Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 79 is pretty straightforward. The purpose of seeking to limit the duration of the licence to two years is that, to be frank, five years is too long. It could be open to abuse and encourage stockpiling or black-market behaviour by a licence holder. Furthermore, much can happen with an individual in five years, whereas two years seems like a reasonable length of time to have a licence. One year might be considered prohibitive but, if the licence is to cover bonfire night, it could do so over two years.

A line must be drawn in the sand somewhere and I will be curious to know how the period of five years was arrived at. It might be that there is a good reason or some proper research has been done that came up with that figure, or it might be that someone somewhere just decided that it is a good number. I would be happy to hear the minister’s response to that.

The number of amendments in the group might suggest that a lot of talking is required, but that belies the fact that most of them would pretty much do the same thing.

I will start with amendment 62, which relates to the maximum prison sentence for illegally buying, acquiring or possessing fireworks, and amendment 63, which relates to the maximum fine. In much the same vein, amendments 64 and 65 relate to the particular offence of doing so without a licence; amendments 85 and 86 relate to the offence of making a false statement to get a licence; amendments 87 and 88 relate to the offence of producing a false licence or other document; amendments 91 and 92 relate to the offence of buying fireworks for, or giving them to, under-18s; amendments 94 and 95 relate to the offence of supplying fireworks outwith the proposed 37 designated dates; amendments 99 and 100 relate to the offence of using fireworks outwith the proposed 57 designated dates; amendments 110 and 111 relate to the offence of using fireworks in firework control zones in breach of the terms laid out; amendments 118 and 119 relate to the offence of possessing pyrotechnics after going to an event; and amendments 124 and 125 relate to the offence of giving false information to trading standards.

I will speak to amendment 126 later, as it is the only one in the group that is slightly different. In the other amendments that I have referred to, the first number relates to the maximum prison sentence for each offence and the second relates to the maximum fine. The bill states that the maximum prison sentence can be six months and the maximum fine can be £5,000 but, in my amendments, I seek to raise the maximum prison sentence to 12 months and the maximum fine to £10,000. I am not saying that the amendment sets out the correct sentence to be applied—we have no crystal ball that shows each and every case that will come before a sheriff down the line—but we think that it is very important for the judiciary to have the power of discretion on that matter. It seems unlikely that many of those offences will result in people being imprisoned for 12 months but, as we cannot foresee all the circumstances, it seems logical to give the judiciary that power.

The example that you cite of couriers now being responsible for checking that in the supply chain does not negate the need for amendment 61 but cements it by putting the onus on the buyer. Although I have no doubt that couriers are, in the main, legitimate and responsible, the issue is sellers who might not be in the jurisdiction of Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. There is no accounting for the methods that they might deploy in order to send fireworks to people in Scotland. Moving and agreeing to amendment 61 would put the legal onus on the purchaser. That seems like common sense, but I am curious to hear your views on that.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 61, I think that the need for licence holders to declare that they have a licence when making a purchase is basic common sense. I note Rona Mackay’s point about high street retailers having a responsibility to check ages in other circumstances, but that approach does not take into account the wild west of online sales. There are incredible grey areas and multiple jurisdictions outwith the reach of the Parliament. To take an example, there is the issue of fraud, much of which occurs online. It is just not subject to meaningful investigation by the authorities in Scotland, because they just do not have the resources to do it. The notion that anyone would be checking whether some random seller in a dark corner of the internet had sought a licence before selling fireworks to someone in Scotland is for the birds. Therefore, it is very important that we bring in such a declaration. In fact, I think that the Government would probably welcome it. I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that.

Sorry to interrupt, convener. I understand that I might have made a procedural mistake in pressing all the amendments at the same time.

Pauline McNeill’s amendment 1 does much the same thing as my amendment 69 would, albeit that amendment 1 specifies a fee, which, for obvious reasons, would be unusual in legislation. We are approaching the same problem with a slightly different solution. Instead of trying to set a fee now that would quickly go out of date, I seek to ensure full consultation with all relevant stakeholders about what would be considered an affordable and reasonable sum to charge for a licence.

As we know, the issue depends on regulations being introduced after the passing of the bill. Even in normal times, the amount that is charged for a licence could hugely influence the number of people who would be willing to apply for it. If the licence became disproportionately expensive and a deterrent to going down the legal route, that could lead to black market sales and so on.

Furthermore, future price increases should be capped by pegging the fee to the standard inflation-related mechanism that is typical of other legislation. There are a number of ways of doing that—I am sure that the minister can keep me right.

Amendment 70 sits alongside my amendments 71 to 74 and 77. Its aim boils down to the nature of the convictions that would need to be disclosed by an applicant and considered in the granting of a licence. What the bill does just now in that regard is—fairly inexplicably, in my view—pretty limited. It would seem to require consideration of only those convictions that relate to firework-related offences. We have already heard that there is a view, or a perception, that such offences are underutilised, so there are very few convictions of that nature. In order to better assess an applicant’s suitability for a licence, a proper picture of any criminal offending would be hugely beneficial.

With regard to disclosure, we believe that all convictions should be disclosed. That does not mean that the process would be detrimental to the applicant—it would simply allow those who are making the decision to have a complete picture.

With regard to the decision-making process, rather than being viewed through the narrow lens of what the bill proposes, it should include consideration of any conviction under solemn proceedings, not just those that are listed. That is about public safety and ensuring that due and proper consideration is given to the suitability of applicants, case by case, and based on information being available to those who are making decisions. It is a private process—it is not about compromising people or forcing them to disclose their past in an inappropriate way. That is essentially the thinking behind the amendments.

I move amendment 70.

I have no doubt that the minister will put me right on this, but my understanding is that those disposals would be available under the bill as it stands. We will hear from the minister on that point.

On the specific proposal for sentences of potentially up to 12 months, I point out that, in 2019, the Government itself legislated for a presumption against short sentences. As a result, sheriffs are disinclined to sentence anyone to anything less than 12 months. That kind of makes a new bill that stipulates a maximum sentence of six months somewhat disingenuous and possibly redundant; it is certainly something that the public might not fully understand. Given the expectation on sheriffs not to imprison anyone for less than 12 months, even though they can do so, I think that changing the provision in the bill from six to 12 months would make a lot clearer to sheriffs the range of options available to them.

I do.

As it relates to convictions, convener, I think that I will press it.