Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item of business. Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item of business is a debate on motion 5154 in the name of Ash Regan on fireworks and pyrotechnic articles at Scotland Bill. Before I invite Ash Regan to open the debate, I call on Keith Brown to signify crown consent to the bill. Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Daniel Sir. For the purpose of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the fireworks and pyrotechnic articles Scotland Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interests in so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and we are now able to begin the debate. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons. I call on Ash Regan Minister to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I feel very passionately about this groundbreaking legislation, and we know that without the protection that this bill provides, many people and animals will continue to be affected by the use of—excuse me, Presiding Officer—I feel that I may not have got to the right place in my speech due to being called a little bit earlier than I was expecting to be. Let me start again, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to open this final debate for the pyrotechnics and fireworks article Scotland Bill, and I thank the criminal justice committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill and the stakeholders that have engaged in and helped to shape it as well. We know that without the protection that this bill provides, many people and animals will continue to be deeply affected by their use and the deliberate misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics. Earlier this month, I met NHS staff from the Scottish National Burn Centre at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. The harrowing accounts of injuries caused by fireworks and pyrotechnics tragically reinforce why the bill is needed. It is of extreme concern that without the additional restrictions proposed by the bill, people will continue to suffer life-changing injuries, with many requiring months of physical and psychological after-care. The first account that I heard of was a young man who, following a pyrotechnic explosion, had severely and permanently disfigured his hand. He was a tradesman, and the long-term impact of that was understandably very severe. He had to undergo years of intensive therapy in order to be able to return to his work. The second account was of an innocent bystander. That was at a young person who was at school. They sustained a very serious burn injury on their arm due to pyrotechnics being set off in a crowd, where it was really difficult to get away from the device once it had been set off. They were just about to sit at their school exams, and it was obviously a very crucial point in that young person's life. After that injury, they had to overcome physical and psychological issues, even just to allow them to continue with their schooling. The third account was a man who returned to a firework after it had been lit, and he then sustained a serious hand injury. He continues to undergo psychological care as a result. That is long after the physical wounds have healed. What was striking about all those accounts was the significant treatment required, years of surgery, physiotherapy and psychological care in order to deal with both the physical and also the mental impact. That is surely a terrible and unacceptable toll to pay for something which, in the right hands and in the right circumstances, should and can be enjoyed safely. I believe that the Criminal Justice Committee heard some heartbreaking accounts, too. It heard from the National Autistic Society of Scotland about the debilitating impacts that fireworks, particularly when used sporadically, can have on people with autism. It heard how that can, in some cases, lead to shutdowns, where the autistic person reacts involuntarily, which could include a physical or verbal distress response, making it difficult to provide that calming protection. That can, of course, be incredibly distressing. That ability to plan and prepare for the use of fireworks and pyrotechnics gives autistic people and those who care for them the opportunity to put safeguards in place. The committee also received evidence on the sickening attacks on our emergency service workers when they are putting themselves on the line in order to keep our communities safe. I do not want to believe that anyone in this chamber wants to see people in Scotland physically or mentally harmed, nor do they want to see autistic people acutely distressed, or to hear about our emergency service workers being exposed to such sickening attacks. In taking this legislation through Parliament, I listened to arguments that we should stick with the status quo—convictions and prosecution numbers are low and the injuries from fireworks and pyrotechnics are rare. However, those arguments failed at the time and they still fail to be convincing. They failed to persuade me and, perhaps more crucially, they failed to persuade the dedicated staff at the Burns clinic that I met in Glasgow earlier this month. Moving on to the core policies of the bill, they are the result of extensive consultation, engagement and evidence gathering and, first, the firework licensing system. That will put in place robust checks and balances by requiring applicants to undertake mandatory training. Secondly, the proxy purchasing offence, which makes it clear that any adult supplying fireworks or pyrotechnics to a child without a legitimate reason is committing a crime. Thirdly, the bill puts restrictions on permitted days of supply and use of fireworks by the public. Those dates are based on existing firework periods and following engagement with faith groups and strike a balance between allowing people to continue to buy and use fireworks for traditional events whilst limiting the problematic and sporadic use of fireworks. Fourthly, local authorities will have the power to designate firework control zones, where it will be an offence for fireworks to be used either by the public or professionals other than in a public firework display or for other essential purposes such as safety checks. Lastly, the offences relating to possession of pyrotechnic articles in public places and at certain events without a reasonable excuse. That means that Police Scotland will have the necessary powers to take a preventative approach to tackle the misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics through intelligence-led policing. What I am presenting today is the result of having listened to the committee, communities, police and other stakeholders, and having modified my proposals in light of that. I believe that the bill balances the legitimate right to use fireworks and pyrotechnics with the need to protect public safety. I accept that fireworks misuse currently presents a number of unusually difficult challenges for the police in particular. The reality is that much of the evidence is literally burnt or blown up at the time of the offence. I have heard calls to focus on the enforcement of existing legislation, but the bill that I am presenting to Parliament today adds to the existing legislation. It provides clarity for those whose job it is to keep our communities safe, and it puts those robust checks and balances in place to ensure that those who can access fireworks can use them safely and lawfully. I am grateful for the consideration that Parliament has given this bill. Indeed, the Scottish Government submitted a number of amendments that improved the bill as a result of that consideration by Parliament. The bill is an important milestone in our journey to change the relationship that Scotland has with fireworks and pyrotechnics. It is a key part of reducing the harm, the distress and the injury that are caused by those items, and we will put early and robust intervention in place to stop them falling into the wrong hands. I therefore hope that the whole Parliament will feel able to support it. I move that Parliament agrees to the fireworks and pyrotechnics articles that Scotland Bill has passed. I would just advise for the sake of clarity that this is follow-on business and therefore attention needs to be paid to the progress of the day's proceedings. I thank the minister for opening comments. All members of the criminal justice committee are clerks, but all the organisations, third sector, community groups, businesses and others who have engaged in the process from the beginning right up to this end point. It has been a difficult journey, at least because of the truncated scrutiny that we were required to go through. First of all, I should say that that cannot and should not become the norm. That is no way to make good law, in my view, unnecessary on this occasion. However, the Government has a problem on its hands that it is trying to fix. It was trying to specifically fix the issue of the proxy purchasing of fireworks and people giving them to miners. That could have been addressed, in my view, in a different way with the rest of the provisions of the bill given more time for scrutiny, which brings me to the bill itself. The more I learned about fireworks and their misuse, the more confused the landscape became and, indeed, the more confusing the Government's approach in this legislation came. As a dog owner, I should say that I know first-hand the distress that fireworks cause. My little rescue dog, Astro, would testify such where he here today. I also know that many communities are absolutely blighted by anti-social behaviour year after year. We heard very powerful testimony about that. I know that farmers, dog homes, A&E departments, plastic surgeons, community bodies and community councils, they all want something to be done. However, the question that posts us as lawmakers is not should we do something, but what should we do and how should we do it? Those benches worked constructively and tirelessly many later night to consider the bill. At stage 2, we submitted 77 amendments. I know that because I moved and spoke to practically every single one of them. However, throughout the process, we tried to make the bill meaningful and strengthen it. We tried to force the Government to review those pieces of legislation that already exist, legislation that is already open to the police and to prosecutors to combat the use and misuse of fireworks. We tried to increase the fines and the sentencing for the misuse of fireworks. We tried to increase the penalties and sentencing for those who use fireworks as a weapon, specifically against those who work in our emergency service workers. I am pleased that the Government conceded on that one. We tried to give our local councils more autonomy and decision making over the so-called firework control zones. We tried to create genuine no fireworks zones, as did the other members of the chamber, which deliver on the promise that there will be no fireworks in your community. That is what