���˿���

Lots of very valid questions have been raised, which in itself proves my point that the issue has not been addressed. Dropping amendment 68 will neither resolve the problem nor answer the questions that we have. There is still a lack of clarity with regard to a scenario in which a community group, charity, organisation, community council or even just a group of people in the same street wants to put on an organised display for whatever reason—perhaps not for profit—as currently happens and will be allowed to continue to happen, and how that will interact with the licensing scheme, which is, as I understand it, aimed at promoting safe behaviour by individuals and barring those whom we expect not to act safely. I understand and get all that, but what is still unclear to me is the quite odd link that is being made between a community group that wants to put on a display having to rely on an individual to use their individual licence and take on individual liability to purchase, possess, store and use fireworks on behalf of the rest of that group, and the ability of multiple individuals in a group to do the same.

Therefore, there is a perfectly feasible scenario in which 100 people in a street all use their licences to buy 5kg of fireworks and put on a 500kg firework display. That is substantial and would be perfectly legal.

I think that we are still not there with the legislation, and there are still unanswered questions, which community groups might want to be answered ahead of stage 3. Although for technical reasons my amendment 68 would probably create issues—which was not the intention—those issues could be fixed. However, I think that the Government still needs to come back to clarify the position around community groups and charities, as opposed to public displays. I do not think that that issue has been cleared up.

Thanks, Russell. It is just as well.

My sympathy for amendment 1 is based on the fact that the level of the fee sounds like a reasonable number. Putting numbers in primary legislation is difficult, dangerous and probably not sensible, but it might be a principle on which the committee can work with the Government, ahead of stage 3, to see how the Government will go about setting the fee and the work that will need to go into that. If that process were included in the bill, it might address some of the issues that members have raised. We will all work constructively on that. If Pauline McNeill is minded not to press amendment 1, we should revisit the issue.

That flows into my second point, which is the inflationary cap that we have sought to achieve in amendment 69. There are other ways of wording it—I have seen various pieces of legislation that peg increases in different ways. There are a number of disposals available to the Government for that. If the Government has a problem with the way in which we have set it out in amendment 69, we could perhaps word it in a better way. Again, the amendment can be withdrawn and we can come back to the issue. However, all of this paints a wider picture.

Amendment 90 sits in the grouping on post-legislative scrutiny, unfortunately, but it could equally sit very well in this group, as it deals with the process that the Government should set out. The policy intention surely is not to put people off getting a licence. For someone to get a licence, they go through the safety training course and get a certificate. Surely we want as many people as possible to get a licence, so anything that is prohibitive should be frowned upon by us all. Again, it is an issue that I think we could sensibly revisit.

There is a lot of sympathy in the room today. It is very nice, but nobody ever votes for my amendments. [Laughter.] Thanks anyway.

What is lacking, then? In your paper, you say that

“The key challenge ... is the lack of an overarching strategy to tackle online child sexual abuse”,

and that

“there is no government leadership with the issue straddling multiple government departments and Ministerial portfolios.”

In effect, what are you asking the Government to do? Would you say that the lack of take-up of your service is due to a lack of awareness among the community of those who might benefit from it or simply a fear of contacting you, because of what might happen thereafter if they pick up the phone or access a website?

Does anyone else want to answer? We are running out of time.

I might come back with some questions later, convener.

Okay. I had lots of questions, but everyone has used up my time.

I will ask a slightly left-field question. Has there been a rise in vigilante behaviour from members of the public to try to—through online or physical approaches—capture, tackle or deal with predators, for want of a better word? Has there been a rise in people self-policing, in effect? If so, what has been done to tackle or prevent such activity?

Thank you. I realise that that is a slightly different area of questioning, but I wanted to raise the issue.

I have a final question for the NCA, which is about the complexity of the enforcement landscape. If an image is discovered on a site or through an app, whether we are talking about mobile or fixed-base internet service provider access, it is often not clear where responsibility lies with regard to escalation. Does it lie with the website operator or with the internet service provider? Is the process governed by Ofcom, the Internet Watch Foundation, ministers, the police or the NCA? That lack of clarity can be such that no action is taken. It is not always clear to the consumer how to escalate such a matter, other than by immediately reporting it in the first instance. If no action is taken thereafter, the path to escalation, whereby the ISP or the website can be held to account, is not obvious.

I appreciate that the issue crosses a range of policing and devolved and reserved matters, but could the pathway be tidied up a little more so that people know exactly who does what, who regulates what and what can and will be done if no one else takes action?

Given that we are being asked to agree to the instrument, we should ask the main protagonists who responded to the consultation whether they are happy with the framework, or whether they have any observations or reservations that they want us to consider before we agree to the instrument.

I apologise to committee colleagues and the Wise Group for being unable to make the visit. I make an open offer that I would be very willing to go with other members or to visit on my own at a suitable time. I am happy to arrange that through the committee clerks or directly with the Wise Group.