Seòmar agus comataidhean

The date that Pauline McNeill mentioned would be the weekend after bonfire night. Nowadays, we often find—I am sure that this will be true of members’ experience—that the fireworks period is not restricted to bonfire night itself. It usually includes the weekend before and the weekend after. That might be to do with what the weather is like or with the fact that bonfire night is on a Tuesday night, say, and people prefer to have their celebrations later on.

The idea behind the period that is proposed in the bill is that that is the most traditional period for people in Scotland and the UK to use fireworks, and we are trying to align with that. I feel that the proposed period strikes the appropriate balance, but in the event that we want to reduce the period further, as we see how the bill beds in and is used, there is a provision that will allow us to do that, if we think that that is appropriate at the time. However, at the moment, I think that it is best to broadly align the days of permitted use with the dates on which fireworks are most traditionally used.

I ask Philip Lamont to answer that question.

I recognise the potential impact of restrictions on days of supply to specialist firework retailers, and it is right that adequate consideration is given to how such businesses might be supported as a result. I accept the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that regulations relating to compensation are subject to the affirmative procedure, given the interest in such a compensation scheme from those businesses and from Parliament. My amendment 23 proposes that regulations that are made under section 24(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Mr Greene’s amendments 132 and 133 seek to ensure that the restricted days of supply and use provisions cannot come into force until regulations for the compensation scheme have been laid.

In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I accepted the recommendation—although this was already our intention—to commence work with the fireworks retail industry as soon as the bill is enacted, and before the relevant provisions come into force. As the committee’s report notes, that will be important “to lay the groundwork” for how such support can be delivered in a timely and proportionate way, in order to help such businesses to adapt and respond in light of the change. Of course, that will involve working closely with those businesses to understand the potential negative impact. Following that work, the detail of the scheme will be developed, and the necessary regulations will be laid in the Parliament. Therefore, I believe that Mr Greene’s amendments 132 and 133 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them.

I move amendment 23.

That is a different point altogether. The member referred to supermarkets and so on, which represent the vast majority of the retailers concerned—there are more than 300. At the moment, they sell fireworks only at the traditional times of the year. The permitted dates of supply in the bill align broadly with those dates, so these changes to the permitted dates of supply do not involve a huge change for those retailers.

The specialist retailers that Mr Greene has mentioned are, of course, a different category. They sell all year round. There is a very small number of those retailers in Scotland—we estimate that there are nine or 10 such businesses—and we will discuss them when we discuss the compensation scheme. If it is okay with Jamie Greene, I suggest that we leave that argument for now and pick it up as we move through the groups.

Amendment 2, which was lodged by Ms McNeill, looks to shorten the permitted period of supply over the bonfire period to nine days as opposed to the 15 days currently provided for in the bill. The bill will, for the first time, set out the permitted periods in which people in Scotland can be supplied with fireworks. We have set out in the bill the periods that we think, based on the consultation, reflect the right balance between the desire to celebrate special days in our communities while still curtailing the general supply and use of fireworks. I believe that limiting the supply further at that time could risk a situation in which people have a very limited number of days to purchase fireworks and are inadvertently encouraged to store them in domestic settings. It also risks squeezing the supply chain over the very busiest periods for fireworks purchases and retailers overstocking, which could lead to safety issues around storage. If there is evidence that permitted periods of supply should be reduced further in the future, the bill provides an opportunity to do that via secondary legislation. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 2, and I encourage Ms McNeill not to move it.

We are talking about indiscriminate use. Mr MacGregor made an important point about the provisions in the bill that relate to not only the permitted days for supply and use and the licensing scheme, which is a point well made by the member, but firework control zones. That is another provision that attempts to address the issues that the member raises.

If a member of the public is living in a firework control zone, they will not, once the legislation is enacted, be able to use fireworks. It will be clear to people that they are not allowed to use them at that point. I think that the provisions in the bill when they are taken as a whole, rather than individually, are an attempt to address exactly the problem that Jamie Greene has identified, and will, I think, will go some way towards solving that issue.