people told us they wanted, that it is not what they are getting. We tried to force the Government to come back to the Parliament with concrete proposals about what the licensing scheme might actually look like. The problem is that we just do not know. What about the compensation scheme for the businesses that we are shutting down overnight when we pass the law if it is passed? What about the firework safety plan that we should be saying from the Government? A plan that has the buy-in unusually of the industry itself, they want further regulation in this space. All of those sensible opposition amendments and all of them are shot down at stage 2 and stage 3 by ministers. At stage 1, the cross-party committee report was genuinely one of the most critical I have ever written and ever read. There was no dissent, no disagreement, there was a cross-party effort. At stage 2, nearly every amendment was split 50-50 by the committee, all voted down by the use of a casting vote. That is quite telling and quite important. At stage 3, the Government brought forward few amendments despite widespread concerns about the bill. Of course, the bill contains some sensible proposals, but the question is, will it meet its primary objective to improve firework safety and reduce the harm that it causes to society? I am not convinced that it will. The idea that we are restricting the sale of fireworks is 37 days per year and it is used to 57 days on the face of it. I can see why, to some people, that sounds like a great idea. However, here is the problem. There are genuine vocal concerns out there about stop piling, about the black market and the white van man scenario, and that could get worse, not better. The bill randomly selects certain religious festivals but excludes others. I have concerns that will be challenged in the courts. Let us not forget the bizarre situation when the law says that you cannot let fireworks off in your backyard to celebrate something outwith the defined period. However, if you can afford to pay a company to do it, that is fine. 365 days a year. National exemptions mean that, even in the so-called firework control zones, you might still hear fireworks going off and there is nothing you can do about it. It is bonkers and it is nonsensical. What about the licensing scheme? You could refuse the licence if you have committed arsyn, but not an act of terror. It does not regulate online sales, nor does it stop people crossing over the border for England for their stash. What about the fact that now courier companies, apparently, are responsible for the checking of licences, not retailers? What about enforcement? That is really what it comes down to. Last year there were nearly 1,000 reports of fireworks misuse in Scotland. Not one single criminal conviction—I have stated that fact before, but it is an important one. There have only been 16 criminal convictions for fireworks-related offences over five years. I make the point that the laws that they currently stand are simply not being enforced. We should remember that before we start passing new laws further restricting the use of fireworks. Are the police seriously going to respond to every call from every member of the public and turn up the blue lights flashing to see who has let off a firework? I think that we all know the real answer to that question. I really do not have time to outline all my reasons for why I have grave concerns, because there are many. More than that I had at stage 1. It is with sincere regret that I say to those people who are watching this who think that this bill will be the great panacea needed to tackle problematic firework use. It is with regret that I tell them that it is not. It is for those reasons that those benches will abstain on the bill and the knowledge that it will likely pass. I hope that I will never have to come back to this chamber and say to the minister or anyone else who voted for this bill that I told you so, but it will be too late by then if we do. One injury, one lost life is too much for our consciences to bear as we wave through this bill. I urge members to vote on the basis of what the bill actually does, not what people think it does or what people wish it might do or wish it had done. There is a very marked difference between the two, and that is such an important difference. I am in my closing time. I apologise, minister, but there is such a marked difference between the two, and that is an important one that we should always remember as legislators when we pass legislation. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am pleased to open the debate. I want to begin as Jeremy Greene has done by thanking my colleagues very sincerely for what is a very thorough and excellent stage 1 report. Does every year, the bonfire period, we see the strain and stress of the antisocial use of fireworks put in our communities, as well as the burden that it puts on the police and emergency workers, the bonfire period in particular. It appears to have expanded from one night in the best part of two weeks in recent times, something that this bill unfortunately solidifies. We do not believe that this bill goes far enough in many places, and, as such, we are concerned that it may not change things on the ground. Scottish Labour has proposed amendments to strengthen the legislation, but almost all have been rejected by the Government. For example, my amendment to further reduce the number of days that fireworks could be purchased and used during both the bonfire period and the new year period that was supported by the Dogs Trust was rejected. The disparate dates, in my view, refer to already regarding when fireworks can be bought is an issue of a bunch of 57 days around the calendar where they can be used, with a different set of 37 days when they can be sold. The possibility for public confusion around that is extremely clear and, of course, there are offences attached to that. I agree with Jamie Greene on that point. I just wonder how enforceable that is. Sadly, the bill might not make a difference unless the Government is prepared to create more capacity for enforcement. Given the very low levels of enforcement for breaches of existing legislation around fireworks was used, it is clear that we need to provide the police with adequate resources if we are serious about what we have just heard. Unfortunately, it has also been introduced at a time when police resources are definitely subject for debate. We have expressed concern around the lack of detail, around the licensing scheme, my colleague, at stage 2 and stage 3. We examined that in great detail, and we still stand by the fact that it is possible to have legislation without a scheme because it has permitted days for fireworks, of which it would be an offence to set them off. However, our primary objection to the licensing scheme runs the risk of fueling a black market, which I think that the Government was too quick to dismiss. Furthermore, I put down two amendments to try to keep any licence and fee small and affordable for most families. Those were rejected as well. At committee, we heard from Norman Donald from the NGE fireworks display who warned that not everyone can afford a fee, and some families come to our shop to spend £30 on a small selection box because they are once-a-year treat for their children. If they introduce a fee of £30 or £50 on whatever they put that purchase out of their reach. The important point is that the knock-on effect of a complex, potentially expensive scheme in itself is the risk that people will turn to the black market. We have seen that in Northern Ireland. I said already that the extent to which the bill was rushed through Parliament means that we did not get a chance to examine this properly. However, in Northern Ireland, which operates a similar licensing scheme, the Belfast Telegraph reports that the black market fireworks are available everywhere. We heard that from the industry, too, that it has got these concerns that the black market can consist of a wider range of different things, some of which are not currently legal. Bangers, for example, are a good example of this, and no one would want to see the rise of this extremely dangerous fireworks on our streets. I also felt that it was important to give communities the chance to request a firework control zone if they are enduring a lot of antisocial behaviour in relation to fireworks. Many constituents in Glasgow were keen to be able to request a firework control in their own community because they feel terrorised by fireworks at certain times of the year, but unfortunately ministers were unwilling to support that as well, and that was rejected. In conclusion, the criminal justice committee in its stage 1 report did decide only on the balance, in fact, that it agreed with the general principles. As Jamie Greene said already, it is quite extraordinary in this Parliament that a committee would be so critical. I am disappointed that more was not done to address those concerns. There are some things in the bill that will be in fact pushed for such as the Police Scotland's proposal, which is in the bill now for the simple possession offence, which we were keen to see, but the bill does have many flaws. I have to say that it was a difficult one for Scottish Labour to make a decision on, because we are keen to see that a strong message sent out about the antisocial use of fireworks will not be tolerated, and that is something that we must be certain to act on. I commend Jamie Greene for what I thought was a very consider speech, but we, however, will take a different position on the balance. That is that we will support the Government tonight on this bill, but I have to say that that too is on the balance. In conclusion, I urge the Government to use the full force of existing law if they are serious about the control of fireworks and demonstrate that they are serious about the control of fireworks in our communities and allow the future committee to drill down in any regulations brought to it so that we get an opportunity to correct the things that we thought from the very beginning were wrong. I thank the criminal justice committee, the clerks and all those who gave evidence for their work on the bill. In 2019, my colleague Liam McArthur called for powers to allow councils to make decisions on the use of fireworks and how they affect the local community. I am glad to see that we find elements of that in the legislation today. It has been clear for a long time that something is needed to be done to regulate the use of fireworks and to limit their misuse. Sadly, every year the police are called to address disturbances with groups of people who are hurling fireworks on other projectiles, emergency workers and private individuals. One year in Edinburgh, a police officer was badly burned and hospitalised after a firework was thrown in her face. Emergency workers do not deserve to be treated like this. They should be able to go about their duties without fear of physical violence. It comes as no surprise that