���˿���

Yes, I am happy to concede that my amendment 68 might not be the solution to the conundrum, but it has shown that there is still a conundrum that is unaddressed. I do not know how the Government intends to respond at stage 3, but the matter needs to be fixed. It might be up to individual members to lodge amendments at stage 3 to clarify the position.

The debate also raises the wider issue of the exemptions and the permitted days of use, and it raises the very real concern that Pauline McNeill mentioned that many individuals in a group will simply use their individual licences to acquire fireworks and put on a display. It is very much an unregulated environment, in that respect. We could have a lot of people who just happen to be using their licences to buy and set off fireworks at the same time in the same place. Quelle surprise; what a coincidence. It is not a very co-ordinated approach to dealing with public displays. Therefore, I ask the Government to reflect on that point.

I do not have a view on raising the age; I have lodged amendment 67 because it is worth having a debate.

I am intrigued as to whether the Government has consulted on that specific question. By that I mean this: were the public ever asked if the minimum age for purchase of fireworks should be raised from 18 to 21? If that question was asked, what was the answer? If it was not, why? If we were to ask that question now—while the issue is on the public agenda—what would people say? It is not for me to conject what the public’s answer might be, but I guess that a fair proportion might be sympathetic to that—more so because the industry is sympathetic to it.

There is space for consultation around the issue or, at least—in the bill or somewhere in legislation—on the Government’s ability to change the age in the future. I presume that the bill is not set up so that the minimum age could be raised in the future, through this or other legislation, if it became apparent that that was the will of people, direction of travel or something that would benefit society.

Not agreeing to amendment 67—or not pressing it—will not address the issue that people aged between 16 to 21 are the group who are most likely to be offenders in misusing fireworks. For that reason, I have lodged amendments about education and so on, to which I will speak later.

On amendment 78, I accept the point that a licence might become invalid if the purchase history is not recorded—that would be a by-product of a bad solution. However, I disagree that the information is not useful or helpful. I think that it is very helpful and useful, so I make a plea that, as the licence scheme is developed, the information is recorded where it can be captured and if the technology is available. We still have not addressed the issue of how people might misuse their licence to make repeated purchases of products in various locations and from various sources, with a view to stockpiling and selling on the illegal market. That is a real possibility, and it is unclear how the issue will be monitored. The amendment, even if it is not worded properly, may provide a technical solution to monitor that.

I have an issue with what the minister said about amendment 76, however. I will need to check the Official Report, but I think that the minister said, “That is how we hope it will work in practice.” That is very different from having a legal duty. Section 9, “Grant of fireworks licence”, explicitly places a legal duty on ministers that they

“may grant a fireworks licence only if—

(a) a valid application and any applicable fees have been received,

(b) the requirements under section 6 and 7 have been met, and

(c) they are satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess and use fireworks safely and appropriately.”

What is missing is what amendment 76 would add, which is a requirement on ministers that

“they are satisfied that the information disclosed or provided by the applicant under section 7(1) is accurate”.

It is a fairly simple ask and I cannot see why it would be rejected.

I am keen to hear what other members think about amendment 59. I know that you are all shy this morning and it is early, but it is important that we have a proper debate about the issues.

The amendment does a number of things. It is a whole page in length, but it is fairly self-explanatory. First, it would require ministers to review current legislation

“in so far as it relates to the supply and use of fireworks and pyrotechnic articles”.

That is the important bit.

Secondly, ministers would have to determine, as a result of that review, whether any part of the legislation requires to be repealed as a result of the introduction of the bill, and whether any legislation must be introduced to address any gaps in existing legislation.

I should put on record a huge amount of thanks to the parliamentary legislation team for helping members to produce amendments. Through that team’s research and kind assistance, the amendment includes a list of the legislation that is most commonly used in the charging or prosecution of offenders relating to the illegal sale or misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics. The list is not exhaustive. Proposed subsection (3)(j) would allow ministers to amend the list, where that is deemed appropriate.

That is the what, but I guess that the main question is about the why. It became apparent to committee members from the feedback from stakeholders that, rightly, we already have a large number of laws that regulate the use, sale and purchase of fireworks. However, we also heard that the reality is that those laws are not being used to their full extent. The evidence for that is abundant and self-explanatory—the numbers speak for themselves. For example, we know that it is already illegal under existing legislation to use a firework as a weapon, to use a firework for antisocial behaviour or to use a firework to attack emergency service workers. We also took evidence on that latter issue, and I hope that the committee agrees that we need to tackle it.

