Seòmar agus comataidhean

There was much discussion at stage 1 regarding enforcement of fireworks legislation and particular emphasis was given to the number of prosecutions in the data provided by the Crown Office.

During stage 1 proceedings, our colleagues in Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation made it clear that a presumption of contents clause would be an appropriate and efficient cost saving measure, removing the requirement to submit all items for examination in order to prove an offence. The Criminal Justice Committee heard those concerns and recommended that I bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to address the issues.

I welcome that recommendation from the committee and amendment 44 gives effect to it. It makes provision for an evidential presumption to operate in proceedings for offences under the bill. Evidence will only require to be led to prove that element of the offence if a party seeks to rebut the presumption by contrary evidence. I consider that that will ease the burden on our police forces to evidence offences under the bill, while still allowing for fairness to the accused.

Amendment 45 seeks to reduce the burden falling on evidencing certain matters so that only one source of evidence is required. My officials have engaged with Trading Standards Scotland and the Explosives Industry Group to confirm the existing process that is followed in relation to testing and certification of fireworks and engaged with the Crown Office in the process of drafting the amendment. I am confident that it provides for a robust and appropriate means of reducing the evidential burden on enforcement agencies while maintaining the integrity of Scots law.

I move amendment 44, and hope that members will support it.

I share Mr Greene’s views on the importance of firework safety.

Much of what is included in Mr Greene’s amendment reflects what was proposed in the British Fireworks Association’s 10-point plan. I have said on a number of occasions that I welcome much of that plan and the good progress that is being made in a number of the areas that are highlighted in it.

However, through my actions, I have already made clear my strong commitment to firework safety, so it is not necessary or appropriate to use the bill to write into legislation stated policy commitments, which follow on from the fireworks action plan that was published in 2019. That plan sets out the range of legislative and non-legislative actions that have been and will continue to be progressed. Those actions will collectively support a change in how fireworks are used in Scotland.

I will address a couple of points that Jamie Greene mentioned. As he will have noted, we provided additional funding to trading standards last year to support enforcement of the Fireworks (Scotland) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2021. That demonstrates our commitment to funding enforcement. Learning from that will be helpful in relation to enforcement measures in general, if the bill is passed. I set out more detail on that in the letter that I sent to the committee last week.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 127 and urge the committee not to support it.

The amendments in group 11 make provisions relating to the format of a fireworks licence. In particular, they set out entitlement to a paper licence and specific steps in the licence revocation process based on the format of the licence.

As Jamie Greene picked up, it has always been planned that, for operation of the system, paper licences be developed and made available. I think that I made reference to that at stage 1. I recognise that, in the 2020 Scottish household survey, about 14 per cent of people with access to the internet did not have access to a smartphone. I do not want to create a licensing system that prevents anyone from holding a licence simply because of the format in which it is available.

Although I agree that entitlement to non-digital forms of licence is essential, I do not believe that it is necessary to make provision in regulations to ensure that there is an entitlement to a paper licence. In my opinion, that is an operational detail that will be put in place as the system is designed.

However, should that become an issue in practice, my amendment 18, which was agreed to last week, provides the Scottish ministers with adequate powers to deal with the matter through secondary legislation, if required.

Regarding revocation of licences, it is intended that information regarding the date on which revocation takes effect will be included in the revocation notice, and that that will apply to all forms of licence.

I do not believe that amendments 82 and 83 are necessary. Indeed, they could even create confusion about what is necessary for the different forms of licence, because by leaving it open we cater for all the various possibilities—a digital licence, a paper licence, a combination of the two or another format that might emerge in the future that we are, at this point, not aware of.

On that basis, I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 81 and not to move his other amendments in the group. If he does, I ask the committee not to support them.

Can the committee give me a moment?

As I have explained already, we retain a provision in the bill to add groups or dates that have been missed out. I am confident that, because of the extensive engagement that we have undertaken, we have not missed any out but the mechanism exists. If groups feel that they have been unfairly disadvantaged, they can contact the Government, which would be able to examine the matter and decide whether it was appropriate to add further dates.

