Seòmar agus comataidhean

I share the member’s view that the criminal courts should have the powers that they need in order to respond to assaults on our dedicated and hard-working emergency workers. There is something particularly sickening about the targeting of those who are responding to emergency situations in the service of others.

I have heard what the committee has said, and I note the points that were raised by Fulton MacGregor and others about the current powers that the court has to take such circumstances on board. In relevant cases, a court can and does take into account the circumstances of an offence before deciding on the sentence, but I accept that there may be merit in considering whether some form of statutory aggravation could be assessed, when it comes to the use of pyrotechnics and fireworks against emergency workers, in the context of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005.

There are other issues in relation to the amendment, some of which were alluded to by Pauline McNeill. I cannot support the amendment as it is, but I am happy to engage further on the topic with the member.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that the broad regulation-making powers at section 18(1) should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I welcome the committee’s recommendation, and amendment 21, in my name, gives effect to that. However, I believe that section 18 also contains powers on administrative and operational points of detail, to which it would be disproportionate to apply the affirmative procedure.

Therefore, amendments 14, 18, 19 and 20 make adjustments to other sections to ensure that the change does not disproportionately impact on the administration and operation of the licensing system, while ensuring that enhanced scrutiny applies if section 18 is used to make any further provision about licensing that might be required.

I believe that, collectively, these amendments reflect the DPLR Committee’s recommendation, so I hope that committee members will recognise the balance that is being struck and will support the amendments.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, amendment 58, in Mr Greene’s name, seeks to make the regulation-making power about persons with “specialist knowledge” at section 2(2)(b) subject to the affirmative procedure.

Where the DPLRC has recommended a change of procedure, I have lodged an amendment to ensure that Parliament is afforded the appropriate levels of scrutiny. I do not consider that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate or necessary for section 2(2)(b). That section provides Scottish ministers with the power to make further provision in respect of persons demonstrating “specialist knowledge” for the purposes of the definition of a category F4 firework.

The requirements for specialist knowledge are currently set out in the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015. The power in section 2(2)(b) should be required only if we need to respond to any changes to the requirements made by the United Kingdom Government on such persons, to ensure that high-hazard fireworks remain subject to the required stringent safety measures.

That provision does not enable amendment of the bill. The requirements are technical in nature, and it is appropriate that regulations to change them are subject to the negative procedure. Therefore, I hope that members do not support amendment 58.

Amendment 89 seeks to include a list of specific groups that the Scottish ministers must consult when making regulations about the licensing system. The bill sets out that the Scottish ministers must consult those who

“are likely to be interested in or affected by”

the licensing system. That was deliberately drafted to ensure that a wide-ranging and effective consultation takes place.

It was always intended that the listed groups would form part of a wide-ranging consultation on regulations. However, I believe that actively identifying and engaging with groups who are most likely to be affected is a more effective approach than listing a limited number of groups in the bill. Therefore, I do not support amendment 89.

I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 58 and not to move amendment 89. If he does, I hope that the committee does not support them.

Amendments 47 to 51 seek to make a change so that the regulation-making powers in part 2 of the bill that are currently subject to the negative procedure are subject to the affirmative procedure instead. The consultation requirement set out at section 19 means that Scottish ministers will have a duty to consult before making any regulations under part 2. That provides the opportunity to gather views on proposals for what may be included in the regulations, such as, for example, the licence fee.

It is not intended that any of those powers will be used frequently. However, when they are used to set out administrative or operational detail in the system, it is necessary that that is done in a timely manner in order for the system to continue to operate efficiently and at an optimum level. I do not consider the affirmative procedure suitable or proportionate for those types of regulations and, as such, it would not be a good use of valuable parliamentary time.

On amendment 52, the regulations made under section 3 are already subject to the affirmative procedure. The provision is a technical regulation-making power, which will be used if necessary, to adapt to changes to the categorisation of fireworks or if new classifications or types of fireworks enter the market. It is important to be able to utilise such a power in a timely manner and ensure that the system covers relevant fireworks. That is paramount in ensuring safety and that the system operates as required.