the bill has been welcomed by both the fire and police services. As a Liberal, I am instinctively wary about the state reaching further into our daily lives to impose any kind of control or structure around a tradition that has been going on for centuries, which many people consider part of our heritage, especially when the vast majority of people who use fireworks do so in a responsible way. However, when we are witnessing the same sort of anti-social behaviour involving fireworks year in, year out and with a local police sergeant ending up in the Burns unit, when people feel threatened in their own homes as well as out in the streets and when animals are scared whittless because of a warped distortion of those traditions, we have to say enough is enough. It is right that we make a proportionate action to reduce the likelihood that these sort of instances will occur and the introduction of the firework licences bill will help to resolve that in some kind of way. It is also important to note the growing problem of the use of pyrotechnics being used at sporting events, often in the middle of large crowds of people. Someone attending a football match with their children should be able to do so safe in the knowledge that a flare will not suddenly be lit right beside them. I have listened to the contributions of Jamie Greene and other members today. Their concern about whether the bill goes far enough and it may not be enough. Pauli McNeill was absolutely right to take a balanced approach as Jamie Greene did as well. There is no doubt that we could have gone further with the bill. Pauli McNeill said that it is interesting that we need to send a message to those who misuse fireworks. That is right, but laws just cannot be used to send messages. We actually need to make a real difference. That is why I urge the minister to consider post-legislative scrutiny of the bill to ensure that we have made the right decisions so that we can review and introduce new measures if more measures are required. I hope that she will respond to that in her closing remarks. I am conscious to some that we may sound in this Parliament like a bunch of curmudgins who are part of the fun police. However, that is not about limiting fun. It is about making sure that everyone can have fun, not those who would misuse our traditions and misuse those fireworks as weapons. I encourage everyone to vote for the bill today, but to come back to the chamber later and do it properly this time to make sure that we do scrutinise in a post-legislative way to make sure that we can improve the bill if necessary and have the right laws for our country. Mr Rennie, we now move to the open debate. I call Audrey Nicholl to be followed by Maggie Chapman. I am very pleased to speak in this stage 3 debate on the fireworks and parathechnics Scotland bill. In the short time available, I want to make just a few points about public expectation scrutiny and the harm caused by fireworks. I again want to thank the Criminal Justice Committee, the clerking team, the SPICE colleagues, our community participation and communications team colleagues who supported members throughout what was a challenging journey due to the tight timescales and the breadth of the provisions being considered. I also want to acknowledge the collegiate and good-humoured way that criminal justice committee members worked together, discussing and probing, challenging and disagreeing, but always respectfully and always in the spirit of making the best law that we could with the provisions set out. The bill does not ban fireworks. Such a provision would be counterproductive and unwelcome overreach in legislative provision. Rather, it seeks a culture shift enabling us all to enjoy fireworks while recognising the public mood has shifted and greater controls are sought to address anti-social use of fireworks, distressed to people, pets and livestock and, of course, targeting emergency services workers who are simply trying to do their job. The majority of the 16,500 Scottish Government consultation responses saw strong support for increased control and oversupply and use back in 2019. Subsequently, the fireworks review group recommended 11—or beg your pardon—made 11 recommendations, all tightening the legislative provision around fireworks. The criminal justice committee's digital engagement process similarly saw over 1,600 comments reflecting a desire for tighter controls. The emergency services, animal welfare organisations, national autistic society, local authorities and the Blackburn Bonfer night action group were all consistent in their desire for change. That helped to inform the committee's strong desire to shape the bill. As evidenced by the volume of amendments at stages 1 and 2, members across the chamber were invested in the issue, truly representing their constituents and communities. However, the fireworks industry was less supportive, voicing concern, understandably, for the future of their businesses should the bill be passed. The bill makes provision for compensation to be paid to affected businesses. I am pleased that the Scottish Government intends to work with the industry if the bill is passed to lay the groundwork for how support can be delivered to help businesses to adapt. Finally, turning to burn and blast injuries that the minister highlighted when opening the debate, on which I feel received limited scrutiny during stages 1 and 2, but crucial drivers were changed. The British Society for Surgery of the Hand highlighted the devastating life-changing burn and blast injuries to the face, hands and limbs from fireworks. Preventable injuries commonly sustained by children, young men and in communities where there is increased deprivation, adding to the long-term burden of disease and disability in our communities. The royal colleges of surgeons of Glasgow and Edinburgh stated that, despite public information and injury prevention campaigns, firework injuries continue to occur at a steady rate. What could be considered as minor injuries cause suffering and devastate families? They considered that multiple elements in the bill would make a substantial difference in reducing harm, including fireworks licensing that changed purchase from impulse to one of a planned decision. In closing, the journey of the bill was not straightforward. There were many diverging views on the provisions. However, should the bill be passed today, it is now for the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislation that comes forward delivers on its intentions of facilitating a culture change that supports tighter control of fireworks, safe and enjoyable use of fireworks in all our communities. On behalf of the Scottish Green Party, I welcome the bill and thank all who have worked so hard to make it a reality, both within and outwith this Parliament. While we recognise the positive ways in which many people experience fireworks, the harms that they and pyrotechnics can cause have been a source of long-standing concern to us. There are harms to communities from noise, disruption and conflict, serious dangers at sporting events, strains and even attacks on emergency services. There are harms, both physical and psychological, to individuals, especially to children, neurodivergent people and those with sensory processing conditions and veterans of armed conflict with PCSD, for whom the lights and sounds of fireworks can horribly mimic those of combat explosions. There are harms to animals, including our closest companions. In the stage 1 debate of the bill, I spoke of our childhood pet dog, Rowley, who was terrified by a nearby fireworks display and fled in panic. It took us four days to find him. Four days of the fear and anxiety that all dog owners here will know. We got Rowley back, but many are not so fortunate. A Blue Cross survey found that 70 per cent of pets were reported as being negatively affected by fireworks, trembling physically sick if indoors, then afraid to go outside for days. If outdoors, then following their instincts to escape, disorientated, lost, running into busy traffic. Firework debris with its toxic heavy heavy metals represents a further danger, as does the noise of explosions that can damage hearing. These are only the animals we understand best. We know little about the effects they can have on others, on wildlife and livestock. There are further environmental harms from the toxic components of fireworks, sulfur compounds, dioxins and particulars, intensifying air pollution, especially when combined with bonfires. Some older forms of fireworks also threaten water pollution, while in a heat and climate the dangers of wildfire are ever increasing. Those are real and serious forms of damage, but just as real are the pleasures, the celebrations, the community cohesion, which can come from a shared experience of watching fireworks. The challenge for this bill has been how to retain those positives, while minimising the negatives. The provisions for safety training, for licensing, for regulating the times and places where fireworks are acceptable all represent opportunities to hold this balance, sensitively and creatively. The passing of this bill will, of course, be only a beginning. There is much work to be done on the detailed regulations to bring its provisions into effect, and it is vital that this work includes the active participation of communities, real consultation, especially listening to the quietest voices. When the provisions come into force, awareness and education will be essential, and the legislation will need to adapt to new circumstances to changing cultures and technologies, working to encourage the development and use of low noise, low impact fireworks. In addressing the specific problems of irresponsible firework use, it is important that we do not lose sight of the broader and deeper questions that are raised, particularly by the Scottish Community Safety Network. What lies beneath attacks on emergency services and other forms of what we describe as anti-social behaviour? How can we build communities with space for exuberance and descent that do not involve gunpowder and explosion? The jigsaw of devolved and reserved powers has added to the difficulties in both drafting and discussing this bill. It is inevitably a compromise, whatever our perspective, but it is also a paradigm of the process that we are all involved in, part of an evolving awareness of human diversity and non-human need. We strive to use the powers that we are privileged to hold in order to recognise different voices and different experiences in a Scotland that works for and welcomes everyone. I think that this bill does that. Thank you very much. