Our next item is consideration of the timetable for the implementation of the various provisions in the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022. As members will recall, we were the lead committee for scrutiny of the bill, and the Scottish Government undertook to keep us updated on the implementation of its various provisions.
I refer members to paper 3 and invite their views, questions or comments on the update that has been provided.
I thank the Minister for Community Safety for the update on Valentine’s day—it was a welcome gift.
I did not spot this until the committee papers came out, but I want to comment on the content of the letter and pose a few questions for the minister to address. There is a lot in her letter.
My first point relates to the first main paragraph, on what appears to be the only bit of the act that has come into force: proxy purchase provisions, and the emergency worker aggravation measures, which we proposed—to be fair to the former minister, I am grateful to the Government for including those at our request. It would perhaps have been helpful to have some data on whether that was a worthwhile exercise.
I have chucked a few questions into the system, but perhaps the minister could make it easier for us by enlightening us as to whether there have been any offences relating to proxy purchase or attacks on emergency service workers. At the time of bonfire night—the tail end of last year—there were some high-profile incidents. We know that because we discussed them in the chamber and they were reported widely in the media. I appreciate that that was only a few months ago and that such cases take time to come through the justice system, but what is unclear, and what I am intrigued to know, is whether any of the emergency worker aggravation measures will come into play in any of the cases.
In preparing our report, and during the passage of the bill, we talked a lot about how many incidents were reported, the conversion rate from charges to prosecutions and convictions, and what the sentences looked like. I would be interested in seeing a piece of work on that at some point this year.
My second point relates to the next paragraph of the letter. The minister states:
“The ongoing unprecedented challenging financial context is impacting our ability to implement the remaining measures”
of the bill. I want to dig a little bit further. What is the
“ongoing unprecedented challenging financial context”?
What, specifically, is the minister talking about? If the answer is inflation, I think that that is a bit too generic. If it is a freeze on the directorate’s budget or a reduction in the amount of money that is available, that comes back to the financial memorandum.
During the passage of the bill, many of us raised the point that—as always seems to be the case with such things—the financial memorandum seemed to underestimate the overall potential financial ramifications of the bill. It seems that that is perhaps coming to pass. There might be a valid defence, but the letter does not say what it is. I would therefore like some more information from the minister on what, exactly, the challenges are, and on why the original anticipated timescales are being stretched.
My next point relates to what has been delayed. Indeed, it is clear that quite a few things have been delayed now. The firework control zones will apparently commence this year, but we were promised that there would be both guidance and a framework around those. I think that we need those in quite a timely manner in order to interrogate the Government on them and perhaps even speak to stakeholders. Some of us tried to include in the bill a requirement for that to be part of valid scrutiny. I do not want such provisions just to get chucked in as part of Scottish statutory instruments at the last minute when we have not had any time to scrutinise them properly. Firework control zones are quite a big part of the legislation.
I note the delay to the licensing system, which is not a huge surprise to me. Again, the reason for the delay is unclear. Is it related to financial matters or to disagreements with local authorities? Are there technical or information technology issues? Have any concerns been raised by anyone? Are things just taking longer than the Government thought they would? If so, that is a valid reason.
The final issue that I wish to raise concerns the restricted days of supply and use. That was another controversial element of the bill, which we discussed at great length. There were very mixed views on those provisions and on their effect on both online retailers and physical retailers. The letter just says that they have been
“paused to a future financial year.”
That sounds very much to me as though they have been kicked into the long grass. It is a polite way of saying, “We’re not doing it at the moment and I’m not sure when we’re going to do it.” Perhaps the minister could provide a little bit more information about what is meant by
“paused to a future financial year.”
That could be any time this century. Is there a bit of backtracking going on? Are there some issues? Have there been any legal challenges? Some of us warned that there might be. I hope that there is nothing untoward happening that would cause issues for the Government.
The letter is helpful, but it raises more questions than answers.
I begin by noting the irony that the minister responsible for trying to curtail fireworks is now putting on such an entertaining display as she seeks to become First Minister.
There is a lot in Elena Whitham’s letter, and it is quite concerning. We should remember that the legislation was rushed. Collectively, we felt that there was not the appropriate and necessary time for all the scrutiny that was required. We were told that there was nothing to worry about and that the details would be filled in later. Here we are with a letter that, frankly, fails to do that.
