Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that, Fraser.

In order to be fair, I will put my next question to the witnesses in reverse order. With regard to the three-month reflection period, which Fraser touched on, we have heard concerns that it is perhaps quite demeaning for trans people to have a reflection period. On the other side of the debate, we have heard that the reflection period is perhaps not long enough, particularly, as has been talked about, for younger people, who are going through a lot of changes in their lives. Can you give us your views on the three-month reflection period, as proposed? That question goes first to Fraser Sutherland.

Thank you very much for that; I have a supplementary question for you, before I move to Anthony Horan.

You asked us to tease out where the period comes from when we have the cabinet secretary in front of us—that is a reasonable ask. Do you or the church have a view on whether three months is just about right or too short?

I am happy to support amendment 22, which is in the name of the minister.

On Jamie Greene’s amendments, we talked a lot about this area at stage 1, as the minister will know, and I led the questioning of witnesses on the area for a number of weeks. Jamie Greene talks about there being a debate and different views, but I think that the debate and the different views are among members as opposed to the witnesses, because we had quite consistent feedback from the witnesses. I hope that the minister does not mind my saying that I tried to find some doubt among the witnesses that restricting the days was required, but I could not find any. From the criminal justice agencies to witnesses involved in the welfare of people or animals, they were all pretty supportive of the approach. That backs up the consultation results that the minister referred to. I accept that the exception was possibly the fireworks industry, but that was not its primary concern about the bill; the issue was way down its list. It had other concerns about the bill as a whole, which have already been articulated.

As a result, I do not see the point in taking evidence at quite substantial lengths, as we have done, just to say that we still do not agree with what has been proposed. I am therefore not minded to support what has been proposed. Although I initially had some concerns about restricting the days, they were not backed up by the evidence that we received. The evidence was pretty solid, and it alleviated any concerns that I had, so I do not feel inclined to vote for those amendments.

On Pauline McNeill’s amendment 2, she has said that she will develop her arguments in the debate on the next group, so, out of fairness, I will leave that issue until then.

Will Jamie Greene take an intervention?

This debate is illustrative of the debate around the whole bill and the difficult position that the Government, the minister and her colleagues have been in. I know from all my time as an MSP—colleagues have spoken about this already—that, at certain times of the year, our inboxes are flooded with messages from people who have children with learning difficulties or who own pets, and who are distressed about the impact of fireworks. On the other hand, we are trying to allow some freedom. The current group of amendments and the debate on them capture the essence of the bill and the difficult position that the Government has been in.

I have some sympathy with what Jamie Greene said about Eid and other festivals. I raised that point in committee at stage 1. It came across clearly, however, that the proposed dates have been very well thought out. They have not just been plucked out of the air, and I do not think that anybody is suggesting that they have been. A lot of work has been put into them and it appears that all the relevant bodies have been consulted. There is scope in the bill for the dates to be added to if things change and if fireworks become an important part of certain celebrations. I do not get the sense that anybody has been excluded or left out, and that view has not come to us in evidence.

I therefore do not think that Pauline McNeill’s amendments in the group are necessary. I accept that they are probing amendments and that her purpose is to get more information. My worry about the way that they are written is that increasing the number of days would potentially lead to people stockpiling fireworks in their homes and so on. I know that Pauline McNeill has reflected on that point.

I support amendment 23 and agree that it means that amendments 132 and 133 are not needed.

I agree with Rona Mackay: Jamie Greene cannot say that the Government is shutting businesses down. However, he makes the good point that businesses could close down as a result of the bill, so it is right that we challenge the Government to say that the compensation scheme will support businesses to stay open. I hope and am sure that that is the primary purpose of the scheme. As Jamie Greene said, the scheme will need to be robust enough to support businesses to keep going for more than the 50-odd days that are provided for. I am sure that that is at the heart of the amendments.

We are talking about not the supermarkets but the small number of family-run businesses that might struggle as a result of the bill. The compensation scheme might need to include supermarkets, but I do not think that that will be necessary, as supermarkets have other sources of income. The issue is the small businesses.

A question has occurred to me. I do not know whether you have looked into this as part of your work on amendment 9. Could community groups or individuals in the community ask their local councillors to take the matter to the council? Would that mechanism work? Would it satisfy you?

I am pleased that this is the last amendment that we are debating today.

I do not think that there is any need for this amendment just now. It takes us back to earlier debates. Possibly, it is an opportunity for my colleague, who I know puts a lot of thought into his amendments, to lay out the wider policies of his party in relation to justice.

I say that because there will be no argument from anybody at all about the serious nature of assaults on emergency workers. We have heard about it in evidence. We all know about it and we all get examples of it in our constituency case work. It is an extremely serious offence but it is already covered by separate legislation, indicating how seriously the Parliament, on a cross-party basis, has treated the issue. I do not think that there is any need for an aggravation to be added, because the courts can already impose an appropriate sentence in relation to such cases.

When the member is summing up, he may talk about the presumption against short-term sentences—something which I very much agree with—but some of the possible offences that we are talking about, in their extreme form, would be likely to incur longer sentences in any case. Also, there might be other situations where there are mitigating factors, such as when a group of young people get together and it is not clear how the offence has been committed. That is the sort of thing that we have talked about in committee. The legislation as drafted already gives flexibility around that and it is pretty good.

This has been a very good debate overall and I would not want anybody who is watching the meeting and listening to this last debating point to think that the bill does not allow for harsher penalties when an emergency worker, for example, is seriously assaulted or even injured by the use of fireworks or pyrotechnics. I do not think that there is any need for the amendment.

I speak in support of amendments 56 and 57, in the name of Collette Stevenson, which are a fair reflection of where the committee got to in its discussion of the matter. Although I am sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s amendment 129, I think that amendments 56 and 57 capture the spirit of that discussion. Given what Collette Stevenson has said about working with the minister before lodging the amendments and given that they are very similar to amendment 129, I hope that Jamie will consider not moving his amendment.

I hear what Pauline McNeill said in relation to amendment 90. Something could be lodged at stage 3 to capture the point that she highlighted, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary as currently drafted. One of the main reasons for taking that view is that it will be quite complicated to get an idea of the effect of the scheme, given that other factors such as education and training courses will be taken into account. I will listen to what the minister has to say, but I am not minded to support amendment 90.

The other three amendments in the group are good, but amendments 56 and 57 will get my support.

The situation is different in different parts of the country, I guess, but does Jamie Greene accept that the purpose of the bill is to limit the indiscriminate use of fireworks? He said that our inboxes are flooded only at times when fireworks would still be permitted under the bill. First, that has not always been my experience. Sometimes, my inbox is flooded around sporting events, for example. Secondly, the purpose of the scheme is to create a licensing process, which we hope will reduce the number of inappropriate fireworks. Does he accept that point?