Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question for Jamie Greene, specifically about the emergency workers legislation and not about any other legislation. I can sometimes see the need for legislation that might be symbolic or send a message. We have a huge problem and I am sympathetic to that. Are you concerned that the courts would not treat that as an aggravating factor at the moment? Are you concerned that a sheriff looking at the circumstances would not, of their own volition, see that there are aggravating factors or add an additional element to the sentence because of the nature of the problem?

I talked about the licensing scheme, which Jamie Greene’s amendment 90 refers to.

I agree 100 per cent.

To continue the debate that Jamie Greene has begun, it is important to be clear about what we are attempting to do. I make it clear that my amendments in the group are probing amendments, for that reason; I want to hear all the arguments.

The minister made a fair point when she said that a lot of the requirements around dates are already in existence. To be honest, however, I am not sure that members of the public understand that those are the dates on which fireworks are permitted and that some additional dates have been provided. I am happy to be contradicted if I have misunderstood this but, in my mind, bonfire season is in November, when you expect to hear fireworks going off in people’s back gardens more than at any other time of the year.

Even if the dates are in previous legislation, we should debate why the period in which fireworks are permitted is from 27 October to 12 November, which is quite a long period. People might be concerned about the social aspect of fireworks going off in people’s back gardens and the nuisance that it causes. People also want to set off fireworks at new year, so why is one of the dates 26 December, which is not new year? I am just probing the issue. I know that those are the existing dates, but what is the logic of that?

I will take a slightly different tack from the one that Jamie Greene has taken. My understanding is that the dates have been chosen not necessarily to capture all religious festivals but to capture festivals, whether they are religious or not, that have a traditional firework element to them. I am happy to be more informed on what those festivals are. I am aware that the minister was asked in Parliament why Eid is not included, and I felt satisfied with her answer. I would be concerned if Eid was included, because there is more than one Eid and the dates move. Given that the dates of other festivals also move, we can see why we need to debate the issue. How will the public understand on which dates setting off fireworks is an offence and on which dates it is not?

On the basis that I think that the minister said that the issue is covered in the bill, I will not move amendment 5.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 24—Compensation for specialist firework businesses affected by section 22

Amendment 9 is again about firework control zones. It relates to who can make representations in order to apply a control zone. I am concerned about situations in which a local authority chooses not to apply a control zone. There is other legislation—for example, on rent pressure zones—in which local authorities are the only bodies that can decide to apply a zone. People might be asking for a zone, but there is nothing that they can do about it. In this case, I think that ordinary people should be able to make representations to their local authority that a control zone is needed. Of course, it will ultimately be for the local authority to decide, but it is in tune with the notion of community empowerment that people should have a say, and the bill does not currently allow for that.

I am very keen for community bodies that are not already covered by the bill to have a right to put the matter in front of the local authority. I am seeking to find more than one route to a control zone, with a route other than the local authority being the sole initiator, if you like. The local authority will be the arbitrator in making a final decision as to whether a zone is justified. However, given the nature of the bill, the widespread public interest in it and people’s concerns about fireworks in their communities, it makes sense for individuals to be able to make representations.

I move amendment 9.

In summary, I am disappointed that one of the reasons for the minister not supporting my amendment is that it would place a resource burden on local authorities. I would argue that we must strike a balance in what is a serious piece of much-needed legislation. Of course some burden will be placed on local authorities.

Unfortunately for back-bench members, because we had to lodge amendments in a very short timescale, there may well be flaws in our amendments that might not exist in the Government’s amendments. However, I do not think that that is a good enough reason for the minister to reject amendment 9. I accept that it might not be drafted perfectly, but its purpose is clear.

I feel really strongly about the issue. If we were to pass the bill such that only local authorities, and not communities, could initiate the designation of a firework control zone, that would go against the grain of what we are trying to do.

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.