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, but I also want to start off just by highlighting a couple of aspects regarding the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee, which is a committee that I chair. Now, to be clear to the chamber, I am not speaking on behalf of the committee today, but I just want to highlight a couple of aspects that we did. Certainly, the committee welcomed three Scottish Government amendments in the bill at stage 2. The amendments to powers in sections 18, 24 and 35 changed the parliamentary procedure in each case from negative to affirmative. While the committee was content with the powers and principles during stage 1 scrutiny, it is always very conscious of the need to strike a balance between the use of Parliament time and also the appropriate level of scrutiny. In future of these powers, the committee considered that the enhanced scrutiny of the affirmative procedure was the most appropriate. Given that the committee can sometimes challenge the Scottish Government's approach to delegating powers and bills, it is right that we also highlight times when the Government responds positively to the committee's recommendations.  Today is not the end of scrutinising this particular legislation, as Maggie Chapman indicated in terms of the future secondary legislation that will come forward in the future. Parliament's scrutiny does not end today. There will be more parliamentary scrutiny as time goes on. On the policy matters of the bill, I am pleased that reducing the negative impact of fireworks in party techniques and communities across Scotland is at the heart of the bill. Many people enjoy fireworks, whether it is guyfox displays or they are part of a festival of performance or family celebration. However, we have to legislate in a way that does not prohibit people from enjoying these things. We will take into account the harmful impact that the loud noise can have on pets, wildlife and people who have sensory issues, including veterans. The bill is also an important step towards reducing the burden on emergency services and preparing for and responding to firework-related incidents. Data from Police Scotland indicates that around 900 firework-related incidents were reported in the 2019-20 firework period, and there is no clear evidence that the number of firework-related incidents reported to the police is changing. For the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, 342 incidents were identified with fireworks as a contributing factor between 2009-10 and also 2019-20, with around half of those incidents occurring on the days around bonfire night. Those incidents were more concentrated in more deprived areas. I have seen that in my constituency, where a few years ago police went to one part of Greenock and the right police were there in that particular evening, and it was horrendous to see the scenes that took place that night. It is clear that there are considerable financial costs and resource implications for Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to plan and prepare for 5 November and the period leading up to it each year. There is also an impact on the NHS and ambulance service as common firework-related injuries affect hands and heads, as we have already heard, with mortars and rockets responsible for the majority of serious eye and hand injuries. These often require that specialist treatment of surgical intervention and can sometimes, as we know, be fatal. Fireworks can also pull the air with gases, particles and other elements that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Another reason why this bill is so important is that tougher action on the sale and use of fireworks and tackling the misuse of pyrotenics has clear public support. I know that from people who have contacted me about this bill. I know that this bill will be supported in my constituency. I believe that this bill will be welcomed by many constituents across the country, particularly those who are veterans, have sensory issues or live with someone who has sensory issues and also pet owners, as others have highlighted. With that, I will be pleased to be voting for the legislation tonight. I am pleased to close this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. Pauline McNeill and I have sought to amend the legislation in the committee and here in the chamber with a view to making it more effective and workable. We recognise the significant problem that Scotland has with the antisocial use of fireworks, which we believe is a growing problem. Indeed, we have heard from a number of members today of the extent of that problem. However, we know that most people simply want to enjoy fireworks and believe that the best place to do that is at public events. We also believe that the bill will reduce the use of fireworks, and we welcome the creation of a new offence to criminalise the supply of fireworks to under-18s to ensure that adults do not supply fireworks to children. During the passage of the bill, however, we have outlined our concerns that the licensing scheme may have the unintended consequence of creating a black market and unregulated fireworks, with all the greater safety risks that they involve. As Pauline McNeill has said already, a similar scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland, and there it has been reported that fireworks are widely available on the black market, and there is no evidence of a decline in fireworks-related antisocial behaviour. At the stage 2 amendment stage, I also spoke about Italy, where, again, a similar licensing scheme was introduced. However, that seems to have done nothing to address the problems that they have there with the very dangerous, unregulated use of illegal fireworks. At stage 1 and 2, I put down amendments to strengthen the legislation to enable local authorities to create no-firework zones where all fireworks use would be banned. I believe that that is actually what those who have been campaigning for firework reform were actually looking for, and it would have been far simpler legislation. The amendments that I put down were not successful, and I know that other members put down amendments that would have had a similar effect. Yes, of course. I just want to pick up on the member's point about banning fireworks or the ability to do that. I believe that we have been over this several times now. Would the member accept that I have explained repeatedly, both to the committee and in the chamber, that Scotland does not have the power to ban fireworks? I think that we have had this discussion previously. Indeed, the fact that we are able to put down amendments that would have the effect of banning fireworks shows that, indeed, we do have that power. We can ban—indeed, this legislation bans the sale of fireworks for most of the year. It bans the use of fireworks for most of the year. In reality, we can ban fireworks, but I appreciate the point that the minister is making, and, indeed, it is a point that she made at the stage 2 debate. I will take an intervention. I recall the minister telling the committee that she had no desire to introduce a ban on fireworks. Katie Clark? Indeed that. I do recall that also. I think that, as the minister said, we have had extensive debate about those issues at the various stages. I welcome that the Scottish Government has listened to some of the arguments that have been made and has added private operators to the proposed fireworks control zone. Public displays, however, are not banned by the legislation, and there is no way to do that unless the Scottish Parliament legislates further. I hope that this is an issue that the Scottish Government will revisit at a later stage, so that it is possible to ban fireworks where councils believe that it is necessary, and in particular near facilities such as hospitals, care facilities and animal shelters. From the outset, Scottish Labour has been clear that it wants this bill to succeed and to be effective. Fireworks misuse is already illegal, but despite the many hundreds of complaints to the police every year, as we have heard already, there are very few prosecutions taken and even fewer convictions. Between 2016 and 2020, there were only four solemn and 16 summary firework convictions. As Jamie Greene said earlier, there were no firework convictions in 2021. We have real concerns that some of the provisions of the legislation will be confusing and workable and expensive, and therefore the public will not comply and may fall foul of the law inadvertently. I very much hope that the Scottish Government is correct that this bill will result in the culture shift that it is seeking, but that will only happen if the Crown Office and the police put the resources into implementing existing legislation. As we have said, we are disappointed that the Government did not respond further to the stage 1 report, but because of the new offences that will be created and because we do believe that this bill will reduce the use of fireworks, we will support the legislation when it comes to the vote. I usually take interventions, but with so much to cover in five minutes, I will not have the time to do so. I also want to begin by saying thank you to the criminal justice committee clerks, the bill's team and those who gave evidence to the committee. Fireworks is a source of great enjoyment to many people, including myself and the Willie Rennie. Others regard them as a nuisance or indeed worse. The Scottish Government's firework review group first met in December 2019 and produced its report almost a year later. Just 18 months after that, following a fast-track timetable, we have this bill in front of us today. Let's strip it back. It does three main things. One, it requires anyone buying or using fireworks to have a licence, it creates firework control zones and it limits firework use by the public to 57 days per year. Many key details remain unknown, with the Government effectively saying trust us, pass the bill and we'll work it all out later. That's just not good enough. I will now turn to these three main issues. Perhaps the most contentious is licensing. We still don't know how much a licence will cost. If we compare the Northern Irish model, it's anticipated that around 1,500 Scots may apply for one, yet up to 250,000 in Scotland buy fireworks annually. What will those people do instead? Our concern is that the SNP's licensing scheme is so badly flawed that it will drive people to a black market. No work has been done on addressing that concern. That risks achieving the opposite of what is attended, a rise in firework misuse and the type of injuries that has been described by the minister in her opening statement. At stage 2, I secured an agreement from the minister that applicants for a licence must disclose convictions for fire-raising, yet she refused to budge on the disclosure of other convictions, including anti-social behaviour, football violence and even terrorism. My attempts to increase sentencing were also rejected. Now let's look at firework control zones. People might think from their name that they will prohibit firework use in those areas. They do not. At stage 2, I secured an agreement from minister to ban professional displays and private gardens within those zones, but public displays will still be allowed. As Katie Clark said, this will not help pet owners, farmers or people with sensory issues who wanted