���˿���

Minister, you have talked quite a lot about the firework review group and its various members. Last week, I raised with industry representatives an issue that one of the witnesses had raised in their written evidence. In that evidence, they said that they believe that

“too much weight has been given to the voices ... in the ... Group who wanted to see more restrictions, and woefully insufficient weight has been given to the industry who have been warning of the serious unintended consequences”

of the bill.

I challenged the witness on that. Basically, I said, “You would say that, wouldn’t you? Your interest is in the commercial success of your members.” Interestingly, the British Pyrotechnists Association said that the majority of its members put on professional displays and have no vested interest in the retail market, or in the restriction of the sale, purchase or use of over-the-counter fireworks. It said that its views on the bill’s unintended consequences on the black market and other aspects on which the legislation will impact are purely based on their professional judgment and decades of experience in the firework industry. How do you respond to that?

I am sure that that would be very welcome. What struck me was how adamant the BPA was that its opposition to the Government’s plans is based not on the commercial interests of its members but on its direct experience of the fireworks industry in this country and overseas. That point was very pronounced, and it came through in the evidence, which is why I asked about it.

The sale, use and purchase of fireworks are the three prongs that the Government is using to introduce restrictions. I have two questions. First, are you cognisant of concerns that people will stockpile fireworks by purchasing them and then storing them in their homes or other locations outwith the prescribed periods for legally purchasing them? Secondly, are you confident that there will be no legal challenges to the rather arbitrary dates for the sale and use of fireworks that are prescribed by the bill?

That sounds like something that would have made a marvellous amendment, which we would have introduced anyway.

Is it the case that, under the proposals, the only way that someone who wanted to use fireworks to celebrate an occasion outwith the defined periods could do so would be through an organised display company or someone who is exempt from the regulations? If so, will that lead to a bizarre situation in which someone who can afford to celebrate with fireworks can do so but others will be restricted? Are we not just creating a class division in relation to fireworks? Does that seem fair and proportionate?

Good morning to our guests. I would like to dig a little deeper into the statistics. The committee is trying to grapple with the scale of the problem, and whether the proposed legislation both is fit for purpose and fills the gaps in a way that meets the policy intention and the premise behind it.

Some of the data that I have heard today is news to some of us, but it is also three years out of date. You said that it was from the 2019—what was the description that you used?

Thank you.

The point is, minister, that over the past 10 years, we are looking at an average—it is just an average; I am sure that there are peaks and troughs—of around 30 people being prosecuted each year, with the majority being given non-court disposals. Against the backdrop of a quarter of a million people buying fireworks each year, that is a relatively low number.

I still do not understand the correlation between how many incidents are reported to the authorities and how many proceed to prosecution. Do you understand why some people feel that the bill is overkill in terms of what we are trying to achieve? We are simply not using the existing powers that the judiciary have to prosecute those who are breaking the law. Those are quite robust laws—they are some of the most robust laws on fireworks in Europe—but we are simply not seeing them convert into the prosecutions that might act as the sort of deterrent that you want. Why, therefore, is there a need for new powers?

What percentage of those 297 people were given a non-court disposal and what percentage were prosecuted more harshly? You can give the numbers instead of a percentage. What sort of penalties were given to those who were prosecuted in court? We know what penalties are available to the courts. I am trying to get a feel for whether we are using the powers that we currently have to their full extent.

On the legal challenge question, it might help if I give the context. You have picked five periods in the year: a Chinese festival, Diwali, a Sikh festival and two secularly celebrated festivals of new year and the Halloween and Guy Fawkes period.

If someone wants to celebrate other religious or secular events with their family in their backyard or another prescribed space, will the fact that the Government has chosen those very specific dates leave you open to legal challenge by other religious organisations or other groups or communities, which might feel that, by default, you have created a zone of dates that is exclusive and not inclusive?

Minister, you said that the Government is trying to introduce legislation that responds to the public safety situation. Ultimately, however, it is the police who will enforce the legislation that the Parliament passes, and the police have been clear in their supplementary evidence that they would like the bill to be amended to include a “simple possession” offence. Given that it is the police—not us or the Government—who will have to enforce the law, can you see why we would be minded to support them on that?

I am sorry if I did not take them down. However, I specifically asked for the statistics in the order that I did because that would give us an idea of the scale of the problem.

Oh, for sure.