Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments 54 and 55, which are in some ways similar to Russell Findlay’s amendments, would enable local authorities to designate an area as a firework control zone in which fireworks could not be used by any person and no person or, indeed, professional organisation would be exempt. In effect, fireworks would be banned in the area. Obviously, the statutory defence would remain in place. If the provision were enacted, a local authority could decide to ban fireworks in the vicinity of, for example, an animal rescue centre, riding stables, a hospital, a facility for a vulnerable group or a larger area or neighbourhood in which there were particular problems.

I have a number of statements in support of the amendments. I do not intend to speak to the amendments in detail, because I believe that the minister and the committee are well aware of the antisocial impact and, indeed, the health and safety concerns that can relate to the use of fireworks. As I have said, I have statements from, among others, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the National Autistic Society and the Scottish Community Safety Network, which I will provide to the clerk and which go into detail as to why those organisations are sympathetic to the amendments.

I am interested in hearing an explanation from the minister as to why there is no provision in the bill similar to the one that I and Russell Findlay have outlined.

It occurred to me during our evidence taking that one issue is potential challenges under the Equality Act 2010. Jamie Greene has spoken specifically in relation to religious communities, which would be directly covered by equalities legislation. We also heard in evidence that fireworks are being used for gender reveal events. Has there been an equality impact assessment? What consideration has been given to aspects under the 2010 act, given that—as Pauline McNeill has outlined—the 57 days would be a baseline, and that, if challenges under the act were successful, they would add to the number of days?

These are the issues that we are grappling with. I do not claim to be an expert on the regulation of professional firework displays or how they are defined. They might be carried out by professional organisations that meet very high standards with regard to professional qualifications in a well-regulated sector. It might be that the organisations already have strenuous obligations placed on them with regard to regulations, costs, requirements to keep up to date with safety certification and so on. However, it would be interesting to know more about that.

I am sympathetic to amendment 68, but it would be useful to hear more about the Government’s thinking on the licensing scheme. Was it always the intention that organisations such as community groups and charities would be included in the licensing scheme or are they considered to be the type of organisations that undertake public events? The committee has discussed the definition of public events on several occasions, but one of the concerns about the licensing scheme is that it is not clear who will be included in it. I look forward to the rest of the discussion on the group.

I will start by addressing the issue of the brevity of amendment 46. I discussed the matter with the clerks: if amendment 46 is agreed to, it is likely that a substantial number of consequential amendments will be required. It was felt that it was better to put the principle before the committee today, and to deal with any consequential amendments at a later stage in the bill process. I hope that that explains the brevity of the amendment.

The effect of amendment 46 would be to leave out section 4 of the bill. The bill would still have firework control zones, restrictions on the days on which fireworks could be purchased and used, and new criminal offences relating to the prohibition of the supply of fireworks to children, as well as all the other provisions of the bill. The effect of my amendment would be such that, although there would be a new framework, the licensing scheme would be withdrawn.

I have no objection to a licensing scheme in principle. However, I do not believe that the scrutiny process has been sufficient, given the lack of detail in the bill and the risk of creating a black market, which the committee has heard about. Therefore, I believe that the Government should come back with primary legislation for a licensing scheme that could go through a proper process of scrutiny and, indeed, a consultation process. That would enable the committee to ensure that any proposed scheme was robust and would address the various concerns that the committee has raised.

We do not have the detail of the scheme, so we do not know exactly what the eventual proposals will look like, but I believe that the provisions of the scheme currently in the bill are such that it is likely that law-abiding citizens will inadvertently fall foul of the law, while people who use fireworks in an antisocial manner, which is the problem that we are trying to address, will simply not apply for a licence but will instead find other routes to acquire fireworks.

The proposal that I am making to the committee is that we take out the licensing scheme provisions, because of all the problems that the committee has discussed, and that the Government, if it feels that a licensing scheme is required, should come back with proposals that would enable there to be a proper scrutiny process. I would want the matter to be put to a vote.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 60, although I have some sympathy with what he said, I have concerns about what it proposes. I will listen carefully to the debate. There are scenarios in which all of us would probably accept that it might be legitimate for someone to have a firework or a pyrotechnic article that falls within the scope of the bill, but my concern is that, if we were to take out the “reasonable excuse” defence and have a prescriptive list, that would be a criminal offence under the bill. It is a technical point, but the removal of the “reasonable excuse” defence would take away the courts’ discretion to look at the facts and the circumstances of every case. I have concerns about having a prescriptive list but, as I said, I will listen to the debate.

