Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is fine. Thank you.

Just to clarify, are you saying that you favour the bill as drafted? The current provision is about stopping people when they are going to a particular event. The federation says that that will create a problem—I think that it describes it as a “defence lawyer’s dream”—and thinks that it would be more sensible and workable to have a blanket ban on possession of pyrotechnics anywhere, with a defence of having a reasonable excuse. Is the federation correct? Is Police Scotland seeking clarification on the issue or requesting a similar change from the Scottish Government?

That is me finished, convener. I know that we are short of time.

My question is for Chief Inspector Robison. As we know, pyrotechnics have become increasingly common in places such as football grounds in recent years. The Scottish Police Federation describes the way in which the bill is drafted as “convoluted”. Specifically, the federation says that, rather than the law allowing for pyrotechnics in certain circumstances, there should be a blanket ban on carrying them without reasonable excuse. As the federation puts it, police officers are not running about the countryside arresting people going up mountains or at marinas for being in possession of flares, because they have a reasonable excuse. Do you agree with the federation that the bill as drafted is flawed? Is Police Scotland speaking to the Scottish Government about that, as the federation is doing?

To be clear, are you saying that you back what is proposed in relation to the provision on going to events and that you would talk to the Scottish Government and the federation about extending it?

I have a question for David MacKenzie; it is in two parts.

Fireworks are inherently dangerous, but, in one of your answers, you spoke about black market fireworks—the kind of stuff that does not go through the same safety checks as fireworks that you would buy in a supermarket, for example. Can you quantify how much of those types of fireworks you might typically seize?

Given that it seems likely that a licence will cost money, which I presume will become a barrier to some people purchasing fireworks, is there not a risk that the requirement to have a licence will lead to criminals exploiting that barrier, making the prevalence of black market fireworks more common?

I suppose that this question leads on from that. I am perhaps jumping slightly ahead in our running order. For trading standards services in all 32 local authorities, there will be a cost attached to policing this. You have specified that it might involve working on public holidays at Christmas and new year. Do you envisage the creation of a significantly greater workload for trading standards people across Scotland and, if so, how can that be addressed?

Indeed. That is where I was going with the earlier questioning. It sounds like a lawyer has written quite a lengthy answer, which boils down to the preference for an absolute ban on possession, if that is workable, with the defence of reasonable grounds to have the articles. Is my understanding of what you read out correct?

Out of curiosity rather than to seek a big bit of evidence, which are the two local authorities that currently work together on trading standards?

David MacKenzie touched on this, but I wonder whether Julie Whitelaw could give an indication as to what the financial implications would be for local authorities. Has that been calculated across the board by COSLA, or is that a work in progress?