If the power is used, relevant stakeholders such as the fireworks industry, experts or trading standards will be consulted. However, it is not necessary to include that in the duty to consult under section 19.

Amendment 53 seeks to include a new section setting out certain requirements for Scottish ministers before laying regulations in relation to part 2 of the bill and the licensing system. I am open to enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the licensing system. I have demonstrated that by accepting the DPLR Committee’s recommendations and having included a requirement to consult on regulations about licensing from the start. However, the matters to be covered in regulations under this part of the bill are not of a nature that require such a super-affirmative procedure, which amendment 53 would apply. In most cases, there are powers to set out operational details or administrative procedure.

I urge Ms Clark not to move her amendments, but if she does do so I ask the committee to reject them.

As I have laid out, there are requirements on the seller and the purchaser, and requirements on people in the supply chain. That will work in a similar way to the delivery of age-restricted products, in which the person who is delivering the products must satisfy themselves that the recipient is of a permitted age to receive the delivery. I am sure that we have all seen or noticed that, when things such as alcohol are delivered as part of our online shopping.

I believe that the issue is covered and that a specific provision that relates only to the point of sale is not only unnecessary but would cause confusion and lead to a misunderstanding or even complacency in the wider supply chain regarding licensing checks.

I do not know whether Russell Findlay has had an opportunity to read the letter that I sent to the committee, but I hope that the committee received it and was able to look at it yesterday. In the letter, I set out in detail the steps that are being taken to look at such things as illegal online sellers. There is quite a lot of detail in that response about the steps that the Government and its partners, such as trading standards, would take in order to address Russell Findlay’s point.

We have heard from Ms Clark that section 4 should be omitted entirely. That would mean that no offence would be committed by a member of the public who did not have a licence when purchasing, using or possessing fireworks. The onus would be shifted entirely on to suppliers and the offence that would be committed by supplying fireworks to an unlicensed person. Removing section 4 would significantly weaken the licensing system and our ability to achieve the policy aim of ensuring that all firework users have completed training on the safe and lawful use of fireworks.

Focusing the consequences of not having a licence solely on suppliers would weaken further the policy aim of bringing about more responsible, appropriate and safe use of fireworks by members of the public. Making it a criminal offence not to have a licence is a fundamental part of driving the societal change in that area and ensuring that there is a high degree of compliance with the requirement to undertake the training.

The licensing scheme was based on a significant amount of consultation and evidence gathering. What Katy Clark is suggesting in amendment 46 is very disproportionate, because it would totally remove the licensing scheme, which received significant public and stakeholder support.

In the scenario that the member has outlined, the delivery company would have the duty under the legislation.

I move on to amendment 126. I understand that Russell Findlay has lodged the amendment to provide clarity. However, I fear that, rather than clarifying any perceived issues, its addition could cause confusion.

The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 sets out that summary criminal proceedings for statutory offences must ordinarily be commenced within six months from the time when an offence is committed. However, the act already sets out that that section applies unless another piece of legislation fixes a different time limit, as is the case with the bill.

The 12-month time limit that is set out in the bill is deliberate—it ensures consistency with other fireworks legislation. Another piece of legislation can be made by the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, by the UK Parliament to alter the time limit. That is already clear from the powers of those Parliaments, and the clear wording to that effect, in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Therefore, I believe the amendment to be unnecessary and, ultimately, it could cause confusion.

I ask Mr Findlay not to press amendment 62.

I understand that amendments 1 and 69 seek to ensure that the licence fee and any subsequent changes to the fee level are proportionate and that the licence is accessible to the people of Scotland. I am sympathetic, and I understand that Pauline McNeill has lodged amendment 1 as a probing amendment in order to discuss the issue further. That is totally understandable. However, I do not consider that the amendments are the most effective way to ensure that the licence fee is fair.