I am very interested in what you are saying, minister, which seems to be that one of the main purposes of the licensing scheme is to require people to undertake training. Of course, there are other ways in which that could be done. It could be a legal requirement that people have to undertake training, whether that was face to face or online. I would be sympathetic to the idea that that should be done face to face, because I think that that would be a more robust form of training, although I understand that it is probably more likely to be done online. However, that is a discussion that we might have later or in future.

We know that very few people are convicted of fireworks offences—we have heard evidence on that—and, as the bill stands, it is only those with fireworks convictions who would have to declare their convictions for consideration for a licence. Therefore, given that very few people have fireworks convictions, I presume that most people will get the licence if they pay the money. Therefore, the main issues are the money and, as you say, the training scheme. However, the training does not need to be done in that form, does it? It does not need to be attached to a licence with your proposed provisions, including the licence fee.

We will come to the details of who is covered by the licence later, but, for example, it is not clear whether community groups and a range of other organisations would be covered by the scheme. Therefore, are you saying that it is the training that you believe to be the fundamental issue with regard to the licence?

No, not necessarily. The training could be mandatory and there could be provision in the bill for that.

When the member was looking at that section of the bill, did he consider any other forms of disposal or options for the courts besides prison sentences and fines? After all, a range of other non-custodial disposals, such as community orders and probation, might be available. Has the member given any thought to that? What are his views on expanding the range of available disposals?

The amendments in my name address two sets of issues, and both would enhance the parliamentary scrutiny required for any secondary legislation for a licensing scheme. Amendment 47, and the related amendments, would change the process from a negative process to an affirmative process, similar to that outlined by Jamie Greene in relation to amendment 58 and the other amendments in his name.

However, my primary amendment—amendment 53—goes further, in that it would make provision for a more detailed pre-laying procedure, which would require the Government to lay draft regulations before the Parliament. The Scottish Government would also be required, before finalising regulations, to seek the view of the Parliament’s justice committee on the terms of the regulations. I believe that that is appropriate given the level of interest and the work that the committee has already been involved in. It is also appropriate given the concerns that we raised in our report.

Amendment 53 would offer the possibility of enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. The minister has already spoken about some of the issues in relation to consultation. Amendment 53 is more focused on parliamentary scrutiny of regulations rather than a consultation process with outside bodies, although I support Jamie Greene’s proposal in relation to consultation and welcome the minister’s comments on enhanced consultation on those issues.

The principle of the amendments in my name is that the committee should have a meaningful role in the scrutiny of the regulations, with sufficient time to seek its own views or to take evidence should it wish to do so. Amendment 53 says that the regulations should be laid

“before the Parliament for a period of 120 days, of which no fewer than 60 days must be days which the Parliament is not dissolved or in recess”.

I would be quite happy to consider other timescales if that is problematic.

The principle is not to set the number of days—that is a matter of practicality—but to give the committee the opportunity to undertake effective parliamentary scrutiny. I have lodged my amendments so that we can consider how we ensure that any regulations that are introduced are robust and workable, and do not lead to the kind of problems that the committee has spent weeks hearing evidence about and considering.

The idea is that the Government would have to come back with specific proposals in primary legislation, given all the concerns. It is not a principled objection to the licensing scheme.

Amendment 68 is an important amendment. I hope that it will draw out many of the issues that the committee has grappled with over a number of weeks. It has never been clear exactly what the definition of public events will be, and it is not clear whether groups such as community groups will be included in that definition or whether they will be required to obtain a licence in the same way as individuals. That could have massive ramifications. If community groups and charities are considered to be in the group that will require a licence, there will be financial consequences as well as consequences with regard to the restrictions that will be placed on them about the use of fireworks and when they may organise displays.

Amendment 68 provides an opportunity for us to hear more from the minister on the thinking about how the licensing scheme will operate. I am concerned that community groups will have unreasonable financial pressures put on them if they are covered by the licensing scheme, whereas professional organisations will not face the same requirements and will not have to pay for a licence. We do not know what the cost of a licence will be, but we have been told that it will probably be between £20 and £50.