The problem is that we are seeking to introduce new legislation without a proper and full review of what is already in the public domain and how effectively we are using existing legislation to deal with the problems that the bill, in essence, seeks to deal with. Those issues are the misuse of fireworks, antisocial behaviour involving them and their illegal sale.

Over the past five years, Police Scotland have recorded more than 6,000 incidents involving the misuse of fireworks. That is quite a lot. Of those 6,000 incidents, 518 were recorded under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and other pieces of legislation that relate, among other matters, to the keeping and supplying of explosives. Over that five-year period, arising from those incidents, only 136 charges were brought and, of those, only 16 resulted in a conviction. There is clearly a disproportionate ratio of incidents to criminal charges, prosecution and successful conviction. We will come to the issue of convictions in a subsequent group of amendments.

In fact, it has been impossible for the committee to quantify the scale of the problem of nuisance complaints about fireworks to the 101 number, via 999 to emergency services, to local authorities or to trading standards. However, we know that the conversion rate of incidents recorded to successful prosecution is pitiful. We might not have to rush the bill through in the way that we are if we used the laws that exist to their fullest extent. Amendment 59 asks the Government to do that.

In fact, in its evidence to the committee, the Scottish Community Safety Network questioned whether further legislation was needed at all. It said that

“New restrictions ... specify limits to the quantities of fireworks that can be sold, the times of sale, and times of use. Therefore, we suggest these measures are given adequate time to bed-in and take effect. This might help government, local authorities and industry measure the impact and inform which – if any – of the additional proposed restrictions are needed.”

We have listed specific laws in the amendment, including the Public Order Act 1986, which covers the majority of breach of the peace offences and offences relating to the use of dangerous items in a public place. My colleague Russell Findlay has lodged other amendments, which he will speak to later, that relate to widening the scope for offences that could or should bar people from owning a fireworks licence. We will come to that matter. However, what we are asking is not onerous. We want the Government to prepare and publish a review of the existing legislation specifically in relation to the sale and use—or indeed misuse—of fireworks and lay before the Parliament a report, presumably for debate and scrutiny. One would think that the Government would want to proactively maintain oversight of the use of laws that govern fireworks and pyrotechnics.

Although we have no ideological problem with adding new legislation such as this bill, it is clear that many people in our communities are blighted by the misuse of fireworks, and their use in antisocial behaviour, which is intensified and concentrated in geographic pockets. That is the issue that is not being clearly addressed. With the great range of powers that are already available to the police and prosecutors, people are rightly asking why that is not happening. I rightly ask why the Government cannot agree to conduct such an exercise. I look forward to hearing members’ feedback on that issue, which the committee’s stage 1 report flagged as a point of huge concern.

I move amendment 59.

If it is an offence for someone to purchase, possess or use fireworks without a licence unless they are explicitly exempt under the list in schedule 1, in what scenario does the minister foresee someone justifiably purchasing, possessing or using fireworks without a licence?

I thank the member for doing so. I do not disagree with his premise, but what is clear from feedback that we have taken directly from communities that have been most blighted by the misuse of fireworks is the lack of correlation between what they are reporting and what they are seeing at the other end. It is that inaction that is causing most frustration. It is hard to say whether new legislation will fix that or simply add to the legislative environment and landscape—I hope not. I am not saying that we should not add further legislation in the way that the Government is seeking—all that I am asking for is a review of the current landscape, because we do not have all the data available to us. It would be nice to know the correlation between the recording of such incidents and where those cases go in the justice system and to find out why they are not proceeding.

Last year, for example, there were 974 fireworks-related complaints to the police—in other words, nearly 1,000. However, only 29 charges were brought, and there were zero convictions. Pauline McNeill talked about public confidence in the system. How can the public have confidence in a system in which 1,000 offences directly related to fireworks are reported and nobody—nobody—is successfully prosecuted? How will this bill change that situation?

All that I am asking is for the Government to take a step back and look at whether the existing laws are being used. I cannot for the life of me work out why the Government, with all the resources available to it, would not want to do so.

