Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with that, but first I will respond to your point that people who use fireworks antisocially are unlikely to apply for a licence. Previously, they would just go into a shop and buy the fireworks or—we have anecdotal evidence on this—adults would buy the fireworks for them if they were under the age of 18.

I was in Pollokshields with a group of boys, who I think were between the ages of 15 and 17, who had been involved in antisocial behaviour with fireworks. I sat with them while they were going through a programme that was being run specifically in the area for people who had been involved in antisocial behaviour with fireworks. The programme was about safety, the law and how to use fireworks appropriately. When we change the legislation, we hope that people who are under 18 will not be able to just go to the shop to buy fireworks. In addition, hopefully, their parents will understand that they are not allowed to buy fireworks to give to under-18s. Therefore, I hope that the legislation will bring right down the numbers for the spontaneous purchasing of fireworks for antisocial use.

A lot of work has been done in Pollokshields. I have seen some of it for myself. I do not remember when I went there; it was probably more than two years ago because it was before the pandemic. I can try to find out a little more about that programme. That example comes from the non-court disposal side of things. We will try to get more information from the Crown Office to answer your question.

Collette Stevenson makes a good point. I am really interested in that. We can all see that reduced-noise or silent fireworks, while not addressing misuse, would go a long way towards addressing concerns about noise disturbance. There can be sporadic noise over quite a long period, which can be very disturbing for people who have animals.

We looked into that. Industry experts advised us that, at present, there is no recognised standard or specification to identify or distinguish lower-noise fireworks. I think that the industry might be working on that; Elinor Findlay might be able to say more. It is an interesting development that could be beneficial. In an attempt to future proof the bill, we have put in the ability to update it. Should it become possible to identify and use low-noise fireworks, we will be able to update the bill on that accordingly.

Elinor, do you have anything to add?

That is a good line of questioning. We anticipate that the majority of it will be done online. Most people are able to do that now and it is a highly efficient method. However, we will have a paper-based alternative for people who are not able to access or use an online method. Perhaps Elinor Findlay could add more detail.

In answer to your first question, we have seen the industry’s 10-point plan. Some of it does not relate specifically to the Scottish Government—I think that it contains action points for the United Kingdom Government—but there are some interesting things in there.

I met representatives of the industry about two weeks ago, to listen to what they had to say and to take on board their views. Of course, the industry was also part of the review group, so it has been involved in the process from the very start, although I accept that it did not support the group’s final recommendations and that it has some concerns about the bill.

I am sorry—what was your second question?

I am just asking my official to look out the relevant sheet of paper. Sorry—I have so many pieces of paper in my pack; it is really difficult to find the one that I need at the right time.

We looked into the issue of stockpiling. We do not want stockpiling to happen, because we all understand the inherent dangers of storing large amounts of explosives if it is not done correctly. The permitted days of use extend slightly beyond when fireworks can be supplied. That has been done because we want to avoid a situation in which, say, someone buys fireworks at the very end of the supply period—for example, because they are planning to have a fireworks event in their garden—but they cannot use them because the weather is appalling or something else happens. We do not want them to store the fireworks until the next period during which they can use them. Therefore, we have added in a period of grace to prevent that from happening.

There does not seem to be an awful lot of evidence that stockpiling might be a problem, but we want to keep an eye on it. At the moment, at new year, there is a fairly short period of time during which people can use fireworks. Therefore, we already have some experience of dealing with a fairly short period of time for the use of fireworks, and we do not see much stockpiling in that case. However, we intend to keep an eye on it. Elinor, do you have anything to add on stockpiling?

On balance, taking all the provisions across the bill, I think that it achieves the aim of being fair and proportionate. With regard to the example that you use, I would say that there is quite adequate provision across the year for people to use fireworks, but I completely accept your point that that might not align with an individual’s desire to use fireworks on a day when, if the Parliament agrees to the bill, they would not be able to do so. However, I think that there is enough flexibility in the bill to allow the use of fireworks—for example, through public displays, as you mention.

The issue relates in part to Fulton MacGregor’s point about local authorities, because some areas have specific days that are important to them. If one such day falls within a restricted period, a community group could hire a professional display company, and the cost could be mitigated by spreading it across a number of people. However, we have to look at the bill as a whole with regard to what we are trying to do. The provisions have been specifically designed to enable us to consider the evidence, ensure that we do not create too many unintended consequences and meet the public’s desire for the misuse of fireworks to be reduced. On balance, the bill does what it was intended to do.

There are no other age-restricted products, including air weapons, that require people to be a minimum age greater than 18 to purchase them.

There was a lot of support for the proxy purchasing offence, because it was considered an obvious gap in the law. To go back to the exchange that I had with Pauline McNeill, the first time that it was raised with me was in Pollokshields. A youth worker there identified it as a gap in the law that he thought should be closed. That was several years ago.

It is already unlawful for category F2 and F3 fireworks and other pyrotechnics to be supplied to children under the age of 18, but that is just on a commercial basis. The introduction of the specific proxy purchasing offence makes it clear to all adults that any giving or supplying of fireworks or pyrotechnics to people under the age of 18 is a criminal offence with appropriate penalties.

I ask Natalie Stewart to pick up the point about other legislative options for that.

A cultural shift is how I described what we are trying to do here when I launched the action plan. We have a long-standing relationship with fireworks in this country. Lots of people are used to using them and going to organised displays, so I do not think that we are going to achieve overnight a change in the culture of how they are sold and used. It is going to take some time.

I set out the action plan—it was published in 2019—with a view to beginning to take steps to change the culture. A range of actions were included in it, such as awareness raising, communication and working with local communities, because we know that some local communities are much more affected than others. I would sum those up as a range of actions that were not just legislative changes but non-legislative actions as well. The bill that is in front of the committee is the final stage, if you like, in that part of the process. It is a package of key actions, and it brings to fruition the final recommendations that the fireworks review group made for how we can go about changing the culture.

The main thing that I am trying to do with the bill is protect public safety—enhancing the wellbeing of us all is a good way to think of it—by ensuring that pyrotechnics or fireworks do not cause harm, serious distress or injury. The legislative part sits alongside the non-legislative actions that we are also taking. The bill’s provisions are designed to support the change in how we use fireworks. I think that the best way to describe that change is that, instead of fireworks being something that you can go into a shop and spontaneously buy and use, we are making them something that you cannot buy spontaneously. Buying them would have to be a planned purchase, with everything thought through and planned in advance. I think that that is the right way for us to go forward, and it should result in a culture change over time.

The starting point for considering what penalties to put in place was looking at the ones that were in place under the existing fireworks legislation. I am sure that the committee will know this, but that legislation sets out

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months”

or

“a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”,

or both. When we looked at the issue in detail, there did not seem to be any suggestion that the levels that the penalties were set at were not appropriate.

On the presumption against short sentences, the committee will be well aware that it is a presumption and not a ban. That means that, in any given case, a court is able to decide what is appropriate, depending on the circumstances and the particulars of the case. There is some interest in the question—I am sure that this has come up in evidence to the committee—whether having stronger or harsher penalties would have more effect or act as more of a deterrent. However, I have not seen any compelling evidence to suggest that that would be the case.