Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are well-established processes for enforcing the existing regulations. I return to my previous point that the legislation is an attempt to change primarily the way in which we buy fireworks and to a lesser extent the way in which we use them.

As I said, an immense amount of work goes into preparing for the run-up to bonfire night. As the committee may have heard, it is no longer just one night—it has turned into a season that is spread out over a longer period. Once fireworks get into the hands of people who are intent on misusing them, there is a much bigger challenge for us in dealing with that. The legislation in front of the committee is an attempt to go some way towards addressing that. I think that, once we see a change in how we use fireworks and in the culture of their use, that will, over time, have an impact on enforcement.

There were quite a few parts to your question. I will try to cover all those points, but you can come back to me if I do not cover them all. You asked about existing legislation and, in particular, the issue of under-18s. There is already UK legislation on that—it is currently illegal to supply fireworks on a commercial basis to those who are under 18. However, we have heard—I do not know whether the committee has heard this—significant anecdotal evidence that parents, and certainly adults, are purchasing fireworks and supplying them to children. The proxy purchasing offence was developed in order to close that loophole. Children will not be criminalised at all, but the provision is an attempt to hold those adults to account for that. It also ensures that we are limiting where fireworks potentially end up. Fireworks are explosive devices, and we want to be careful about who is able to use them.

In addition, the measures in the bill give us the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage. We can then prevent some of the issues that many of us see in our constituencies from happening.

Does Elinor Findlay want to add anything on that point?

I think that I have already answered that question, and I have been quite clear about it. With regard to proceedings, it is up to our independent court service how it chooses to take things forward. We can give that information to the committee.

I come back to the point that I was trying to make earlier. I am not sure that the scale of the problem is reflected in the way that Jamie Greene is trying to characterise it. The evidence that the review group and the Government looked at included emergency services incident data, for example. That evidence includes the volume of firework-related incidents that were reported to the police, and data on attacks on emergency service workers, which tells us that there is a spike in attacks on fire crews over the bonfire period. I know that Jamie Greene has a personal interest in that issue, and I am sure that he would be keen to see an improvement in those figures. Around 40 per cent of those acts of violence happen around the bonfire night period. I am sure that Jamie Greene would say that we should take that evidence very seriously—

I will let Elinor Findlay come in and give that information again. We have already given that information—it has been freely available and was published by the Government several years ago, and we have said that we will share it with the committee.

There were about five questions there, convener.

I am quite confident, because it works with other controlled goods. People do apply for licences. I will ask Elinor Findlay to give us more data about Northern Ireland in a moment.

The key thing is to make the scheme as simple as possible and not too expensive, so that people can apply for and get a licence quickly and easily. We need to ensure a level of awareness, so that people know that they must have a licence. We have to do really good work on our public campaigns so that we get that message out and people know what they have to do when the law changes.

There is often a question whether people will change their behaviour when we change the law. It can feel strange. I am old enough to remember when kids sat in the back of cars with no car seats and nobody wore seat belts. When I was small, it would not have occurred to someone to get into a car and put a seatbelt on. No one would have asked them to do that. It was not normal. The law changed and there were some really good public awareness-raising campaigns. I can think of some of the lines in the adverts. We do not think twice now. We get in the car and just put our seatbelt on. People get used to it. I am confident.

We all accept that legislation in itself will not fix all the problems. Through the work of the review group and the work that the Government has done, we have tried to find something that will go some way towards addressing all the concerns. That includes concerns about misuse and the concerns that a lot of people have told the committee about regarding the distress that is caused to animals or is felt by neurodivergent people. That distress is caused by legitimate firework use that happens sporadically in their neighbourhoods. The scheme also addresses safety concerns about people being injured. We have tried to do that in a balanced and proportionate way.

I have explained that some parts of the scheme are slightly more complicated than they might have been if we had a different set-up, but I am confident that we can make it as simple as possible for people to apply for a licence and I hope that they will do so. I do not want it to be a barrier for people who are using fireworks legitimately and safely. I want them still to be able to buy fireworks from a local shop and enjoy them with their families.

I think that we have that.

The financial memorandum, which has been provided to the committee, notes that we did a financial modelling exercise on that. We modelled fees of £20, £30 and £50 for a five-year licence. We looked at those amounts because we took into account similar licensing schemes that are already operating in Scotland, particularly the air weapons licensing scheme. We will undertake a further consultation on that, if Parliament agrees to the legislation, and go on to seek views on an appropriate level of fee.

The fees for licences in Northern Ireland are significantly higher. You make an important point—the cost must not act as a barrier to people. Nevertheless, if a community group wanted to put on a firework display, I would imagine that that would involve fairly significant costs, and in that context, potentially paying £30 for a five-year licence might not seem disproportionate.

I am sure that the committee will have heard this point being made really strongly in evidence, too, but in the consultations in 2019 and 2021, we heard repeated evidence about the disturbance caused to people by what we would characterise as more unpredictable use of fireworks, which led to the perception that periods of firework use had become a lot more prolonged than they used to be.

When I visited the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals a couple of weeks ago, it suggested that knowing when fireworks are going to be used allows pet owners in particular, but anyone who has issues in this area, including neurodivergent people, to undertake whatever mitigation might be needed. Those with neurodivergent conditions could plan to be somewhere else, for example, and people with pets that get seriously disturbed by fireworks could seek veterinary advice ahead of their use. I strongly feel that more predictability of use will benefit everybody.

The review group commissioned analytical work on the issue and looked at the international evidence that I have already mentioned. Something similar has been introduced in parts of Australia and New Zealand, but Elinor Findlay can say more about that and the effects that those measures have had.

I think I mentioned earlier that we consulted all the faith groups, and we feel that we captured all the dates that have religious significance and on which fireworks are traditionally used as part of the celebrations.

The days that we have set out broadly align with the existing dates. We are quite confident that that does not fall foul of any legislation.

Natalie Stewart might want to add to that.

The way that I look at it is that we are responding to a public safety issue. Over the past few years, we have worked with stakeholders to develop the right provision. We need a provision that is workable, and we think that the provision in the bill is workable. As a minister, it is my job to use the least intrusive legislation that is possible to achieve the public safety objective. As we have said, Police Scotland was aware that the provision was to be included in the bill. I think that it is workable. However, the fact that Police Scotland has raised concerns means that we can continue to work with it to make sure that we get the provision right.

My view is that the approach that we are taking is a proportionate response. I hope that Parliament will agree, but it is for the committee to decide whether what is in the bill treads the line of responding to the issue and meeting the objective in the least intrusive way.