Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 104 is connected to 14 other amendments in my name, but I will resist the temptation to be a bingo caller and rhyme them all off.

Other than licensing provisions and the sale and use dates, what pretty much defines the bill is the proposal for firework control zones. A lot has been said about the confusion around licensing and the dates, but a lot can and should also be said about the confusion around the proposed firework control zones. There was significant support for “no-fireworks areas/zones”, as they were described in the public consultation, and which seem to be what people want and indeed expect.

As recently as December 2020—just 18 months ago—the minister referred to those areas as “no-fireworks areas/zones” in documents on the Government website. However, members of the public, who are probably in the main still not aware of what they actually mean, might be surprised to discover that those “no-fireworks areas/zones” are now firework control zones, and that, contrary to what people seem to want and expect, the use of fireworks is not prohibited within them.

The firework control zones will allow for the use of fireworks on 57 days per year, not by anyone with a licence but by private companies that can be brought in to hold displays on behalf of members of the public. Jamie Greene has talked about what he called the Pandora’s box of those 57 days, which could increase. That remains a live issue going forward.

The greatest support for firework control zones came from pet owners, farmers, animal charities and those with sensory issues or conditions such as some autistic people and people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. When Rob Holland of the National Autistic Society Scotland gave evidence to the committee, I asked him whether firework control zones should actually be no-fireworks zones, as initially proposed. He said:

“People might assume that there would be no fireworks in a firework control zone, but it is my understanding that there still might be fireworks within those zones.”

That understanding is correct. He went on:

“That could create confusion, which could in turn lead to families having to deal with added unpredictability about when fireworks would be used.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 March 2022; c 38.]

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that firework control zones are welcome. However, I do not appreciate how they will do anything to mitigate the distress caused to animals at its facilities, given that firework use will still be permitted around those areas, albeit limited to professional displays. It is not as if there will be any predictability, other than in the designated dates. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for those who are hosting displays in such zones to notify neighbours or the likes of SSPCA facilities.

The industry has also called for the scrapping of the proposed firework control zones, but for other reasons. It has said that the minister cited overseas examples to justify their effectiveness, but in fact, those examples were about preventing the use of fireworks in public places. There has been a ban on the public use of fireworks in public places in the United Kingdom since 1876—it is the law just now. Although the minister clarified that in evidence that she gave and agreed that that was the case, that seemed to be at odds with earlier claims that we should look at places such as Munich, Berlin and Amsterdam, where zones were deemed to be a success.

I will make a couple of other points. The proposed firework control zones risk creating a two-tier system of haves and have-nots. If Person A is not in a firework control zone, they can get a licence and use fireworks at home, but there will be no point in person B, who happens to live in a zone, getting a licence, as they will have no ability to legally purchase or, indeed, let off fireworks in their private garden. Such people will be penalised by virtue of having to meet the much greater cost of hiring a private company.

Moreover, we know little about where the firework control zones will be and how large an area they might cover—I think that we heard evidence that they could be as big as an entire local authority area. The approach will not only create a two-tier system and penalise some people by virtue of their postcode, but risks fuelling the black market that we have already heard about.

Legislation often requires compromise but, for all the reasons that I have touched on, firework control zones are a real muddle and will cause public confusion and, indeed, disappointment. On the other hand, no-firework zones give clarity. Of course, there is the issue of how such zones would be enforced, but the same issue relates to firework control zones, too.

I do not expect members to agree with all of that but the fact is that, if my amendments are not agreed to, these issues will absolutely remain. I look forward to hearing the views of other members and the minister’s response.

I move amendment 104.

Proposed subsection (3)(g) in Jamie Greene’s amendment 59 names the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. One of the single biggest issues that we have all heard about is that of fireworks causing distress to animals, whether domestic pets or agricultural animals.

I have a useful recent, real-world example that backs up Jamie Greene’s point. It relates to a farmer who came to one of my surgeries. He had had problems with a local hotel setting off fireworks and causing his cattle severe distress. He had lost calves to the trauma and some of the animals had escaped on to roads and so on. I say that to show the real cost to individuals of the misuse of fireworks.

He wanted to know whether there was existing legislation that made knowingly causing distress to animals illegal, which led to our coming across a public warning issued by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals one year ago on fireworks night. It cited the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and stated that it is an offence if a person causes any “unnecessary suffering” to captive or domestic animals and

“the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known”

that it would do that. That seemed pretty clear.

I then sought advice from the Scottish Parliament information centre on two elements: one, whether that interpretation was indeed correct and, two, whether there had been any such prosecutions over the past five years and, if so, how many. Eventually, the Scottish Government provided SPICe with information and, long story short, to the best of the Government’s knowledge it seems that no fireworks-related prosecutions were brought under the relevant section of the 2006 act.

Furthermore, the Government went on to say that it would be an offence if an animal was “intentionally” harmed by fireworks. The addition of the word “intentionally” seems slightly less certain than, and perhaps even at odds with, the SSPCA’s position on “knowingly” causing harm.

In the meantime, the farmer reached out to the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which told him that, as far as it was concerned, the SSPCA’s interpretation is correct and that knowingly causing distress is an offence.

The point that I am trying to make is that it took a great deal of time and effort from an individual, me and SPICe to establish that there is an act that appears to do something helpful in relation to a fundamental problem that this bill seeks to address, but that does not appear to be being used. To go back to Pauline McNeill’s point, if we pass legislation that ends up going much the same way and not being utilised by the police and the Crown, it is at risk of simply becoming legal clutter, for want of a better phrase.

Jamie Greene said that prosecution rates in relation to the number of recorded incidents is “pitiful” and I agree. In addition to that, the frustration that I as a new member have had on this committee is that even just getting that data from the relevant public bodies has been extremely difficult. I use the 2006 act as an example, but I assume that much the same could be said about all those other bits of legislation. I would be very interested in the minister’s response to all those points.

