Seòmar agus comataidhean

I say again, just to be clear, that the pilots and the improvements to the processes that the SCTS is carrying out are being undertaken by the SCTS itself. The Scottish Government is supportive of moves to make the system more efficient.

The regulations were shared with the Law Society of Scotland, from which we have received no comments. As I said, I believe that the change will benefit the accused, but it will not benefit them solely—we need to be clear on that. I said that it will bring benefits to victims; I also think that it will be beneficial for legal practitioners and will bring efficiencies across the whole system. There is a backlog that we need to resolve, and I anticipate that changes of this nature will lead to fewer cases going to court, which will obviously have a positive effect on the number of cases going through the system—we are all interested in seeing that.

I set out in my opening statement the type of cases that this would apply to, but perhaps Martin Brown could give a little bit more information to Mr Greene about that.

I do not accept the full characterisation of the situation that the member set out in her question. We have shared the regulations and, as she rightly says, we have not received a great amount of comment on them.

I again note that the pilots are not being run by the Scottish Government. It is not a Scottish Government initiative, and we are not controlling or directing it; if the committee is interested in receiving a report on how the pilots have been run and on the conclusions, the committee should take that up with the SCTS directly. I am sure that it would be happy to facilitate that.

I also note that, although the pilots are taking place in only three areas, the regulations are an attempt to support the direction in which the pilots are going and to ensure that, for appropriate cases, the barrier—relating to the fee structure—to an earlier-stage resolution is not there. The regulations will allow for the earlier payment of legal practitioners, which I hope will be welcomed.

The regulations that are in front of the committee will apply not only to the three pilot areas but right across Scotland.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. As the convener said, the committee has before it the draft Scottish Tribunals (Listed Tribunals) Regulations 2022. This is a relatively straightforward set of regulations that amends the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 to insert the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel in the list of tribunals that can be found in schedule 1.

The 2014 act created a new, simplified statutory framework for tribunals in Scotland by establishing the Scottish tribunals, bringing together existing tribunal jurisdictions and providing a structure for any new jurisdictions.

The valuation appeal committees, the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel and certain functions of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland are to be transferred into the Scottish tribunals on 1 January 2023. Schedule 1 to the 2014 act sets out the bodies that may transfer into the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. Although the valuation appeal committees are listed in that provision, the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel is not. The regulations rectify that.

I understand that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the regulations on 7 June and that it raised no points relating to them, but I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

The date that Pauline McNeill mentioned would be the weekend after bonfire night. Nowadays, we often find—I am sure that this will be true of members’ experience—that the fireworks period is not restricted to bonfire night itself. It usually includes the weekend before and the weekend after. That might be to do with what the weather is like or with the fact that bonfire night is on a Tuesday night, say, and people prefer to have their celebrations later on.

The idea behind the period that is proposed in the bill is that that is the most traditional period for people in Scotland and the UK to use fireworks, and we are trying to align with that. I feel that the proposed period strikes the appropriate balance, but in the event that we want to reduce the period further, as we see how the bill beds in and is used, there is a provision that will allow us to do that, if we think that that is appropriate at the time. However, at the moment, I think that it is best to broadly align the days of permitted use with the dates on which fireworks are most traditionally used.

I ask Philip Lamont to answer that question.

I recognise the potential impact of restrictions on days of supply to specialist firework retailers, and it is right that adequate consideration is given to how such businesses might be supported as a result. I accept the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that regulations relating to compensation are subject to the affirmative procedure, given the interest in such a compensation scheme from those businesses and from Parliament. My amendment 23 proposes that regulations that are made under section 24(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Mr Greene’s amendments 132 and 133 seek to ensure that the restricted days of supply and use provisions cannot come into force until regulations for the compensation scheme have been laid.

In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I accepted the recommendation—although this was already our intention—to commence work with the fireworks retail industry as soon as the bill is enacted, and before the relevant provisions come into force. As the committee’s report notes, that will be important “to lay the groundwork” for how such support can be delivered in a timely and proportionate way, in order to help such businesses to adapt and respond in light of the change. Of course, that will involve working closely with those businesses to understand the potential negative impact. Following that work, the detail of the scheme will be developed, and the necessary regulations will be laid in the Parliament. Therefore, I believe that Mr Greene’s amendments 132 and 133 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them.

I move amendment 23.

That is a different point altogether. The member referred to supermarkets and so on, which represent the vast majority of the retailers concerned—there are more than 300. At the moment, they sell fireworks only at the traditional times of the year. The permitted dates of supply in the bill align broadly with those dates, so these changes to the permitted dates of supply do not involve a huge change for those retailers.

The specialist retailers that Mr Greene has mentioned are, of course, a different category. They sell all year round. There is a very small number of those retailers in Scotland—we estimate that there are nine or 10 such businesses—and we will discuss them when we discuss the compensation scheme. If it is okay with Jamie Greene, I suggest that we leave that argument for now and pick it up as we move through the groups.

Amendment 2, which was lodged by Ms McNeill, looks to shorten the permitted period of supply over the bonfire period to nine days as opposed to the 15 days currently provided for in the bill. The bill will, for the first time, set out the permitted periods in which people in Scotland can be supplied with fireworks. We have set out in the bill the periods that we think, based on the consultation, reflect the right balance between the desire to celebrate special days in our communities while still curtailing the general supply and use of fireworks. I believe that limiting the supply further at that time could risk a situation in which people have a very limited number of days to purchase fireworks and are inadvertently encouraged to store them in domestic settings. It also risks squeezing the supply chain over the very busiest periods for fireworks purchases and retailers overstocking, which could lead to safety issues around storage. If there is evidence that permitted periods of supply should be reduced further in the future, the bill provides an opportunity to do that via secondary legislation. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 2, and I encourage Ms McNeill not to move it.

We are talking about indiscriminate use. Mr MacGregor made an important point about the provisions in the bill that relate to not only the permitted days for supply and use and the licensing scheme, which is a point well made by the member, but firework control zones. That is another provision that attempts to address the issues that the member raises.

If a member of the public is living in a firework control zone, they will not, once the legislation is enacted, be able to use fireworks. It will be clear to people that they are not allowed to use them at that point. I think that the provisions in the bill when they are taken as a whole, rather than individually, are an attempt to address exactly the problem that Jamie Greene has identified, and will, I think, will go some way towards solving that issue.

That was a good debate. I am very sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s points in raising concerns on behalf of specialist retailers. We recognise the issue, which is why the bill includes a provision to support businesses that may be affected. That support will help businesses to adapt and respond to the change.

Rona Mackay picked up on Jamie Greene’s point that those businesses will be forced to close their doors. I do not think that we can establish that at the moment. Primarily, the businesses will still be able to sell fireworks all year round to community groups and to professional display organisers. A number of the businesses are also professional display organisers.

We need to understand the impact of the provision to restrict days of supply in practice. Only then will we be able to identify the level of support that is appropriate. That is the right approach. I give an absolute commitment to the committee that, if the bill is passed, engagement will take place with those businesses as soon as possible in order to understand the impact that the bill has on them and, if necessary, we will provide them with compensation.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

I, too, support the premise of what Pauline McNeill is trying to achieve. I cannot support the amendments as they are currently drafted, but I have given a commitment, which Ms McNeill has accepted, that we will work on the provision and engage further to get it to the point at which we would be able to accept it at stage 3.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

After section 28

Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.