Seòmar agus comataidhean

If it is an offence for someone to purchase, possess or use fireworks without a licence unless they are explicitly exempt under the list in schedule 1, in what scenario does the minister foresee someone justifiably purchasing, possessing or using fireworks without a licence?

I thank the member for doing so. I do not disagree with his premise, but what is clear from feedback that we have taken directly from communities that have been most blighted by the misuse of fireworks is the lack of correlation between what they are reporting and what they are seeing at the other end. It is that inaction that is causing most frustration. It is hard to say whether new legislation will fix that or simply add to the legislative environment and landscape—I hope not. I am not saying that we should not add further legislation in the way that the Government is seeking—all that I am asking for is a review of the current landscape, because we do not have all the data available to us. It would be nice to know the correlation between the recording of such incidents and where those cases go in the justice system and to find out why they are not proceeding.

Last year, for example, there were 974 fireworks-related complaints to the police—in other words, nearly 1,000. However, only 29 charges were brought, and there were zero convictions. Pauline McNeill talked about public confidence in the system. How can the public have confidence in a system in which 1,000 offences directly related to fireworks are reported and nobody—nobody—is successfully prosecuted? How will this bill change that situation?

All that I am asking is for the Government to take a step back and look at whether the existing laws are being used. I cannot for the life of me work out why the Government, with all the resources available to it, would not want to do so.

This small group contains two of my amendments and amendment 46 in the name of Katy Clark, who will speak to that one.

Amendment 60 seeks to clarify who will be exempt from holding a licence. It relates to the main statement under section 4(1) of the bill that it will be

“an offence for a person ... to purchase, acquire, possess or use a firework ... without having a fireworks licence”,

which is the very essence of the Government’s proposal.

The term “without reasonable excuse” opens up a bit of a legal minefield of excuse making and lack of clarity. In fact, that wording is a defence solicitor’s dream. It is too vague, and my approach is to create clear blue water between those who must hold a licence and those who are explicitly exempt.

Exemptions are detailed in schedule 1 to the bill. I appreciate that “without reasonable excuse” is a commonly used legal term, but in the spirit of being crystal clear in the bill about who is and who is not required to hold a licence, I believe that reference to the exemption schedule—which could also be amended—is a better way of making clear who does not require a licence. If the Government can convince me otherwise, I am happy to listen to what the minister has to say.

Amendment 61 says that a person who holds a licence must present it at the point of purchase of fireworks. Specifically, it says that a person who holds a fireworks licence must be present at the point of purchase in all instances—both in person and online—irrespective of the location of the supplier.

I will speak about why the amendment is worded in that way; I apologise if it is not worded competently, but that is down to the timescale for drafting. The amendment seeks to shift the onus of responsibility for producing a licence to the licence holder. It means that at the point of purchase, the licence holder must present their licence to obtain fireworks. In the event of an in-person purchase in a retail store, that would be a physical process, and when making an online purchase, the licence holder would have to provide evidence that they hold a licence.

As the bill is currently drafted, I believe that there is a loophole that means that online retailers will not have to check for a licence. In fact, there may be a debate to be had about whether the Scottish Government or the Parliament can legislate to mandate retailers to check for the possession of such a licence—more so if that retailer is not based in Scotland or the United Kingdom.

Amendment 61 is short, but effective, given that shifting the onus to the purchaser is the only way to competently make a purchase. However, it does not address the wider issue of how on earth online firework sellers will verify that a Scotland-based customer or resident holds a licence, or whether they have had one that has subsequently been revoked. We struggled to draft an amendment that did that. Any online retailer could feasibly sell to any address registered in the UK after the bill passes, but it is unclear how the legislation would be dealt with by retailers.

If the Government considers that there is a better solution to this problem, I would be keen to hear the minister’s thoughts. If she is not minded to support my amendment, she must still outline why the bill contains no requirement to present a licence—physically or digitally—at the point of purchase, and how on earth the online sale of fireworks by suppliers outside Scotland or the UK when selling to Scottish consumers will be policed. That is not addressed in the bill and those questions remain unanswered.