That makes sense, but that provision is entirely dependent on the people selling fireworks being honest and declaring what they are sending, which cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, I go back to the point that amendment 61 would put the onus on the buyer.

It is neither my place nor my intention to suggest how a sheriff might use that. Any disposal is entirely dependent on the circumstances before the sheriff. However, given the presumption against short sentences, putting a sentence of six months into new legislation seems slightly disingenuous.

My approach gives sheriffs options. There might be a case down the line that merits a greater sentence. We often hear sheriffs express concern that they cannot satisfactorily sentence an individual due to what is stated in a particular piece of legislation. It seems eminently sensible to future proof the legislation and give sheriffs a range of options.

It may be that members agree or disagree with some of the examples that I have read out, depending on the perceived seriousness or otherwise of each element of the offence.

On amendment 126, which is the only amendment in the group that would do something different, my understanding is that it would future proof the section in the event of something happening, such as Covid or any undue delays to prosecution. That means that, if there were significant delays brought about by circumstances that no one could foresee—something in the nature of Covid—the 12-month period would not begin, and the clock would start ticking after any relevant additional measures were brought into place.

I move amendment 62.

To go back to your earlier point, what you said about consultation was interesting. Was consultation on the proposed sentences and disposals done with the Lord President, the Sheriffs Association and the Scottish Sentencing Council, for example?

My point is that there is no need to do so.

There is a bit of ground to cover. I will not go over everything that I originally said about why I believe that this is the right thing to do, but I will begin by saying that I agree with Fulton MacGregor. It is not about seeking to criminalise people; we are here to try to reduce the misuse of fireworks, which is about educating people and seeking to encourage responsible behaviour. However, giving the courts the options is a very good and wise thing to do.

Going back to Jamie Greene’s amendment 59—which is about the desire to ensure that existing legislation is being used properly—one of the arguments against it was that this new law will be the go-to, all-singing, all-dancing piece of legislation to deal with the issue of firework misuse. If so, it should be as powerful as it can possibly be. It is worth emphasising that including the additional higher sentence or fine options is not to say that those will come to pass or be used disproportionately. I trust sheriffs to use their judgment.

The minister made the point about the ability to use other legislation in relation to, for example, 999 workers being attacked, and the ability to apply sentences up to life sentences. I think that Fulton MacGregor also made that point. That may be so; however, we have to look at the long list of offences that the disposals relate to. To take one example, amendments 91 and 92 relate to buying or giving fireworks to under-18s.

The minister referred to retailers possibly being deterred from selling on the basis of the threat of an increased sentence. However, that is slightly unlikely. It is also a curious point: one, because we are trying to discourage the sale of fireworks; and two, because we have had a lack of evidence from retailers about what their intent might be because of the act. I do not know whether using that as an argument against having effective sentencing therefore quite sits with the point that we are trying to make.

In relation to amendment 91, we are talking not about legitimate and responsible retailers, but about the white van man in Blackburn that we have heard about. We are talking about people of that nature, who have no regard for the law, whatever bit of legislation it is in. If such people supplied fireworks to children and subsequent serious damage was caused because of that, that would be one example of why it would be worth while to have that additional higher sentencing option.

If this bill is to be the go-to, gold-standard legislation, it must do one fundamental thing—which is the point that Jamie Greene made but that I omitted to make in my opening remarks—which is to act as a true deterrent. We are not seeking to criminalise people; we simply want to give the courts the options. What we propose in the amendments is therefore reasonable in the circumstances.

I will press everything other than amendment 126, which I am happy to withdraw on the basis of the minister’s explanation, which has informed my understanding.

Thank you.

Amendments 63 and 46 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5—Supply of fireworks to unlicensed persons

Amendments 64 to 66 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

On amendment 67 and raising the age to 21, I agree with the points that Jamie Greene made. From memory, in the stage 1 debate, the minister responded by saying that raising the age would not be proportionate or consistent with age restrictions in legislation on other matters, but I am not entirely persuaded that the comparisons are necessarily relevant. Whether we like it or not, it is, as Jamie Greene pointed out, those in that age group who are the greatest problem when it comes to dangerous misuse, rather than general noise and so on.

Like Fulton MacGregor’s proposal on education, Jamie Greene’s proposal seems a sensible move and a bold one. I think that it would have public support—and, indeed, it has the industry’s support, which will perhaps surprise people. I am curious to hear the minister’s response.

There is a specific issue in relation to amendment 68, which has been touched on, around liability and insurance. What would be the position if an individual licence holder was acting on behalf of a community organisation? Has the Government sought any advice from or had a conversation with the insurance industry as to whether such a person would be liable as an individual or whether the community group could share the liability or take the responsibility? Could there be a form of licence that did both, which the individual could apply for on behalf of group A? Is there another way of dealing with the issue?

I welcome amendment 15 in the name of the minister, which extends the provision to spent convictions. It makes perfect sense. I also welcome her suggestion that we look at amendment 74 and broaden the scope of offences to be disclosed. Indeed, she has identified the most obvious offences—wilful fire raising or offences of that nature. Jamie Greene talked about offences related to more general antisocial behaviour and violence, and off the top of my head, I would suggest convictions related to football or violence against emergency service workers, which currently do not have to be disclosed or considered. I welcome the move in that respect, and there is work to be done on the matter.

Ultimately, this is about creating a system that is not only fair but robust and which, as Fulton MacGregor suggested, does not deter people who are perfectly entitled to hold a licence or are legitimate licence holders. Nevertheless, offences that common sense would suggest would be of concern should be considered.