Scottish Parliament, 26 June 2003

369 contributions from 72 members. The official report.

Introduction

Subordinate Legislation

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-143, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the draft Landfill (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/235) came into force on 11 April this year. Those regulations were recommended to Parliament following a debate in the Transport and the Environment Committee on 4 March 2003, and were approved on 13 March 2003.

The Executive was grateful then, and is grateful now, for the support both in committee and in Parliament for those regulations. Sustainable waste management demands that we reduce the volume and manage the disposal of waste safely. Our landfill regulations act on those priorities and are an important step in ensuring that the disposal of waste does not threaten either human health or the wider environment. Parliament supported those aims in March and I expect that it will continue to support them now.

It is perhaps appropriate at this juncture to expand on our wider European obligations. I understand that I have circa 10 minutes of debating time to fill so, at this point, I should welcome one of the unsung heroes of the parliamentary press core, the Press Association reporter. Unlike his colleagues in both the tabloid and quality press, who have failed to make it this morning, he is in the press gallery, and I welcome him.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Why did they not make it?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

That is a good question.

We aim to achieve a reduction by 2010 of 75 per cent in the 1995 levels of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill sites. We then hope to reduce those levels by 50 per cent by 2015 and by a further 35 per cent by 2020. We intend to ensure that continuing landfills accept only permitted types of waste and are managed so as to provide documented protection for the environment and human health.

I could go on about the detail of those regulations if members were interested, but as there appears to be no expression of interest from the Opposition benches, I shall move swiftly on to mention the fact that they are in force. The regulations now provide us with the opportunity to have a consistent regime for all landfills in Scotland. The requirement for operators to produce site conditioning plans, and the consequential increased regulatory powers, will enable the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which works on our behalf, to take a more active and effective role in controlling the construction, operation and aftercare of landfills. As a result of the regulations, landfills will be constructed and operated to much higher standards, and we are ensuring that they will not therefore pose a hazard for future generations in years to come.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

What will happen where landfill sites are already overfull and have to be closed? The waste from Inverness is now being transported to the constituency of my friend Stewart Stevenson, which leads to much more traffic congestion and to other health hazards involved in the transportation of waste. I find that a worrying prospect.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am familiar with the situation in Inverness, and I share Mrs Ewing's concerns. Not just in Inverness, but anywhere where waste is transported, we abide by the proximity principle in the development of both area and national waste management plans. That should provide for the disposal of waste as close to its source as is feasible. It is for local authorities and others involved in the management of waste to ensure that the proximity principle applies as far as is possible.

I turn now to the benefits of the regulations that we are considering today. As I said, the regulations are in force and SEPA is acting on them as we speak, and I believe that the three amendments in the amendment regulations that I am recommending to Parliament today will make them even more effective.

Both the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee drew attention to the fact that partnerships, although legal persons in Scots law, were not among those entities against which action could be taken under the regulations. Although action could be taken against the individual members of partnerships, we were happy to acknowledge the value of the committees' suggestions earlier in the year. I undertook to take the first possible opportunity to amend the regulations to deal with that omission. The new session of Parliament is barely a month old, so I hope that the members of the new committees feel that we have fulfilled that commitment to Parliament promptly.

At the same time, the Executive would like to use this opportunity to make two further amendments to the original regulations. The first is a clarification of the definition of waste for the purpose of those regulations. As was made clear during the debate in the Transport and the Environment Committee, we wish to include among the kinds of waste whose landfill will now be regulated certain waste streams—notably agricultural waste—that are not currently covered by the controlled waste regime.

The original regulations were accompanied by a provision to commence part of the Environment Act 1995 to do precisely that. We have since decided, in consultation with SEPA, that it would provide greater clarity to amend the definition of waste in the regulations. The amendment regulations before Parliament therefore refer specifically to the European waste catalogue, which is a very broad listing of wastes. By referring to that catalogue, we can be sure that landfill of the whole range of wastes is covered by our legislation and that we are therefore adopting best European Union-wide practice. That does not depart from the original intention of the regulations that Parliament approved, nor does it introduce any new burdens that were not envisaged at that time. The amendment merely clarifies the broad ambit of the regulations and puts them in their broader European context.

Finally, our third amendment will correct a minor typographical error in the original regulations. In the box at paragraph 3(14)(a) of schedule 6 to the original regulations, there is an incorrect reference to

"paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 5".

That should be amended to read, "paragraph 1(6) of Schedule 5". That is a fairly significant amendment. Schedule 6(3)(14) concerns serving notices, and the provision about serving notices is found in paragraph 1(6) of schedule 5, not in paragraph 1(9).

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

What time did he get to bed last night?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Not long enough ago, that is for sure.

I assure members that, although that error was present in the original regulations, no proceedings were compromised thereby. By correcting it now, we will enable SEPA to serve notices where required.

The amendment regulations that are being put before Parliament today are simply to clarify the original regulations and to make them more effective in establishing an improved landfill regime. That is the purpose for which the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee recommended the original regulations to Parliament in the previous session, and for which Parliament voted in their favour at that juncture.

I therefore look forward to—and I am sure that I can expect—the continued support of Parliament for those minor technical amendments. I commend them to the chamber.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Landfill (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 be approved.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Beat that, Richard.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank Linda Fabiani for that comment. I suspect that whatever the minister was taking last night at the parliamentary event held by journalists may still be in his bloodstream.

I have a sense of déjà vu because last Thursday some of us—very few of us—gathered in the chamber to debate amendment regulations that also related to environmental matters. Those regulations concerned the water industry, and were an example of the impact of European legislation on the work of the Scottish Parliament. In this case the Scottish National Party supports the introduction of these amendment regulations. I am sure that we all wish to give our warm thanks to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for bringing the issue to our attention.

The amendment regulations ensure that the existing regulations will cover all forms of waste disposal, including agricultural waste and non-mineral waste from quarries and mines. I am sure that we all recognise the role that farmers will have to play in improving Scotland's environment in the years ahead. We welcome the wholehearted support of farmers for making that contribution.

We have 45 minutes to debate the issue of landfill, which is unfortunate because there are other more important issues for which we could have used the time. One such issue is that of food supplements, on which many MSPs were calling for debating time yesterday.

It is to Scotland's shame that 90 per cent of waste is currently landfilled. For too many years, people in Scotland—particularly in industry—thought that, due to the geology of Scotland, the use of landfill sites was easy and cheap. That allowed people who operated quarries and so on to restore them simply by using landfill. We have learned, however, that there are many disadvantages to using landfill. The older sites have produced a great deal of pollution, and there are uncontrolled leakages. There is now a shortage of sites, and Margaret Ewing referred to the transportation of waste from one site to other sites across the country. That in turn leads to further pollution because of increased road traffic and so on. Landfill sites are unsightly—no one wants one on their doorstep. They are noisy and smelly, which makes them unpopular with the public.

The SNP supports the Executive's belief that we should not squander Scotland's valuable resources and energy on landfill. We all recognise that landfill contributes to global warming by producing carbon dioxide and methane. I have already referred to the environmental degradation that results from leakages, and other pollution arises as a result of transportation.

The SNP supports the strict regulation of landfill and a reduction in the number of landfill sites in Scotland. Tackling those issues is perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing the Parliament. The Government launched its waste strategy a few years ago, while earlier this year the waste plan was launched. As well as recycling targets and so on, how we deal with Scotland's waste is one of the biggest issues facing the Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that no parliamentary committee has so far considered the issue. I hope that we can encourage the Environment and Rural Development Committee—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It may please the member to hear that yesterday, at its second meeting, the Environment and Rural Development Committee decided that it would consider the issue of the national waste strategy, with a view to scrutinising the Executive's work and making an input to the work of the European Commission and the European Parliament on the issue, which must be concluded by the end of December 2003.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am delighted to hear that, as we have been waiting for four years. Anyone else who wants to intervene has two or three minutes in which to do so.

It is sad that the figure for recycling in Scotland is only 7 per cent. The SNP welcomes the fairly ambitious national waste plan that was launched earlier this year. The plan talked about achieving, by 2020, a seven-fold increase in recycling and composting, the target of bringing the segregation of kerbside recycling to nine out of 10 homes in Scotland, and a reduction in the number of landfill sites in Scotland by roughly two-thirds. Those are very ambitious targets, so when the minister winds up perhaps he could refer to the feedback he has so far received from Scotland's local authorities on meeting them. The targets should perhaps be even more ambitious, but we must ensure that local authorities have the resources and the ability to deliver. We need alternatives to landfill sites, and we cannot move away from using such sites until those alternatives are in place.

Some local authority officials are hoping for action to speed up planning applications for recycling plants and the introduction of new regulations on the end rules for the use of compost. Apparently, the law says that if industrial compost includes animal by-products it must be put in landfill. However, although it may not be possible to remove the danger, I understand that composting techniques have advanced and that new legislation will be introduced. People are awaiting that legislation and want it fast-tracked if possible.

It is important that the Parliament is vigilant about the environment. Some local shops in Aberdeen—and no doubt elsewhere in Scotland—that deal with the recycling of ink cartridges are running petitions to gain people's support and to highlight that the big manufacturers want to stop those smaller businesses recycling ink cartridges because that takes away business from the big multinationals. It would be bad for the environment if those manufacturers get their way. We must address that situation urgently. I urge ministers, members and the parliamentary committees to investigate the issue. It would be ludicrous if, simply to boost their profits, the big multinationals were to stop the smaller shops recycling ink cartridges—which are used in particular by students and small businesses—to save some cash. We do not want Europe to support that; we want the Parliament to ensure that Europe does not go down that road.

The minister could also refer to an issue that was in the news a few days ago. Ninety-four ships are being towed from the United States of America through Scottish waters to Teeside to be scrapped and have their toxic cargos removed. That may pose a huge environmental risk to Scottish waters and Scotland's coastal environment. Some ministers have already voiced concern about the situation, but perhaps the minister could assure us that the Executive will consider the matter.

The Parliament can pass as many regulations as it wants, but our job of protecting the environment would be much easier if we could educate the public about how to save energy, recycle and so on. Any comment that the minister can make on what has been done to educate the public and inform people about the dangers of failing to protect the environment would be welcome. The SNP supports the regulations.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Conservatives supported the regulations when they originally passed through committee and will support the amendment regulations today. It is important that we address the issues dealt with by the regulations, and the amendment regulations that have been introduced are justified. It is a concern that we have had to devote three-quarters of an hour to the issue, when it might have been more appropriate for it to have been dealt with by committee. The parliamentary process will be up and running after the summer recess, and I hope that we will be able to avoid such situations arising in future.

However, we should not pass up the opportunity to bring the issue of landfill on to the parliamentary agenda. This is a rare opportunity to discuss one or two slightly broader issues that are covered by the regulations under discussion. I am concerned that the Executive and the papers that it produces, including the regulations, talk regularly about the imposition of targets. Targets for recycling and other means of waste disposal that move us away from landfill are worth while in the sense that they set an objective that we all feel is necessary. However, my concern is about where targets cause distortion in the system. There are one or two areas where I have concerns about the effects that targets may have.

We talk about recycling—particularly composting—as an alternative to landfill, but I am concerned primarily about the suggestion that, in some cases, incineration be used as an alternative to landfill. Even when power is recovered from the incinerators and some sort of efficiency can be argued, there is a growing concern that public health might be put at risk as a result of a decision to use incineration instead of the landfill option. I would be interested to hear from the minister exactly where the Executive stands on the issue of the incineration of waste and whether any work is being done to allay the public's concerns that are being reported to me, particularly with regard to the disposal of organic waste.

The issue of landfill is very much to the fore in the area immediately north of Aberdeen. I thought that it would be appropriate to raise one or two concerns that have been raised with me in recent months and years. Other members might want to contribute on this point in greater detail, as it is a constituency interest for them.

I am particularly concerned about the transportation of waste out of Aberdeen and into the area immediately to the north. The geology of the Aberdeen area means that there is little opportunity to establish landfill sites to the south or west of the city. The area immediately to the north, however, lends itself to the practice of landfill.

Consequently, a number of landfill sites have been situated there over the years. In places such as Blackdog, we have seen the way in which landfill should not be done. There are on-going environmental problems associated with that site, which is now closed as it was worked in ways that will damage the environment in the future. There is another controversial site in Wester Hatton, which is still the subject of a number of objections by local people who continue to contact me with their concerns.

The problem with the regulation of such sites is that the regulations can be so tight—as with the Wester Hatton site—that, in many cases, rubbish is not dumped at them. Much of Aberdeen's rubbish goes up the road past the Wester Hatton site and on up to Peterhead, in Stewart Stevenson's constituency, where it is dumped at less cost. As a result of the necessity to move rubbish over longer distances, fuel is burned and the environment is consequently damaged. Is the minister prepared to consider the way in which regulations are implemented to ensure that, in future, we do not have the unfortunate situation in which rubbish is hauled over many miles to avoid problems such as those that have been mentioned?

Richard Lochhead mentioned the issue of the ships that are coming across the Atlantic and passing through Scottish waters on their way to Teeside. We have to be extremely responsible in our approach to that situation. I have concerns, which many members share. However, if we are to dispose of dangerous substances and recycle waste in a responsible manner, that has to be done somewhere. The techniques and capability to do so might exist in other countries, but they might also exist in the United Kingdom. To the extent that they exist here, it is essential that we accept our responsibility and ensure that such practices are carried out where that can be done most responsibly.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am nearly finished.

We have to address our responsibilities and ensure that our arguing against having that sort of work done in the UK does not simply result in its being done in the former Soviet Union, India or the far east, where the environment might be damaged to a far greater extent.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I support the regulations and the amendment regulations. The regulations were endorsed by the Transport and the Environment Committee, and the Tories supported them too—but, I have to say, only after a lot of argument.

The proposal is, I hope, a further step towards a more environmentally friendly waste strategy. This country does not have a good record on waste management—in fact, it is abysmal.

About 10 years ago, I went on a school exchange to Hamburg and stayed with a German family. I was utterly ashamed by how the German commitment to recycling compared to ours. There were separate collections on the doorstep for paper, glass, tin cans and compostable materials. At that time, when it had been suggested that Scotland might go down the same road, the idea was ridiculed—for example, the tabloids printed cartoons of woolly-hatted environmentalists sniffing dustbins and so on. The culture in this country has never encouraged us to address our responsibilities with regard to recycling.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that the example of Germany highlights one of the problems that face us in relation to recycling? At a time when paper was being recycled in many European countries through an internally funded, market-led process, the Germans decided—for all the right reasons—that, because paper recycling was a good idea, they would offer a substantial subsidy for the recycling of paper. However, that decision led to the collapse of the practice in every other European country.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I want to address that point in a Highland context. I do not think that recycling should be market led because, if it were, it simply would not happen in some areas of the country.

My first foray into recycling was when I was 10 years old. During the summer holiday that I spent in Oban, my cousin and I realised that the shoreline was a good source of empty beer and lemonade bottles that had been thrown over the side of fishing boats or Caledonian MacBrayne ferries. We spent our summer holidays collecting beer bottles and taking them to McKerchar's the grocers and getting tuppence for them. We spent that money on iced buns—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

And doughnuts?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

And doughnuts, which we saved up for a midnight feast, meaning that they were fairly stale by the time we ate them. What is the balance of good in that example? We certainly cleaned up the shoreline, but I probably did my teeth inordinate damage and ensured that I ended up with the figure of a traditionally built woman that I have today.