Jamie Greene has touched on some of my points already. In the bullet points at the bottom of page 2, the minister talks about
“A slight delay to implementation of the licensing system”,
which is one of the central planks of the legislation. My understanding is that the system should have come in this year, but it will now not be in place until next year “at the earliest”. That seems a bit open ended.
Even more vague is the final bullet point, which concerns the restriction on days of supply and use. The committee will recall that those provisions related to specific cultural and religious events and so on. The letter says that the provisions have been
“paused to a future financial year”,
but it does not say which year, even as a guess. It would be nice to know whether ministers could give us some indication as to which one they are working towards. Is it—as in the previous point—2024, or will it be even further down the line? Might it even, as Jamie Greene suspects, not happen at all?
With regard to all the implementations, we warned about the confusion around what is being brought forward. I think that the confusion will now be even greater, given that the public will be getting this stuff coming in piecemeal.
The plan was to bring in the proxy purchasing provisions and the aggravation for emergency service workers in year 1, and then to bring in all the other stuff in year 2, which is this year. That is now not happening. The situation was already confusing, and it will now become even more confusing.
Anyone who reads the letter would think that everything was all perfectly fine, but it is far from it. It is clear that there are big problems around delivery, as we warned that there would be. We need to drill down as much as possible into what the timescales are and why the delays are happening.
I thank the minister for the letter. It is a bit of a mixed bag. We have heard a more critical view so far, but what is in the first two bullet points, to which Russell Findlay referred, is good. It is reassuring that some of the provisions will come in before bonfire night, which is obviously the season that is being targeted. The commencement of the pyrotechnic possession offence is also a positive.
With regard to the last two points, however, I find myself agreeing with colleagues who have already spoken. What is set out is a bit watery. On the licensing system, which is a key part of the legislation, the letter says:
“it will commence mid-2024 at the earliest”.
I would rather that we were working towards mid-2024 for definite, albeit that there could be mitigating circumstances.
On the final point, I do not think that it is good enough to say that implementation could be delayed until “a future ... year”. We need something a wee bit more definitive.
The letter is a mixed bag. Given the work that all members of the committee put into the legislation, it is good to see that some of it is coming forward, and we hope that it will make a difference to our constituents. However, there are areas that need to be tightened up, so we will need to write back to the minister on those.
I welcome the fact that the letter sets out the situation quite clearly. From my reading of it, the implementation issues seem to be to do with the financial context, but it would be good to get clarification on that.
I welcome the fact that firework control zones “will commence”. For me, the test is whether they, and the offence, will be used by local authorities. That is what I am interested in.
I had concerns about the licensing scheme anyway, so I am not at all concerned about that delay. We had also raised concerns about the costs. I would not be happy if those powers were used without our having some indication of the cost of the scheme.
I am actually quite supportive of the letter’s content. It is an interesting lesson for people who are observing the legislative process. We think that we have passed all the laws, but we have not—what matters is when the statutory powers are drawn down in each section of the act. The letter clearly sets that out.
I concur with pretty much all the comments that have been made. Jamie Greene made a good suggestion that we look at some data in relation to the provisions on emergency workers and proxy purchases. I am happy to take that forward.
The letter is a bit light touch, so it would be helpful for us to have more detail, in particular on some of the key points that members have raised. Across the committee, there are various levels of concern about pretty much all the key updates that have been provided.
I am happy for us to write back to the minister to seek not only some data, as Jamie Greene outlined, but more detail on the key points that were outlined in the correspondence and a reassurance that every effort will be made to keep the timescales on track and minimise slippage. There is public interest in this issue. Pauline McNeill’s point about costs is well made, and we will incorporate that in our correspondence.
I think that Katy Clark agreed with the suggestion that we contact the minister by way of a follow-up letter. I see that she is nodding.
We have just spent 20 minutes talking about a letter. If the minister was sitting here, we probably could have resolved all the issues without the need for further communication. If the minister feels the need to come and talk to us, she would be very welcome to do so. It would save the need for a game of ping-pong, with letters going back and forth, in which people can hide behind niceties that do not mean anything, as we often see in these letters that are drafted by civil servants. I mean no disrespect to the civil service, but we could just ask the minister some direct questions—she is welcome to be accompanied by advisers if need be. We could probably settle the matters quite easily with an appearance from the minister on the subject, perhaps tied in with some other issues.
Okay. That is noted.
Thank you all very much. That concludes our public items of business.
10:31 Meeting continued in private until 13:03.