���˿���

Amendment 84 is quite self-explanatory—unusually for an amendment—and is based on the premise of an appeals process. It says:

“The Scottish Ministers must provide information to a person about how the person may appeal—

(a) at the point of applying for a fireworks licence under section 9,

(b) when a decision has been made by the Scottish Ministers under section 14(1).”

Information would be given up front to an applicant for a licence about the application process and about the appeal process in the scenario in which their application was rejected.

I intentionally did not go into great detail about who, when and where; in the spirit of being helpful, I thought that that information could be clarified before stage 3 or in regulations. As public awareness of the licensing scheme develops, and given our debate last week about taking account criminal convictions and other factors, there is the possibility that some applications will be rejected. Those people will want to know why, and how to appeal the decision.

That approach would be in line with other licensing schemes that include some form of independent appeals process. As I said, I have not gone into detail: I just ask that the information be given to applicants at specific points in the process. It would be for ministers to make regulations in that regard.

I hope that this is a helpful discussion point that will elicit from the minister information about what an appeal process might look like.

I move amendment 84.

That is my point. My amendments ask the Government to go away, have a proper think about the dates and come back to us. The committee could then have the debate again, quickly and soon. It will not make sense to people that two religions—or arguably three, if we include the Christian religion—have been included, with the Government being specific about the dates on which fireworks are permitted to be used, but others have been excluded. As you said, the wider public will not understand why this is included but that is excluded. Whether an awareness-raising exercise needs to take place is another matter.

It has been a robust debate and has aired some good points on the record. However, I will make a couple of points.

My first point is in response to Fulton MacGregor. He is absolutely right that, at certain times of the year, our inboxes are flooded with messages from people who see fireworks as a nuisance. The problem is that the bill will not change that because the times of year when our inboxes are flooded are also the permitted days of use. That will not solve the problem. The reason that our inboxes are flooded is the misuse of fireworks. The bill will not fix that either.

One of the points that I raised that I did not get a response to—I am unable to come back in on that debate, because of the groupings—is the issue of the enforceability of the zones, which is one of the concerns that has rightly been raised. I have not had time to go through all the minutes of the working group within the confines of the meeting, but I am keen to do so. However, what we know and have on record is evidence that the police gave in their written response to the consultation on the legislation. It is worth putting on record the fact that, because there were so many responses to the consultation, a lot of evidence has been lost in the online hinterland. However, the following quotation from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents should raise concerns for us ahead of stage 3. It said:

“In short, it is almost unenforceable. If the Local Authority has overall administration of licensing and zoning, it is the general belief of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents that the public will still involve the Police to resolve disputes (actual or perceived) over zoning. It is a minefield that does not need to be created.“

I have not heard a response to that valid concern in anything that has been debated today. Does the member share my concern?

It just seems a bit vague. I am worried that people might be alerted to—and alarmed by—things that they might have in their house that it is now illegal for them to have in their house. How might you address those concerns?

Is the minister seriously suggesting that businesses that sell fireworks all year round, which will now be restricted to selling them on only 37 days of the year, will feasibly be able to continue to operate as going concerns? Nobody whom I have spoken to in the industry believes that.

I will take Mr MacGregor first and then the minister.

Indiscriminate use will still happen. It is inevitable that there will still be people who let off fireworks outwith permitted periods. The big point is the enforcement of that.

Let us say that somebody hears fireworks going off on a day that is clearly not a religious festival or permitted day and that the fireworks last a maximum of one minute or usually much less. If they phone the police, it takes about 33 seconds to get through to 999 but, if they phone 101, it is probably a couple of minutes. By that point, it is done and dusted. Would the police get into their car, drive to the street and work out who on earth set off the fireworks? The reality is that we do not know and I very much doubt it. The indiscriminate use will still continue. With regard to whether we agree that a licensing scheme could be a helpful solution to the problem, people who are going to misuse fireworks will do so, whether or not they have a licence. They are more likely not to have a licence, but that is not going to stop them sourcing and using fireworks.

Fulton MacGregor makes a fair point. However, I still note that our inboxes are flooded in the periods around those dates on which firework use will still be permitted. The bill does not solve the fundamental problem of the misuse and antisocial behaviour that are blighting communities, which we all want to resolve.

The minister wanted to intervene on me, so I am happy to give way.

I am pleased that the minister is confident of such, but I think that that itself adds another layer to the confusion that the public will face.

We have been working on the bill for a number of months and scrutinising it line by line. This year, Diwali is on 24 October. In a community where there is problematic behaviour with fireworks, if someone hears a firework going off on 24 October, are they going to say to themselves, “Oh well, it’s Diwali—it’s okay; there’s not a problem there”? Alternatively, are they going to call the police? If so, are the police going to dispatch someone or not, given that it is a permitted day? Will the police think, “Oh no—this is probably problematic behaviour”?

Whether or not the person using the fireworks has a licence, and whether they bought the fireworks from a retailer or illicitly from white van man, is irrelevant. The problematic behaviour is what lies at the root cause of many of the complaints around usage.

My other point is a concern that, by having permitted days, we will simply be creating firework days. If someone wants to let off fireworks on 24 October, whether or not they are celebrating Diwali, the law says that they can do so on that day, and if they have stockpiled fireworks, they will do it.

There is also a valid point around adverse weather conditions that we have not discussed. It is dangerous to let off fireworks in adverse weather. If someone gets to the last permitted date in the range of permitted dates, so it is the last day on which they are able to use their fireworks, on which they may have spent quite a lot of money, are they going to put them back in the garage or let them off anyway? That could create a safety issue.

I am not querying—

Arguably, the safest way to dispose of fireworks is to let them off. However, if the law does not permit people to do so, we are creating a problem which, currently, does not exist.

I am happy to leave it there.