Although that is a humorous example, the idea of the balance of good is important. Margaret Ewing is not in the chamber anymore, but I want to pick up on what she said about the landfill in Inverness being closed down. SEPA wanted it to be closed down for environmental reasons, yet further environmental damage is being done as a result of the need to haul the rubbish to Peterhead for disposal. I do not want to take a side in that argument, as I do not know what the answer is, but I wonder whether any thought was given to the balance of good before that decision was made.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Leaving aside the landfill site in Peterhead, which is a matter of concern to me, does the member agree that there might be some environmental advantages in transporting Inverness's rubbish by ship instead of road? That would provide an opportunity to develop more freight opportunities at Inverness and Peterhead.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I agree, and I believe that that possibility, as well as the possibility of transporting it by rail as close to Peterhead as possible, was considered by Highland Council. Unfortunately, however, both options were rejected.

We are making progress in the Highlands. Across the region, there are community groups that are dedicated to recycling and composting, such as the Campbeltown waste busters. That group was recently told that it would receive more money from the Executive to help its project. The Lochaber environmental group has raised awareness of waste management in a rural context and has questioned, as others have done, our culture of overpackaging almost every item that is sold.

I wonder what has happened to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations that the Government introduced in 1997, following the European Union directive in 1994. I have not seen any reduction in packaging. If one wants to buy three cup hooks, they are still unnecessarily attached to a piece of cardboard and sealed in plastic in the ironmongers. We should consider the amount of unnecessary packaging that exists.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member should wind up.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I could have continued for much longer, but unfortunately I will have to end there.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The downside of Europe is that our ministers have to sit up all night to reach decisions, but that seems to be worth while. I do not know whether members listened to the news this morning, but we seem to have arrived at a good deal for Scottish agriculture that will open up possibilities for encouraging good farming practice and benefits to the environment. That is to be welcomed, particularly in the context of how waste and landfill are dealt with.

One of the things that Europe does best is driving the environmental agenda. The first Community strategy for waste management dates back to 1989. We know that the effects of pollution and global warming are not confined by national boundaries and we know what we need to do. Working on a pan-European basis encourages all member states to take action and removes the excuses that the impact of one state's actions can be cancelled by the fact that other states are not following suit or that there will be a competitive disadvantage through properly dealing with waste.

The amendment regulations are the latest step in the much-needed process of tightening up how we deal with our waste. As Richard Lochhead reminded us, some 90 per cent of our waste goes to landfill, which illustrates Scotland's position at the lower end of the waste hierarchy. There is a heavy dependence on disposal. We know how much we need to do to hoist ourselves up the waste hierarchy, but it is vital that we tackle all aspects of waste, including minimisation, reuse, recycling and safe, properly regulated disposal, down to the last closing bracket—I say that to Allan Wilson.

There has been a waste strategy—area waste plans are feeding into the national waste plan, which is beginning to have an impact. This weekend, I will put out my third lot of papers for kerbside collection in Inverurie. Each collection in the town has been larger than the previous one, as people become more aware of the service.

To get to where we want to be from where we are with our attitudes to waste will take sustained action on many fronts, better regulation of landfill sites, better provision of properly engineered sites and better planning to avoid long-haul solutions. The amendment regulations will help. We welcome and support them.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Robin Harper will be followed by John Swinburne.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

How long do I have?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have a strict six minutes.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Thank you.

Yesterday, I lodged an amendment to the motion, although it was not selected for debate. The amendment proposed inserting the following words at the end of the motion:

"but, in so doing, recognises the regrettable situation that, at present, and for the foreseeable future, landfilling remains the waste management option of choice for virtually all local authorities; laments the fact that several community recycling projects are facing financial ruin owing to the failure of promised public funding; acknowledges that current recycling targets are wholly inadequate given the potential for recycling, and requests that the Scottish Executive formally adopts the concept of 'zero waste'."

In his foreword to "The National Waste Plan 2003", Ross Finnie states:

"This National Waste Plan ... sets out the basis for a fundamental shift in the way we manage Scotland's resources."

He continues:

"Our vision is for a resource-efficient culture where waste reduction, reuse and recycling are a part of everyday life for everyone."

We support that. We strongly agree with Mr Finnie and assert that nothing less than a fundamental shift is required if we are to achieve a sustainable Scotland. Unfortunately, the draft Landfill (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 do nothing to bring about such a sea change in how we tackle the waste problem.

The waste framework directive calls on member states to encourage

"the prevention or reduction of waste production"

and

"the recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials".

However, in practice, that does not happen. Landfill operators do not sort the wastes that they receive; the wastes are simply dumped on the tipping face, compacted, covered over and essentially forgotten. We believe that there must ultimately—within 10 years—be a presumption that all waste, as it has been defined, be screened for the presence of reusable, recyclable and otherwise recoverable components and constituents. Waste should be landfilled only when there is no further practicable potential for any of the waste-recovery processes that I have mentioned.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Robin Harper may be aware of the plans to create major plants at Westfield in Fife and Killoch in Ayrshire, which would involve transportation of large masses of waste over many miles and create fairly large problems at those sites. Does he envisage the need for such sites?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Those are definitely not the kind of sites that we envisage. In all too many cases, such sites are associated with landfill and the possibility of incineration. The building of incinerators with a commitment to producing waste for 25 years in order to solve our energy problems is a bizarre compact that the Green Party utterly rejects.

General wastes can be passed through a mechanical sorter that extracts glass and metal, for example, that may have been missed by individual householders, although we believe that it is important that individual householders should bear the responsibility for preliminary sorting. It has been shown that, in Denmark, roughly half the people recycle carefully, but that the rest are fairly ambivalent about the process. Certainly, some 20 to 25 per cent of people—even in some of the best countries—are not good at sorting their rubbish. A change in attitude towards waste would have a marked impact on Scottish recycling rates—from being among the lowest in Europe, rates would become among the highest in Europe.

I want to deal with a serious problem that I mentioned in my amendment—indeed, the amendment might not have been selected because the problem was thought not to be precisely relevant to the subject for debate today. There is a serious problem for small-scale recyclers in Scotland. I received a letter from a recycling project on the west coast of Scotland. Although the project has been extremely successful, it will be legally obliged to file for bankruptcy in five days' time, as it has not received the piece of paper that it needs from the Executive in order to borrow from the banks until the promised Executive money arrives.

The situation is absolutely shambolic. Perhaps other small-scale recyclers throughout Scotland are scared to complain for the simple reason that they are always having to beg for money from here, there, the Executive, the landfill tax and local councils—they are not putting their heads above the parapet in case they annoy somebody. The letter that I received states:

"Firstly, the speed of the change seems to have been too fast, giving organisations little time to plan. Secondly, the interim arrangements in Scotland have not been sufficient to tide environmental organisations over."

It continues:

"I am aware that in Edinburgh a number of LEEP employees are facing redundancy or a reduction in their hours".

That fact was publicised in the Edinburgh Evening News on 14 April.

The business environmental partnership in Midlothian has done fantastic work. It has helped more than 200 Edinburgh-based businesses to participate in waste minimisation projects, but the changes in landfill tax credits mean that it is no longer able to bid for landfill tax credits from the Edinburgh environment partnership grants scheme to run waste-related projects in Edinburgh. The situation is a shambles and it is up to the Executive to sort it out as quickly as possible.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I had thought that I would be off the hook today. I thought, "Landfill sites—senior citizens—easy." But, no, a delegation of senior citizens from Stewartfield in East Kilbride dropped in last week—they had picked up from the internet that the landfill regulations would be discussed. They came to my door and said, "Can you come with us?" So I went—I was outnumbered. We went to Stewartfield, where there was a plague of flies coming over from the Cathkin landfill site. The site is not far from Stewartfield, which is a beautiful housing estate. The plague of flies was indescribable and totally unacceptable.

Those who operate landfill sites are bound to have some way of spraying disinfectant to kill the things, but it is alleged that South Lanarkshire Council has come up with an answer to the problem—its answer is to breed 40,000 coloured flies and release them from the landfill site in order to prove that the problem does not come from the site. The idiots have taken over the place. I give in. I think that that is all that I have to say.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

It is unfortunate that the member describes the actions of the council and of the operator of the landfill site as idiotic, because there is established evidence to suggest that flies do not travel very far. However, they may be doing so in this case, so the council is responsibly trying to find out whether the cause is the landfill site or something else in East Kilbride. Perhaps the Philipshill water treatment works is the reason for the flies. It is an important principle that the cause must be established before action can be taken. The community of Stewartfield would want to ensure that there is evidence to show once and for all whether the problem comes from the landfill site. If the landfill is not the cause, we have another problem to deal with.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Perhaps the minister will tell us who is to count the number of coloured flies that people sweep up in their houses.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will answer that. A number of residents in Stewartfield have agreed to take part in the project. They have been given sufficient material to catch the flies, which will be taken away by environmental health officers, who will make an assessment. That is good practice. It is an innovative approach that will ensure that we get to the root of the problem rather than tackle a problem that may not exist in the first place. That is a good use of public money.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I rest my case. The idiots have taken over the asylum. I am sorry.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Unlike many members, I welcome the opportunity provided by today's debate. As members may know, I have a particular interest in the effect that large-scale landfill sites can have on communities.

The village of Greengairs in my constituency has the misfortune of sitting adjacent to one of Europe's largest landfill sites. The village is almost entirely surrounded by other landfill operations and opencast workings. The people of Greengairs know only too well what it is like to have to live with the effects of landfill: disgusting odours, plagues of flies, local roads destroyed by heavy-goods vehicles and the constant buzz of helicopters at work flying overhead. They experience all those things day in, day out, month after month and year after year. The experience of the people of Greengairs stands as a reminder, if one is needed, of why we must find viable and sustainable alternatives to burying our waste products in the ground.

The amendment regulations seek to improve the working of the EU landfill directive by amending the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003. They are intended to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of landfill waste on the environment and, consequentially, on the people who live in the communities that are nearest to landfill sites. I welcome the intention behind the regulations. In particular, I welcome the steps that they set out to ensure that different types of waste are sent to the appropriate type of landfill site.

The community of Greengairs has strong concerns about the fact that the nearby site accepts waste products that are unsuitable for a landfill that is so close to a residential community. I can assure members that the story that a whale was dumped in Greengairs is far from being an urban myth. That was the reality that my constituents faced last summer. They had to endure the appalling and disgraceful smells and the swarms of flies that came with the whale as it was transported to the site.

Although I welcome the strengthening of regulations designed to prevent inappropriate use of landfill, I call on the minister to ensure that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency does everything in its power to implement the regulations. Where necessary, SEPA must prosecute those companies that flout the regulations. The recent publication of the online register of polluters showed that the Greengairs site, which is operated by Shanks Waste Services Ltd, is the seventh in Scotland's top 10 worst toxic polluters. That is a shameful statistic. If the situation is to change, it is vital that the regulations are properly enforced.

The amendment regulations are to be welcomed. I welcome anything that improves the environment for people whose lives are blighted by the operation of landfills close to where they live. However, we must also begin to take seriously the need to find alternatives to landfill. That is necessary not just because the regulations tell us so, but because we owe it to the people who live by opencast workings to ensure that our short-term decisions do not leave long-lasting consequences for them in the years to come. I certainly owe it to the people of Greengairs to ensure that they do not endure opencast and landfill for one more day than is necessary. [Applause.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Alex Johnstone.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is that me? I am sorry, but I could not hear for the clapping.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Are you sure that it was not the effects of last night?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I am perfectly okay.

The debate has been surprisingly interesting, largely because we have been able to spread our wings slightly further than the scope of the regulations. The debate has given the Parliament an opportunity to unite behind the principles behind the instrument, which are that landfill is unacceptable in modern circumstances. For a whole host of environmental reasons, it is a sound idea to move towards alternative means of dealing with rubbish. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are continuing concerns about some of the alternatives to landfill.

Some interesting points have been raised during the debate, but I am particularly concerned about John Swinburne's flies. I would be interested to know what colour they were. Some alternative methods of dealing with flies involve breeding more flies and releasing them. If the flies can be bred so that they are unable to reproduce, releasing them in the area can have the effect of cutting out the flies altogether in the long term. That technique has been used worldwide and is being used effectively in other areas of Scotland.

At the conclusion of today's debate, the minister can take it that the Parliament backs the principles behind the regulations but believes that we have a lot more to do. As our convener, Sarah Boyack, mentioned, the Environment and Rural Development Committee has committed itself to looking at landfill issues as one of its priorities. I look forward to taking that opportunity when the committee begins to deal with the matter.

If we are to get round the problem of landfill sites, we must move quickly to examine the alternatives and deal with the objections that there might be to some of them. Flies are not the only problem. I assure members that severe concerns have been brought to my attention about the impact that incineration might have on local environments. In Scotland, one or two incidents involving waste incineration led to some horrifying consequences and some extremely tedious litigation. Consequently, if we are to use incinerators as a method of disposing of, and even of recovering energy from, waste, it is essential that, before we progress down that road, we consider the impact that such practices have on the environment. Nonetheless, the use of landfill must be reduced.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Allan Wilson to wind up the debate.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am sorry, but I have forgotten Linda Fabiani. I apologise.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is terribly upsetting that I am so easily forgotten, especially when I have even more enthusiasm than Karen Whitefield to speak in today's debate.

The SNP welcomes the fact that regulations are being changed to bring Scottish law into line with European law. However, Robin Harper is right—even though we discussed landfill and waste strategies many times during the Parliament's first session, it seems that that was to no avail, because nothing much has changed. Robin Harper is still mentioning people who come up with great waste strategy initiatives but are totally hamstrung in trying to make a difference and are unable to help us to meet the targets that we have talked about.

I am glad to hear that the new convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee is being strongly urged to hold an inquiry on waste strategy. I hope that the next time we discuss waste management we will be able to come up with real solutions to the real problems that exist, particularly in relation to landfill, because the present situation cannot be sustained for much longer. It is all very well to bring in new regulations, but I am not convinced that we are giving teeth to the relevant agencies and the local authorities that must monitor such matters, so that they can truly make a difference.

I would like the minister to clarify an issue that came up yesterday. I was told that any landfill sites that were in existence prior to the creation of SEPA remain the responsibility of the local authority within whose area they lie. That bothered me, because I do not feel that local authorities have the resources to regulate and monitor such sites properly. I would appreciate clarification on that.

Although the debate has been short, a number of interesting speeches have been made, which all dealt with the theme of recycling. Richard Lochhead stressed that 90 per cent of waste goes to landfill. We have not made a difference on recycling, as Nora Radcliffe and Maureen Macmillan pointed out. There must be sufficient resources to deliver on the targets that everyone agrees should be met.

Alex Johnstone and Margaret Ewing spoke about the big issue of transporting waste and John Swinburne mentioned the Cathkin landfill site. What has been said about the flies is true and I am amazed that Alex Johnstone is such an expert on them. I was going to ask what happens when it is decided that the problem comes from a landfill site, but Alex Johnstone kindly answered that question. It is not only the people in Stewartfield who experience such difficulties; other people who live beside the Cathkin landfill site have a terrible time. As well as suffering from the planning blight that comes with having a landfill site on the doorstep, they have been plagued with flies, too. I hope that the joint initiative involving Glasgow City Council and South Lanarkshire Council identifies the source of the problem and fixes it.