This small group contains two of my amendments and amendment 46 in the name of Katy Clark, who will speak to that one.

Amendment 60 seeks to clarify who will be exempt from holding a licence. It relates to the main statement under section 4(1) of the bill that it will be

“an offence for a person ... to purchase, acquire, possess or use a firework ... without having a fireworks licence”,

which is the very essence of the Government’s proposal.

The term “without reasonable excuse” opens up a bit of a legal minefield of excuse making and lack of clarity. In fact, that wording is a defence solicitor’s dream. It is too vague, and my approach is to create clear blue water between those who must hold a licence and those who are explicitly exempt.

Exemptions are detailed in schedule 1 to the bill. I appreciate that “without reasonable excuse” is a commonly used legal term, but in the spirit of being crystal clear in the bill about who is and who is not required to hold a licence, I believe that reference to the exemption schedule—which could also be amended—is a better way of making clear who does not require a licence. If the Government can convince me otherwise, I am happy to listen to what the minister has to say.

Amendment 61 says that a person who holds a licence must present it at the point of purchase of fireworks. Specifically, it says that a person who holds a fireworks licence must be present at the point of purchase in all instances—both in person and online—irrespective of the location of the supplier.

I will speak about why the amendment is worded in that way; I apologise if it is not worded competently, but that is down to the timescale for drafting. The amendment seeks to shift the onus of responsibility for producing a licence to the licence holder. It means that at the point of purchase, the licence holder must present their licence to obtain fireworks. In the event of an in-person purchase in a retail store, that would be a physical process, and when making an online purchase, the licence holder would have to provide evidence that they hold a licence.

As the bill is currently drafted, I believe that there is a loophole that means that online retailers will not have to check for a licence. In fact, there may be a debate to be had about whether the Scottish Government or the Parliament can legislate to mandate retailers to check for the possession of such a licence—more so if that retailer is not based in Scotland or the United Kingdom.

Amendment 61 is short, but effective, given that shifting the onus to the purchaser is the only way to competently make a purchase. However, it does not address the wider issue of how on earth online firework sellers will verify that a Scotland-based customer or resident holds a licence, or whether they have had one that has subsequently been revoked. We struggled to draft an amendment that did that. Any online retailer could feasibly sell to any address registered in the UK after the bill passes, but it is unclear how the legislation would be dealt with by retailers.

If the Government considers that there is a better solution to this problem, I would be keen to hear the minister’s thoughts. If she is not minded to support my amendment, she must still outline why the bill contains no requirement to present a licence—physically or digitally—at the point of purchase, and how on earth the online sale of fireworks by suppliers outside Scotland or the UK when selling to Scottish consumers will be policed. That is not addressed in the bill and those questions remain unanswered.

I do not think that the issue can be kicked into the long grass of secondary legislation, because it is a key component in ensuring that we limit any opportunity for a black market, which is a very real risk—as so many of us have highlighted. Amendment 61 is meant to address that issue. If there is a better way to do that, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and work with the Government to bring it back at stage 3.

I am keen to hear Ms Clark speak to amendment 46, which is slight in nature—it is a four-word amendment—but would have a big effect. It is quite unclear what she seeks to achieve with the amendment and, on a technical level, how the rest of the bill would be affected if it was agreed to. I have some concerns about the brevity of Ms Clark’s amendment and the nature of what it seeks to do. I will let her speak to that.

I move amendment 60.

I will give way in a second. You are welcome to clarify, if I am wrong.

The group could put on a display by using the licence of an individual in the group, but only during the permitted periods. That is my understanding; if I am wrong, I ask the minister to correct me.

I appreciate that very helpful feedback. I know that the amendment is of a more technical nature, but I would like clarification. If a community group wants to put on a display, it still has to nominate an individual who can use their own personal licence to purchase, possess and use fireworks on its behalf. That shifts the liability, responsibility and burden entirely on to the individual in question, not the group. Does that not strike you as a bit of a problem? Why will paid-for organisations and companies that put on professional displays be exempt from the need to hold a licence while community groups that want to put on a similar display will not be? We have not really addressed the issue of how community groups that are not in a commercial environment can put on displays other than through their having to rely on the good will of individuals in the group to use their licences and make multiple purchases of what could be fairly large volumes of fireworks. Does that not defeat the whole point of the bill?

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.