Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is probably easier to deal with that point now, as I am likely to forget to do so in my summing up. You are absolutely right: it is quite apparent that it is nigh on impossible to mandate retailers in the statute in the way that we might need to do in order to ensure that someone holds a licence. That is why I have worded my amendment in the way that I have. The onus is on the licence holder to present their licence “at point of purchase”, because that is most definitely within the competence of both the Parliament and the bill.

Sure. However, the manifestation of the principle is the removal of the scheme entirely by the removal of section 4, and its removal would create issues. I suspect that, with the benefit of time, the member would have been able to formulate something else.

I have another couple of amendments of a similar ilk coming up, because I have reservations about the proposals and I want the Government to revisit them. I have proposed how it should do that and, more important, I have given timescales.

I hope that the member will reflect on amendment 90, which is on post-legislative scrutiny—it is unclear whether that will be considered today or next week. It provides for a review of the licensing scheme and the effect that it is having on the black market and illegal purchasing, for example. Other amendments are coming up, and I think that we will have a good debate about them. I hope that the member will be willing to support them in return for my lack of support for amendment 46.

I have heard the concerns about amendment 60. Valid concerns have been raised in the debate about the reasonable excuse, so I will not press that amendment.

However, I will move amendment 61, which is quite a simple one. There are still quite muddy waters in relation to what we can do through the bill to ensure that people present their licence. Rona Mackay is right to say that retailers already have to verify someone’s age when certain products are sold. That is all well and good in a physical environment in Scotland. If someone buys fireworks from a Scottish retailer, I do not think that there is a problem. The legislation is clear about who is responsible for such sales. However, if someone buys fireworks from a UK retailer, it is slightly less clear where the jurisdiction lies. If the sale is from outside the UK, the position is even less clear, other than the courier being landed with the entire responsibility if someone makes a purchase. During the debate, I googled “Buy fireworks from the EU”. There are dozens of websites that will happily sell fireworks to people in Scotland, and I am afraid that nothing in the bill will legislate for that.

In my view, the simple solution is to put the onus on the purchaser to present their licence to the retailer in whichever manner is possible. These days, that should not be too difficult to achieve from a technical point of view. Much of that will depend on the technical solution that the Government procures and introduces to administer the licensing scheme, but it should not be beyond the wit of man to allow for a licence to be presented digitally or physically at the point of purchase. That would put the onus back on the licence holder, because they would need to have their licence with them if they were buying fireworks, in the same way that people need their age identification if they want to buy alcohol or cigarettes. We know that we simply cannot have wholesale legislation in relation to enforcement for online or physical retailers, so we would put the onus back on the purchaser. I struggle to see why that would be an issue, so I will move amendment 61.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 61 moved—[Jamie Greene].

I will speak to amendment 66 first. Amendment 66 is a short amendment to section 5, page 3, line 14, which would leave out the word “is” and insert “may be” instead. It is the only amendment in my name in the group, but I will also speak to Russell Findlay’s amendment 62.

Amendment 66 relates to the supply of fireworks to an unlicensed person, which we debated earlier. That section of the bill could, in effect, criminalise retailers, online sellers, shopworkers and delivery drivers who sell fireworks to people without a licence. In itself, that is a controversial debate. However, it is still entirely unclear whether the liability lies with the individual at the point of purchase or with, for example, whoever is recorded on the receipt of the purchase, the owner of the premises, the business or the website, the retailer, the executives or the trustees, and so on. Section 5(3) explicitly states that it is a defence to show that the person “took reasonable steps” to establish that the purchaser either had a licence or was exempt from having a licence.

To go back to our earlier debate about offering flexibility in the judiciary—I have conceded the need for that—I have proposed changing the wording to

“It may be a defence”,

to allow for the discretion, which we agreed to earlier this morning, for the police, the courts and the justice system to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the defence that has been provided is bona fide and robust. It cannot be a black and white matter, as it is a defence—that was the mistake that I made in my previous amendment.

On the wider point, notwithstanding amendment 66, unanswered questions remain regarding the practicality of who is committing an offence and under what circumstances if an unlicensed customer is able to successfully purchase a product. I ask the committee to reflect on that issue.

I agree with what has been said so far about the other amendments in the group relating to penalties. However, there is an additional point to be made about the message that is sent out if we increase the penalties. The option of an increased penalty at the disposal of the sheriff is not an automatic increase that means that all fines and sentences will go up, but is something that offers the sheriff a wider toolkit. That is important, because it will act as a deterrent to those whom we know engage in problematic behaviour; it reflects the strength of feeling that we have heard from communities that have suffered and which feel that the law is not necessarily a deterrent as it stands; and it will send a strong message that we will take the matter seriously.

For technical reasons to do with the presumption against shorter sentences, everyone knows that—irrespective of one’s view on the matter—a six-month sentence is not a sentence served. That is a fact. Increasing the maximum sentence to 12 months means that there is real potential that the most serious offenders, in committing the most serious offences, would run the risk of going to prison. That potential does not currently exist.