Transportation is a significant issue, as three Glasgow City Council waste lorries have already been overturned on the way to the Cathkin landfill site. That brings me on to the ships that transport toxic waste. It is all very well to say that such waste has to be dealt with somewhere, as Alex Johnstone said, but our Government and, to an extent, our Parliament is charged with protecting our environment. It is worrying that we first learned about the ships bringing toxic waste through the Pentland firth from reading about them in a newspaper. I am sure that the minister will be as concerned as I am about that. I ask him to give us some feedback on how we can monitor such matters. The ships in question come from America. It is not as though they come from somewhere that cannot deal with toxic waste. Why are those ships bringing waste all the way across from America to be dealt with in this country?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Surely the intention is that we in the United Kingdom should use the expertise of our skilled people to treat much of that waste. Some of the waste that comes from less-developed countries could cause major pollution in those countries. A condition of the waste's coming here is that every toxic product that is produced from the transposition of the waste is sent back to the country of origin.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is all very well, but the fact that those ships come across into Scottish waters raises the possibility of an environmental disaster. It seems ludicrous that a convoy of waste ships should be sent all that way across the ocean. Surely there are experts on the other side of the world that can deal with the waste.

We agree that we must come into line with Europe, but I would like us to go a bit further. Why cannot we be more ambitious? Instead of just coming up with the solutions for our country, as we have done many times, why do we not finance and resource those solutions? That would enable us to make a difference and to tap into the environmental justice that practically all members say we should be tapping into.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Allan Wilson has a strict six minutes in which to wind up.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will try to deal with all the issues that have been raised in the limited amount of time that I have. If I cannot deal with everything, I will be happy to write to members individually about their concerns, including constituency issues.

It is perhaps inevitable that the debate has moved from consideration of the specific content of the proposed technical amendments to the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 towards consideration of landfill in general. That is probably as it should be. I welcome the support that members of all parties have expressed for the amendments. The whole purpose of the regulations that we introduced in the first session was to tighten up and better regulate existing landfill sites.

On Linda Fabiani's point about old landfill sites, sites that were closed before the creation of SEPA remain the responsibility of the relevant local authority, but SEPA retains and exercises its monitoring powers in relation to any environmental threat that is posed by those sites. Those powers apply to the broad spectrum of environmental threats, including those that old landfill sites could pose.

I was interested in Alex Johnstone's point about incineration. I want to reassure him that incineration, or energy from waste, is towards the bottom of the waste hierarchy as outlined in the national waste management plan. Recovery, recycling and reuse are all preferred to, and are better environmental options than, incineration.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is there a massive energy deficit there? All the processes that the minister referred to consume energy. Is that not wasteful in itself?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The national waste plan acknowledges that producing energy from waste is part of an integrated approach to the management of waste. It also acknowledges that conventional techniques involving the incineration of unsorted waste are not particularly popular, as Alex Johnstone said. Although the benefits that such methods provide are limited, in that they do not encourage recycling or reuse, we expect that up to 14 per cent of all municipal waste would be better utilised for energy recovery. We aim to meet that target by 2020. Incineration and energy from waste have a part to play in the way in which we manage waste and reduce our reliance on landfill. That is an important consideration.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the minister acknowledge the enormous progress that has been made at the cement works at Dunbar, which now burns all Scotland's waste car tyres? Their shipment and use as fuel in the cement manufacture process offers tremendous environmental advantages in reducing landfill waste, using energy potential and reducing emissions into the atmosphere.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution that such schemes—in Dunbar and throughout the country—make to reducing our reliance on landfill. Reuse, recycling and energy from waste schemes can all make an important contribution.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

What happens if the Executive's waste minimisation and reuse strategies are successful? Do we then start diverting waste that could be reused to incinerators just because we have built the incinerators?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

No. The point about energy from waste and incineration is that it is the least environmentally friendly option. We prefer reuse and recycling to incineration, so we will direct all our energies into sorting waste at source and—because I believe that there is a market solution to the problem—into creating markets for the recycled products, as John Home Robertson mentioned.

It is too easy to ridicule the idea of separation of waste at source—I accept Maureen Macmillan's point about how separation has been ridiculed in the past. However, I believe that those days are at an end. The public are becoming increasingly aware that many councils are using the strategic waste fund's considerable resources to improve the separate collection of waste streams. That is real progress and considerable resources are being allocated to local funds to improve recycling. Funds are being earmarked for precisely the type of sorting facilities that Mr Harper recommends.

Richard Lochhead made an interesting point about composting. We are aware of the issue and we will be proposing further amendments to the waste-licensing regime early in the new parliamentary session. That will address Richard Lochhead's point about the European regime.

I apologise for the fact that I have not covered every point that has been raised, but I undertake to get back to members on outstanding issues after the debate. I whole-heartedly commend the new regulations to the chamber.

Fireworks Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-136, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the Fireworks Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Although today is a beautiful, sunny, summer day in Scotland, I ask members to cast their minds back to the slightly darker and colder nights of the bonfire season when they sought to reflect the views of their communities and constituents on the increasing problems with fireworks. I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the Executive's motion before the recess.

We are not all killjoys—fireworks can and do provide family entertainment and they enhance special occasions for many communities. Where I live in Strathaven, a fantastic fireworks event is organised by the local round table organisation for the community. The event is well managed and well staged in a safe and secure environment and is a good event for the community. We are not trying to deny communities anything, but we want to ensure that fireworks are enjoyed safely.

I am sure that many members share my view that in the past few years there has been a change in the use of fireworks and that that change in use is occasionally completely unacceptable. In some communities, fireworks are set off weeks—sometimes months—before the traditional bonfire season. That causes alarm and distress to elderly residents, families and the community in general, and to those with pets, including those people who rely on animals such as guide dogs.

In my community, I was extremely disappointed to find some retailers—not just the small retailers who often get the blame, but large chains—selling fireworks irresponsibly and at a discount. The adverts went up long before bonfire night. In a previous debate, I said that such retailers, if they did not get their act together, were

"drinking in the last-chance saloon"—[Official Report, 31 October 2002; c 14857.]

We have sought to ensure that some of the measures that members want to see enacted are introduced in Scotland.

The Executive has made it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable and we want to deal with it. We want to stamp out the injuries and the upset that are caused by the irresponsible use of fireworks.

Earlier this year, I met the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's working group that is dealing with the issue of fireworks in communities. I also met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities task group on fireworks and I commend the work of that group and its chair, Tom Maginnis. We discussed the group's positive and wide-ranging report on fireworks.

In March, I wrote to all local authorities to draw their attention to that report and to the fact that the Executive wants to help to implement the good practice that is outlined in the report. I welcome the fact that I received a positive response from local authorities and that they are actively setting up initiatives to deal with the problem.

The Parliament has had several debates on the issue, most recently on 14 November 2002, when many MSPs took the opportunity to raise their constituents' concerns, and a variety of opinions were offered on what requires to be done. To their credit, many members have been involved in local campaigns. The importance of the issue is confirmed by the petitions and letters that MSPs have received and by what they hear in their surgeries, as well as by the shocking figures on firework and bonfire-related incidents. There were 822 incidents reported throughout Scotland on bonfire night in 2002.

I have received many letters expressing concern and asking what can be done. Many of those letters also congratulate the Executive and local authorities on the work that they have done to date, and their absolute commitment to dealing with the misuse of fireworks. I am therefore delighted to be able to explain what is happening and to ask for members' support for the Executive's approach.

Members who have kept in touch will be aware that the Fireworks Bill is a private member's bill that was introduced by Bill Tynan, the member of Parliament for Hamilton South. The Department of Trade and Industry supported it. On Friday 13 June—lucky for Bill Tynan—the bill received its third reading and has gone to the House of Lords.

The Executive has made clear its commitment to working closely with the UK Government and has had discussions with Bill Tynan and Melanie Johnson, who was until recently Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets at the DTI. The Executive welcomed the bill and it received widespread support from interested organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and COSLA. The bill corresponds with the findings of the COSLA task group, and Tom Maginnis said that he is heartened by the progress that has been made so far. COSLA continues to work closely with Bill Tynan to aid his efforts to steer the bill through its concluding stages at Westminster.

The bill seeks to provide a practical response to all our concerns about fireworks. It is an enabling bill that will allow ministers to make regulations on the supply and use of fireworks. The areas for which regulations can be made are extensive, and will allow for a comprehensive set of regulations to be introduced that will make a real difference to the quality of life of people in our constituencies.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Is the minister confirming that the Scottish ministers will have the power to introduce statutory instruments?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

As the member is aware, there are several reserved and devolved areas within the regulations and controls that we want to achieve. Where appropriate, the Scottish ministers will make regulations for Scotland and the UK Government will make regulations where that is appropriate. I hope that that satisfies the member.

Of course, there will be extensive consultation with interested parties during preparation for the introduction of the regulations and the regulations will only be introduced after that. That will ensure that we have an effective set of enforceable and workable regulations.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Some members have advocated an outright ban on fireworks, arguing that the misuse of fireworks as offensive weapons requires such a ban. Will the minister clarify whether, under Mr Tynan's bill, such an outright ban would be possible?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Executive does not believe in an outright ban. I will seek further information on the bill for the member, but I do not believe that it will enable an outright ban on fireworks. I have not had that discussion with Mr Tynan because he did not set out to introduce an outright ban on fireworks.

With an outright ban, there would be substantial issues about the illegal sale of fireworks and the underground market that would occur. There would be lack of regulation and no ability to ensure that fireworks were made to proper standards. That would drive the fireworks trade into an illegal framework, under which people would still get fireworks but no safety, security or quality standards would be applied.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

But is not it the case that there is already an illegal trade in imported fireworks, which we must try to control?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Absolutely. Bill Tynan's bill tries to address that. Indeed, as an indication of how easy it is to import fireworks, Bill Tynan set himself up as a trader in fireworks and managed to order almost a boatload of fireworks to be imported into the UK. Obviously, he cancelled the order at the last minute, because he did not want to do that, but he showed, in a proactive manner, how easy it is for those who wish to mis-sell fireworks to do so. The lessons that Bill Tynan learned during that process allowed him to draft his bill to ensure that greater controls would exist.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Surely, then, there is a strong argument for strengthening HM Customs and Excise—the staff numbers of which have been reduced—so that we can check on such loads?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member may say that, but I am not sure of the situation. However, it is absolutely appropriate that we work as effectively as we can to ensure that there is no illegal importation of fireworks.

Members will have seen the contents of the bill, which I do not intend to go through in detail. There are age-related powers that build on existing prohibitions on the sale of fireworks to young people. The bill acknowledges that it is inappropriate for underage people to buy fireworks. There are powers to prohibit selling, possessing and using fireworks during certain hours of the day in certain places in certain circumstances, as specified in regulations, which, as I said, will be discussed and consulted on fully before their introduction. The powers are wide ranging, and could be deployed effectively to reduce the impact of fireworks in our communities.

The supply of certain fireworks could be prohibited, as currently happens on some occasions, and that would allow limitations to be placed on the sale of certain types of fireworks. We could put limits on the noise made by fireworks, which in effect would enable the banning of nuisance fireworks. We may use that power to get round the difficulties that we face in doing that. Public fireworks displays will be regulated effectively to allow them to continue to provide popular entertainment safely for all families and communities.

I want to mention the licensing of suppliers of fireworks, which has been raised frequently by members. Responsible retailers have nothing to fear from the legislation in terms of licensing. Rogue traders have the greatest to fear, and they should be worried that the legislation will soon impact on our communities. As I said, such traders are

"drinking in the last-chance saloon".—[Official Report, 31 October 2002; c 14857.]

Licensing will ensure that responsible retailers are able to sell fireworks. Training will be provided to staff. Controls will exist, but those who seek to trade illegally or irresponsibly will be dealt with under the powers in the regulations and the bill.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will that help to stop fireworks shops that spring up and close down again in our communities?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Yes it will, through controls on importation, training of staff and the type of fireworks that they sell. If shops set up legally within the legal structures, their staff are adequately trained, their storage is appropriate and they operate safely, taking cognisance of the community, they will be able to sell fireworks. Most of the shops to which Elaine Smith referred are not like that and the bill will deal with that situation.

The bill deals with a mixture of reserved and devolved matters. We will ensure that we consult widely on the issues. It is difficult to separate many of the reserved and devolved matters. We will deal with that under section 63(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998, which will allow the Scottish ministers to exercise powers concurrently with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with regard to certain sections of the bill that have a devolved element. That will enable the Scottish ministers to introduce regulations in Scotland for devolved elements, while the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will introduce regulations for England and Wales. The areas of the bill that will be covered are those that prohibit the use of fireworks during certain hours of the day in certain places and in certain circumstances, and those that cover the operation of public fireworks displays. That will allow us to regulate in those areas that have a significant impact on the general public.

We all know that inappropriate and irresponsible use of fireworks can seriously affect quality of life. That is happening in our communities as we speak. In a modern Scotland, it is completely unacceptable that a small minority can cause such stress and misery to people and animals in our communities, and on occasions blight their lives for a period of two months around fireworks night. We want to reduce the shocking statistic of 114 firework-related injuries that we saw last season. We want to ensure that we have an integrated set of comprehensive regulations throughout the UK, and that they are applied in Scotland by the Scottish ministers.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle of making enabling regulations for the supply and use of fireworks as set out in the Fireworks Bill and agrees that those provisions in the Bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I begin by saying something that may not be immediately obvious to members—I am here this morning as the stand-in for Shona Robison, who is unable to be here because she is entering the early stages of labour. I am sure that all members would wish to join me in wishing her and Stewart well. Members on these benches expect the happy news of another SNP gain by Shona Robison from labour.

Looking around the chamber, it is pretty evident that last night we had the Scottish Parliamentary Journalists Association annual dinner. I am pleased to see new arrivals skulking into the chamber even as we have this debate.

Many members from all parties have taken a close interest in and campaigned on the risks of fireworks. Sadly, some of those members are no longer here. John McAllion and John Young, to name two, played a prominent part in the previous debate on fireworks. However, it is fair to say that Shona Robison led on the issue in the first session of Parliament. I pay tribute to her tenacious pursuit of this matter, which, as the minister said, is important. Not only did she secure a members' business debate on 12 June last year, but she produced a proposal for a member's bill, which received support from all parties but one, although John Young, as he was wont to do, broke ranks in an entertaining and engaging fashion.

I have some serious points to make. In Scotland last year, there were 114 fireworks injuries. That was an increase of 25 injuries, or 28 per cent, on the year before, when there were 89 injuries. Previously, there had been 82. The trend in Scotland is for more fireworks injuries year on year. Most of those involve children and most of those children—this is perhaps no surprise—are boys. It is obvious that the problem is extremely serious. Sadly, the facts show that in England the case is the reverse. I understand—and I may be corrected here—that the number of injuries from fireworks is reducing down south; it is not rising, as is the case in Scotland.

Many incidents occur at impromptu private fireworks displays, rather than at organised events. I am sure that the majority of us here would not wish to be killjoys and would not wish there to be a total ban, for various reasons. For example, the Chinese community celebrates its new year traditionally by the use of fireworks. For reasons that I find rather difficult to understand, we celebrate the activities of the gentleman called Guy Fawkes every 5 November. I am slightly puzzled by that, because I do not see why we should celebrate the record of a failure.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Surely the celebration is of the burning of Guy Fawkes, not of his failed attempt to blow up Parliament.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Now I face the alarming prospect of seeing the world from Brian Monteith's perspective and through his spectacles. I guess that Brian Monteith would form that view—would not he?