Amendment 1 seeks to set an upper limit of £25 on the licence fee. I consider that that would pre-empt the consultation process that is required to seek views on the licence fee. It would also mean that an assessment of the running costs could not be undertaken before a limit was placed on the amount, meaning that it would not be possible for operational costs to be properly considered when setting the fee.

Both amendments 1 and 69 seek to ensure that fee increases are in line with inflation. I think that there are some technical problems with that. The amendments do not include or refer to a measure to define the rate of inflation.

A number of members have mentioned that it is problematic to state a fee in the bill. That is because placing a statutory limit on the fee, or on the amount of fee increase that is permitted, could lead to a protracted process of amending primary legislation to adjust the upper limit or frequent use of secondary legislation to increase the fee in small increments. So, there are practical issues with the amendments as well.

I remain committed to ensuring that the licence fee is proportionate and fair. It will be set following wide-ranging consultation—which I hope addresses one of Russell Findlay’s points—and at a rate that ensures that, although robust checks and balances are in place, the fee is not a restrictive barrier to the safe and lawful use of fireworks.

I ask that amendments 1 and 69 not be pressed. If they are pressed, I urge the committee not to vote for them.

That is not correct; you are half right. You are right about the professional displays, but exemptions also apply to public displays, so they are not constrained by the permitted days of use.

The fireworks training course is a core element of the licensing system and is crucial to achieving the policy objective that people who are permitted to purchase, possess and use fireworks in Scotland have adequate knowledge of how to do so in a safe, lawful and appropriate manner.

Following consideration of the committee’s stage 1 report, I considered it appropriate to progress amendment 16, to ensure that the bill makes it explicitly clear that the training course will include information about the law on fireworks. That will include information such as when and where fireworks can be used, as well as the rules around the safe storage of fireworks. Amendment 17 ensures that the criteria for a licence being granted will also reflect that.

It has always been intended that that information would be part of the training course. However, I hope that the specific inclusion of the word “lawful” provides assurance that the training course will make it clear to people what is—and, importantly, what is not—legally permitted in relation to fireworks in Scotland.

In relation to amendment 75, although I do not consider specific reference to the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to be necessary, I reassure Mr Greene and the other members of the committee that, if such a procurement is undertaken for the purposes of the training course, all legal requirements will be complied with throughout that process.

Mr Greene has also lodged amendment 80, which seeks to enable the Scottish ministers to

“make provision for how the successful completion of a fireworks training course is automatically recorded on a digital licence”.

There are no restrictions on such automatic processes being put in place through the system if the licence system is capable of that when it is developed. However, I consider that to be an operational matter, which is better suited to being considered as part of the development and implementation of the licensing system.

Although I thank Mr Greene for discussing—

I think that I have moved on too far in my pack of speaking notes, so I will stop there and return to that in a moment.

I move amendment 16.

Good morning. The provisions in the bill are designed to tackle the danger to public safety and wellbeing caused specifically by pyrotechnic and fireworks misuse. It is therefore very important that the bill is clear on what articles it covers and that it provides, where necessary, additional clarity and reassurance about that.

The Government amendments in the group seek to provide that additional clarity and reassurance in relation to the definition of “pyrotechnic article” in section 1. By expressly excluding ammunition items from the definition, amendment 11 will ensure that the bill does not unintentionally capture ammunition or give the impression that it does.

Amendment 12 is a technical amendment.

Amendment 13 will enable ministers to add, amend or remove in the future articles that should not be treated as pyrotechnic articles for the purpose of the bill. The amendment will therefore future proof the legislation and enable ministers to explicitly exclude in future any other articles that are, or could be seen to be, unintentionally captured by the offences. It will also allow the definition to be narrowed to reflect future technical innovations.

I move amendment 11.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Amendments 12 and 13 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Categories of fireworks

Amendment 76, in the name of Mr Greene, seeks to place a requirement on the Scottish ministers to be satisfied that the information that is provided on previous convictions, revoked licences and a successfully completed training course is accurate.