The days of use provision as drafted is sufficiently robust and is the result of a period of prolonged consultation. It is coupled with a power in the bill to amend the days of use if necessary, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 3 and 4.

Amendment 5, which is also proposed by Ms McNeill, seeks to ensure that information is available, and that public awareness is raised, about the days in each year when it is permitted to use fireworks. The three existing Scottish Government-funded communication campaigns will be updated and aligned to ensure that there is broad public awareness and understanding of the changes that will be brought in should the bill be passed. I agree with the committee that that is extremely important. The information that is described in amendment 5 will be made available to the public in that way and there is no need to include provision in the bill to achieve that.

For those reasons, I do not support any of the amendments in the group and I urge the committee not to support them if they are pressed.

I do not have any indication of that at the moment. I imagine that local authorities will be very keen to create zones, particularly those authorities that we know have an issue. Indeed, I can speak to the city of Edinburgh’s position in that respect; we—certainly those who represent Edinburgh—and the local authority are aware of particular hotspots. I expect that local authorities will seek to set zones to cover just the areas where they have issues. At this stage, they have not indicated to me the likely size of such zones, which is why Scottish ministers retain the power under the legislation to set their size in the event of the circumstance that the member has raised.

I hope that the committee will support my amendment. Unfortunately, I am not able to support Mr Findlay or Ms Clark’s amendments. I therefore ask Mr Findlay not to press his amendment and both members not to move their other amendments in the group. However, if they do, I ask the committee not to support them.

I accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that regulations about the requirements that a person must meet in order to be treated as a professional organiser of firework and pyrotechnic displays should be subject to affirmative procedure. While the matter is finely balanced, I understand that, if any regulations are made in this area, it will impact on whether such persons are exempt from certain offences under the bill. Amendment 31 therefore delivers the DPLRC’s recommendation that regulations made under section 35(2)(b) are subject to the affirmative procedure. Regulatory authorities, as well as those acting under their direction, are fully exempt from the restrictions on the days of use of fireworks, including on fireworks within a firework control zone, and from the possession of pyrotechnic articles at certain places or events. Those exemptions are necessary to enable regulatory authorities to continue to undertake essential enforcement functions in connection with fireworks legislation and offences—including, for example, test purchasing, testing of firework products, and controlled disposals.

Following the bill’s introduction, we identified that similar exemptions from the licensing requirement for certain activities carried out by third parties on behalf of regulatory authorities, as I have just described, are also required. Amendments 32 to 35 therefore seek to fulfil the original policy intent of the provisions, to allow regulatory authorities to continue to carry out their essential work.

Amendments 39 and 42 ensure that young people under the age of 18 in education, training or employment will be able to access and use fireworks and pyrotechnics when needed for legitimate purposes in direct relation to that education, training or employment.

Amendment 42 adds an exemption from the prohibition on providing fireworks or pyrotechnic articles to children to ensure that those in education, training or employment are not adversely impacted. Amendment 39 removes an exemption relating to under-18s employed in firework businesses, which is no longer necessary as a consequence of amendment 42, which is broad enough to include such persons.

Amendment 43 ensures that certain individuals carrying out vital functions, including armed forces members, cadets, law enforcement and other emergency services, can continue to carry out any of their functions that involve possessing or using pyrotechnic articles. The amendment provides exemptions from the restrictions in the bill for the armed forces of Her Majesty, cadets and overseas members undertaking activities with the armed forces cadets, as well as for those members of other services or organisations involved in law enforcement, search and rescue services or the preservation of life. That could include, for example, search and rescue volunteers.

I move amendment 31 and I hope that committee members can support it.

Amendment 31 agreed to.

Section 35, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1—Exemptions

Amendments 32 to 35 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Ash Regan].

The definition used mirrors the one provided in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.

There are two instruments in front of you, the first of which provides a legal framework to allow certain offensive weapons to be handed in to the police. The member is right that compensation can be sought in return, but we have to do this ahead of the change in the law that is coming into force in a few months’ time and which will criminalise the possession of certain offensive weapons in a private setting. That is the new part of the law, but in order to bring it in, we must provide a compensation scheme.