Let us get back to the tale. Increasingly, fireworks are being used as offensive weapons. That happens all over Scotland, including in the Black Isle where I understand that a firework was put into a metal postbox, which exploded, spraying the surrounding area with potentially lethal debris. It was fortunate that no one was killed.

I think that it was John Young who referred to Corkerhill community council in Glasgow, which had cited problems of

"fireworks in letter boxes, stuffed in milk bottles, thrown under police cars".—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; c 12602.]

We hear about many other incidents in which youths attack fire officers with fireworks, throwing rockets at fire brigade members. Those practices are utterly unacceptable and I ask the minister whether we have not gone beyond the last-chance saloon.

Existing law, including the Explosives Act 1875, allows the use of fireworks in such instances to be regarded as the use of an offensive weapon. Indeed, the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 allows any implement that is not intended in its manufacture to cause damage to be treated as an offensive weapon if it is converted and used for that purpose.

The minister said that the Fireworks Bill does not allow an outright ban and I wonder whether that is adequate. I outlined the SNP's reasons for not arguing at present for an outright ban, but, if matters were to get significantly worse—which is a significant possibility—the Scottish Parliament should have the powers to enable ministers to introduce an outright ban similar to the ban on the indiscriminate sale of guns.

We might reach that situation, but I hope that we do not. However, if we were to do so, the lack of such a power in the bill indicates that we will take the wrong decision today if we agree to this Sewel motion. I say that based on the practical grounds that I set out earlier and not on constitutional grounds per se. The lack of such a power is the failure in an otherwise commendable piece of legislation, which the SNP supports.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Fergus Ewing talked about an outright ban. Has he checked the situation in respect of European Union single act legislation? Can the Government impose an outright ban?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Mr Gallie makes a fair point. I hope that, with the help of the civil servants who are sitting at the back of the chamber, the minister will address that point in his concluding speech. I have not made an expert study of the issue, but I note that the bill includes the powers for UK ministers to ban the importation of fireworks. How does that power square with the operation of the free market? Would not European Union approval be required to ban importation? I will be interested to hear what the minister will say in response to that question.

I was intrigued by a suggestion that Donald Gorrie made in the previous debate on the subject. As Donald Gorrie is in the chamber, no doubt we will hear from him again today. He suggested that the Parliament should explore the possibility of a reverse Sewel motion. Why is the traffic in Sewel motions always one way? Why not pass powers to the Scottish Parliament to allow us to deal with reserved matters? I do not know what such a motion would be called. If Mr Gorrie continues to support that suggestion, perhaps it could be named after him, but if he does not, I would be happy for such a motion to be moved in my name.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will commence by saying to Mr Kerr that, unlike the issue of business rates on which we will never agree, he might be surprised to learn that I find much in his speech to support, including the motion.

One of the quirks of Sewel motions is that it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what one is supporting. It is rather like saying that, if the car looks roadworthy and the driver says that he can drive, we should all climb aboard.

Although the motion commends itself in principle to the Conservatives, I urge the minister to liaise with the Secretary of State for Scotland, not only to remind him that there is a Scottish Parliament, but—as the bill proceeds at Westminster—to urge him to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland has competence under the bill to address the specific issues about the supply and use of fireworks that have emerged in Scotland.

As the minister indicated, most members who were also members in the first session of the Parliament have received impassioned pleas from constituents to do something about the current indiscriminate use of fireworks. In so far as Executive ministers are to be empowered by order under the Scotland Act 1998 to deal with devolved elements of the bill, it is important that we use the opportunity that the debate gives us to highlight the sort of activities that cause distress to people in Scotland.

Mention has been made of my colleague John Young and I, too, want to pay tribute to him. John Young expended a huge amount of energy in trying to introduce a fireworks bill in the first session of the Parliament. However, the technical complexities of the devolved and reserved aspects of the issue proved too daunting.

As has been noted in the debate, fireworks have been a traditional feature of life in Britain since Guy Fawkes endeavoured to blow up the Houses of Parliament. A colourful, if noisy, celebration has become the tradition on 5 November with bonfires and firework displays. The Conservative group view is that there is no desire to interfere with the genuine enjoyment of children and families at responsibly organised displays. The outright ban that Mr Ewing advocates seems to me to miss the mark. The bill is about control and regulation and we do not need to focus our attention on such a ban.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I do not advocate that there should be an outright ban. However, I believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the power, if it becomes necessary to use it, to establish such a ban. My point is that Westminster is not providing us with that power.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have always been opposed to putative bans that ban in anticipation of the instances arising. There has to be demonstrable evidence at the point of implementing a ban that it is appropriate. If that is proved to be the case, the democratically elected fora can take the appropriate decision to apply one. Mr Ewing concedes that there is no desire at present to ban the responsible and lawful use of fireworks by children and families. The intention of the bill is to regulate areas in which it is clear that undesirable patterns of behaviour have emerged.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I would like to make progress with my arguments, Mr Stevenson. I am afraid that I do not have a lot of time.

One of the patterns that is emerging is that the sale of fireworks is taking place not only in the week proceeding 5 November but from September and October onwards. Fireworks are being discharged indiscriminately at all hours of the day and night. Members of the public, the elderly, young parents, pet owners and vets will testify to the misery that is caused by their peace and quiet being shattered by youngsters setting off a few bangers for a laugh.

Not much amusement is caused for the elderly person who is frightened out of his or her wits, for the young children who are rudely awakened after they have been put to bed or for the pets that have to be comforted by their owners or sedated by vets. We also have the horrific spectacle of deaths and appalling injuries that are brought about by the irresponsible or untrained use of fireworks. The minister referred to the statistics for last November.

Increasingly, families who wish to celebrate Guy Fawkes once a year support organised displays in which responsible arrangements are put in place. That pattern should be welcomed. I am slightly uneasy about the concept of licensing such displays, because it may result in such bureaucratic regulation that responsible voluntary activists with a good safety record are deterred from continuing with them. The practical consequence of that would be for the multiple use of fireworks to return to streets and gardens.

I hope that common sense could be applied in order to permit organisations that have held regular displays to continue with them, subject to confirmation of the details of the display and an assurance that safety arrangements are in place. Most responsible users make such provisions. The displays could be covered by a permit along the lines of the licence that is granted to a voluntary organisation that seeks a temporary liquor licence for a social event.

It might seem oppressive to interfere with the right of parents to have a bonfire in their own garden and to allow the use of non-explosive fireworks, such as sparklers. What is more problematic in this day and age and with modern housing densities, is whether the use of noise-bearing explosive fireworks can be tolerated any more in residential areas.

I come to the issue that people in Scotland are utterly fed up with: fireworks being detonated in streets or other public places indiscriminately by individuals or small groups of people. I have no hesitation in saying that such practice should be made illegal and that that illegality should be enforced.

There may be issues with stricter controls over what types of firework are permissible for retail, who should retail them, to whom they should be sold and the possibility of training for organised displays. Those matters are important and merit detailed consideration. However, we should ensure that we do not set up a network of regulation that, at best, discourages responsible people from any longer being involved and at worst—and I say to the minister that it is the worst—creates an unenforceable legal framework. The Litter Act 1983 is testament to how legislation can be well intended, completely ignored and virtually unenforceable. Fireworks are far too important and potentially dangerous to end up in such statutory and regulatory disarray. Whatever changes are made must be enforceable. Enforcement is the key.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I pass on the Liberal Democrats' best wishes to Shona Robison.

I hope that all goes well for her today. I also apologise to members that I will probably not be able to stay for the end of the debate, as the Local Government and Transport Committee is meeting the General Council of County Councils from the Republic of Ireland at lunch time and I will have to leave early.

I really enjoy a good fireworks display. I am a bit of a pyromaniac, I suppose. I like to see fireworks going off, to light them and to have a good time with them. However, it is important to ensure that fireworks are used in a responsible manner and that we are all aware of the increasing problem of those who do not use fireworks responsibly in our communities.

In the first year or two in which I was a member of the Scottish Parliament, my mailbag contained no complaints about fireworks. Last year, I had a large number of complaints about the irresponsible use of fireworks. The problem is increasing, and it is clear that the existing statutory framework for dealing with fireworks is not working, nor is the existing voluntary code on fireworks. Therefore, I welcome the bill, which will start to address the problem.

The Liberal Democrats are aware that the Scottish Parliament alone cannot deal with the matter. The issue includes reserved matters, and the Executive's approach of lodging a Sewel motion seems to me to be the right way to deal with this important issue.

I would like a licensing system for the sale of fireworks to be introduced, but I would like to go slightly further than that. Not only those who sell fireworks but those who buy them should be licensed. There should be a way of ensuring that those who purchase fireworks are responsible and use them properly. At present, there is no such requirement. Anyone can go into a shop for fireworks, although sale is restricted—theoretically—to those over a certain age. I say theoretically because, once the fireworks are purchased, they are not necessarily left in the hands of people over that age to use in a responsible manner. Many fireworks are used irresponsibly and, as Annabel Goldie said, cause considerable distress to old people and people with animals. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has sent a briefing that indicates some of the many distresses that have been caused to animals through the irresponsible use of fireworks.

We need to address those issues. We cannot address them in this Parliament alone, and so the Sewel motion is the right approach. The proposals in the bill, which Bill Tynan introduced, are sensible. The prohibition of the supply of fireworks to young persons is obviously the key part of the proposals. We must ensure that only responsible adults purchase and use fireworks.

We must also ensure that proper regulations exist to ensure that the types of fireworks that are on sale to the general public are safe and designed in such a way as to minimise their capacity to be misused or to cause a problem. That includes dealing with those that essentially produce only a noise, rather than being a firework. In my view, a firework is something that shows a nice display of coloured sparks, not something that only makes a big bang. We should stop the sale of fireworks that are sold simply to make a large noise. There is no reason on earth why we should not have such a ban now.

We must consider restricting the time for which fireworks are on sale. The voluntary code, which permits their sale from three weeks before 5 November, is clearly not working. We all hear the bangs in September, which is long before 5 November. Mind you, as hotels have started to put Christmas trees up before midsummer, perhaps 5 November is coming a bit sooner than we think. We must ensure that retailers who are not willing to abide by the voluntary code can be dealt with and are not allowed to sell fireworks. A licensing system would help with that.

Ideally, we should try to encourage people not to put on their own, private, back-garden firework displays for 5 November. We should encourage people to go to organised public displays, which are obviously safer, can be policed and are better value for money, because money that has been clubbed together can produce better firework displays than the horrible little boxes with which people normally end up in their back gardens.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the minister feel that it is unacceptable for parents to have the right to use non-explosive fireworks with their children in the privacy of their own back gardens?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I thank Annabel Goldie for promoting me back to being a minister. I have not been one of those for some time.

I am not saying that we should prevent parents from having fireworks in their back gardens, rather that we should encourage them only to go to public displays where possible and to assist organisations to put on safe public displays. That is better for all concerned.

The bill is sensible. We should not go down Fergus Ewing's route of trying to get powers for a complete ban of fireworks. Fireworks are an important part of our communities. They are used for a number of things, not only 5 November—for example, they are increasingly used at new year and for private purposes. However, to ensure that fireworks are used responsibly, we must ensure that we have better control over their sale and over those who buy them.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It gives me particular pleasure to support the Sewel motion, which will ensure that our response north and south of the border to the menace of the indiscriminate use of fireworks is the same.

I welcome the fact that the Fireworks Bill is being taken through Westminster by a Scottish MP—Bill Tynan, the member for Hamilton South—as a result of the ballot for private members' bills. I congratulate Bill Tynan, whom I have known for many years through our experience in the trade union movement.

Colleagues who were members in the previous session will be aware of my direct involvement in the campaign for better control of fireworks. Indeed, it would be safe to say that I engaged in direct action, after I was approached by many constituents who were horrified that some national chains—in particular, R S McColl—had decided to ignore the national voluntary agreement on the sale of fireworks. Not only did they sell fireworks to anyone, but they sold them at half price. I cannot think of a less considerate action for the well-being of my community.

I gathered petition signatures for a number of weeks outside R S McColl shops in my constituency. On at least one occasion, R S McColl engaged security staff to move me out of the Burns mall in Kilmarnock into a rainstorm. That did not stop more than 1,000 of my constituents signing the petition but, true to R S McColl's previous contempt for the people of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, neither I nor my constituents have ever received a response from the company—which is part of the Martin's group—to our concerns, each of which I sent to the company's head office.

Actions such as that have ensured that the groundswell of opinion in favour of legislative action has grown and that the Government has been convinced to back the campaign. Promises that the Scottish Executive made in the previous session to address the issue are now fulfilled by the Sewel motion, which will improve control over the availability of fireworks and go a long way towards ensuring that fireworks do not get into the wrong hands—the hands of those who wish only to create mischief.

I will make the point clear: the hundreds of constituents who attended the public meetings in Kilmarnock and Loudoun that my Westminster colleague Des Browne and I ran, were not complaining about fireworks as such. The local vets, such as colleagues from McKenzie, Bryson and Marshall MsRCVS who spoke at the meetings, do not want a complete ban. The elderly people and animal lovers who wrote in their thousands to me are not party poopers or killjoys. All they want to do is to carry on their lives in peace and security, without the fear of fireworks exploding in rubbish bins as they pass, or of pets being traumatised by fireworks being thrown into cars.

Such incidents have occurred in Kilmarnock and Loudoun and in every other constituency in the United Kingdom. I welcome well-organised, controlled and planned firework displays that add colour and pleasure to events such as Guy Fawkes night and many of our ethnic festivals, but I am totally opposed to the indiscriminate availability of fireworks that leads to terror in my community and, often, to injury to people and damage to public facilities such as phone booths. That is antisocial behaviour at its most obvious and, in many ways, at its worst, and we must stamp it out.

I say to companies such as R S McColl that say that the bill is an attack on commercial freedom that they have brought the legislation on themselves. They were given the opportunity to show that they could behave with concern for our communities through a voluntary code and they failed spectacularly.

It is our duty to protect our constituents from menaces such as the indiscriminate use of fireworks. I believe that, with the Fireworks Bill, we have carried out that duty. Early in our second session, we will have made a major difference to the lives of all our people. On behalf of my constituents who have campaigned for the regulations, I fully support the Sewel motion.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The SNP fully supports the regulation of the sale of fireworks. That was shown ably by my colleague Shona Robison in the previous session in her proposed member's bill. That bill would have provided for an amendment to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to extend local government licensing. That could have happened in Scotland last year and I still do not quite understand why the Executive was not willing to support the bill.

The debate that Shona Robison secured at the time showed the huge support that exists across the parties. There were examples from every constituency in the country of why action must be taken. The Fireworks Bill that is progressing through the London Parliament is welcome and will go some way towards addressing our concerns. I congratulate Bill Tynan MP, because I know that he has worked hard on the bill. I have seen the results of his work locally because I live quite near him. He has been active on regulating the sale of fireworks for some time.