clearly defined areas in which fireworks are completely banned. Then there is the issue of fireworks only being used on 57 days. The Government failed to explain properly how they arrived at these days. It seems inevitable that other cultural or religious occasions will need to be added in future. The bill limits firework sales to 37 days, which surely risks dangerous stockpiling in people's homes. It is also a big one. Professional companies will still be free to operate 365 days of the year. As with the flawed firework control zones, that will do nothing for those seeking respite from noise. Presiding Officer, this bill has been rushed. My colleague Jamie Greene has already explained why, so the proxy purchasing for under-18s could be dealt with quickly, but there was no need to rush. In doing so, we are left with a bill that contains huge gaps and may make existing problems even worse. I have been immersed in this legislation for months and it is still not easily understood. Frankly, it is confusing. The Scottish Conservatives have tried to fix it as best we can. I commend Jamie Greene for securing an agreement and aggravator for those who are using fireworks to attack emergency service workers. I lodged 46 amendments at stage 2 and 12 at stage 3, with some being accepted. Many of my party's concerns can be seen in the stage 2 debate and the Justice Committee's highly critical stage 1 report. Remember, that report was agreed to with the backing of SNP members. It was agreed to in the understanding that the Government would address our points of concern that they have failed to do so. So many critical questions remain unanswered. We already have nine separate laws that deal with firework misuse, but it is painfully apparent that these are not being used to their full extent. I share the industry's very real fears that this bill could become the catalyst for a dangerous and unregulated black market in Scotland. The Government admits that it will be powerless to police online firework sales. The minister today described the bill as groundbreaking. I fear that she may be right. If this bill was indeed a firework, it would be the dodgy one that fizzles out and then falls over in the lawn, best not to approach. While we are aligned entirely with the bill's intention, we cannot support such clunky and convoluted legislation that may end up doing more harm than good. It is important that we are honest about this with the public and the stakeholders who engaged in this process. We will abstain today, and judging from the comments from Katie Clark and Pauline McNeill, I am hopeful that Labour may consider doing so also. However, we do understand that this bill is still likely to pass. In my opening statement, I shared the stories of just a few people in Scotland whose lives have been changed forever due to horrific firework and pyrotechnic-related injuries. Sadly, that is merely the tip of the iceberg of the wide-ranging distress and harm that the people of Scotland experience due to fireworks and pyrotechnics. I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that Eleanor Robertson, the senior clinical research fellow, burns and plastic surgery at Glasgow royal infirmary, joins us in the public gallery today.  Throughout extensive consultation and engagement, we have heard from thousands of people about how their lives have been and continue to be impacted by fireworks being used in their communities. I have no doubt that many in the chamber today have heard similar views from their constituents. As elected members, we all know that we need to be able to look our constituents in the eye and say that we are doing everything that we can to protect them from such harm. It is important to highlight that, while issues around fireworks misuse featured strongly during the consultation, it was clear that sporadic and unpredictable use of fireworks was also problematic. One heartbreaking example that I was recently made aware of was of the untimely passing of a much-loved family dog due to fireworks. The story was shared with me last month, so that is by no means of course firework season. Loud fireworks were suddenly set off one weekend. The dog was so frightened that he managed to escape and was last seen on train tracks. The community rallied together to find him, to reunite him with his owners, but sadly his body was found the following day. As I previously stated, this bill is not a panacea, but it is a crucially important step in the culture change that I am committed to progressing alongside wider actions such as education and awareness raising to keep people, animals and communities safe from the harm that can be caused by fireworks and the misuse of fireworks. Excuse me, just one second, minister. If you resume your seat for a second, there is far too much noise in the chamber. We need to listen to the minister responding to the debate. Thank you minister, please continue. Thank you, Presiding Officer. So turning now to some of the contributions that we heard this afternoon. The Conservatives' contributions, I am afraid to say, I felt quite dismal. I think the tone was entirely wrong and they were quite out of step, I would say, with the support that has been shown for this bill, both by the public and by the many stakeholders that support the provisions in this bill. The black market predictably was raised again during the debate, and as I have said on many occasions prior to this, displacement was fully considered during the development of the proposals. I do not think that it was a compelling argument when it was raised before and I do not think that it is a compelling argument now. It is like saying that people will circumvent laws on alcohol or they will circumvent laws on air weapons, so we just should not have any restrictions. It is a nonsensical argument, quite frankly. If we were going to take that approach, there would not be any public safety legislation at all, and I am not sure that that is quite what the Conservatives are suggesting. Willie Rennie raised some very pertinent examples. I thought about why this bill is so needed. He asked me about keeping the law if this bill is passed this evening under review, and so I can give that assurance to the chamber this evening that the provisions will, of course, be kept under review. They will be monitored and they will, of course, be updated if it is found that that is required. Audrey Nicholl highlighted clinical associations support for the bill, and she mentioned how serious many of the firework injuries that they have to deal with are. Maggie Chapman highlighted the negative impact on pets, on wildlife and on the environment. I would also agree with her assessment of the limitations and often the compromise that is involved in drafting legislation in a devolved settlement, which is something that seems to have escaped the Conservatives entirely. I agree with Stuart McMillan and he spoke of issues, quite movingly, I thought, of issues in his area, things that he had seen and witnessed in Greenock, and the support that he said that this bill would be shown by the public in his constituency. As you will be aware, there are a range of stakeholders who have expressed support for this bill. That includes the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelties to Animals and the National Autistic Society, which is among many others. Just last week, a coalition of seven medical institutions, including the British Medical Association, and the British Burn Association, wrote to me to express their support for the bill. Their letter highlights that the associations welcome the legislation and believe that it will ensure that, while fireworks will still be able to be enjoyed, it can be done more safely and more responsibly as well. I was particularly struck by the sobering observation that was made by the president of one of the associations who said that if this new legislation prevents just one severe burn or one mutilating eye or hand injury, it will all have been worthwhile. I agree. If Parliament passes this bill here today, we will be taking a significant step forward to reducing the harm, the distress and the injuries that can be caused by fireworks and pyrotechnics. I know that safety and wellbeing of the people of Scotland is something that all members, regardless of our party affiliations, will agree is of prime importance. It is a worthy aim to be united in working towards it. For that reason, I invite members to agree to the passing of this bill. That concludes the debate on fireworks and pyrotechnic articles at Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 5254, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out of business programme. I call on George Adam, minister, to move the motion. I call on Stephen Kerr to speak to and to move amendment 5254.1. Up to five minutes, please, Mr Kerr. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. Yesterday, the SNP and Greens blocked my attempt to have a statement this week from the Lord Advocate on the legal considerations of the proposed independence referendum. During her statement, the First Minister said, and I quote, I am sure that the Lord Advocate would be more than happy to answer questions from MSPs. In response to my amendment, however, the Minister for Parliamentary Business gave one reason, just one, that this statement could not happen. He was concerned about standing order 7.5 and the possibility of breaching the sub-judice rule. In a point of order earlier today, Donald Cameron quite clearly dispelled that concern by pointing out that the rule only applies to active cases. Since there is no hearing date set for the Supreme Court's consideration of the Lord Advocate's reference, it is not an active case and therefore cannot breach the law or the standing order. That fact was confirmed and reinforced by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the only obstacle standing in the way of the Lord Advocate delivering a statement tomorrow is gone. At an emergency bureau meeting this afternoon, the minister said that his legal advice stated otherwise. Legal advice or a political instruction from the First Minister, who knows? Either way, quite frankly, the minister's opinion is neither here nor there. His stated concern was with the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament. The Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has ruled that the Lord Advocate can come to this chamber tomorrow. If the minister does not accept this, then, quite simply, I put it to him, he is questioning the authority of Parliament. Sadly, it did appear earlier today that the minister was content to take that position, opting to prevent the Lord Advocate from coming to the chamber. His Government hides from scrutiny at every opportunity, but I am sure that the Lord Advocate is more than capable of coming to this chamber and making a statement and answering questions before the Scottish Parliament. It will surprise no one that the SNP and Greens at the bureau today teamed up again to block a parliamentary statement from the Lord Advocate. My amendment corrects that. Donald Cameron was right. This might be the only chance to hold this statement and to question the Lord Advocate. Therefore, I encourage members to be on the right side of this vote. I thank Mr Kerr for speaking to and moving amendment 5254.1. I would just like to say as a matter of clarity, because I was in the chair at the time, what I said was that subjugacy was not engaged until a hearing date was set on the separate issue of the Lord Advocate making any statement. I simply said that that was a matter for the bureau in the first instance. I thought that it was useful to clarify what I said, which is of course a matter for the record. I now call on George Adam Minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. I will make three very important key points in this issue. The Lord Advocate's reasons for making the reference were explained clearly and fully by the First Minister in her statement yesterday. My second point is that the substantive issues in the reference are now before the Supreme Court, regardless of the precise application of standing orders and in the court, should be allowed to fulfil its function without political discussion of the merits. My third and final point is that the Lord Advocate is not in a position to disclose the content of legal advice given to the Government. The question is that amendment 5254.1, in the name of Stephen Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 5254, in the name of George Adam, setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. There will now be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.