I appreciate that we would be making a jump across water, but that is important, because it would give sheriffs a disposal that they do not currently have available to them. There would be a meaningful chance that people could go to prison for the most serious of offences. I am not saying that they would or that our view is that they should—I am simply saying that it would give sheriffs that option. It is an important jump, which is why we would increase the maximum sentence to 12 months. I ask the Government and members to support the increase, or to explain why we should not do so.

Can I ask the minister a question on that?

Thank you, minister. I again refer to the potential of the legislation to drive people towards online purchases. What about those businesses that run websites? Examples include pyrofire.eu, bestpyroshop.eu, pyrobest.eu and so on. That list is not exhaustive; other retailers are available. What would be deemed a reasonable excuse from them? How would they show that they had taken all measures necessary to ensure that a Scottish consumer had purchased and held a licence? How would they even know that there is legislation in Scotland that pertains to the sale and restriction of products to unlicensed people unless they are exempt? That is still unclear, despite all the answers that we have been given.

What Katy Clark has said is testament to why we need a solution such as the one that is proposed in amendment 68. As the bill stands, a community group could pay a private company for an organised display, but it sounds as though that would be a lot more expensive than the group paying for a licence itself.

That is even worse. We will come on to debate the relevant group of amendments, but we now have a scenario in which anyone could use their status as a community group, however that is defined—I have tried to define it using the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. There would be nothing to prevent a group of people from saying that they are putting on a community display and claiming exemption at any point in the year. We could have displays every day of the year, which surely defeats what the legislation is trying to achieve.

That is a welcome offer. The issue around instances where the misuse of fire has been a factor was quite an obvious one that jumped out at us in the first instance. Clearly, arson or other serious instances of misuse of fire should prohibit someone from obtaining a licence, or, at least, should be explicitly recorded on a person’s application in order to inform the licensing decision.

However, we believe that it is clear that there are other sorts of behaviour that should be disclosed on the application to inform the decision-making process. It strikes me that, in a scenario in which someone is a serial offender in relation to antisocial behaviour, whether fireworks have been involved or not, there is a judgment to be made about whether they are a fit and proper person to hold a fireworks licence. That is what is missing from the essence of the relevant offences in section 7(4) .

The four offences that the Government has explicitly chosen to put in section 7(4)—offences under the Fireworks Act 2003, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and the Explosives Act 1875—are all related only to fireworks, which means that the provision does not address the serious issue of people with convictions for antisocial behaviour and more serious offences, including those convicted on indictment, which my colleague also wishes to add.

There is scope for offences in addition to the misuse of fire to be taken into account by those who administer the licences, and for disclosure of those offences to be made mandatory, if, indeed, disclosure is not an explicit requirement. Serious offences should be taken into account, which was the point of expanding the list of offences from those under the four pieces of legislation in section 7(4). Even if we do not move the amendments, the Government could consider the issue ahead of stage 3, because, ultimately, a fit-and-proper-person test must apply to the question whether someone is suitable to hold a licence.

How long have we got? It is nearly lunch time, so I will try to be brief. Amendment 76 would place on the Scottish ministers the burden of ensuring that the information that applicants disclose is accurate. Section 9 makes it explicit that ministers must check that an application has been received, that the fee has been paid and that the applicant can demonstrate that they can possess and use fireworks safely. However, the section does not overtly mandate ministers to verify the accuracy or veracity of information that is provided in an application. If the section says that, the provision is hidden away—I cannot find it. The problem with that approach is that it places the legal onus on the applicant alone to provide truthful information—for example, about convictions, which we have discussed.

Amendment 76 would make it clear that, when ministers administer the scheme, the licence scheme operator would—before a licence was issued—be the ultimate check and balance for the information that had been given. The committee’s stage 1 report expressed concern about technical and legal issues that might arise from data sharing between agencies in relation to information that is provided. It is still entirely unclear how the licence scheme operator will ensure that true data sharing arrangements are in place. The easier and more technically competent that is, the easier it will be for ministers to stomach my amendment.

On the legal point, I argue that, before issuing a licence under a scheme that they have created and which they operate, ministers have a duty to check the veracity of information that is provided. That is a prerequisite to a licence being issued to someone who can subsequently purchase, possess and use fireworks. That covers amendment 76.

I hope that amendment 78 will be a talking point. It requires purchasing history to be recorded. The first question is why we need that. I am concerned that, as the bill stands, there is nothing to prevent a licence holder from making multiple purchases to the maximum allowed volume of fireworks per purchase not just on one day or in one place but on multiple days or in multiple places. Theoretically, a white van man could go from store to store and go online and, in effect, purchase a stockpile.

I know that it is not practical and perhaps not even possible to mandate retailers to record and share purchase history data. That would be ideal, but I know that the minister will confirm that we cannot do that. The next question is how we solve that problem and address the potential behaviour that I outlined.