However, I also have concerns about the bill and about the Sewel motion. We are always concerned when Scottish legislation is made at Westminster, but we have other concerns, too. We are being asked to approve a bill that will place new duties on various public bodies, including local authorities in Scotland. Those burdens will have financial implications and we should ensure that such implications are taken into account whenever we pass legislation. No financial memorandum is attached to the Sewel motion. I find it hard to be confident that local authorities will not have to carry additional financial burdens without a legal right to reclaim those moneys.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that, in the fullness of time, local government will call on the Executive to provide additional funding to deal with the administrative cost of the regulations. Does the member agree that there will be huge savings in the public resources—from local government budgets—that are spent on dealing with fireworks incidents and complaints?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is something that just cannot be published or examined. Local authorities will have to finance the regulations on a daily basis. They might get money back from licensing, but there are many hidden implications, such as the extra work that local authority officers will have to undertake in licensing and supervision. Then there is the continuing training. Local authorities welcome the new regulations, but they should know that they will have the backing to implement the procedures that are being introduced properly.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The member talks about the impact on local authorities. Does she accept that local authorities were part and parcel of the task force and that today's motion builds on the recommendations of that task force, which had a handle on the financial impact at a local level?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. No one in this country would say that we should not have regulation of fireworks. Local authorities would not say that and, of course, they welcome the regulations as do all members in the chamber. However, that does not give them a guarantee that they will not have to move money from other services to implement the regulations. Comfort should be given to local authorities that other services will not suffer as a result of the introduction of the regulations.

Today we are being asked to allow Westminster to legislate on matters that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. We could have dealt with those matters last year, but the motion gives the secretary of state power to make regulatory statutory instruments in those areas. It seems strange that our ministers not only are not seeking to increase the powers held in Scotland, but are happy to give away and to diminish the powers that we already have.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Does the member agree that the minister stated that regulations that are appropriate to Scotland will be passed here?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Can we have some ambition? We must consider what Mr Gorrie suggested last year and what we have been suggesting ever since we entered Parliament. Why cannot we consider reverse Sewel motions? Why cannot we consider bringing back legislation that directly affects people in Scotland? Far too often we pass Sewel motions that allow London to legislate on matters that are within our remit. Let us have reverse Sewel motions. Let us have a bit of ambition and let us have the power to make more legislation here.

I welcome the principle and intent of Mr Tynan's bill, as everyone does, but I want it to be implemented as soon as possible and I have concerns about the parliamentary and local authority procedures that will get us to that point.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Last year we had a debate on fireworks that Shona Robison secured. I am pleased that today's motion endorses the Fireworks Bill, which embodies many of the topics that were covered in that earlier debate. I am also pleased that COSLA and the SSPCA were two of the organisations that played a major part in informing the deliberations that led to the drawing up of the bill.

One of the views expressed in the debate last year was about the importance of taking a UK line on fireworks. Consequently, it is appropriate that Andy Kerr's motion contains the suggestion

"that those provisions in the Bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament."

Conversely, I note a tone of frustration in many members' comments, including those of Linda Fabiani, that we have had to wait for Westminster legislation rather than being able to take swift local action.

Members here and counterparts south of the border have stressed that they are not party poopers or killjoys who advocate the complete banning of sales of fireworks to the public. However, in relation to Iain Smith's remarks, I note that the law in the Republic of Ireland—which is hardly a nation with a reputation for being killjoys—prohibits the sale of fireworks to anyone other than professional display operators.

I feel pressed to repeat a comment I made in the earlier debate. There is a licensing system down south, but the fees have recently been raised to about £2,000 for a small village or a community association to put on a fireworks display. I suggest that those fees are punitive. If we introduce a licensing system here, I suggest that it should be properly scaled so that small communities can buy an affordable licence. It is fair to give a huge bill to those who run the Edinburgh fireworks, because they can afford it, but perhaps the Executive will review the matter and introduce a scale of charges that is appropriate and not cripplingly expensive for smaller communities.

Margaret Jamieson stressed the absolute misery that the inappropriate use of fireworks can cause. I have little to add to what has been said about the damage done through accidents and the deliberate misuse of fireworks. However, I draw attention to the work that bodies such as the National Campaign for Firework Safety undertake on the high level of child labour and slavery in the fireworks industry. To the catalogue of misery of the effects of fireworks on people, animals and property, we can add the horrific tally of burns, explosions, lung disease, economic and social exploitation and abuse in the countries of manufacture. That seems a high price to pay for fireworks. I support the measures in the bill to allow for controls on fireworks imports and I hope that they will be extended to include ethical as well as quality control conditions.

I support every word of Annabel Goldie's speech, particularly her remarks on enforcement. Whatever legislation and regulations are introduced, they must be totally transparent and enforceable. I commend Andy Kerr on lodging the motion, which I am pleased to support.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

When I asked my son the other day what bedtime story he would like, he said, "Daddy, tell me the one about the fox." I asked, "Do you mean the one about Brer Rabbit and the briar patch?" but he did not want that one. I said, "Do you mean 'The Animals of Farthing Wood'?" but he did not want that. As my son is only four, I assumed, with all respect to parliamentary colleagues, that he did not want to hear about our socialist colleague Colin Fox and his musical rendition of the oath of allegiance, or even Mike Watson's successful bill to ban fox hunting. When I asked my son to elaborate, he said, "I want the one with the explosions." The penny then dropped that he meant the story of Guy Fawkes. My son loves any story with explosions; he also believes that the Parliament to be blown up was this one and that I was in it at the time.

I was delighted that my son shares my enjoyment of Guy Fawkes day. When I got to the punch line of the story and the little ditty, "Remember, remember the fifth of November," I realised how much things have changed. My son might not understand that Guy Fawkes day is supposed to happen only once a year. The celebrations now happen not only in November, but go on in October, September and December.

The situation with fireworks is analogous to the growth in road traffic. To use another domestic example, I recently drove down the street where I used to live, which has two lanes on either side and which now resembles a motorway. I do not understand how the family who live in my old house cross the road from the bus stop when they come back from the school or the shops. I do not want to sound nostalgic or to hark back to the days when jumpers were goalposts, but times change and behaviour that was once appropriate is perhaps no longer safe. We must move with the times.

I do not know exactly what has happened to fireworks, but they have turned from a source of pure enjoyment into a cause of fear, anxiety, frustration and anger. Perhaps they are cheaper, louder or more widely available now—or maybe all three. I do not have to describe to members the impact that fireworks can have and I cannot believe that any member is unaware of the problem. Cars and buses are targeted by the more irresponsible people; older people are made to feel anxious and vulnerable; and, most telling of all, there is scarcely an animal lover or pet owner who does not dread the approaching fireworks season. I use the word "season" with a sense of alarm.

Last year, my colleague Jim Murphy MP and I decided to try to capture the strength of feeling that exists on the matter so that we could demonstrate to ministers the importance of taking action. I was astounded by the result: our petition attracted not hundreds but thousands of signatures. The large bundle of papers that I am holding up contains just some of them—I did not want to weigh down my bag too much this morning. I was delighted to hand the petition to the First Minister earlier this year.

We need action. We need powers to restrict the sale of fireworks so that only those who will use them responsibly can buy them; we need to restrict the times of day at which fireworks are let off; and we need to limit the times of year at which they can be bought. In the interests of safety, we must have clearer warnings and information on the use of fireworks, recognised training courses and stricter safety criteria. Those measures might not be foolproof, but they will make a difference.

We cannot just leave the matter to a voluntary code for retailers. Last year, and earlier in the debate, my colleague Margaret Jamieson highlighted the national chain of shops that flouted the code and sold half-price fireworks well outside the three-week period around 5 November. In my constituency, East Renfrewshire Council's trading standards officers ran a sting operation in conjunction with the police to find out how widespread the problem of under-age sales was. Every shop except one that they tried was willing to sell fireworks to young people.

The bill might not be the end of the story, but it will make a sizeable difference. I pay tribute to the work of another colleague, Bill Tynan MP, in taking his private member's bill through Westminster. I am delighted to support the motion.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The minister was correct to preface his remarks by stating that we do not wish to be considered killjoys. Fireworks can provide a lot of pleasure and spectacular entertainment and there can be few members who have not thoroughly enjoyed fireworks displays, both in childhood and adulthood. However, there is a caveat—namely, that the use of fireworks must be responsible and careful.

The minister was also correct to highlight the number of incidents involving fireworks last November and Fergus Ewing rightly underlined some of the consequences that arise from the misuse of fireworks. The injuries are sometimes horrifying and not infrequently there are fatalities. By definition, fireworks are explosives, which are dangerous, and, as such, great care must be exercised in their use. However, the vast majority of problems are not the tragic ones that Fergus Ewing outlined, but the nuisance incidents that have been referred to, such as bangers being put through old people's letterboxes. As Iain Smith said, fireworks are used not only around the Guy Fawkes period, but for months on end and sometimes at the most antisocial hours.

The matter must be addressed. I am the last person to justify the nanny state, but regulation is long overdue and, with a few caveats, the bill is eminently sensible. Given that many of those who are involved in major and minor incidents are younger people, we should attempt to restrict the sale of fireworks to very young people, who sometimes do not appreciate the inevitable dangers. The bill would enable the appropriate restrictions to be put in place, along with restrictions on the times at which fireworks can be made available to members of the public. Those measures would ease the nuisance to which I referred.

All legislation risks being unduly proscriptive. Annabel Goldie was correct to say that the responsible use of fireworks should be encouraged. I draw members' attention to Glasgow City Council's Guy Fawkes day fireworks displays on Glasgow green, which is a wide open space where there is plenty of room to keep the punters away from the fireworks. At those events, the fireworks are set off under controlled conditions. Of course, not only public authorities organise such events; sporting clubs and community councils also do so. We should not be overly restrictive and prevent such bodies from carrying out that worthwhile work, which provides a lot of enjoyment for those who live in the communities that the bodies serve.

We must recognise that the type of fireworks that are now freely on sale are somewhat different from the tuppenny bangers with which members such as Fergus Ewing and I were familiar in our younger days. Much more sophisticated devices are now available, which sometimes have concussive effects and which can cause serious damage, at least to the hearing of anyone who is within a confined radius of the detonation.

We must recognise that the bill is not perfect, but it goes some way towards allaying the concerns and fears that many members have expressed during the past four years.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As has been said, this debate comes at the end of a long series of debates and should be treated accordingly. Linda Fabiani seemed to forget some of the issues that had been raised previously. At the previous debate in November, at which Andy Kerr was present, we all agreed that, because certain responsibilities lay with Westminster and certain responsibilities lay with the Scottish Parliament, it was important that we took a joint approach. We asked Andy Kerr to work closely with the ministers at Westminster to move the agenda forward.

At that time, we were aware that a bill was going to be published at Westminster. I am glad that that bill has been placed before us today and that we can agree the Sewel motion. There may be minor differences between the issues that we raise here and those that were raised at Westminster, and I shall say more about that in a minute. However, the main thrust of the bill, together with the fact that we will deal with the statutory instruments here in the Scottish Parliament, provides a good basis for hoping that future 5 Novembers, if not the coming 5 November—I do not know the time scale for the implementation of the legislation—will be a lot better than they have been in the past.

I have constituency issues, as have other members who are present, which Ken Macintosh has outlined, and I have issues also as the chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare. That group has been at the forefront of the debate. Shona Robison is a member of the group, as was John Young who is, sadly, no longer with us. I remember the three of us standing outside the chamber with three huge rockets in our hands as part of the dump squibs campaign that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was running. That campaign was hugely successful in raising awareness of the dangers of fireworks, and many people told me that they had seen it mentioned in the newspapers.

The cross-party group also worked with COSLA, and the COSLA task group was very helpful in producing a report on fireworks, which made recommendations on licensing that will be taken up. We should also take on board the comments that have been made about licensing today. Robin Harper made the extremely good suggestion that we should think about basing the cost of licences on the size of organisations. Annabel Goldie also made some good points about enforcement of the legislation, which we should consider.

Both within and outwith the cross-party group on animal welfare, many MSPs have been involved in moving this agenda forward. The campaign in Dundee was supported by Kate Maclean and John McAllion who, unfortunately, is no longer an MSP. Margaret Jamieson has also raised a lot of issues, showing how intimately she has been involved with the subject. As chair of the cross-party group, I think that those efforts show us the way forward.

The way in which the bill will deal with underage sales of fireworks is very important, as is the way in which it will be able to restrict the time of year—even the time of day—when fireworks will be sold. It will deal with the specific fireworks that will be available, the conditions for the licensing of public firework displays and the important issue of the importing of certain types of fireworks from Asia, which John Young mentioned in a previous debate. Specifically, he mentioned the Black Cat, which was described as being "detonated" because it is so dangerous.

Andy Kerr mentioned that Bill Tynan had tried to get hold of a boat-load of fireworks. I will conclude by quoting from Bill Tynan's speech at Westminster. He said:

"The industry is concerned about fireworks that, having been imported, do not go to a licensed storage place. The drivers therefore have no need to register that they are driving to a storage place and sometimes drive to a lay-by and split their load between perhaps 12 rogue retailers, who then sell the fireworks indiscriminately over three months."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 June 2003; Vol 406, c 978.]

That is the type of practice that we must stop.

I welcome the bill and look forward to seeing the necessary Scottish statutory instruments at the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

After 22 years as an elected member in public service, I can tell members that this is not a new issue. It has been a perennial problem that comes up year after year, as people who have served in Parliaments, councils and so on will know. I am glad that some progress is finally being made on the issue. We are all horrified by the statistics. Last year, around 114 people were injured in the Guy Fawkes season, as Ken Macintosh called it. Many of the casualties are youngsters who need long-term hospitalisation, plastic surgery and treatment. Therefore, we must look very seriously at where we are going on this issue.

Members have said that we do not want to be regarded as killjoys. I love firework displays and have happy memories of watching organised displays such as those at Edinburgh Castle at the end of the Edinburgh International Festival or at the new year celebrations. However, we must put the matter into perspective. We are not talking about sparklers or the tuppenny bangers that were referred to earlier, nor the Catherine wheels that I remember from my childhood. We are talking about what Shona Robison opened her speech with in June last year. She quoted the sales pitches of firework manufacturers:

"The Atomic Warlord is

'Like a nuclear holocaust as this 112 shot barrage vents its might and ferocity.'

The Midnight Thunder is a

'25 shot, very very loud air bomb. Not for the weak hearted. Available for under £8.'"

She went on to tell us that the Black Cat firework,

"which weighs 21lb, has a greater velocity than many mortar bombs. The advice is that it should not be detonated within 80ft of a structure."—[Official Report, 12 June 2002, c 12602.]

In my view, those items should not be for sale anywhere in this country.

I cannot understand why Shona Robison's proposal for a bill was not accepted. It would have involved a simple amendment to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which would have been of great importance for trading standards. The Scottish Parliament was founded on the principle that there would be consensus and agreement on good ideas, regardless of which party they came from. I cannot understand why there was no consensus last year on Shona Robison's proposed bill. If the Executive had given it the support that Bill Tynan's bill is now receiving at Westminster, it would already be on the statute book and working.

Andy Kerr has said, on several occasions, that he will discuss these issues with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I earlier raised the concerns of HM Customs and Excise officials who have expressed to me their concern at not having the facilities to monitor the importation of fireworks from Asia. When Andy Kerr is in discussion with the secretary of state—two-jobs Alistair Darling—he could perhaps discuss the way in which Customs and Excise officials are monitoring the arrival and transportation of the kinds of fireworks that we have been talking about.

