���˿���

Thank you, convener.

There will be people watching this session, especially those who have given evidence already, who will accept that you are making some sensible points, and making them well, but they will also say that, as industry representatives, of course you do not want us to go down the road of having any further restrictions. What would you say to those people? What part of your professional judgment that you are passing on today is not protectionist and is more about specifically what the bill is trying to do and the way in which it is going about it? I ask that because we are going to have to address that issue. The feedback will be, “You heard from the fireworks industry, and of course it is against the proposals.” That was the case with the working group, whose report you dissented from.

I feel that there is an inevitability about the bill. I know that it is only at stage 1 and that we have not even started talking about our report or finding consensus, but I get the impression from the wider narrative on the issue that some legislation will be passed, although I do not know what that final product will look like. I ask that, as we go through the process, you work with the committee and use your professional judgment and experience in relation to the bill’s direction of travel to ensure that, if it is inevitable that something will be passed, we end up with legislation that is at least manageable. You might not be happy with it—you might think that it will have unintended consequences, for all the reasons that you have given today—but if something is going to be passed, let us at least try to pass a bill that is workable. None of us wants to pass bad law, so I make that open offer to you.

I think that the committee should explore that, because the Republic of Ireland seems to have gone much further than is proposed in the bill that we are considering. I do not feel that we have heard evidence on that, other than anecdotal evidence. We should be evidence driven in our approach.

The police have told us directly that the bill will be another tool in their toolbox. Are you saying that the issue is that there is a lack of use of, or a misunderstanding of, the current legislation, that the police already have the tools that they need and that it is just a perception that the bill will be another tool?

Andy, I want to ask you about the retail side. The devil is in the detail, in the bill. Around 650 retailers sell fireworks. We think that there are about a dozen dedicated fireworks retailers, and the expectation is that they will just go under overnight. A business cannot really operate for only 30 days a year when there is a shop front and there is rent to pay, even if it is compensated to some extent—and we all know what Government compensation schemes look and feel like. Let us assume that those shops disappear. Where would people go then?

If we are talking about supermarkets, that will leave around 630 retailers. Are they going to stop selling fireworks or will they still stock them, even if they can sell them only at certain times of the year? The idea is that we can dip in and out of when we can buy, use, and sell fireworks under the restrictions of sale, use and purchase, which are the three strands that are available to Government. Should we just focus on one or two of those elements?

There is going to be legislation, whether we like it or not, but what will the final legislation look like? Can we shape the bill better to allow the public the freedoms that they deserve while still tackling the problem?

Finally—I appreciate that we are running out of time—you are talking about use of technology to improve safety. A full-blown licensing scheme might create a sort of class division in usage, because people who can afford to get fancy companies into their big back gardens will do so—they will do it anyway, at any time of the year. People who cannot afford to do that will be unable to. Your next-door neighbour might have a fireworks display and you do not, because you cannot afford to employ a private company to do it. That is a ridiculous situation.

We are all used to flashing QR codes. Would it not be better if, for example, I would just need to have done an online safety course of a couple of minutes with a few slides? That would produce a code that is personal to me, and I could go to the supermarket and show it to the cashier, which would allow me to make the purchase? Might that be a better application of technology?

Be careful what you wish for, or we will be banning sparklers next.

We have not taken evidence from supermarkets specifically, so it might be worth our while to write to them.

There is a difference between buying something in a supermarket or a big chain store—I will not name names—and going to your small local family-owned fireworks shop, where you have a very direct one-to-one relationship with the retailer. Is there a benefit to retailers to having that kind of relationship with the consumer, as opposed to what happens in the big supermarket environment, where you might have a cashier just doing an age check, for example, and nothing more? There will not be that conversation element in supermarkets.

At one end of the spectrum, the Government could have introduced a complete ban. If that is the Government of the day’s policy, so be it. I suspect that the Government would have the numbers in Parliament to achieve such an ambition. At the other end of the spectrum, we could do nothing. We hear about a perceived rise in antisocial behaviour and a perceived rise in attacks on blue-light services. I think that there is still some ambiguity around the data. I would like those numbers to be more accurate—I think that we all would, for the sake of transparency.

Those are the extreme options. It has been suggested to us that the bill sits somewhere in the middle. It does not ban fireworks. It will still allow members of the public to purchase and use fireworks at certain times of the year, and it will still allow—appropriately, in my view—organised events to take place throughout the year. Do you not think that the bill strikes a balance? I am playing devil’s advocate, because I am slightly nervous about the bill. I want to probe you on the issue of whether the bill strikes the balance that we are looking for.

I will go to Fraser Stevenson first.

Good morning. I hear what you are saying: that fireworks will still be popular. Smoking was popular, but we introduced restrictions around that and it is now seen as antisocial. Driving without a seatbelt was the norm, but we do not do that any more. Smoking opium in the 1800s was popular, but we do not do that either.

Do you not think that we are on a bit of a journey, and we may just have to accept that, at some point in the future, there will be a blanket ban? Technology will move on, and there may be digital light displays, drones and other forms of new technology that can produce pyrotechnics that do not affect animals or people with sensitivities.