Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have already said that that aspect will be covered under the review, as was set out in the BRIA.

Section 5 already provides that the supplier must take

“reasonable steps to establish that the person”

who they are supplying

“had a ... licence or was exempt under schedule 1.”

That extends to wider parts of the supply process. At that point, the supplier would be required to check the licence status of the recipient to ensure that they do not commit the offence of supplying to an unlicensed person.

I reiterate the point that I made at last week’s committee that it is not possible to send fireworks through the normal postal service. Sending dangerous items in the post is an offence, and because of the risks and required safety precautions, most couriers will not deliver fireworks to people’s homes. Fireworks retailers who provide online mail-order sales generally rely on specialist couriers to deliver them.

I can confirm that there has been an equality impact assessment. In general, the provisions in the bill aim to strike that right balance. We are looking to reduce the unpredictable use of fireworks, which I think most people would agree with. We have spent a lot of time engaging with stakeholders, members of the public and community groups in order to get that balance right. That aspect has been consulted upon extensively.

Just to confirm this—and picking up on points made by several members about faith groups—we engaged with the Muslim Council of Britain, the Hindu community, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and Interfaith Scotland, which all confirmed that the proposed permitted periods were not problematic. I hope that that gives the member some comfort on those points.

I turn to amendments 98, 101, 102 and 103, which seek to remove the permitted days of use that are set out in the bill and to replace those with a regulation-making power. I think that that would reduce clarity for members of the public. We all agree that clarity for members of the public will be important to how the legislation works. The amendments in question would remove clarity for the public on the permitted days of use and would significantly increase the time and resources that would be required for implementation.

As I have said, the dates that we picked have undergone a considerable amount of public and stakeholder consultation. I mentioned the faith groups that we spoke to; we also spoke to community groups, retailers and members of the public. The issue was consulted on extensively prior to our setting out the provisions in the bill.

When we consulted on the proposed dates, concerns were raised with us and additional evidence was presented, and the dates were updated in the light of that engagement. For example, the period from 7 to 16 April was included to cover the Sikh festival of Vaisakhi.

I believe that the provisions in the bill provide the right balance of certainty and flexibility, so I cannot support Mr Greene’s amendments.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to shorten the permitted days of use to eight days over the bonfire period, and three days over the new year period. With the provisions in the bill, we have tried to balance the introduction of permitted periods to reduce the negative effects on our vulnerable populations with the enjoyment that members of the public can and do get from using fireworks. Of course, we also want to reduce the impact on businesses and to ensure that adequate safety measures remain in place.

By limiting the period further, we could risk finding ourselves in a situation in which people have a very limited number of days to use fireworks and might inadvertently be encouraged to use them in situations in which it would not be safe to use them, because they have run out of days on which they can use them. For example, people might end up using them in bad weather, when it would be less safe to do so.

Amendments 3 and 4 would also mean that fireworks would be available to purchase for a number of days before they were permitted to be used. I am concerned that that could lead to issues around stockpiling. The permitted days of use that are provided for in the bill deliberately extend slightly beyond when fireworks can be supplied. That is to avoid a situation in which people buy fireworks towards the very end of the supply period but are not able to use them.

I just want to recap the reason for the firework control zone provisions, as there has been a bit of a general debate about that. They were brought in primarily to curb legitimate use—in other words, to reduce the overall amount of fireworks being used—and to give local authorities an additional tool to help them address the issue in their areas. We know that the issue is not spread across the country. There are hotspots, and some local authorities will no doubt want to take advantage of the provision, which was recommended by the independent firework review group.

I recognise that the provision has attracted a lot of attention and scrutiny. I said to the committee at stage 1 that I would listen to the Parliament, to see whether I had struck the right balance. I have listened carefully to what members said at committee during stage 1 and in the debate with regard to strengthening the provision, making it more straightforward for the public and further reducing the unpredictability of firework use.

Amendment 37 would remove the exemption for professional operators to deliver private firework displays in a designated control zone, meaning that the exemption would apply only for the purpose of a public firework display. That ensures that members of the public will not be able to use the services of a professional operator in a designated zone.

I recognise that, for some members, that might not go far enough. We have heard from Mr Findlay and Ms Clark about the potential for the zones to prohibit all use of fireworks, if the local authority so wishes. My officials and I have considered that possibility at great length, both prior to the bill’s introduction and following the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report.

