbox has been flooded with messages from people—including pet owners and people with autistic children—wondering what the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are going to do about fireworks.

As we have discussed, the world has moved on since we were young. I grew up in the 1980s and we loved fireworks, but the world has moved on. We understand people’s needs better now, and we have more of a community spirit in relation to people who do not like fireworks. In the past, if you had an autistic child, that was just tough, but that is not the case any more—quite rightly so. That is where the Government and Parliament are coming from.

I am rambling on a bit, so I will ask my question. Do you have any sympathy with any part of the legislation? It might not solve the fireworks issue overnight and it might create some of the issues that you have mentioned, but this is partly about changing our relationship with fireworks—changing the culture of fireworks in Scotland—and making that slow progress. I put it to you that it is also about the powerful message that can be given by a Government and Parliament passing legislation so that we can say to the people who contact us, “This may not be perfect legislation, but we hear what you say and we will try to do something about it.”

Are they low noise for humans and animals?

That is helpful; thank you.

My main question is about the 18-month extension to the action plan, which I know has been discussed a fair amount already. Do you think that 18 months is enough time? I am happy for the panellists to give their thoughts in any order.

That is very helpful. I did not see anyone else indicate that they wanted to comment. Would Suzanne Munday like to respond briefly?

Thanks for that. Before I hand back to the convener, I put on record my thanks for all the work that the witnesses have done over the past few years in tackling head on the unacceptable discrimination that Gypsy Travellers face. I have come across you all in various guises over the past couple of years, in the predecessor committee to this one and at various cross-party groups.

I hope that the convener does not mind me telling this wee story, but I was at an event on Sunday at the Glasgow Pavilion—it was a children’s show and I took my two boys to it. Something happened that I think indicates how much work you have done that perhaps sometimes goes unnoticed.

The play was about dinosaurs and stuff like that; it was really good. It was a lively show and the audience were interacting and laughing. That is the context.

There was one comment that showed unconscious bias. One of the actresses used the word “tinker”. She meant nothing by it and she was referring to a child, so it was not a reference to Gypsy Travellers. However, there was a kind of gasp from the audience—so much so that my kids asked me what a tinker was, and I could hear another kid away over on the other side of the hall asking the same question. It was quite a lively show and that was the audience response to that comment. Five years ago, perhaps, that might have got a laugh or something like that. I thought about this evidence session and I reflected that that change is partly down to all the work that the witnesses that are in front of us have put in.

I hope that you do not mind me sharing that story. It dawned on me earlier, when people were talking, that perhaps I was meant to be there on Sunday, with this evidence session coming up just two days later. I feel that I almost have a responsibility to share that story and praise the good work that you have done. You will not see the societal changes because you are living the fight every single day. That was one small, personal and anecdotal example, but I feel that it was definitely worth sharing. Thanks, convener, for allowing me to do so.

I am happy to start with Davie Donaldson. I will put him on the spot.

I know that my colleagues who visited Blackburn heard some support for having local flexibility in the bill that could encompass some of the issues that we have been talking about in the committee, such as local gala days or sporting events that might be important to people in a certain area. Would you support that flexibility? What are your thoughts on that? I will start with Julie Whitelaw.

I see from the chat box that David MacKenzie wants to come in as well.

As the convener said, my questions are about restrictions on the use and supply of fireworks. The bill introduces various restrictions on the days and times when fireworks can be sold and used. The committee has had some concerns about that and we are looking for a wee bit more information that might alleviate those concerns. Are the witnesses content with the proposed restrictions? Do they strike an appropriate balance between allowing people to enjoy fireworks and reducing their misuse?