We can ensure that the licence holder uploads or records purchase data on their licence if it is technically feasible to do so. Perhaps another iteration of amendment 78 could or should say that. A fairly insubstantial technical solution could monitor purchase history, perhaps even anonymously, and highlight red flags to authorities. In a scenario in which a white van man seller uses his perfectly legal licence to make repeated and multiple purchases across different venues, modes or geographies, it would become apparent that illegal activity might be taking place.

If we are going to use a new fit-for-purpose licensing scheme, let us get it right from the start and make it a scheme that actively helps the police, trading standards authorities and ministers to not only track but flag problematic behaviour before it becomes an issue. If the Government does not think that that is a good idea or that amendment 78 is the right way to do it, I am open to alternative means. However, at the moment, it would be perfectly possible for someone to use their licence to stockpile and illegally sell or misuse fireworks. The licence itself will not stop people who abuse the system—that will happen anyway—but the use of the data, which is big data, will powerfully prevent abuse before it happens. Amendment 78 might be one way of doing that.

I move amendment 76.

Amendment 67 proposes that the legal age for the purchase of fireworks be raised from 18 to 21. There are a number of reasons for my mooting that idea to the committee and the minister. It is clear to anyone who lives in a community that has been blighted by the misuse of fireworks and the antisocial behaviour that stems from it that the 16 to 21-year-old cohort often makes up the largest proportion of those who misuse fireworks.

We know that the average age of perpetrators of fireworks-related offences is around 22, although that is subject to further analysis. It has not been easy to uncover that data. If we had the benefit of more time, we could do more work on that. Further analysis of the information would be helpful if we had the time to get it. However, the point is that there is a clear pattern of behaviour from those aged 18 to 21 in the communities where the misuse of fireworks is a problem. Furthermore, there is already an acceptance in sentencing guidelines that young offenders up to the age of 25 are treated somewhat differently in the eyes of the law, so the law already has some precedent of acknowledging that young offenders are dealt with differently, whatever people’s views are on that.

Police Scotland’s submission to the committee at stage 1 said:

“availability is a concern when considered in conjunction with the profile of many football ‘ultra’ groups, which often attract teenage boys”.

That shows that younger groups are a big concern for the police, which is reinforced by Police Scotland’s comment that

“Protecting children and young people from harm is of paramount importance and in order to do this, potential supply chains to young people must be interrupted.”

One way to control the supply chain is to raise the legal age of purchase. On the face of it, 21 may seem high in relation to other pieces of legislation, but it is worth noting that other Governments are actively considering raising certain ages. For example, raising the legal age of smoking to 21 has been mooted. There is general consensus—academic and otherwise—that cultural and societal shifts can happen when minimum ages are increased. Cigarettes, although harmful, are not dangerous weapons, but fireworks can be.

I lodged amendment 67 to see what members think of the proposal to raise the minimum age for the purchase of fireworks. It is worth noting that the proposal comes from the fireworks industry and is in its action plan for Government on cracking down on fireworks misuse. Somewhat to my surprise, the industry, which has a vested interest in selling as many products to as wide a cohort of people as it can, recognises the problem of antisocial behaviour among the younger cohort of society. The industry accepts that, and it proposes that the legal age of purchase should be raised to 21. It is unclear what the Government’s position on that is, but I am sure that we are about to find out.

Amendment 68 relates to a point that came up briefly earlier in the debate about who may hold a licence and the nature of the licensing scheme. I hope that what I am trying to achieve is helpful to the Government. If amendment 68 does not do it, perhaps we can revisit the matter.

Amendment 68 seeks to allow a person to apply for a fireworks licence on behalf of a community group that wishes to put on a display, which we accept may be a proportionate and sensible way of conducting fireworks displays, or to allow a group to apply for a licence. That scenario would allow the group to apply collectively for a licence or to appoint a named person to acquire a licence on behalf of the group for a specific event.

That approach would have a number of benefits. The most obvious one is that it would prevent the possibility of fireworks being stockpiled by people who had purchased them individually to contribute to a community-led display. In essence, such a display would be created by many individuals who would each have a licence. In that case, there would be no real control over the quantity of fireworks that were purchased or the scale of the display. That could result in fairly large-scale displays being put on during the prescribed period.

Equally, community groups have expressed concerns that licensing might be time consuming and expensive for small community groups if it has to be done on the basis of individual licences. The obvious solution to that problem would in fact be stockpiling. As would be allowed under the bill, individuals could purchase up to the maximum volume allowed, which I understand is 5kg. That is quite a lot of fireworks, by the way.

I am interested to hear what the Government thinks about the potential for group licences and licences that are obtained by nominated individuals on behalf of a group. There might be repercussions with regard to clarity about the liability of the licence holder, which would need to be discussed. For example, we would need to consider a situation where a group purchased stocks and used fireworks under one licence rather than placing liability on one unlucky individual. The Government might need to explore that further, but the point of stage 2 is to probe such issues. I am keen to hear the debate on my two amendments in the group.

I move amendment 67.