Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the back of Collette Stevenson’s line of questioning, I want to ask about the dates that are proposed in the bill. We have raised some concerns about this issue in previous evidence sessions, and I have asked other witnesses about it. I have to say that those to whom we have spoken have generally been in favour of the proposals, which has reassured me as a committee member. I am guessing, though, that you might have a different view, and, if so, I want to give you the opportunity to explain it.

One of our concerns with the Government—or, ultimately, the Parliament—setting dates is that other dates that might be important to people will have to be ruled out. Do you envisage difficulties with the bill setting out certain days when fireworks can be used and other days when they cannot, given that some of the days when they cannot be used might be important festivals or milestones for individuals? Indeed, as Pauline McNeill has mentioned a couple of times, people might then choose to use fireworks on days that might not necessarily be festivals for them, if that makes sense. Can I get your views on that?

Thank you.

Is the first of those three types the low-noise firework?

I will take the opportunity to ask a question while I have the fireworks experts in front of me. I will not get a better opportunity.

Can you explain in layman’s terms what “low-noise” is and what it means? What would that mean for someone with normal hearing? Also, if you have the information, what might that mean for dogs? They hear things differently.

You made your view of the overall bill pretty clear in your opening remarks, but on the assumption that the Parliament is going to pass legislation on the matter, you will want to be involved in certain aspects of it. Given that, what do you think about the date proposals? Should no dates be specified at all? Of course, that would bring its own complications, given that there would be days—new year, for example—when what you have suggested could happen. Should local authorities have the flexibility to meet individual needs and requirements, which is something else that we have heard about?

I see Andy Hubble nodding. Do you want to respond to that question?

You have made that point, which the committee has heard throughout its evidence sessions. I suppose that the point that I was making—I will put it to Andy Hubble too—was about the message that is sent. We might well be on a journey; I think that the committee has at the back of its mind the thought that the bill might be part of a journey, rather than the end, on the way to somewhere that the public find more acceptable with regard to fireworks. That is why we are saying that the bill is about the Parliament and the Government sending a message, while making it clear that it might not solve all the issues. Does Andy Hubble have any views on that?

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.