What was different about the pain tonight that led you to call to the dugout to come get you? Yeah, today, tonight, it was more than usual.  Are you worried there could be a bigger issue here? I'm worried that I'm going to do something more serious than what you thought. Yeah, a little bit, a little bit, but nothing. Let's see what happens tomorrow. Yeah, when I was warming up, thought a little bit. Do you feel like it would go away or did you feel like you could just pitch through it when the game started? Yeah, previously I've been able to pitch with it, so to manage it is just that when I got out there it was just more than usual. Maybe too much pressure on the knee, I don't know, it's just that the pain was more than usual. Is it a constant pain or is it something that happens with one particular movement?  Do you think a couple weeks of rest can do good for him?  So Chapman Jack says the discomfort is always there and it's a little bit worse than he's experienced in the past, so this could be bad news. Yeah, and the fact that he felt it in the bullpen and was hoping that he could overcome it and he wasn't able to do that and he only lasted six pitches. He kept saying let's see what the tests show, but he also knows what his body feels right now and his body felt that after six pitches he wasn't a major league pitcher anymore. He called his athletic trainer and his manager out there and let's remind people what tendonitis is. It's an inflammation of a tendon that is caused by injury or overuse. He hadn't pitched in a week and the Yankees are usually pretty careful with him, so if it's not overuse, it's an injury. So we'll wait and see what the test show tomorrow on that and see what kind of moves the Yankees make.


The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 11329, in the name of Clare Adamson, on home safety kits. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate could press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I also remind guests leaving the gallery that if they could do so quietly it would be much appreciated. I thank the members of the Parliament who supported this motion and who will speak to the debate this afternoon. It is a stated wish of the Scottish Government that Scotland be the best place in the world to grow up, an ambition that I am sure is shared across the chamber. If we are to achieve that ambition, we must first acknowledge and tackle the areas in which Scotland's report card could be better. As a councillor in North Lanarkshire, I was nominated on to the Scottish Accident Revention Council Home Safety Committee. It was in that role that I became aware that in the area of non-intentional injury that Scotland's record could be much better. Indeed, the European Child Safety Alliance's country report card made for challenging reading at the time. The latest report in 2012 is produced as part of the tools to address children trauma injury and children's safety, the tactics project. A large-scale multi-year initiative that is working to provide better information, practical tools and resources to support the adoption and implementation of evidence-based good practice for the prevention of injury to children and youth in Europe. The European Public Health Alliance and partners in over 30 countries are involved in this project, as are ROSPA, the Royal Society for the Vection of Actons. One of the objectives of the project is to review and expand a set of child safety action-planned indicators to continue to monitor and benchmark progress in reducing child adolescent injury as countries moved from the planning to implementation. We are often fond of comparing ourselves to Nordic countries, but in the latest European report card it shows that injury is a leading cause of death in children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 in Scotland. In 2009, 106 children and adolescents in this age group died as a result of injury. If that rate of injury death in Scotland could be reduced to the level of the Netherlands, one of the safest countries in Europe, it is estimated that 47 of those lives might have been saved. I would also like to evidence the recent report by the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health why children die, death in infants and children and young people in the UK are a policy response in Scotland. In the section on reducing deaths from injuries and poisoning, the recommendation from the Royal College is that local authorities and health boards should prioritise children's safety and through utilising resources such as health visitors and home safety equipment schemes educate and equip parents and carers to keep their children safe with a focus on water safety, blind-cord safety and safe sleeping. In the light of what is undoubtedly a social justice issue, I was delighted to learn earlier this year about a Scottish Government project in conjunction with ROSPA, which sought to tackle some of those issues in Scotland. I take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery some of the staff from ROSPA Scotland today and take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to them as the secretariat of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness for the continual support to the group. Scotland's home safety scheme was a pilot project that aimed to provide home safety equipment to families across specific areas in Scotland. It was based on the success of a similar scheme in England. The original project was created by ROSPA and resulted in 66,000 families in England receiving safety education equipment. The project in Scotland supplied and fitted home safety equipment to 800 families. Each family also received a resource pack of information that helped to raise awareness of accidents and how they could be prevented. That awareness raised complemented the equipment provided by the scheme, including safety gates, windy restrictors, non-slip bath and shower mats, fire guards, locks for kitchen cupboards, corner cushions, blind cleats and drawer dams. Investment in the scheme will contribute towards the health and wellbeing of young children by providing families with skills and knowledge needed to make informed decisions on injury prevention. It would allow children to develop in a secure environment, ensuring a healthy and safe future. The areas involved in the project include the Western Isles, Edinburgh, East Lothian, West Lothian, Mid Lothian, East and Bartonshire, West and Bartonshire, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverclyde. In all those issues, how do you prove if something works? How do you prove the negative of an accident having been prevented? I am delighted today to highlight some of the key findings of an independent evaluation of the scheme, conducted by SMCI associates, on behalf of Rossba. In the area of prevention, Scotland's home safety equipment was a preventative scheme. It reached 841 vulnerable families and a total of 1,616 vulnerable children under the age of five over the course of 13 months. Each family had an average of nine items of safety equipment, and the cost of delivering the scheme ranged between £295 or £153 for each child. Compare that to the most recent available data on the cost of non-fatal hospital treatment for home accidents in children aged up to four, which is estimated at £10,000. 99 per cent of all families engaged considered that their home was safer. The majority of professional stakeholders, including family support practitioners, health visitors and fire officers, considered that the scheme helped to make children safer and healthier at 85 per cent, prevent accidents and unintentional injuries in the home at 67 per cent and prevent accidents and unintentional injuries to children under the age of five at 75 per cent. With one of the parents who contributed to the report, I had been stressing about getting safety gates and other equipment in my home for a while, but could not afford it. I was overjoyed when I heard about the scheme. The scheme also helped to identify risks. It built an individual home safety risk assessment into its delivery model, targeting the project to each individual family. The home safety risk assessment included a prescription for provision and professional installation of the equipment throughout the scheme, ensuring that boxes did not remain unopened and uninstalled in homes. All 841 clients and equipment fitted with an average of nine items per family. The scheme also offered a very important home fire safety visit conducted by Fire Scotland. Awareness of home safety was also a key element in the delivery. Most of the people who were involved became more aware of the risks around their home. This is a valuable pilot project. I thank the chamber once again for the opportunity to highlight it today and look forward to the debate. I am very interested in hearing from the minister how the future of home safety scheme will develop in Scotland. I now call Dr Richard Simpson to be followed by David Torrin's speeches of around four minutes. I begin by congratulating Clare Adamson on securing this member's debate on home safety kits. An issue that we can all agree needs our attention and consideration. In order to prevent accidents or in some cases death in the home, many of these accidents are totally preventable with simple safety awareness, understanding and equipment. I also put on record my personal