I could recite a litany of the issues that have been raised with me. People with learning difficulties, people with mental illnesses and our elderly people are terrified by the indiscriminate use of fireworks. The SSPCA has pointed out that, last year, 8,000 animals required veterinary treatment because of firework-related injuries. Those animals included hearing dogs for the deaf and guide dogs for the blind. In rural communities, where large fireworks are sometimes taken out into remote areas, cattle and sheep can stampede, causing great damage to themselves, to the local environment, to property and, potentially, to people.

I wish Bill Tynan well and hope that the unelected members of the House of Lords will give the bill a fair wind as it goes through the hearing process. However, the Parliament has a duty to consider carefully how to go further than the Sewel motion. The Subordinate Legislation Committee should consider the issue seriously and statutory instruments should be drafted to strengthen the Parliament's powers and implement the type of legislation that we want.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. As other members said, the nuisance that the irresponsible use of fireworks causes and the size and explosive power of the fireworks that are on sale in local shops and supermarkets are not acceptable. Communities and individuals who suffer from the nuisance say that enough is enough. They expect the Government and the Parliament to act to protect them.

The problem affects not only the people of Scotland but people throughout the UK. Therefore, it is right that we support the UK legislation. Labour members acknowledge that there are three different Parliaments in the UK and that three different sets of politicians make legislation. We will work in partnership with the other legislative bodies to ensure that we have legislation that protects the people in our communities.

The use of fireworks outwith the traditional time of late October and early November has been widening, as members have acknowledged. Members have also acknowledged that the voluntary code does not seem to work and that, in many cases, it is being ignored. People feel that there is a free-for-all, in which irresponsible traders sell fireworks to children. Such traders do not have an eye on safety or civic responsibility. Their minds are focused on profit and the ring of their tills, and they have no regard for the voluntary code or for the local community—their customers.

Like other members, I receive regular complaints from individual constituents and from community organisations about personal trauma and extensive damage caused by fireworks being in the wrong hands. Responding to fireworks incidents takes up a lot of time for our police and fire services. Police from a station in my constituency said that, during a four-week period in October and November, 104 firework-related incidents were reported, the majority of which involved people under the age of 18, although the sale of fireworks to under-18s is banned.

The seriousness of the incidents varied, ranging from those that caused public annoyance to a incident in which a rocket firework was put through the letterbox of a family home in which six young children lived. Fortunately, an adult occupant extinguished the firework. But for his quick action, the incident could have been far more serious. The Royal Mail reports disruption and major problems when fireworks are let off in postboxes. Last year, three postboxes in my constituency were damaged and were out of commission for almost a week. That is the kind of disruption that the irresponsible use of fireworks can cause to local services.

The use of fireworks in the wrong hands places considerable demands on our public and emergency services and causes an ever-increasing number of injuries that maim people for life. Fireworks affect all areas and all ages, and can threaten humans and terrify animals. Given the possible effects of fireworks, legislation that will allow ministers greater powers of prohibition and regulation is welcome.

If I were asked for my personal view of fireworks, I would say that all sales of fireworks to the general public should be banned and I would require individuals who are qualified in pyrotechnics to hold licences.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

If Cathie Craigie supports a general ban on fireworks, would she agree that Bill Tynan's bill is inadequate because it does not permit a general ban?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

If Mr Ewing listens and lets me develop my point, he will find out exactly what my view is.

As I said, if I were asked for my personal opinion—I emphasise the word "personal"—I would say that all sales of fireworks to the general public should be banned, that people should have to hold licences to use fireworks and that only suitably qualified people should be eligible to set off fireworks. However, I know that my view is not shared by my constituents in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. I imagine that my view is not shared by the majority of people who use fireworks responsibly and consider their neighbours, and who enjoy the spectacle of fireworks and the thrills and entertainment that they can provide.

Like me, supporters of Bill Tynan's bill across all parties do not want to be regarded as killjoys or damp squibs. We do not want to encroach on people's enjoyment or threaten the livelihoods of those who work in the pyrotechnics industry. We do not want to put off people such as Iain Smith—unfortunately, he had to leave the chamber—who spoke about his great enjoyment not only of watching firework displays, but of setting off fireworks.

I would like there to be more organised firework displays. Ken Macintosh said that fireworks have become increasingly available over the years, that they are louder and noisier and that more people buy them. I do not know why that is the case, but that has happened while increasing numbers of local authorities have been encouraging and organising displays that families can attend.

I do not particularly like fireworks and I would go only to an organised display. However, I remember that when I was a child the most important thing about Guy Fawkes night was not the fireworks but the sausages and—

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Bangers! [ Laughter. ]

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Exactly. And we got toffee apples, which were on sticks of the same thickness and length as a rocket stick. However, rocket sticks are now so long that they could be used to train sweetpeas. People who are involved professionally with fireworks agree that large rockets—which have a high velocity—should not be on sale to the general public. Such rockets are powerful explosives and in the wrong hands they can cause a great deal of personal injury and wider damage.

People believe that enough is enough. The voluntary codes are not working and irresponsible local traders are flouting the law. National shop chains—to which Margaret Ewing referred—sell fireworks outwith the agreed period. I was amazed last year to see an offer in a supermarket—part of an otherwise responsible chain—for customers to buy one pack of fireworks, which included enormously powerful rockets, and get another free. People queued to take advantage of the offer. Perhaps they intended to use the rockets responsibly. However, the noise that such rockets can make in a residential area is unacceptable. I believe that the supermarket chain showed not only a disgraceful lack of civic responsibility, but a lack of responsibility to its customers by allowing such fireworks to be sold in the way that they were.

By supporting the Fireworks Bill we will set in motion mechanisms that will lead to regulations that will herald the day when fireworks can again be enjoyed by the majority of the population as fun and entertainment, without fear of endless barrages of noise and their associated danger. I hope that we make early progress in consulting our communities, the fireworks industry and other involved parties to ensure that by next year's firework season, if not by this year's, we have regulations that protect our communities.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We go now to the closing round of speeches. We are a bit ahead of the clock, so I am happy for closing speakers to take a couple of minutes longer, which would give them six minutes.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I pay great credit to Bill Tynan, whose bill is an admirable example of a private member's bill that meets a serious local concern that Governments have neglected. The bill has widespread support from all political parties in the House of Commons and I hope that it will have similar support in the House of Lords.

The history of fireworks goes back a long way. My understanding is that the Chinese invented gunpowder and used it in fireworks. They passed their knowledge on to Europeans, who then used gunpowder to kill people. Perhaps there is a lesson there. However, there is now another wave from the east of excessively devastating fireworks with which we must deal differently.

Such fireworks certainly have much louder bangs than any that I met during my two years of national service working with anti-aircraft guns and they cause worry and devastation to individuals and their animals, and fear and alarm to citizens in general. The bang element of fireworks used to serve to spread the sparks about, but today many fireworks are just a big bang.

Like other members, I have been involved with this subject for some time. When I became an MP, I met and tried to help a very active group in Muirhouse, in west Edinburgh, which at the time was taking the lead in pursuing the issue locally. My successor, John Barrett, has supported the group vigorously. He tabled a motion on fireworks in the House of Commons and is one of the many strong supporters of Bill Tynan's bill. As MSP for Central Scotland, I found that a group in Falkirk was particularly concerned about the impact of fireworks on animals. Both humans and animals suffer severely from fireworks.

I have laboured—without great success—to produce an analogy between bad, ranting political speeches and fireworks. Fireworks have too long a season, and many speeches go on for too long. Fireworks have more noise than substance, as do some speeches. Some speeches have a short-lived sparkle, like fireworks. Some speeches also frighten the people who hear them. We can learn that we should control both ourselves and fireworks.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

In the previous debate on this topic, Donald Gorrie argued:

"We should also explore the possibility of a reverse Sewel motion".—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; c 12611.]

Has that rhetorical bang become a whimper?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I do not know whether it was a bang, but I intend next to address the issue that the member raises. The idea of a reverse Sewel motion is worth pursuing. I would be happy to co-operate with Fergus Ewing and anyone else who is interested in working up the proposal properly and submitting it to the Procedures Committee. In some cases, it may be possible for us to trespass on Westminster's powers, instead of conceding powers.

Bill Tynan's bill does not go as far as some people would like, but it deals with the question of fireworks sensibly. Most of the points to which it relates are issues for Westminster rather than for the Scottish Parliament, so we should support the bill. However, I would be happy to examine the way in which we treat such matters. Perhaps we could create a Ewing-Gorrie convention—double-barrelled names such as the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms are better than single-barrelled ones.

I stress the point that other members have made about enforcement. We are very good at passing bills to which no one pays attention. People are worried about drink, but the severe laws that exist for dealing with that problem are not enforced. The same may happen in the case of fireworks. Enforcement is critical.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does Donald Gorrie agree that the litter laws are a prime example of legislation that has hardly ever been enforced?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. There is an analogy between dog fouling and fireworks. In the past, dogs were considered a good thing. They still are, but 30 years ago if a councillor came out against dogs, they would be dead. Now it is recognised that dogs must be controlled and can cause a great deal of trouble. The same is true of fireworks. They used to be a good, cheerful, happy thing, but in many cases they have gone too far and must be controlled. They do not need to be banned, and neither do dogs. However, the way forward is for both to be controlled in a civilised way.

I am happy to support this Sewel motion.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will horrify Donald Gorrie by identifying in part with his agreement with Fergus Ewing on reverse Sewel motions. I do not advocate reverse Sewels, but if we sign up to the proposals of the European convention I suspect that I would be happy to join members in supporting some kind of reverse Giscard. However, that may be some way into the future.

Just as fireworks can become a nightmare for some, this debate is to some extent a nightmare for me. I hate participating in debates in which everyone is saying virtually the same thing and in which there is total agreement across the chamber. That is the situation that we face in respect of the Fireworks Bill.

The Fireworks Bill is not a detailed bill, but an enabling bill. A great deal of work must be done on its provisions. Virtually every section specifies that action "may" be taken in particular areas. In due course, ministers will be required to address the issues through regulation. It is right and proper not only that ministers at Westminster should do that, but that Scottish Executive ministers should take specific actions and produce regulations that suit the scene in Scotland.

Much has been said about the irresponsible use of fireworks on the urban scene. The rural scene is also very important. Sylvia Jackson and the cross-party group on animal welfare have continually highlighted the problems that fireworks cause for animals. The impact of fireworks is not limited to domestic pets. In the countryside, too, animals are very much affected. Fireworks can have a particularly damaging effect on horses, even when the two are not in close proximity. This is not just an urban issue—it affects the whole country.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I agree with Phil Gallie about the misery that is caused to animals of various types by the explosion of fireworks. As far as the animals are concerned, surely it makes no difference whether the firework display is legal or illegal—authorised or unauthorised. The lack of the power to impose an outright ban on the use of fireworks is a gap in the Fireworks Bill. In future, evidence may emerge that an outright ban is the only measure consistent with animal welfare.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have questioned whether it would be possible to impose an outright ban on fireworks in the UK, given European regulation. Earlier, the minister undertook to respond to that point. I support licensing and regulation of the use of fireworks where that is a continuous process. However, when consent has been given for specific shows, animal owners can take note of that and make arrangements to cover the situation. I do not support an outright ban on fireworks; that would not be right. However, as Annabel Goldie said, we must guard against indiscriminate use of fireworks.

It has been suggested that this problem has come to the attention of the public because the situation is getting worse. I am not sure that that is entirely true. I remember that in my youth—which was much further back than that of many in the chamber—penny and tuppenny bangers were freely available in all local shops and were used indiscriminately by youths. However, at that time activity was more concentrated and appeared to centre round 5 November, rather than extending over the September-to-December span to which Ken Macintosh referred. Horror of horrors, I wonder whether that was related to the fact that at the time virtually every street and most schemes had a bonfire, round which activities centred. I recognise that there are dangers in setting up bonfires and do not advocate that—I am simply making a point about the difference between the use of fireworks in the past and their use today.

A major change is the size of the fireworks, to which Linda Fabiani and Cathie Craigie referred. Some of the fireworks on sale today have a huge explosive content. My colleague John Young felt very strongly about that in the first session of the Parliament. I am sure that he would have loved to have been here today to congratulate Bill Tynan—a Scottish MP—on taking the issue to the Westminster Parliament and giving us the opportunity to sign up to something for which he long campaigned. I am certain that he would have approved totally of our accepting the Sewel motion. It passes on huge responsibility to the Minister for Finance and Public Services and I look forward to hearing about the kind of regulations that he thinks are appropriate.

My final point goes back to what Robin Harper said about the licensing fees. Some of the responsible groups that organise firework demonstrations at key points in the year do so on relatively low budgets or on the basis of raising funds. Another factor that worries me relates to the fact that many of those groups attempt to organise insurance to cover their events. A major problem is building up with the level of charges for insurance cover. We have to be careful that we do not kill off what we all see as the preferred option—the organised and in some cases professional use of fireworks, rather than the indiscriminate use of fireworks.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank Iain Smith for his good wishes for Shona Robison. I am not quite sure what stage her pregnancy has reached. I think that she has had an early warning and we should not necessarily expect an outcome today. I also hope that when Sylvia Jackson said that John Young was no longer with us she was referring merely to his absence from the chamber. I can see members nodding to indicate that our dear friend is, in the more common and general usage of the term, still with us. I welcome that assurance.

It has been a cracker of a debate, full of explosive interventions, which have all clearly gone down a bomb. Having said that, this is not a matter for undue levity. Few of us do not look with awe at the fireworks concert each year, just down the hill from here. However, equally few of us do not share horror at the disfigurement, injury and even death that occur all too frequently during what seems an increasingly long fireworks season, or the alarm and fright of animals that do not understand what is going on.

The real question is what to do. My colleague Shona Robison secured a members' business debate on a proposal for a bill to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in Scotland. It is clear that members, on the SNP benches and throughout the Parliament, think that there is a need for change.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The SNP members have talked about the possibility of a total ban. Will that apply not to organised firework displays, but to sales of fireworks to the general public? Will the member comment on illegal imports and the problem that people are able to buy fireworks on the internet?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Elaine Smith makes good points. I reiterate what Fergus Ewing said; we are not seeking a total ban on either the private or public purchase and use of fireworks. However, the bill might be the appropriate instrument to ensure that powers are available to ministers to introduce a total ban on private or even public use of fireworks if circumstances change. I will return to the detail of the bill in a minute or two.

Linda Fabiani referred to the lack of a financial memorandum. We do not know the potential cost to councils, businesses or to police. We know the cost of the present circumstances—Strathclyde police had 2,000 calls about fireworks last year.

Under clause 17(2) of the bill, any revenues that are derived will be paid into the consolidated fund at Westminster, so we will not get the benefit.

There has not been any explanation so far of what particular powers the Scottish ministers might exercise as a result of the bill and I would welcome clarification of that.

We have a good record of speedy action in this Parliament but we cannot deny that, although we have been talking about fireworks for a long time, we have not delivered anything. The question is whether Westminster or Holyrood should act. SNP members are not going to oppose the motion, although we are minded to abstain. Is the Scottish Parliament, as a matter of general principle, prepared to go along with ceding responsibility, or is it going to take control?

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am going to develop some points about the bill; I will try to come back to Elaine Smith later.

I have specific questions about the bill. Consultation is mentioned in clause 2(3). Would that include the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament or its committees? What particular regulations would it enable us to make?

