³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Will the member take an intervention?

This might be something that the minister can clarify. It is not necessarily about having sympathy for the supermarkets and big suppliers; the issue is more the companies that supply those suppliers, which might well be family businesses that will see a significant downturn in business in Scotland due to what is proposed.

I am curious as to whether you have any indication of the likely size of such zones.

Will the minister give way?

I do not doubt the sincerity of Rona Mackay or Fulton MacGregor, but I think that the amendment is important and should be included. It could be argued that the existing legislation addresses attacks on emergency workers, but passing flagship firework and pyrotechnic legislation gives us the opportunity to include a specific aggregator for attacks on emergency workers, whether those are police officers or firefighters. That would be a worthwhile and positive thing to do. Attacks on firefighters who are trying to deal with events on bonfire night have become an almost annual event.

The example that you cite of couriers now being responsible for checking that in the supply chain does not negate the need for amendment 61 but cements it by putting the onus on the buyer. Although I have no doubt that couriers are, in the main, legitimate and responsible, the issue is sellers who might not be in the jurisdiction of Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. There is no accounting for the methods that they might deploy in order to send fireworks to people in Scotland. Moving and agreeing to amendment 61 would put the legal onus on the purchaser. That seems like common sense, but I am curious to hear your views on that.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 61, I think that the need for licence holders to declare that they have a licence when making a purchase is basic common sense. I note Rona Mackay’s point about high street retailers having a responsibility to check ages in other circumstances, but that approach does not take into account the wild west of online sales. There are incredible grey areas and multiple jurisdictions outwith the reach of the Parliament. To take an example, there is the issue of fraud, much of which occurs online. It is just not subject to meaningful investigation by the authorities in Scotland, because they just do not have the resources to do it. The notion that anyone would be checking whether some random seller in a dark corner of the internet had sought a licence before selling fireworks to someone in Scotland is for the birds. Therefore, it is very important that we bring in such a declaration. In fact, I think that the Government would probably welcome it. I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that.

Sorry to interrupt, convener. I understand that I might have made a procedural mistake in pressing all the amendments at the same time.

Pauline McNeill’s amendment 1 does much the same thing as my amendment 69 would, albeit that amendment 1 specifies a fee, which, for obvious reasons, would be unusual in legislation. We are approaching the same problem with a slightly different solution. Instead of trying to set a fee now that would quickly go out of date, I seek to ensure full consultation with all relevant stakeholders about what would be considered an affordable and reasonable sum to charge for a licence.

As we know, the issue depends on regulations being introduced after the passing of the bill. Even in normal times, the amount that is charged for a licence could hugely influence the number of people who would be willing to apply for it. If the licence became disproportionately expensive and a deterrent to going down the legal route, that could lead to black market sales and so on.

Furthermore, future price increases should be capped by pegging the fee to the standard inflation-related mechanism that is typical of other legislation. There are a number of ways of doing that—I am sure that the minister can keep me right.

Amendment 70 sits alongside my amendments 71 to 74 and 77. Its aim boils down to the nature of the convictions that would need to be disclosed by an applicant and considered in the granting of a licence. What the bill does just now in that regard is—fairly inexplicably, in my view—pretty limited. It would seem to require consideration of only those convictions that relate to firework-related offences. We have already heard that there is a view, or a perception, that such offences are underutilised, so there are very few convictions of that nature. In order to better assess an applicant’s suitability for a licence, a proper picture of any criminal offending would be hugely beneficial.

With regard to disclosure, we believe that all convictions should be disclosed. That does not mean that the process would be detrimental to the applicant—it would simply allow those who are making the decision to have a complete picture.

With regard to the decision-making process, rather than being viewed through the narrow lens of what the bill proposes, it should include consideration of any conviction under solemn proceedings, not just those that are listed. That is about public safety and ensuring that due and proper consideration is given to the suitability of applicants, case by case, and based on information being available to those who are making decisions. It is a private process—it is not about compromising people or forcing them to disclose their past in an inappropriate way. That is essentially the thinking behind the amendments.

I move amendment 70.