���˿���

I have heard the responses from the minister and other members. However, even with the minister’s amendment, which proposes not to allow for private companies to provide displays in firework control zones, the bill will still allow for the use of fireworks through organised public displays. Given the expectations of members of the public and the views that were expressed in the vast number of consultation responses, that defeats the purpose of a no-fireworks zone as it was originally perceived to be.

Furthermore, there is an inconsistency or duality in relation to people who happen to live somewhere that the local authority designates as a firework control zone. Those people will be prohibited from using fireworks and unable to apply for a licence, so they will become completely peripheral to the entire process. I genuinely think that the purpose of the legislation is, as the minister described it, to curb the legitimate use of fireworks. Therefore, the risk—and the inevitable consequence of the provisions—is that the illegitimate use of fireworks will be fuelled.

What is the legal definition of a “zombie knife”?

I go back to Jamie Greene’s specific point about people who, for reasons outwith their control, might not be able to use fireworks within the range of permitted dates. The member probably cannot answer this question, but perhaps the minister could do so. What consideration, if any, has been given to those people who have bought fireworks legitimately but who have, for whatever reason, been unable to use them? How do they safely dispose of those fireworks? Has any thought been given to that?

Amendment 104 is connected to 14 other amendments in my name, but I will resist the temptation to be a bingo caller and rhyme them all off.

Other than licensing provisions and the sale and use dates, what pretty much defines the bill is the proposal for firework control zones. A lot has been said about the confusion around licensing and the dates, but a lot can and should also be said about the confusion around the proposed firework control zones. There was significant support for “no-fireworks areas/zones”, as they were described in the public consultation, and which seem to be what people want and indeed expect.

As recently as December 2020—just 18 months ago—the minister referred to those areas as “no-fireworks areas/zones” in documents on the Government website. However, members of the public, who are probably in the main still not aware of what they actually mean, might be surprised to discover that those “no-fireworks areas/zones” are now firework control zones, and that, contrary to what people seem to want and expect, the use of fireworks is not prohibited within them.

The firework control zones will allow for the use of fireworks on 57 days per year, not by anyone with a licence but by private companies that can be brought in to hold displays on behalf of members of the public. Jamie Greene has talked about what he called the Pandora’s box of those 57 days, which could increase. That remains a live issue going forward.

The greatest support for firework control zones came from pet owners, farmers, animal charities and those with sensory issues or conditions such as some autistic people and people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. When Rob Holland of the National Autistic Society Scotland gave evidence to the committee, I asked him whether firework control zones should actually be no-fireworks zones, as initially proposed. He said:

“People might assume that there would be no fireworks in a firework control zone, but it is my understanding that there still might be fireworks within those zones.”

That understanding is correct. He went on:

“That could create confusion, which could in turn lead to families having to deal with added unpredictability about when fireworks would be used.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 March 2022; c 38.]

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that firework control zones are welcome. However, I do not appreciate how they will do anything to mitigate the distress caused to animals at its facilities, given that firework use will still be permitted around those areas, albeit limited to professional displays. It is not as if there will be any predictability, other than in the designated dates. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for those who are hosting displays in such zones to notify neighbours or the likes of SSPCA facilities.

The industry has also called for the scrapping of the proposed firework control zones, but for other reasons. It has said that the minister cited overseas examples to justify their effectiveness, but in fact, those examples were about preventing the use of fireworks in public places. There has been a ban on the public use of fireworks in public places in the United Kingdom since 1876—it is the law just now. Although the minister clarified that in evidence that she gave and agreed that that was the case, that seemed to be at odds with earlier claims that we should look at places such as Munich, Berlin and Amsterdam, where zones were deemed to be a success.

I will make a couple of other points. The proposed firework control zones risk creating a two-tier system of haves and have-nots. If Person A is not in a firework control zone, they can get a licence and use fireworks at home, but there will be no point in person B, who happens to live in a zone, getting a licence, as they will have no ability to legally purchase or, indeed, let off fireworks in their private garden. Such people will be penalised by virtue of having to meet the much greater cost of hiring a private company.

Moreover, we know little about where the firework control zones will be and how large an area they might cover—I think that we heard evidence that they could be as big as an entire local authority area. The approach will not only create a two-tier system and penalise some people by virtue of their postcode, but risks fuelling the black market that we have already heard about.

Legislation often requires compromise but, for all the reasons that I have touched on, firework control zones are a real muddle and will cause public confusion and, indeed, disappointment. On the other hand, no-firework zones give clarity. Of course, there is the issue of how such zones would be enforced, but the same issue relates to firework control zones, too.

I do not expect members to agree with all of that but the fact is that, if my amendments are not agreed to, these issues will absolutely remain. I look forward to hearing the views of other members and the minister’s response.

I move amendment 104.

The point is that, whether we are arguing for more or fewer dates, we have a bill that defines what Jamie Greene has described as arbitrary dates—the minister disagrees with that description—and it seems inevitable from the discussions that we have had that there will be challenges and that the number of days is likely to grow. Whether the use of fireworks on more days happens through a legal expansion of the dates or through the black market, we need to be mindful that it is a likely consequence.

I agree with Jamie Greene in respect of the dates. It seems that the only direction that the number of dates is going to go in is upwards when people from other cultures, religions or causes that use fireworks seek to have their dates included. I am not entirely sure what the mechanism for that will be, whether it will be straightforward, whether it will involve going to court or whether the Government will be sympathetic to applicants. An obvious example is 4 July. Americans living in Scotland celebrate 4 July with fireworks, as they do in their homeland. Under the bill as it stands, they would be prohibited from doing so. I dare say that, if I went through a calendar, I could find dates that are relevant to all sorts of other groups, some of which Jamie Greene has already identified.

I apologise if I have missed this. If a group was to seek to add to the permitted days of purchase and use, what is the mechanism for that? Is it going to court, or is there some kind of application process that the group could go through with the Government?

I am asking partly out of curiosity but also to get confirmation that there is a pre-existing definition.

Indeed.

Going back to the number of days, it might surprise people who are watching to hear that, right now, people can let off fireworks 365 days of the year. That is correct, is it not? The bill seeks to prohibit that but, in so doing, it potentially creates the problem of the exclusion of other groups. We have the additional phenomenon of people using fireworks to mark big occasions such as weddings and birthdays.

Going back to a point that was made earlier, I note that limiting sales will mean that there is a risk of stockpiling. If people realise that their date of intended use does not fall within the 57 days and there is no clear or sympathetic mechanism to have it included—or if that is a non-starter because the event is, for example, a wedding—we might find that people tend to stockpile. They could get a licence, buy fireworks and hold on to them for the date in question.

The issue requires clarification, so I agree with Jamie Greene’s amendments.

A difficulty is the lack of detailed information, not only about arrests and prosecutions but about disposals, which are the ultimate test of how seriously the offences are currently taken. The one example cited in the research by the British Fireworks Association was that the maximum fine that they could find out about was of £150 for a 19-year-old in East Lothian who threw fireworks at two police officers. Without knowing the full circumstances of the case, that certainly seems slightly less than one might have expected.

Therefore, I think that adding an aggregator to the bill would focus the mind of the judiciary. Jamie Greene or the minister might be able to correct me, but I assume that if that was what an individual was charged with, the aggravator would be built in, so would be in front of the sheriff at the time of disposal and might therefore serve as a greater deterrent. In general, we have not seen evidence that the laws are being applied as strongly as they could be for the deterrent purpose.