admiration for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, whose tireless work in trying to prevent accidents around the home has been saving lives for over 100 years. The success of the Scotland home safety equipment scheme does speak for itself, and Clare Adamson has referred to some of the statistics. Certainly the professionals, including family support practitioners, fire officers and health visitors all believe—or 85 per cent of them certainly believe—that it helped the child to be healthier and safer, and 75 per cent certainly believe that it prevented accidents to children under five. The families themselves will almost 100 per cent of them felt safer as a result of the project. I want to briefly emphasise the area of health visitors because of the contention that there is at the moment about the named personal legislation that was built on GERFEC, which was a labour administration set of proposals to get it right for every child. In my view, the named person is not there, as some of the people in the court today are talking about. I won't talk about the actual court case, but the view that has been expressed to me is that there is an interference with the family. This is another example of where health visitors going into the household can put households in contact with groups such as ROSPA and others who could supply appropriate equipment to make sure that homes are fit for purpose for young people. Scotland does not have a good record in terms of child deaths, as Clare Adamson has said. At least 47 of those would be preventable if we were able to reach the best if the European countries, which Clare Adamson reminded us, were Netherlands. That is not just about the families and the children, it is also about the cost to the NHS. Our NHS is under massive pressure, and anything that reduces that has to also got to be welcome. I welcome the fact that the Government has now finally announced that we are going to have four major trauma units, and that will actually prevent some of the most serious accidents that have resulted in death. The major trauma units in England have demonstrably reduced deaths mortality for these 1,200 expected serious accidents in Scotland, but they have been reduced by 20 per cent in England. The current cost of the scheme is about £235 per household or £153 per child, because there were 1,616 children in the scheme involving the 800 vulnerable families. The cost of treating a home accident of a child under five in hospital can be as much as £10,500. That is yet another example where the investment in the situation following an assessment is something that is highly worthwhile. I want to spend a little of the time left speaking about the campaign that my colleague Gordon Banks has been supporting in Clackmannanshire. That is the banning of loop blind cords. Tragically, in 2008, a two-year-old girl in Clackmannanshire became tangled in such a cord at her home, resulting in loss of life. At the time that was estimated, two people died every year as a result of getting caught in looped blinds. America has already realised the dangers to children of looped blinds and banned these 15 years ago. Gordon has been supporting the parents of that young girl who have been campaigning tirelessly to have the same rules applied here in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether that can be dealt with under reserved or devolved powers, but it seems to me to be an area in which Government action might be helpful, at least in further raising of awareness. It can never be acceptable that with a simple remedy to prevent the death of children that we as a nation should delay in taking action. I am pleased that the campaign has had some success with new rules to improve the safety of blinds. Those have been announced by the European Commission, but I know that Gordon Banks continued to fear that until looped blind cords are designed out fully by the industry, then the threat cannot be removed completely. The cost of investing in such schemes or campaigns far outstrips the potential costs that is barely being incurred by the public purse, but, more important, the effect upon all those families. Those home safety kits, which on average contain as few as nine pieces of equipment, often quite simple equipment, which is then professionally fitted, reduce the risk of injury greatly. The fact that 99 per cent of the families felt safer is a testament to the success of the scheme, I would encourage the minister to look at what further possibilities are available to roll the scheme out further and to ensure the assessment by health visitor and the named person of every household and the application of those pieces of equipment in order to reduce Scotland's rather poor record in child deaths. Many thanks. I now call David Torrance to be followed by Alex Johnstone. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Clare Arneson for bringing forward this motion for debate. In doing so, I highlight an important issue that affects thousands of young children and their families in Scotland every year. Although the number of deaths attributed to accidents in the home has decreased dramatically over the past 20 years, there remain far too many young children being killed or injured in accidents that are often easily preventable. A few simple pieces of equipment, backed by education for parents and how to identify hazards, can be all it takes to make a difference between life and death for many of the children in their homes. For this reason, I am supporting the roll-out of Scotland's home safety equipment scheme across the country. There are a number of hazards in the average family home that may not initially appear particularly dangerous but can potentially cause severe injury or even death. Young children under 5 are particularly vulnerable due to their natural and causative nature, combined with the fact that children in this age bracket tend to spend more time at home. A home is constantly the most common place for children under 5 to have an accident. Anyone who has experience with toddlers knows only too well how much mischief a little one can get into when their parents back is turned, even just for a moment. The appeal of a kitchen cupboard or a flight of stairs can prove very tempting for a young child with a sense of adventure who has not yet fully developed a natural instinct for danger. In some instances, that can result in a poison, choking, suffocation, falls, burns or scouts. NHS Fife, which serves my constituency, recorded 132 emergency hospital admissions for children under 5 years old as a result of an attentional injury in the home in 2010-11. Many of those accidents could have been easily preventable with just a few simple measures. Equipments such as door jammers, safety gates, fire guards, line cleats and window restrictors can be all it takes to make your home accident proof. However, many families lack either a knowledge to prevent home accidents or the money to buy the safety equipment required. That is why Scotland's home safety equipment scheme has been so valuable to so many disadvantaged families in pilot areas. In addition to most of the obvious advantages of home safety kits, their potential can save lives, and there is a much wider benefit to be gained from their implementation. Reducing the number of accidents in the home means an easing of a burden on the NHS in terms of emergency treatment and follow-up care. That is a key consideration at a time when acute services are under increasing pressure and budgetary restraints. Another positive outcome of the scheme is the reassurance that it provides to parents and carers by equipping them with their acquired knowledge and understanding to identify hazards in the home. The tools to help to prevent accidents from occurring. It is very hard to offer peace of mind that a family home is as safe as it possibly can be. I applaud the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents for the creation of their initiative home safety equipment scheme in England, which provided inspiration behind the pilot project in Scotland. I also commend the efforts of the Scottish Government in conjunction with Rossport in Scotland, the local authorities involved in the pilot areas, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the collective commitment in making the scheme a success. Fife was not chosen in the pilot area in which to trial a scheme, which is unfortunate as I feel that it would have been extremely advantageous to many families within my constituency. I believe that a scheme should now be rolled out across the whole of Scotland so that every disadvantaged family can receive assistance to protect their children from preventable accidents in the home. I once again thank Claire Addison for helping to raise awareness of home safety kits by bringing her motion forward for debate today. I look forward to reading the forthcoming evaluation, reporting Scotland's home safety equipment scheme. I hope that this can be used as a tool for improving and enhancing the scheme with a view to expanding it across Scotland in the very near future. I thank the cabinet secretary and I now call Alex Johnston. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to congratulate Claire Addison on having brought this matter before Parliament today and to take the opportunity to offer my support and principle for the objectives that lie behind this motion. I would also like to congratulate Rossba for the work that they have done over the years. In fact, Rossba was an organisation that I first became aware of through their involvement in the production of public information films, which used to be shown on television back in the 1960s in the days when we only had two channels and there was not much exciting on. However, the series of falls, scalds and electrocutions that took place in those films were a lesson to a young child that there was danger in the home. In fact, it became increasingly obvious that there was no shortage of evidence to support the claim often made and known to be accurate that the home is one of the most dangerous places or environments that we can experience. Yet, I also have to say that there is an important role still for awareness and individual awareness both in adults and children for the dangers that we face in the home. Increasingly, new dangers come along. While everybody now seems to be fairly clear that if you have a young child in the house that your first priority is to get the fire guards and the stair gates up, we have been made aware through the speech that we heard earlier about the danger of loop-blind cords, which is something that people are increasingly aware of. Also, the danger through modern heating systems, if they become faulty, producing carbon dioxide, means that there is another danger in the home that we need to be aware of. I am fully supportive of the principle that lies behind this, that informing people of the dangers and making sure that safety equipment is available to them is a vital step in improving safety in the home, both for adults and for children. Yet, that personal responsibility must remain at the forefront of our mind. Therefore, by informing people of the dangers, by making the equipment available, we also need to make sure that they are aware of these dangers and do not allow themselves to fall into the trap of believing that somebody else has absorbed them of that responsibility. Ultimately, I will close by making that typical noise-lickatory and saying that we cannot wrap our children in cotton wool. We can make the environment as safe as we can possibly make it, but we must make children understand the danger that they are in and take responsibility even at a very early age for ensuring that they do not subject themselves to danger. We all grew up far too early in this modern world, but we can never be too young to understand the limits of our own mortality. For that reason, I would like to see us back in that period in the 1960s, when there were perhaps more opportunities on television for the occasional public information film that actually frightened young children, like I was then, into realising that there are dangers out there and that we should behave a bit more responsively. I invite Eileen Campbell to respond to the debate. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government. I want to put on record my thanks to Clare Adamson for sponsoring the debate and for all the MSPs who supported the motion to enable us to have what is a very important debate, but also to recognise Clare's wider work in convening the cross-party parliamentary group on accident prevention and safety awareness. It is not the most succinct of titles, nevertheless an important group to have in the Parliament, and I was pleased to attend one of the meetings in the recent past. I also want to put on record my thanks to Rossba, and I think that Alex Johnson noted his thanks to Rossba for the work that he has tirelessly carried out over many years in terms of promoting safety in our homes. When Rossba approached the Scottish Government with the proposals for the Scottish Home Safety Equipment Scheme, we were pleased to be in a position to provide funding for it, and others have outlined the costings associated with it. The aims of the scheme and the approach that was taken chined incredibly well with our approach in government, which is about prevention and early intervention, are also our aims to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up. The child-centred GERFEC approach is set out in our Children and Young Peoples Act, and I just want to pause on that because of the points that Richard Simpson raised. I will have to be careful, because of the legal situation and challenge that is on-going around a particular part of the act. I recognise the potential for the name person to help signposts, signposting families to get that extra support, in particular about safety. As someone who is about to re-engage with the Midwife Service and the Health Visitor Service as well, and from my own experience with my own wee boy, I just know how important the advice and support that health visitors and midwives can give to families at times of a particular vulnerability. That is a point that is well made by Richard Simpson. We need to make sure that we are using all our activities to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children and young people across Scotland. Of course, that particularly chimes well with the aims of our early years collaborative. The Government is firmly focused on reducing inequalities and making sure that every child has the best start in life. That is what the GERFEC stands for, for every child, and making sure that every child is also ready to succeed. That is why I have developed the policies and taken forward the legislation that I have just mentioned. I recognise what Richard Simpson has said. That is not just the Government that thought about GERFEC. That is a approach that has been supported across the chamber. The sad fact is that an intentional injury disproportionately affects the most vulnerable groups in society, notably children, older people and those living in areas of deprivation. As the report points out, there are substantial financial costs to the NHS and to wider society. It is an estimated £2 billion to Scottish society annually when all age groups are taken into account. The most recent data available on the cost of a non-fatal hospital treated home accident for children up to £4 is £10,600. That was a figure that Clare Adamson mentioned in her opening remarks. However, it would be wrong to focus on the finances alone. Unintentional injury is the major cause of death, especially in childhood. Each of those incidents represents a young life and its potential loss, not to mention the traumatic impact and effect on parents, siblings and wider family members. Sadly, death rates from injury are consistently around a third higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. There is also good evidence to show that the rate of reduction of child injury rates in the UK lags far behind other European countries. In human terms, Clare Adamson stated in her remarks, in comparison to the Netherlands, that represents a potential 47 young people whose lives would have been saved, able to flourish and go on to contribute to Scotland's society. That is something that you will need to reflect on the human terms of those tragedies. I mention that to remind us that we cannot be complacent and that there is still much for us to do in this area. As Clare Adamson said, Scotland could do better and there is a balance in reflection of what Ilych Johnson said about making sure that we do not wrap our children up in cotton wool. There is a slight difference, but I appreciate the work that we are doing around the play agenda and getting children outdoors. We need to make sure that we allow children to experience risk and manage that so that they can go on and manage that better as adults in later life. However, today, I think that it is about making sure that we create the safety parameters for children in their homes and recognise the work of ROSPA and the instructive evaluated support that they have produced today. All of us in the chamber, as well as those working with support in enriching children and young people in Scotland, want to make Scotland the best place to grow up. Part of that must be to make sure that our children are safe. The Scottish home safety equipment scheme therefore has taken us a bit of a way along that path. I think that we can agree that the evaluation report published today demonstrates the success of the scheme, and we count that success on a number of different levels. Firstly, the number of home safety kits fitted 841 families and 1,616 children under the age of five are safer. Importantly, kits include bling cord cleats, and I commend the work of Gordon Banks and my colleague Keith Brown for raising awareness about the dangers of bling cords. I know from my own perspective that we have taken action to make sure that our view does not fall at the risk of the dangers of bling cord cleats. We must make sure that the legacy of that absolute tragedy is to make sure that more awareness is raised and that more lives are saved as a result of the actions that we can take as a Government. The reason that people are safe is not only because of the kit, but because of the holistic approach that was taken by Rosspa and the local teams in providing a home safety risk assessment and home safety awareness for parents and carers. That, in itself, is a remarkable achievement. I am aware that we cannot measure what has happened and in some ways we will never know what the full impact of the kits have been, but common sense tells us that lives will have been saved and injuries prevented. As someone has said, there are no randomised control trials to tell you that wearing a parachute when you jump out of an aeroplane is a good thing to do. The quotes from the parents that have been included in the evaluation report illustrate how much parents have welcomed the scheme. I want to return to the same quote that Clare Adamson used when she described one parent saying, I had been stressing about getting safety gates and other equipment but could not afford it. I was overjoyed when I heard about the scheme, and I want to link in to David Torrance's points about needing eyes at the back of your head when you are bringing up a wee one. We should not have a situation where that social inequality and the lack of income prevents you from making your home as safe as it can be. We need to sharpen our focus across Government and make sure that our anti-poverty measures recognise the recommendations that have been outlined in the report today from Rosspa. Although we can count the number of kits that are fitted and the number of families that are visited, there are other successes from the scheme that cannot be counted or measured in the traditional way. There are now relationships that have been built between professionals and families that will provide a springboard for further interactions. There are the links made between different professional groups who did not know each other before but who all have a shared interest in making sure that families are safe and healthy. Maybe that is a signal that we need to involve staff groups beyond the obvious ones of health, social work and education in our GERFEC training and approach to ensure that we truly get it right for every child. There is also the increased knowledge and the confidence in the part of the parents and carers which in itself will contribute to children's safety. There is the increase in staff capacity also to deliver the scheme in terms of knowledge, understanding and skills, and in some cases gaining a recognised qualification. We are delighted with the success of the scheme and we would like to commend Rospa for that initiative. I know that it has not all been plain sailing and that there have been a few challenges along the way, however we can learn from those challenges. I know that the evaluation report makes some suggestions about how we can build on the legacy of the project. I urge community planning partnerships to study and consider those suggestions. Even in times of financial challenge, there is a need to move towards a prevention and early intervention agenda, so in conclusion I would again like to thank Claire Adamson for her sponsorship of this debate and to commend Rospa for the work on the scheme and also to thank all the other members who have contributed so fully in the time that they have during a member's debate to make sure that we have this shared agenda towards making Scotland not only the best place to grow up but probably I think reverse the unfortunate trends that we have seen in Scotland but actually make move us towards being one of the safest places in which children can grow up as well, so thank you. Thank you very much. That ends Claire Adamson's debate on home safety kits and I now suspend this meeting until 2.30pm.