Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Police Federation said that its officers have the common sense not to arrest people on mountain tops or in marinas who have flares for legitimate reasons, which would help with the purpose of keeping the provision very simple. Is it now the case that that is completely off the table?

I want to ask about no-firework zones, as they were called at some stage in the consultation process—[Interruption.] Okay—they were called no-firework areas, but they have become firework control zones. Given that there is a risk that people will not understand what that means, would it not have been easier to have no-firework zones?

There appear to be two broad problems. One is fireworks being misused in a violent or antisocial way and the other is the noise from their legitimate use and the distress that that causes to pets and certain people. If you want to go down this route, why not create no-firework zones so that people can have peace and quiet?

The Scottish Police Federation has given evidence to the effect that the good intent behind the bill might be undermined by what it calls “bad legislation”, given the current drafting. One of its specific concerns is on pyrotechnics and their increased use at football matches and other large-scale events. The SPF says that the bill should be amended so that simple possession of pyrotechnics is an offence, with provisions to protect their reasonable use or possession by legitimate users. Since we received that evidence, Police Scotland has written to us and said much the same thing. It believes that the law should have “simple possession” written into it. Will you take that on board?

Secondly, on your observation that we might be able to ban fireworks if Scotland was independent, I do not know if that is what you are seriously proposing.

Going back to the licensing question, we heard evidence from a responsible fireworks shop owner, Norman Donald. He said that the licensing rules under the bill would most likely put him and others out of business. We have also heard evidence about the fabled white-van man of Blackburn, who roams around selling fireworks to children. The suggestion is that the unintended consequence of the bill would be to put legitimate operators out of business, while it is an absolute gift to the white-van men. Is that really something that you want to happen?

Yes, I think so. It would be useful to know the geographical breakdown and the dates of those offences. I presume that they are centred around fireworks night, but it would be good to see the detail. In addition, I do not know whether the data would include the age of the offenders and the outcomes.

It is not just those two criteria that would apply in control zones, because private home owners could bring in a fireworks company, too. People who live in those areas might think that they will have some peace and quiet, but nothing will have changed, because fireworks could still go off there. That might confuse people.

Ignore the first part if you want. I am really asking about the unintended consequences of putting legitimate and responsible traders out of business while fuelling a black market in fireworks.

I have a question on licensing, but I will first make a couple of observations on the data. We have learned today what the Crown Office has done with the numbers from the past 10 years or so, but we still do not know how many actual incidents have been reported to the police or recorded by the police. Perhaps we can get that information.

Last week, Fraser Stevenson of the BFA told us that, in 2020, his organisation had sent the minister a 10-point plan, point 4 of which concerned raising the age at which someone can buy fireworks from 18 to 21. Given that we have heard today that the average age of those who are prosecuted is 22, that seems like quite a sensible proposal from the industry and is perhaps a more sensible and effective starting point than the legislation, which seems to be quite convoluted and confusing. Why was that suggestion not taken on?

The bill establishes penalties of up to six months’ imprisonment for some offences, yet the Scottish Government has extended the presumption against short sentences to sentences of up to 12 months. I wonder whether there is a possible inconsistency in that respect. I am trying to understand how that particular proposed sentence was arrived at.