Under clause 4(1) and clause 4(2) there are provisions against possession under some circumstances, but unless I am missing the point, there does not seem to be a general provision banning possession. Perhaps the minister will clarify his previous remarks.

Fergus Ewing has been teasing some members a little bit about whether the bill provides an absolute power. My reading of it suggests that it does. Under clause 2(1)(a), ministers may act to reduce use to a point at which there is no risk. The succeeding subclause refers to their being able to act to reduce risk. The only way in which we can ensure that there is no risk is to ban the use of fireworks altogether, unless I am misreading the bill.

It appears to me that in line with the campaign that the Daily Record has mounted and in line with Paul Martin's campaign it would be possible, under the eventual act, to enforce a complete ban. I would welcome the minister's views on that in his summing up.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Stewart Stevenson referred to clause 2(1)(a), but it seems from clause 3 that the total ban would apply only to supplying young persons. Does he therefore agree that there would not be an all-encompassing ban?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member will find that clause 2(1)(a) refers to clause 2(2), which mentions the death of animals or persons and disruption or damage of property. My question whether there could be a ban is genuine; I am not making a party-political point. That illustrates the point about the sort of things that the Parliament could examine in detail if we had the opportunity to do so. After all, the last clause of the bill—clause 19(2)—states:

"This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."

There is no Assembly currently operating in Northern Ireland and yet, although there is a Parliament—not an Assembly—operating here, we will not have the opportunity to examine the measures in detail.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

How long do I have, Presiding Officer?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Strictly speaking you have 30 seconds, but you have taken several interventions, for which I will compensate.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

There is a complete ban in Northern Ireland. That has nothing to do with whether Northern Ireland has an Assembly or a Parliament; it is because of the political situation there.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am obliged to Cathie Craigie for that information, of which I was not aware.

Contravening prohibitions imposed by regulations is an offence under clause 11(1) of the bill, but clause 11(5) stipulates that

"Fireworks regulations may not provide for any contravention of the regulations to be an offence."

It is not at all clear what will and will not be an offence.

We are often assured that Sewel motions speed solutions, but it is not clear that, in this specific instance, that will be the case.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Stewart Stevenson mentioned Sewel motions before. I am no great fan of Sewel motions and I express concern about the 46 that were passed in the previous session. However, it seems to me that Sewel motions are allowable for a good reason, and the Fireworks Bill is one that fits in with the ethos of Sewel motions. It is an enabling bill and the minister has said that there will be consultation on it, so it would be rather churlish of the SNP to abstain on the motion today. Does not Stewart Stevenson agree that the bill will help us to make a difference in Scotland and that the Sewel motion is sensible?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank Elaine Smith for her intervention. The SNP is not opposing the Sewel motion—she will recognise that that is slightly unusual—because we want to make progress and we are not going to put up barriers. However, ministers must be aware that they are very much on trial with this Sewel motion, as with others, to deliver the benefits that they claim will result from ceding responsibility to Westminster. With the Fireworks Bill, as with other bills, we will be tracking progress carefully to see that those benefits are actually delivered. As Nelson did not say, "Scotland expects."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I now call Andy Kerr to wind up the debate. We are ahead of the clock, Mr Kerr, so please take as long as you feel you need to respond to the points that have been raised.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

It is difficult to know where to begin. There have been many valuable contributions to the debate.

Before I go any further, I would like to say that, although I am not sure how to describe Shona Robison's situation at the moment, I echo the sentiments of other members around the chamber, and we all wish her and her husband all the best.

Great credit is due to Bill Tynan, whose bill has enabled us to address the needs of our communities. Constitutional niceties may not be at stake for the SNP in this instance, but what is important is that we deal with the issue. I shall go on to talk about Sewel motions in a wee bit more detail, but it is a bit rich of SNP members to say that they want action and then, when we have an opportunity to do something, to turn their noses up at it.

The Parliament has passed a number of Sewel motions since devolution and there has not been a single occasion on which the effect of such a motion was to remove powers or functions from the Scottish ministers. A Sewel motion enables the Scottish ministers to ensure that we benefit from UK legislation and that those aspects of such legislation that are devolved to this Parliament are dealt with by this Parliament and by the Scottish Executive. That is the important point. The SNP seems to be arguing that it is somehow inappropriate to do that, but we are ensuring that the functions that are our responsibility will be dealt with. Indeed, when a Sewel motion was invited on the Extradition Bill, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive actually got powers, so it is a bit rich of the SNP to go on about constitutional issues.

In our communities, where people want us to take action, we do not want to have to say that the bill was delayed because we had to spend hours with lawyers agreeing what was reserved and what devolved, what was to do with trading and what with local government, and which powers lay with us and which with Westminster. What people in our communities really want to know is when we are going to deal with the issue. We will deal with it through the Fireworks Bill and will do so as soon as possible.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Mr Kerr give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will allow Linda Fabiani to intervene in a moment, as I also want to address some of the points that she made in the debate.

I would like to go through some of the comments that members have made. I point out to Fergus Ewing that the intention of the bill is not to introduce a complete ban on the sale of fireworks. The bill provides powers to control locations and timings. It could be argued that the location is Scotland and the timing is from 12 midnight to 12 midnight on a certain date each year, so it is possible that there could be a total ban. However, the point that I am making is that it is not the intention of Bill Tynan, of the DTI, of COSLA or of the Executive to use the bill in such a way. To answer Fergus Ewing's question, there is a theoretical possibility of a total ban, and I hope that that answer puts him at ease.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

My question to the minister is really quite simple. Does the bill give the power to introduce a total ban on the sale of fireworks—yes or no?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

What I have tried to say is that the powers are there but that Bill Tynan's intention, as well as that of COSLA, the DTI and all the organisations that were consulted, is not to do that.

Of course, if anyone wants to ban the use of fireworks at Up-Helly-Aa, the Edinburgh festival, hogmanay and other such events, they can propose that during the deep and meaningful consultation that will take place as a result of the introduction of the guidance and regulations surrounding the bill. Let us get this into context: it is about introducing the most appropriate measures to solve a problem in our communities. That is what the motion seeks to do, that is what Bill Tynan seeks to do, and that is what the Scottish Executive seeks to do.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister accused the SNP of trying to hold things up because of constitutional niceties. Will he accept that if the Executive had supported Shona Robison last year with an amendment to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the regulations could have been implemented more quickly? The Executive used that method when it introduced an amendment to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 as an emergency measure in relation to houses in multiple occupation. It was the fastest way to make a difference.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I fundamentally disagree with that and that is what we said at the time. This was about ensuring that we do not spend all our time trying carefully to draw lines round the constitutional map of the UK to find out what the Parliament has powers to do and what it does not have powers to do. What we have here—Donald Gorrie mentioned the use of double-barrelled names—is Westminster-Holyrood and Holyrood-Westminster working in concert to solve an issue within our communities.

The route that Linda Fabiani suggests was ill-advised because many of the powers that we wanted were reserved. We should not forget that the Scottish people said at the election that they did not want separation and divorce, or Scotland to be a separate state, but that they wanted to work in partnership with the UK Government. That is what the Executive is doing through this legislation.

SNP members have been fairly grudging, although there has been welcome for part of the motion. COSLA, however, demands action and supports the Tynan bill. COSLA understands that when we discuss regulations, matters such as resources and financing will be clarified. If appropriate, there will be adequate resources from the Executive. Local authority enforcement officers and environmental health officers want the power to act forcefully within communities to ensure that fireworks do not continue to be the hazard that they are today.

I would argue therefore that, while there was some grudging welcome from the SNP on the matter, its position does not reflect the position within our communities. As Margaret Ewing said, we have a good idea from Bill Tynan, which COSLA, the Department of Trade and Industry and most members of the Scottish Parliament support, yet the SNP cannot bring itself to admit that it is a good idea and to support it. I am surprised by the SNP's position of abstention on the bill.

I will try to address the issues raised by Mr Stevenson, but if I do not get through them we can correspond on the issue. Elaine Smith made an interesting comment about internet purchasing. How we deal with that is the subject of continuing discussion. It is an extremely difficult area. I know that that was not one of Mr Stevenson's points, but it arose during his speech.

On the consolidated fund and where the money is going, let us not forget that in recent years, in partnership with the UK Government, the Executive and the Parliament have received unprecedented resources from the UK. Those resources will have risen from £16 billion in 1997 to £27 billion by 2006. I would not argue about money when we consider the size of the consolidated fund. Separation and divorce would cost the Scottish taxpayer many thousands, if not millions, of pounds. It was significant that Stewart Stevenson's big question was, "Westminster or Holyrood?" My big question is, "When are we going to deal with this issue to ensure that our communities are protected from the menace of fireworks?" Phil Gallie introduced an interesting aspect to the debate that I had not considered in detail, which was the rural dimension. I will continue to work with partner organisations to ensure that we address that issue.

Many members asked how regulation would work. I give them an absolute assurance about the consultation that will take place. We will work through the Parliament's committees and with our partners to ensure that regulation is properly carried out.

We must consider insurance, because what we do not want to do, as a result of this process, is prevent responsible firework demonstrations and evenings.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give an assurance that, if he is responsible for the legislation that introduces a charge on licensing, he will ensure that public bodies are not charged at a different rate than voluntary bodies and other organisations? There should be a common rate.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will not give that assurance as it might be decided that charitable and voluntary organisations should pay a lower rate than other bodies. I have discussed the matter with Bill Tynan and am aware of the numbers that are being bandied about. However, it would be unfair to discuss that just now, as it will be the subject of the discussions on regulation and licensing that we will have in due course.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

As the Minister for Finance and Public Services, Mr Kerr will be concerned about the ultimate cost—which could be quite substantial—of any regulations that are brought forward. However, what proportion would that ultimate figure be in relation to the figure of £338 million, the previous estimated cost of the Holyrood project, which the minister described as a "drop in the ocean"?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will give Mr Ewing the transcript of the Radio 5 Live interview during which that comment was made so that he will realise that his use of that quote is—as ever, from the SNP—a mischaracterisation of my words as a result of a deliberate misunderstanding of what was said during the show.

As Bill Aitken said, young people are affected by their so-called friends and other young people terrorising them with fireworks. He talked about tuppenny bangers, which I do not remember, but what he said about other devices, such as air bomb fireworks and the Black Cat was absolutely right. Members who have seen the Black Cat, which is now banned, will know that it looks like a mortar bomb and is a frightening thing.

Donald Gorrie expressed support for Bill Tynan and talked about community groups. His speech was welcome, as it talked about the consultations that have been going on for many years on the subject. I was not sure about his concluding remarks about the best way in which to deal with the situation, however.

Margaret Jamieson demonstrated exactly what MSPs should have been doing in relation to this issue. When large retail chains, such as R S McColl, choose to act irresponsibly, it is our duty to tackle them. I congratulate her on the work that she has done. I strongly share her view that this legislation fulfils a promise of the Executive.

Cathie Craigie was right to say that enough is enough and that this proposal demonstrates partnership working. She was also right to acknowledge that her desire for a ban on all sales of fireworks is not shared by everyone. However, I say to her that these are still early days. I hope that Bill Tynan's bill, when its provisions are delivered through regulations, will deal with the problem that we face. However, if it does not, we will have to return to the issue. That is not to say that we would change the regulations or the legislation, but I want to make the point that the changes that various organisations called for will be implemented through Bill Tynan's bill. That suggests to me that we should try to make the legislation work rather than criticising it from the start.

Sylvia Jackson mentioned the work that has been undertaken by Bill Tynan, COSLA, police officers and UK ministers. I support her acknowledgement of that work.

Someone beat me to my next point. Sylvia Jackson's comment that, sadly, John Young is no longer with us, was a bit unfortunate. What she meant was that he is no longer in the Parliament. I am glad to be able to clarify that point.

I give Robin Harper an absolute guarantee that we will consult community organisations on the point that he raised. He made an interesting point about child and slave labour, which the Westminster Parliament will address and which we can all address as consumers by having regard to fair trade purchasing and so on. Whether that is possible in relation to fireworks is an interesting point and one that we might encourage others to develop.

The idea of Ken Macintosh asking his four-year-old son to elaborate was an interesting example of how one speaks to a young child. I am sure that that is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, but Ken Macintosh said it, so I am entitled to have a bit of fun with him.

It is true that Annabel Goldie and I will never agree on business rates, but we will continue to have discussions with the business community. I assure her that I will continue to liaise with the UK Parliament, including the Secretary of State for Scotland. We want to ensure that we consult on licensing. Annabel Goldie used the term, "common sense", and I hope that she agrees that the way in which we are dealing with this legislation demonstrates that we are taking a commonsense approach. She also hoped that we would get the balance right. I assure her that we intend to get the balance right by consulting heavily on the regulations that will flow from the bill.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Had I realised that there would be time, I would have spoken in this debate, but I will settle for making an intervention.

I associate myself with the minister's earlier comments that commended the work of COSLA and the work of Tom Maginnis and the task force in particular.

Can any further steps be taken by, for example, introducing a uniform recording system to improve the monitoring of firework-related complaints and incidents and perhaps assess the impact of the new measures?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have had discussions with senior police officers in Scotland about that matter. They are seeking to obtain systems that will reflect and ensure that we properly record firework-related incidents, which will allow us to make a real impact in our communities. The cost to the public purse of having to respond to such incidents is also important.

We are talking about a difficult enforcement issue. The matter is not just about powers and how the legislation can be made to work positively, but about catching young people—if indeed it is always young people who are involved; I am not sure that that is the case. Catching those who misuse fireworks is a difficult task. On dark evenings when it is nearly winter, it is difficult for police to respond to calls and catch those who are offending. We want to cut off the supply at source by ensuring that retailers act responsibly, staff are properly trained, codes of practice are applied and regulations are stuck to. That is our approach.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

COSLA's view is that the co-operation of the Crown Office and other relevant agencies of the judiciary must be obtained to support and reinforce the view that firework nuisance and abuse cannot be tolerated as acceptable behaviour. Does the minister have any ideas about how such co-operation can be progressed?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We should manage to deal with many significant problems by working through the regulations process. We give an absolute assurance that we will make an impact on and influence the progress of the matter through Westminster in respect of engaging with the regulations that will be created in the reserved and devolved areas. Mr Stevenson spoke about such matters. We will ensure that we will deal with things in the usual manner and that we will consult widely in civic society and throughout Scotland. We will use the parliamentary committees to ensure that such matters are addressed.

Stewart Stevenson also mentioned consultation and made some detailed points about the legislation. I have tried to address consultation. The appropriate Parliament will consult, but that does not mean that the views of individuals, MSPs, representatives of our communities and the Executive will not be put across. We will work to ensure that the legislation develops in the most effective manner.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I would like clarification about enforcement. Should I infer from what the minister says that he anticipates enforcement being more in the supply sector than in the regulation of people's behaviour in communities?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Yes. We should ensure that we provide the police, environmental health officers and those who deal with difficult licensing and regulation issues with the appropriate powers through guidance and regulations. I strongly believe that we should try to reduce the impact of fireworks in our communities by strangling inappropriate supply lines. The issue relates to the window during which fireworks can be sold and the age of people to whom they can be sold. A box of fireworks should contain a variety of fireworks and not just noise-making fireworks that the community recognises as unacceptable. Black Cat and air bomb fireworks should be banned. There is a duality to the process. We need to provide police and other public sector enforcement workers with the powers to deal with issues when they arise, but the best way to try to deal with matters is through responsible retailing by those who supply fireworks. We are trying to achieve a balance in respect of the two different sides in the debate.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will take one more intervention.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does the minister agree with what Donald Gorrie and Robin Harper said about the legislation helping to create an environment in which people who use fireworks are more respectful of others? The legislation does not try overly to penalise people, but there is an attempt to create a culture in which people respect others in such enjoyable activities.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I absolutely agree that the Executive is trying to create that kind of culture and not just in the use of fireworks. We want to use the schools, the police, the fire service and other public servants to get the message across that, although the responsible use of fireworks is totally acceptable, we must crack down hard on the irresponsible use of fireworks in our communities.