I can go through the weapons that are listed for the committee, but the list is very long. In any case, all the knives and weapons that are affected by the instrument are listed so, if the member is interested, he can check what they are.

We want to get those weapons out of circulation, and we are encouraging the public to go to a police station at a designated time. However, they should check that their local police station is the right place to hand weapons in. They can be handed in at certain times of day, and there will be certain ways in which people can do so.

The second instrument just adds zombie knives to the list of weapons affected. There are two separate instruments, but they operate as one to all intents and purposes.

We intend to publicise the scheme. I ask Philip Lamont—who has now reached the right page of his briefing—to explain how we will do that.

Currently, all retailers who wish to sell fireworks are required to have an appropriate storage licence in place, and they are able to sell fireworks on set dates throughout the year without holding an additional sales licence. The dates on which an additional sales licence is not required are set out in the Fireworks Regulations 2004. Therefore, I have lodged amendment 22 to align the permitted days of supply in the bill with the periods where an additional sales licence is not required by those regulations. That will permit Scottish retailers to supply fireworks during the permitted periods of supply that are set out in the bill without requiring an all-year storage licence. I hope that members will support amendment 22.

Amendments 93, 96 and 97, which were lodged by Mr Greene, seek to remove the permitted days of supply as set out in the bill and replace them with a regulation-making power to set those out instead. A majority of those who responded to our 2021 consultation on the bill’s provisions agreed with the introduction of restrictions on the days on which fireworks can be sold to the general public. The proposed permitted periods were clearly set out in the consultation. The support for that proposal in the consultation was primarily on the basis that it would provide more clarity to the public as to when fireworks are likely to be used and therefore enable people to better predict their use and plan and mitigate accordingly.

Therefore, I consider that the provision in the bill provides the right balance of certainty and flexibility. It is the result of extensive consultation with relevant groups and is aligned with existing legislation. The bill includes a power to amend the days if necessary. Therefore, I do not support those amendments.

Mr Greene and Ms McNeill referred to the permitted dates as “arbitrary”. I want to rebut that in the strongest possible terms. The permitted dates broadly align with existing periods. Therefore, they are not arbitrary, and they have been consulted on extensively. On the black market issue that Mr Greene raised in his contribution, I sent a letter to the committee last week that set out the extensive steps that will be taken on that issue.

Mr Greene also raised a point about the retailers that would continue to supply and sell fireworks. There is an established group of major retailers. We have had some engagement with them, and there have been no indications by any of the retailers in that group that they intend to change their plans to sell fireworks. Therefore, it is quite simply not correct for Mr Greene to say that the bill will shut down the industry. The vast majority of retailers can continue to sell fireworks at the traditional times of the year.

I thank Ms McNeill for the time that she spent discussing amendment 9 with me a few weeks ago, in advance of stage 2. Her commitment to empowering local communities is to be admired. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind her amendment, I think that there are issues with it.

Amendment 9 seeks to provide a formal process for community groups to instigate consideration of a firework control zone, and to impose a duty on local authorities to respond to such groups. Sections 30 and 31 of the bill enable the Scottish ministers to make further regulations about firework control zones and to issue guidance that local authorities must have regard to. I believe that that guidance, which will be co-designed with local authorities, is a more appropriate route than amendment 9 is for setting out further detail on the procedures for control zones, including procedures for involving local communities.

Amendment 9 could result in a considerable resource burden being put on local authorities. It makes no provision for a limit on the number of times that the same group of relevant people could make a request and it does not say whether a local authority could decline a representation if it had carried out a consultation recently.

With firework control zones, it is intended that more than antisocial behaviour will be taken into account. For example, it will be possible for the impact of noise—even noise that results from responsible use—and the proximity of vulnerable populations to a designated zone, which Katy Clark addressed in the debate on a previous group, to be taken into account.

For those reasons, unfortunately, I cannot support amendment 9.