³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have no doubt that the minister will put me right on this, but my understanding is that those disposals would be available under the bill as it stands. We will hear from the minister on that point.

On the specific proposal for sentences of potentially up to 12 months, I point out that, in 2019, the Government itself legislated for a presumption against short sentences. As a result, sheriffs are disinclined to sentence anyone to anything less than 12 months. That kind of makes a new bill that stipulates a maximum sentence of six months somewhat disingenuous and possibly redundant; it is certainly something that the public might not fully understand. Given the expectation on sheriffs not to imprison anyone for less than 12 months, even though they can do so, I think that changing the provision in the bill from six to 12 months would make a lot clearer to sheriffs the range of options available to them.

I do.

As it relates to convictions, convener, I think that I will press it.

I will just respond to that directly. There is a mechanism to revoke licences, which would include consideration of certain convictions, but that is subject to further discussion.

The point about cost is a good one. I wonder whether, if there was a two-year limit or something like that, there would be a way of having an initial cost of obtaining a licence that was set at whatever number is arrived at, and then a renewal cost that was a fraction of that.

It is neither my place nor my intention to suggest how a sheriff might use that. Any disposal is entirely dependent on the circumstances before the sheriff. However, given the presumption against short sentences, putting a sentence of six months into new legislation seems slightly disingenuous.

My approach gives sheriffs options. There might be a case down the line that merits a greater sentence. We often hear sheriffs express concern that they cannot satisfactorily sentence an individual due to what is stated in a particular piece of legislation. It seems eminently sensible to future proof the legislation and give sheriffs a range of options.

It may be that members agree or disagree with some of the examples that I have read out, depending on the perceived seriousness or otherwise of each element of the offence.

On amendment 126, which is the only amendment in the group that would do something different, my understanding is that it would future proof the section in the event of something happening, such as Covid or any undue delays to prosecution. That means that, if there were significant delays brought about by circumstances that no one could foresee—something in the nature of Covid—the 12-month period would not begin, and the clock would start ticking after any relevant additional measures were brought into place.

I move amendment 62.

To go back to your earlier point, what you said about consultation was interesting. Was consultation on the proposed sentences and disposals done with the Lord President, the Sheriffs Association and the Scottish Sentencing Council, for example?

My point is that there is no need to do so.

There is a bit of ground to cover. I will not go over everything that I originally said about why I believe that this is the right thing to do, but I will begin by saying that I agree with Fulton MacGregor. It is not about seeking to criminalise people; we are here to try to reduce the misuse of fireworks, which is about educating people and seeking to encourage responsible behaviour. However, giving the courts the options is a very good and wise thing to do.

Going back to Jamie Greene’s amendment 59—which is about the desire to ensure that existing legislation is being used properly—one of the arguments against it was that this new law will be the go-to, all-singing, all-dancing piece of legislation to deal with the issue of firework misuse. If so, it should be as powerful as it can possibly be. It is worth emphasising that including the additional higher sentence or fine options is not to say that those will come to pass or be used disproportionately. I trust sheriffs to use their judgment.

The minister made the point about the ability to use other legislation in relation to, for example, 999 workers being attacked, and the ability to apply sentences up to life sentences. I think that Fulton MacGregor also made that point. That may be so; however, we have to look at the long list of offences that the disposals relate to. To take one example, amendments 91 and 92 relate to buying or giving fireworks to under-18s.

The minister referred to retailers possibly being deterred from selling on the basis of the threat of an increased sentence. However, that is slightly unlikely. It is also a curious point: one, because we are trying to discourage the sale of fireworks; and two, because we have had a lack of evidence from retailers about what their intent might be because of the act. I do not know whether using that as an argument against having effective sentencing therefore quite sits with the point that we are trying to make.

In relation to amendment 91, we are talking not about legitimate and responsible retailers, but about the white van man in Blackburn that we have heard about. We are talking about people of that nature, who have no regard for the law, whatever bit of legislation it is in. If such people supplied fireworks to children and subsequent serious damage was caused because of that, that would be one example of why it would be worth while to have that additional higher sentencing option.

If this bill is to be the go-to, gold-standard legislation, it must do one fundamental thing—which is the point that Jamie Greene made but that I omitted to make in my opening remarks—which is to act as a true deterrent. We are not seeking to criminalise people; we simply want to give the courts the options. What we propose in the amendments is therefore reasonable in the circumstances.

I will press everything other than amendment 126, which I am happy to withdraw on the basis of the minister’s explanation, which has informed my understanding.

Thank you.

Amendments 63 and 46 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5—Supply of fireworks to unlicensed persons

Amendments 64 to 66 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

On amendment 67 and raising the age to 21, I agree with the points that Jamie Greene made. From memory, in the stage 1 debate, the minister responded by saying that raising the age would not be proportionate or consistent with age restrictions in legislation on other matters, but I am not entirely persuaded that the comparisons are necessarily relevant. Whether we like it or not, it is, as Jamie Greene pointed out, those in that age group who are the greatest problem when it comes to dangerous misuse, rather than general noise and so on.

Like Fulton MacGregor’s proposal on education, Jamie Greene’s proposal seems a sensible move and a bold one. I think that it would have public support—and, indeed, it has the industry’s support, which will perhaps surprise people. I am curious to hear the minister’s response.

There is a specific issue in relation to amendment 68, which has been touched on, around liability and insurance. What would be the position if an individual licence holder was acting on behalf of a community organisation? Has the Government sought any advice from or had a conversation with the insurance industry as to whether such a person would be liable as an individual or whether the community group could share the liability or take the responsibility? Could there be a form of licence that did both, which the individual could apply for on behalf of group A? Is there another way of dealing with the issue?