I will speak first to the current exemption for regulatory authorities, such as trading standards offices, and businesses engaged in the supply of fireworks. It is essential that such exemptions are retained, because they ensure that enforcement bodies are able to continue to carry out their duties as required in a designated zone and, for businesses engaged in manufacture or supply of fireworks, that any safety checks that are carried out on fireworks as part of due diligence can continue. We have also allowed for community groups and professional operators to use fireworks at publicly organised events. The Scottish Government and I recognise the value of such events and their ability to foster community spirit and bring people together. I do not want to deprive communities of that opportunity.

The provision is in line with the recommendations of the independent firework review group, and with what we heard in our consultations in 2019 and 2021, and I consider that amendment 37 in my name strikes the right balance in further cutting down on the unpredictability of firework use, while allowing for vital work carried out by regulatory authorities and businesses to continue and recognising the values of local public displays. Local authorities are, in many cases, already able to determine the suitability of those displays in a particular place through their public entertainment licence processes.

Throughout the stage 1 process, much was made of the potential for public confusion regarding where people can and cannot set off fireworks. I would question whether having control zones vary from zone to zone and from local authority to local authority might worsen that confusion. Mr Findlay’s amendments appear to allow a local authority to apply any exemption that it wished to an individual zone. That could range from small variations between the position in different areas to very large variations, which would add unnecessary complexity to the zones.

Mr Findlay and, I think, Mr Greene, mentioned renaming firework control zones. Even with the amendments to the exemptions in this group proposed by Mr Findlay and Ms Clark, local authorities would have the ability to set exemptions so that certain uses of a zone would be permitted. Therefore, I consider the zones to be correctly described as firework control zones, as they are places where the use of fireworks is controlled more tightly than it is in other places.

It will be a criminal offence to use fireworks in a control zone, unless an exemption applies. Given that, it is vital that the exemptions are consistently applied in all areas, particularly so that those involved in public firework displays, and others, can understand the law as it applies to their activities.

Mr Findlay also asked about the size of firework control zones. I can clarify that it is not the intention for local authorities to designate their entire local authority area as a firework control zone. Under the bill, Scottish ministers will have the ability, by regulations, to set limits on the size of a place or area in a local authority that might be designated as a firework control zone. So, I hope that the committee—

The bill sets out the requirement for a local authority to publish its decision on a proposed control zone. In doing so, it should set out any changes that have been made to the proposal and explain how the views expressed during the consultation process have been considered.

After the bill’s introduction, we identified that that provision would benefit from slightly amended wording to make the policy intent clear. That intent is that the requirement for a decision to be published at least 60 days before it is to have effect applies only if the local authority has made a decision to proceed with the proposal. Amendment 24 is a technical amendment that simply seeks to provide clarity. I hope that members will support it.

I have carefully considered Ms McNeill’s amendments 6 to 8 and 10. It is true that the bill does not set out how the decision to designate a zone is to be publicised or the detail to be included. The intention is that that will be addressed in guidance issued by the Scottish ministers. That is partly to ensure that the approach is driven by local circumstances, because what might work in Edinburgh might be vastly different from what might work in Shetland. It is also to ensure that local authorities can adapt to changing methods of communication.

We intend to work closely with local authorities to co-design the guidance to ensure that their needs are accounted for and met. I therefore do not consider that amendment 10 is necessary, and I do not support it.

Amendment 7 sets out that information must be published by every local authority that shows whether any control zones have been designated over the permitted periods of use. As well as the ability to issue guidance for local authorities, the three existing Scottish Government-funded public awareness campaigns will be aligned to ensure that there is broad understanding of the changes that will be brought in should the bill be passed. I therefore consider that the measures that are set out in amendment 7 are unnecessary, and I urge the committee not to support it.

I am coming on to that.

Amendments 6 and 8, which were also lodged by Ms McNeill, seek to ensure that, following the consultation on a proposal to designate, amend or revoke a zone, there would be additional requirements on the local authority with regard to the level of detail that is published. That would be done in such a way as to bring that to the attention of people who live and work in the designated zone.

It has always been the Scottish Government’s intention that local authorities would be expected to be clear on what the decision means in practice. That includes on the boundaries, the dates, the effect of the zone and so on. The guidance that will be developed will cover how local authorities can best ensure that the general public are aware of what their designated zone means in practice.