I strongly believe that the Executive motion will result in comprehensive and effective regulations, which we have promised to consult on widely. We are about to make a real difference in our communities by agreeing to the motion. The bill will ensure that the views that we have regularly expressed on behalf of our communities are satisfied. People such as Tom Maginnis, who are much closer to the subject, have issued statements that are very positive about what the effect of the Tynan bill will be. I am supportive of the work of Tom Maginnis and of COSLA and, of course, I support all the public servants who have to deal with the problem, but the legislation will enable them to do that in a much more effective manner.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will address any shortage of blood supplies arising from an outbreak of West Nile virus. (S2O-269)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service will temporarily defer donors who have visited the US or Canada for 28 days in order to minimise the risk of West Nile virus entering blood supplies. The SNBTS is actively campaigning to encourage donors to give blood before they go on holiday. Last week, as a result of those efforts, more than 1,700 new or returning donors gave blood.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I thank the minister for that reply and I am encouraged by it. I hope that he agrees with me about the importance of blood donation to this country. In light of the outbreak of West Nile virus that is affecting the United States, will the minister consider increasing public awareness of blood donation throughout Scotland?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I agree that this is an important matter. I thank him for raising the issue, given some of the history that is attached to blood donation. The SNBTS is very much aware of the need to raise awareness and is involved in a publicity campaign. I am sure that it will continue to monitor the situation and pursue that campaign actively.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what unit of population it will use in constructing the Scottish index of deprivation. (S2O-261)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive has commissioned research to underpin the development of a long-term strategy for measuring deprivation in Scotland. That includes considering the size of units that might be used in an area-based index. We will make decisions once the research is complete.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I thank the minister for that reply. I am glad that she has not yet made up her mind and I encourage her to use as small a unit of population as possible. I highlight the Auchmill ward in my constituency of Aberdeen North, which has half of the Great Northern social inclusion partnership within it. If the minister uses the ward arrangement, there will be little prospect of financial support within the City of Aberdeen. I would much rather that we continue to use the numeration districts that were used following the 1991 census.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Any unit of definition brings its own challenges, as I am sure the member appreciates. We attempt to measure a number of factors in order to deliver an effective strategy to tackle deprivation and to ensure that we deal with concentrations of deprivation. We know that the current system is far from perfect because smaller areas are not properly picked up. There are streets that have severe deprivation in some prosperous areas, and we seek to target such areas of deprivation. The research is robust. We will give the matter great consideration to ensure that we address the issues that the member raises.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As the minister knows, Stirling is polarised in that it has very well-off areas and very disadvantaged areas side by side, an example being Cornton and Bridge of Allan. If the research that is being done to develop the index of deprivation is not sufficient to identify smaller pockets of deprivation, will more work be undertaken to give us a more accurate analysis of where deprivation and disadvantage exist?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The research that we are doing should give us some of the answers that we are looking for by establishing the proper unit size and levers that we need to target resources.

Sylvia Jackson knows that we believe in devolving flexibility in funding patterns, as people at the local level are sensitive to some of the issues. I know that that approach has benefited her constituency. It is a combination of ensuring that we get the unit size right and having flexibility in decision making. I assure members that we will do our best to ensure that the research is robust. It is never possible to get all the answers right in such a measurement because patterns shift, but we will make every effort to ensure that the polarity that Sylvia Jackson describes is addressed.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will empower people with disabilities to make their own choices about their care. (S2O-305)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Direct payments can help to empower disabled people by giving them more choice and control over the delivery of the community care and children's services that they need. On 1 June, we introduced provisions that will make direct payments more widely available to disabled people.

If I could indulge you for one more second, Presiding Officer, I understand that this is a landmark day for Ms Alexander. I will not be so ungracious as to say which landmark day it is, but I take this opportunity to wish her many happy returns. [Applause.]

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Thank you. I am certainly well into the second half of my three score years and ten.

As the minister is well aware, disabled people have to draw on a variety of services at different stages, whether they be provided by Communities Scotland, in the case of housing, or by health boards or local authorities. In that respect, a variety of organisations have sprung up in Scotland in recent years. Organisations such as the Disabled Persons Housing Service provide an excellent service, and there is an example of such a service in my area of Renfrewshire. I am anxious that the minister give an indication that he would encourage health boards and other statutory agencies to support those voluntary organisations that assist people with disabilities, most notably organisations such as the Disabled Persons Housing Service.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am more than happy to give that reassurance. The Executive fully recognises the contribution that such organisations make. I would strongly encourage health boards and local authorities to engage in discussions to ensure that they can make their contribution to the proper funding of those bodies. The organisation in Ms Alexander's constituency was previously funded by Communities Scotland, which I know fully recognises the work that the organisation has done. I know that Communities Scotland is prepared to work with its staff to identify longer-term sources of income.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I join the minister in wishing Wendy Alexander many happy returns—although she is some years away from suffering the particular disability that is known as deafness. Could the minister tell me where we are with the decision made in the partnership agreement to proceed with the issuing of digital hearing aids throughout Scotland?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As Jamie Stone knows, a report on audiology services in Scotland was produced earlier this year. That whole service is being reviewed at the moment. We are aware of the significant commitments made in the partnership agreement, and the measures to which Jamie Stone refers are being examined in detail with a view to implementing them as soon as possible.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I understand that just four out of the 26 board members of "The same as you?" implementation group have a disability. Will the Scottish Executive consider increasing that level of representation?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It is important that people with specific experience of disability are represented on such groups. It is also important to have a wide breadth of experience from all sectors of society, so that people can bring different talents to ensure that services are delivered in the best possible way, that disabled people have proper access to those services and that their concerns can be expressed properly.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether any action will be taken to improve public transport links between north and south Lanarkshire. (S2O-262)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Ministers are always anxious to encourage improved public transport links, although, in this instance, the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, along with North Lanarkshire Council and South Lanarkshire Councils, would have the lead responsibility.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the minister agree that the transport links between those areas of Lanarkshire are in particular need of improvement? Many of my constituents are faced with using at least two different buses—perhaps more—for a journey taking upwards of an hour in order to gain access to their nearest maternity and paediatric facilities. Does the minister agree that, if those facilities are to be of the utmost benefit to the people whom they serve, it is crucial that transport links to and from them improve?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree that there is significant scope for improving public transport in Scotland. That is one of the reasons why the Executive is shifting its transport expenditure towards public transport and why, over the coming years, we will spend 70 per cent of the funds available on public transport.

As far as more immediate action for Elaine Smith's constituents is concerned, I will be meeting representatives of Strathclyde Passenger Transport on Monday to discuss a range of public transport issues, and I am happy to take up her constituency concern with the chairman.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what concerns it has about withdrawal of bus services in the Scottish Borders. (S2O-273)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Although the provision of local bus services is a matter for individual bus operators and the local council or local transport authority, the Scottish Executive is clearly concerned at the reduction of any public transport provision.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I note what the minister says, but in a recent parliamentary answer he stated:

"The Executive provides substantial financial support for the operation of subsidised local bus services through the local government Grant Aided Expenditure mechanism ... There are currently no plans to increase this support."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 June 2003; p 177.]

Who is to blame for the crisis of essential Borders bus services being cut right, left and centre—Scottish Borders Council or the Liberal Democrat Minister for Transport?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive is increasing funding to local authorities and the funds available are rising right across Scotland. In addition, the Executive has provided £19.7 million in new investment since 1998 through the rural public passenger transport fund. Wide powers are available to local authorities and I know that Scottish Borders Council is considering ways of mitigating the worrying reductions in services. I hope that it will seize its powers and take action.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Is the minister aware that local Peeblesshire Liberal Democrat councillors, together with independents and me, are working hard to seek the retention of the town service in Peebles? That approach is more constructive than that of the member who asked the question—an approach that was described by a former SNP councillor in a local newspaper last week as "bitching and whining".

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I was unaware of that comment and am unwilling to comment on it. However, I have read in the local press some of Christine Grahame's generous comments about my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me.

As I said, local councils have powers available to them. As I understand it, a policy decision of Scottish Borders Council was not to support town services. That was not a Scottish Executive decision and it is one that Scottish Borders Council can change.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports the development of new incineration facilities. (S2O-281)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The national waste plan recognises that producing energy from waste has a role to play in an integrated approach to waste management. However, development of new incineration facilities will be supported only where this is the best practicable environmental option identified in the relevant area waste plan. That means that recycling and composting will be maximised and only residual waste will be used for energy recovery.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware of the widespread concern in Aberdeen over the plans to build an incinerator at a site in the Altens area of the city? Aberdeen City Council is still considering the planning application for that site. Thousands of people in the communities around Altens object to the fact that the proposed incinerator is of such a size that it will need to process waste from outside the city in order to be economically viable. They are also concerned about the substances that will be released from the incinerator into the environment around their homes. In light of those objections, does the minister agree that the proposed incinerator should not be built?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The member will appreciate that, as a planning application for the incinerator is currently awaiting a decision by Aberdeen City Council, I am unable to comment on the merits of the application. However, that application, and any other similar proposal, would have to be in line with the best environmental option in the local area waste plan.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister join me in welcoming converts on this issue—given that it was the former administration in Aberdeen City Council that promoted the incineration concept? Will he also join me in welcoming the commitment that has been given by the new administration in Aberdeen to seek other methods of waste disposal?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will not be drawn on the specific application; I think that the member would agree that that is wise. However, high levels of recycling, reuse and composting are not incompatible with the recovery of energy from waste. So, in that wide context, I agree with Mr Rumbles.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister think that incineration is the most efficient means of waste disposal?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

For the third time, I repeat that incineration is one of many options for waste disposal. We continue to believe that reuse, recycling and composting are the best environmental options, but that belief is not incompatible with consideration of recovery of energy from waste, which is better than landfill.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware that there is no target in the national waste plan for the reduction of the amount of waste that is produced in the first place and that, by the Executive's own figures, the waste that is generated in Scotland is projected to rise by 30 per cent before 2020. Does the Executive intend to tackle the ever-increasing amount of waste that is produced? If so, will the minister consider introducing at least some sort of target and strategy for reducing such waste?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We have targets for increasing recycling, reuse and composting and, as a consequence, reducing our reliance on landfill, so it is untrue to suggest that there are no targets. However, we will certainly consider all the best practical environmental options. As I told the member's colleague last week, we believe in local solutions to local problems. Such solutions are determined by the area waste plan for the area in question.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the Scottish Executive treat incinerators differently where they are described as thermal energy reclamation units? Does the Executive have any plans to monitor the output from those plants in response to local concerns?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am aware of the European Court of Justice's decision on the matter. In that context, I repeat that our policy is that waste prevention, minimisation, recycling and composting should be maximised, but to meet our landfill reduction targets, we must consider the use of energy from waste recovery, which is a better environmental option than landfill.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to improve opportunities for sporting participation and achievement. (S2O-265)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We are supporting a range of initiatives that contribute to delivering the agenda that is fully set out in sport 21, which is the national strategy for sport.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the Executive encourage sport's governing bodies to ensure that sporting achievement is rewarded with the opportunity to participate at a higher level? Would it be a travesty of justice if the Scottish Football Association failed to ensure that Falkirk Football Club's achievement in winning the division 1 championship is rewarded with the opportunity to participate in the Scottish Premier League?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As Frank McAveety is not here today, I am a late substitute who has just been drawn off the bench and I think that that question is rather unsporting. However, I take my hat off to Dennis Canavan. His consistency and persistence in supporting his local football club is highly commendable. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that it would entirely inappropriate and improper for me to comment on the matter today, given that an appeal is on-going, the second half of which will be heard later tonight.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive when its sexual health strategy will be implemented. (S2O-276)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

An expert group has been taking forward the preparation of a national sexual health strategy. A report for public consultation will be published by autumn 2003.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the minister agree that there has been a worrying rise in the number of sexually transmitted diseases, with chlamydia rising by 100 per cent, gonorrhoea rising by 52 per cent and new HIV cases rising by 60 per cent in the past four years? Will he describe how the sexual health strategy will tackle prevention as well as cure?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

There were three strands to the remit that I gave the group that is considering the matter. One strand was to enhance the provision of sexual health services. The other strands were to reduce unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections and—crucially—to promote a broad understanding of sexual health and sexual relationships that encompasses emotions, attitudes and social context. We want to take a much broader view of the matter than has been taken in the past and I look forward to receiving the recommendations so that we can carry on with the consultation.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Will the minister join me in welcoming the most recent statistics, which show a reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies in Scotland? However, does he agree that a great deal more still needs to be done in that area? Will he therefore give an assurance that the issue will be actively and fully addressed in the forthcoming sexual health strategy and thereafter in its implementation?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I can certainly give Susan Deacon that assurance. I am sure that we all want to pay tribute to her work in the area. We are building on the foundations that she created. For example, the healthy respect demonstration project, which is a testing ground for issues, has been feeding into the work of the strategy. Earlier this year, we also set up a sexual health and well-being learning network, which is disseminating information about what works and examples of good practice.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Given the inequalities in access to termination services that have been evidenced in areas such as the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area, will the strategy include initiatives to eradicate such inequalities?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The provision of sexual health services is one of the key strands of the strategy, so that issue is part of the strategy that we must keep in mind.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Greater Glasgow NHS Board regarding any shortfall in funding and budget cuts. (S2O-303)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The Executive has regular discussions with all NHS boards on a wide range of issues, including financial issues. The most recent discussion with Greater Glasgow NHS Board took place at the annual accountability review on Wednesday 25 June.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware of the reported funding reduction in the budget for Greater Glasgow NHS Board. The board has restricted the supply of beta interferon for new patients and attributes its action to that shortfall. Can the minister give an assurance that both newly diagnosed and existing sufferers of multiple sclerosis who live in the health board's area and who require the drug will get access to it in line with the Scottish Executive's policies?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I remind members that Greater Glasgow NHS Board's uplift next year will be 7.4 per cent, which is high by any historical standards. However, Robert Brown is right to say that a small adjustment had to be made because of a fall in population.

There is a risk-sharing scheme for beta interferon and the Scottish Executive has issued guidelines on the drug. Clearly, Greater Glasgow NHS Board must implement those guidelines. The issue was raised with the board, which assured us that patients will continue to be assessed and prescribed beta interferon where that is clinically appropriate.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I congratulate the minister on using his muscle to order Greater Glasgow NHS Board to drop its ban on beta interferon for MS sufferers. When will action be taken by the board to reinstate such drug treatment and will it involve all 240 MS sufferers in Glasgow? At the moment, only 71 patients are involved. Can the minister give an assurance that that will happen as soon as possible?