During stage 1, no concerns were raised that the bill as drafted left any gaps or issues regarding the information that is to be provided during an application and whether that information will be considered when the decision is made to grant a licence. It has always been our intention that that will occur in practice as part of the process of considering and, most importantly, verifying applications. Section 18 provides for regulations to be made about exactly how information that is contained in licensing applications is to be verified, which will allow for a more nuanced and detailed approach to be taken.

Amendment 78 sets out that a fireworks licence will be valid only if it contains information about the licence holder’s purchase history. I do not consider it to be necessary to require licence holders to upload information on each purchase that has been made using the licence. The licence will be held by an individual for a period of time, rather than being linked to specific transactions involving fireworks.

It would not be particularly cost effective to incorporate that very specific requirement in the bill with, for the most part, no appreciable benefit from the information that it captured. If amendment 78 was accepted, I would be concerned that it could lead, for instance, to all licences being invalid if the purchasing history could not be uploaded due to unforeseen circumstances, technical issues or something of that nature. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 79, in the name of Mr Findlay, seeks to restrict to no longer than two years the length of time for which licences can be given. Stakeholders have expressed varied opinions on the length of time for which a licence should be valid. It is important that we strike a proportionate balance and have robust checks without being overly restrictive and requiring licences to be renewed too frequently.

The working assumption is that the licence will be valid for five years, which was carefully considered during the development of the bill. That consideration included looking at responses to the 2021 consultation and at other similar licensing schemes in Scotland, such as the air weapons licensing scheme, under which licences are valid for five years.

Ultimately, however, the licence term will be set out in subsequent regulations. The amendment would pre-empt the consultation that we are going to undertake to inform the licence term. That consultation is really important, because it will allow us to get the views of the public and stakeholders and take them into consideration before we determine what the licence term should be.

The amendment would also limit the ability to adapt to future circumstances and to change the licence term in a timely manner to either reduce or increase the time period, if it was determined that that was more appropriate.

I am not convinced that amendments 76, 78 and 79 are proportionate or necessary, or that they would strengthen the bill, so I do not support them.

Amendment 15 will remove the requirement for disclosure, during the application process, that covers only spent convictions, and widen the provision to include any relevant conviction, whether that conviction is spent or unspent.

The Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019 reduced the periods in which a conviction becomes spent. For example, a fine is considered spent and therefore does not need to be disclosed after 12 months, rather than the previous period of five years. For those who are under 18 when they are convicted, the disclosure period for a six-month prison sentence has been reduced from three and a half years to one and a half years, and for a fine from two and a half years to six months.

Following careful consideration during stage 1, I consider that amendment 15 is a proportionate and balanced way to strengthen the effectiveness of the licensing system while ensuring that only relevant offences are taken into consideration.

I want to make clear that a person’s having a previous conviction does not lead to a blanket ban on their holding a fireworks licence, nor will disclosure of such a conviction lead to an automatic refusal of a licence application. The purpose of the amendment is to allow an informed and balanced decision to be made on each application.

Although I understand that Mr Findlay is keen to ensure that a robust system is in place, I consider that amendments 70 to 74 adjust the wording of the disclosure requirement in a way that could cause confusion and which does not substantively change the requirement on applicants, and, therefore, I do not support them.

However, in relation specifically to the requirement to disclose convictions for offences involving fire, I can see the potential value in progressing an amendment to that effect. That would include offences such as wilful fire raising, and I consider that there is a valid point to be made that it may not be appropriate for those who have demonstrated such past behaviour to be able to hold a fireworks licence. I would welcome further discussion with Mr Findlay to explore that specific point further ahead of stage 3.

I do not consider amendment 77 to be necessary or appropriate to include in legislation. Scottish ministers will, of course, take into account all disclosed convictions when making an assessment of whether to grant a licence.

I do not support amendments 70 to 74 and 77. I encourage Mr Findlay not to press amendment 70 and not to move the others, and I hope that the committee does not support them if he does so. However, I clarify to Mr Findlay that, on amendment 74, I would be happy to work with him ahead of stage 3 in order to create an amendment for stage 3 that I can support at that point.