As I have said, we intend to co-design the guidance with local authorities and other relevant stakeholders, including communities, to ensure that it is easily understood and applied in practice. The advantage of having information in guidance will be that that will allow local authorities to deliver a degree of consistency of approach in different areas while having the discretion to apply their own approach to reflect local circumstances.

Amendments 6 and 8 are in line with the policy intent for firework control zones and how it is expected that the publication of decisions on and information about them will work in practice. In principle, I am happy to commit to considering whether it would be beneficial to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that has the benefit of enabling further discussion and engagement to ensure that we take the right approach. For that reason, I am willing to engage with Ms McNeill on the issue before stage 3. If she is amenable to that, I ask her not to move her amendments on that basis.

I move amendment 24.

I will speak to both instruments at the same time in this short opening statement.

The Surrender of Offensive Weapons (Compensation) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 provide the legislative framework for a scheme to allow legitimate owners of certain highly dangerous offensive weapons to hand them in to the police and receive compensation from the Scottish Government for doing so.

The scheme, which follows that of a similar scheme in England and Wales last year, is required, because a change in the law will shortly be implemented that will criminalise the private possession of such highly dangerous offensive weapons. Before that change can be made, legitimate owners have to be given the opportunity to be compensated in order to protect their property rights under human rights law.

The scheme will operate on very similar terms to the scheme operated in England and Wales by the UK Government and police forces down there. There is no requirement to claim compensation and weapons can be simply surrendered without compensation being given. However, if compensation is wanted, a claim form must be filled in and handed to the police at the same time as the weapon is surrendered. The Scottish Government will then process the claim.

Under the regulations, any overall claim must be for at least £30 to ensure that there are no undue costs in administering individual claims. Again, that is the same as the equivalent scheme in England and Wales.

The type of weapons covered include knuckle dusters, hand claws, foot claws and push daggers, all of which have no benign use and already carry with them tight restrictions such as a ban on sale, manufacture and importation. However, some people might have purchased such weapons prior to the restrictions coming in or might have inherited them, and the scheme protects the rights of owners of such weapons while getting the weapons out of circulation and out of harm’s way.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (Scotland) Order 2022 adds what is called a zombie knife to the list of highly dangerous offensive weapons already subject to the restrictions on their sale, manufacture and importation. In other words, zombie knives will be treated like knuckle dusters, push daggers and so on and will no longer be able to be sold, manufactured or imported.

The type of weapon called a zombie knife has been developed in recent years following its glamorisation in zombie-type films. Although they are not known to be common in Scotland, we think that it is sensible to add those weapons to the existing list. The order will also allow Scottish ministers to make arrangements for a surrender and compensation scheme for those knives in the same way as I have just set out.

The zombie knives scheme is required for the same reasons as the scheme under the 2022 regulations. In other words, it is required to protect the property rights of legitimate owners, as was done in England and Wales by the UK Government.

From the perspective of members of the public, there will be just one overall scheme. It will run from 1 July to 30 September this year for zombie knives and the other weapons covered by the regulations. Once that has happened, the Scottish Government will proceed to commence the new law, which makes it an offence to possess those weapons in private.

The permitted periods in the bill are broadly in line with the traditional fireworks periods, as we discussed under the previous group. That is when most retailers in Scotland are permitted to sell fireworks, and it is when the use of fireworks by the general public is most prevalent. Our intention in introducing restricted days of use is to address the negative impacts of unpredictable firework use while retaining periods during which fireworks may be used appropriately by the general public. It was recognised that setting permitted periods for use provides flexibility to allow celebrations to go ahead on or around the date, which allows for postponement or delays due to inclement weather or unsafe conditions.

Will Jamie Greene take an intervention on that point?

Yes—I wanted to come in on that point. That is the reason why the period for the use of fireworks extends slightly beyond the supply period: to give an extra couple of days, for the precise reason that the member has raised. Also, if there is a situation where someone has bought them—as the member said, they might have spent several hundred pounds on fireworks but they have not been able to use them within that permitted period of use—they can store them safely and appropriately if they wish and then use them in the next permitted period of use.

That is one of the good things about the training course, because, in the training course materials, we will be able to educate people on appropriate ways to store fireworks and on how to use them safely.

Of course.