Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would be happy if ministers would consider reducing the scope of the amendment to include only a relevant person acting on behalf of a community body. As I understand it, under the bill, only local authorities can decide whether to take forward the designation of a firework control zone. No one else can put the matter in front of a local authority. If Glasgow City Council decides not to designate an area as a firework control zone, the Pollokshields community—

I just want to make one point. Amendment 44 all makes sense, but subsection (4) says

“A party may lead evidence for the purpose of rebutting the presumption only if the party has given notice of the intention to do so to the other parties”.

My reading of that is that the use of the words “only if” means that if someone does not provide notice they cannot present evidence to the court. I am asking about that because in some legislation there are provisions that say that, on “cause shown”, someone can rebut again. I am happy to support the amendment, but I wanted to put that on the record.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Section 42—Certificates as to proof of having fireworks licence

Amendment 45 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.

After section 44

I have the floor; Mr Findlay can intervene.

I am sympathetic to that but I wanted some clarification. The Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 is designed to highlight the fact that an attack on an emergency worker should already be seen as a specific crime. In a sense, it is an indirect aggravation because it applies to the police, workers in hospital accident and emergency departments and ambulance workers.

I am sympathetic to the amendment because of some of the evidence that we have heard about attacks involving fireworks. Some of it is on the extreme end of the spectrum of unacceptable and violent attacks against our emergency workers. There is other legislation that can be used in prosecution, so I wanted to ask about that.

Thank you.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

I am sympathetic to what Jamie Greene has outlined with regard to the need to understand the existing legislation and how it operates. I note the figures that he provided. However, I do not think that the amendment addresses an issue that concerns me—perhaps Jamie Greene could answer this point—namely that there seems to be a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system about using the existing legislation. To me, the lack of convictions indicates that either the police or the Crown are not using the legislation. I am drawing a distinction between the question whether the legislation is comprehensive enough and the question whether our criminal justice authorities are using the legislation.

I am sympathetic to the arguments for the amendment, but I would like Jamie Greene to address how it would deal with an issue that the committee considered in its report, which is what seems to be a lack of data on whether the Crown is actually using the legislation to prosecute people. My biggest concern about the bill is whether, even if we pass it, we will see the Crown Office and the police service using the legislation to prosecute people who are breaking the law. Comments on that would be helpful.

I will start with Jamie Greene’s amendment 61, which I think is a necessary inclusion and gives rise to a necessary debate. I agree that, irrespective of the location of the supplier, we need to ensure that the bill covers licences that are to be physically presented in a shop as well as licences that are to be presented online. I think that the committee agrees that it would like that to happen. We cannot make the supplier ask for the licence, so there would be a difficulty with necessitating that in law. Maybe Jamie Greene will come back on that point. However, I think that his amendment is necessary in order to make the position clear in the bill.

Earlier, you said that your intention was to ensure that sheriffs could, if they thought the offence was serious enough, give a 12-month rather than a six-month sentence, and you have also highlighted the point about the presumption against short sentences. However, is it your intention—or, indeed, hope—that sheriffs will use that additional scope to give heavier sentences? I am sympathetic to your proposal, but it all depends on your response, because it would concern me if the intention was to have heavier sentences.

If you had not gone for the licensing scheme, would it be true to say that you could still create an offence of setting off fireworks outwith the 37 days? I totally accept that the whole point of a licensing scheme is that people who do not have a licence will be prosecuted. However, under the bill, you could also have an offence of letting a firework off outside the 37 days. It is an offence to purchase a firework outwith the 37 days—that is the Government’s position—but you could still prosecute people for using fireworks outwith the 37 days.

I was a bit unsure about that in the bill, because I was not sure that everyone would understand it. I know that we will come later to the debate about what information will be given to the public. Although there is a rationale behind the 37 days on which fireworks can be sold, an ordinary member of the public needs to know about that.

I am not going to press amendment 1, but I will come back at stage 3 to debate the matter again, because I am looking for some comfort—any comfort—from the Government around running costs. There is an issue: if the consultation showed that the running costs would reach a level that none of us would be happy with, what would we do then? I hope that we would at least agree that it would undermine people’s desire to be part of a licensing scheme, whatever we might think of that scheme.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendment 47 not moved.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Applying for fireworks licence: mandatory requirements