That was a good debate. I am very sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s points in raising concerns on behalf of specialist retailers. We recognise the issue, which is why the bill includes a provision to support businesses that may be affected. That support will help businesses to adapt and respond to the change.

Rona Mackay picked up on Jamie Greene’s point that those businesses will be forced to close their doors. I do not think that we can establish that at the moment. Primarily, the businesses will still be able to sell fireworks all year round to community groups and to professional display organisers. A number of the businesses are also professional display organisers.

We need to understand the impact of the provision to restrict days of supply in practice. Only then will we be able to identify the level of support that is appropriate. That is the right approach. I give an absolute commitment to the committee that, if the bill is passed, engagement will take place with those businesses as soon as possible in order to understand the impact that the bill has on them and, if necessary, we will provide them with compensation.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

I, too, support the premise of what Pauline McNeill is trying to achieve. I cannot support the amendments as they are currently drafted, but I have given a commitment, which Ms McNeill has accepted, that we will work on the provision and engage further to get it to the point at which we would be able to accept it at stage 3.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

After section 28

Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.

In developing the pyrotechnic possession offence, we have been conscious of our obligation to be proportionate in our approach and to consider the least intrusive method of achieving our policy objective while still responding to the evidence around pyrotechnic misuse. However, I share the committee’s view that the operational challenges that were raised following the bill’s introduction need to be addressed.

I have continued to work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation on those issues. I have listened to the views of members across Parliament and gained assurances that any extension of the offence to include public places has the necessary safeguards and checks and balances built in to remain proportionate to the issue that is being tackled. As a result of those discussions, I have reassessed the provisions in the bill.

The Government amendments in the group adjust the existing possession offence and create an additional offence of being in possession of a pyrotechnic in public without reasonable excuse. To ensure proportionality and consistency with existing pyrotechnic prohibitions relating to sporting grounds, the amendments set out two offences relating to pyrotechnic possession.

Amendment 26 contains an additional offence that will prohibit the possession of a pyrotechnic article, including fireworks other than category F1 fireworks, in any public place without a reasonable excuse. That recognises that restricting the carrying of F1 items such as sparklers and party poppers in public would be a disproportionate measure given the low risk that is presented by those items.

However, in excluding F1 fireworks from the public place possession offence, we do not want to relax any existing prohibitions relating to them. Current laws prohibit all fireworks, including F1 fireworks, from being taken into designated sporting grounds. Amendments 27 to 29 adjust the offence in section 33 to cover separately the prohibition of all fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles at designated sporting or music venues and events.

Amendments 36, 38 and 40 relate to exemptions to the prohibition on pyrotechnic articles at those places and events. They adjust those exemptions, which are set out in schedule 1, to ensure that people who carry out legitimate business using fireworks and pyrotechnics in designated sporting and music venues and events can continue to do so without committing an offence.

Amendment 41 will ensure that organised, lawful, public firework displays are not unintentionally impacted by the new pyrotechnic articles in public places offence. It provides an explicit exemption from that offence for such organisers and their assistants.

The amendments will ensure that powers are available to Police Scotland to enable it to take a preventative approach to tackling the misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics by using intelligence-led policing and undertaking early interventions to stop misuse.

I move amendment 25.

Police Scotland raised issues in its initial response to the committee after the bill’s introduction. That gave me the opportunity to go back to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation to discuss the matter with them. I confirm to the committee that both Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation support this set of amendments.

For information, I say to Jamie Greene that F1 covers all sparklers, which is why F1 products are prohibited at sporting events. Everything is categorised appropriately given the hazard levels and so on, and we fully considered all the technicalities in drafting the bill. That is why there are a number of consequential amendments.

I will waive that opportunity, convener.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

After section 32

Amendment 26 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Section 33—Prohibition of pyrotechnic articles at certain places or events

Amendment 27 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 118 and 119 not moved.

Amendment 28 moved—[Ash Regan].