Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment 67. On the face of it, it seems to make sense that people in the younger cohort are more likely to be involved in problematic firework use. However, on the other side, moving the age to 21 would perhaps negate some of the benefits of people applying for a licence and going through the training that we have talked about. Actually, that group is probably the one that we want to capture most with the training. Jamie Greene might respond to that by saying that there are other ways to ensure that people are educated, through schools and other methods. However, the licensing gives a unique opportunity for young people to look at the issues and see the consequences.

There is also the issue of criminalisation for 18 to 21-year-olds if they are prevented from getting a licence. Obviously, we want to encourage people to get a licence. On that basis, I am not likely to support amendment 67.

As Katy Clark said, on the face of it, amendment 68 seems fairly sensible, and we heard about the issue in committee. However, I would like to hear what the minister has to say on the amendment, because it raises questions for me. If one person could apply on behalf of a community, could everyone in the community use the fireworks? Who would be responsible for the risks associated with that? There are probably more question marks.

On the face of it, amendment 68 looks quite good, but it probably raises more questions, and I think that the minister is likely to ask us not to vote for it. I will wait to hear what she says on that.

I am generally supportive of amendments 60 and 61, in the name of Jamie Greene; at least, I am supportive of the principle behind them, which is an attempt to tighten up the use of licences, which is a big part of the bill.

However, as Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark have said, and as Jamie Greene has reflected on, the amendments might not be the finished article. I am keen to hear whether the minister has any concerns and if so, what they are and whether the possibility of overcriminalisation is one of them. If people are trying to do the right thing, criminalising them would not be the right way to go. However, Jamie Greene has offered to work with the minister with regard to what he is trying to achieve with the amendments, and perhaps we could take that forward at stage 3. That is a sensible approach, because we want to see the licensing scheme work.

I think that Jamie Greene’s fear—which the minister might be able to alleviate when she speaks—is that, if there is a way not to present a licence, then most people will not present one and licensing will not really be enforced. We would like to see it the other way about: if a licence is needed, you need to present one, unless you can demonstrate why you do not have to do so. I will wait to hear what the minister says about that.

I am not entirely clear how amendment 46 would work. I appreciate Katy Clark’s explanation of it, but it would be good to hear what the minister thinks about that, too.

Jamie Greene makes a point about the number of prosecutions. Who are we to say what a high number would be? As far as the amendment is concerned, what number would he have been satisfied with—500, 1,000 or 2,000? Would that still be too low? We do not really know.

Particularly in this committee, what I come back to is that, when we legislate, we cannot simply look at the number of prosecutions as the only factor. Nor should that be the only factor in the committee agreeing the principles of the bill—which, as the member rightly said, we agreed at stage 1—and whether to introduce new legislation. Part of the role of legislation is to act as a deterrent; it is not necessarily about ensuring criminal prosecutions, which, as I think we will also agree, can harm individuals, too. I wanted to make that point.

When members take time to lodge amendments and work together as a team in committee, I always try to find some common ground, even if I do not intend to vote for those amendments. Nevertheless, I have to start with a caveat—almost an apology—that I completely disagree with the amendments in group 5.

I feel that the bill, which we have already taken through stage 1, already strikes the right balance in this respect. In my view—the minister has been clear on this—the aim of the bill is not to engage in unnecessary criminalisation, but to change the relationship with, and use of, fireworks in this country, which is a major problem for communities.

Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene talked about the need for the option of a custodial sentence, but I cannot think of an example that would merit such a sentence. Even the most serious instance that we could imagine, such as an assault on emergency workers, would already be covered by other laws that could be utilised by the prosecution service.

What we are talking about is the use of fireworks as we currently experience it in Scotland. I think that the bill already strikes a balance, and already puts power with the courts. The committee took evidence from one of the panels—I cannot remember which one—on the subject of disposals that would lead people, and young people in particular, to look at their behaviour. We know that some community groups are doing really good work in that area. I will not go through all the amendments in the group individually. I respect the work that Russell Findlay has put into bringing them together, because there is quite a lot in there, but I am absolutely not going to support them. I think that the bill already strikes a balance.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for amendments 1 and 69. From what I picked up, Pauline McNeill and Russell Findlay do not sound as though they are coming at the issue in a hard fashion. Obviously, Pauline will sum up on amendment 1. I think that the amendments are a request to the Government to say more about its thinking in this area, because the committee has had quite a lot of discussion about it.

It goes back to my earlier point. The whole purpose of the scheme is to get folk on to the licence through the training. The fewer barriers that there are to that, the better. It is common sense that the higher the fee is, the more people will decide not to get a licence.

We have to be honest. We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis that is having an impact on all our constituencies. My constituency is very much impacted. I am not an expert on costs and prices or on where the public might be with that, but I agree with Pauline McNeill that £20 to £25 will seem more reasonable than £50 in people’s minds when they are struggling to heat their homes.

Like other members, I am interested in hearing the Government’s thoughts on the issue. I know, from the session that the minister attended, that the Government is very conscious of the issue—it has always been very conscious, across the board, of the cost of living.

I cannot support the amendments in the name of Russell Findlay as they stand just now. Having to disclose every offence would be unnecessary and possibly far too intrusive. There are tight regulations on the disclosure of offences, which happens only when someone appears at court for sentencing, say, or in other such scenarios. I also point out that the minister’s amendment 15, which I am minded to support, now means that spent convictions will have to be disclosed, which is perhaps even more important.

However, I think that Russell Findlay’s amendment 74 has some scope, and it is good to hear the minister say that the matter will be looked at before stage 3. There is scope for widening the provision beyond, say, fireworks offences—indeed, we can all think of various offences that might be relevant—but the Government and Russell Findlay will have to do a lot of work on how that might work and whether such a provision might infringe other human rights.

As I have said in relation to the last three groups of amendments, we want people to use the licensing scheme, and if someone with an offence from 20 years ago does not really know whether it will come up, they might well be put off applying for a licence and continue to use fireworks anyway. However, although a lot of work needs to be done, I definitely welcome these moves and think that there is scope to increase the offences to be disclosed.

Do you feel that that has increased as there has been a debate around the issue, or have you always been asked for advice on it?

Thanks, Malcolm. I nudge Hugh to answer that as well.

This is more of a remark that does not have anything to do with the legislation, as you have been quite clear that the legislation does not really impact on sport. However, it sounds as though trans people have an unpredictable future in sport, because all that it would take would be a change in organisational structure, the people at the top of the organisation, or in the standing orders for there to be a significant change in their participation. That is more of a remark than anything else, convener.

Good morning. I have two broad areas of questioning. The first is on the evidence that the committee has heard in support of the removal of the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Ellie Gomersall, we have already heard your opening statement, in which you made your views and those of your organisation quite clear. Before I come to Bruce Adamson, do you wish to put any other views on that requirement on the record, for the benefit of committee members?