I do not think that the issue can be kicked into the long grass of secondary legislation, because it is a key component in ensuring that we limit any opportunity for a black market, which is a very real risk—as so many of us have highlighted. Amendment 61 is meant to address that issue. If there is a better way to do that, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and work with the Government to bring it back at stage 3.

I am keen to hear Ms Clark speak to amendment 46, which is slight in nature—it is a four-word amendment—but would have a big effect. It is quite unclear what she seeks to achieve with the amendment and, on a technical level, how the rest of the bill would be affected if it was agreed to. I have some concerns about the brevity of Ms Clark’s amendment and the nature of what it seeks to do. I will let her speak to that.

I move amendment 60.

I will give way in a second. You are welcome to clarify, if I am wrong.

The group could put on a display by using the licence of an individual in the group, but only during the permitted periods. That is my understanding; if I am wrong, I ask the minister to correct me.

I appreciate that very helpful feedback. I know that the amendment is of a more technical nature, but I would like clarification. If a community group wants to put on a display, it still has to nominate an individual who can use their own personal licence to purchase, possess and use fireworks on its behalf. That shifts the liability, responsibility and burden entirely on to the individual in question, not the group. Does that not strike you as a bit of a problem? Why will paid-for organisations and companies that put on professional displays be exempt from the need to hold a licence while community groups that want to put on a similar display will not be? We have not really addressed the issue of how community groups that are not in a commercial environment can put on displays other than through their having to rely on the good will of individuals in the group to use their licences and make multiple purchases of what could be fairly large volumes of fireworks. Does that not defeat the whole point of the bill?

Lots of very valid questions have been raised, which in itself proves my point that the issue has not been addressed. Dropping amendment 68 will neither resolve the problem nor answer the questions that we have. There is still a lack of clarity with regard to a scenario in which a community group, charity, organisation, community council or even just a group of people in the same street wants to put on an organised display for whatever reason—perhaps not for profit—as currently happens and will be allowed to continue to happen, and how that will interact with the licensing scheme, which is, as I understand it, aimed at promoting safe behaviour by individuals and barring those whom we expect not to act safely. I understand and get all that, but what is still unclear to me is the quite odd link that is being made between a community group that wants to put on a display having to rely on an individual to use their individual licence and take on individual liability to purchase, possess, store and use fireworks on behalf of the rest of that group, and the ability of multiple individuals in a group to do the same.

Therefore, there is a perfectly feasible scenario in which 100 people in a street all use their licences to buy 5kg of fireworks and put on a 500kg firework display. That is substantial and would be perfectly legal.

I think that we are still not there with the legislation, and there are still unanswered questions, which community groups might want to be answered ahead of stage 3. Although for technical reasons my amendment 68 would probably create issues—which was not the intention—those issues could be fixed. However, I think that the Government still needs to come back to clarify the position around community groups and charities, as opposed to public displays. I do not think that that issue has been cleared up.

Thanks, Russell. It is just as well.

My sympathy for amendment 1 is based on the fact that the level of the fee sounds like a reasonable number. Putting numbers in primary legislation is difficult, dangerous and probably not sensible, but it might be a principle on which the committee can work with the Government, ahead of stage 3, to see how the Government will go about setting the fee and the work that will need to go into that. If that process were included in the bill, it might address some of the issues that members have raised. We will all work constructively on that. If Pauline McNeill is minded not to press amendment 1, we should revisit the issue.

That flows into my second point, which is the inflationary cap that we have sought to achieve in amendment 69. There are other ways of wording it—I have seen various pieces of legislation that peg increases in different ways. There are a number of disposals available to the Government for that. If the Government has a problem with the way in which we have set it out in amendment 69, we could perhaps word it in a better way. Again, the amendment can be withdrawn and we can come back to the issue. However, all of this paints a wider picture.

Amendment 90 sits in the grouping on post-legislative scrutiny, unfortunately, but it could equally sit very well in this group, as it deals with the process that the Government should set out. The policy intention surely is not to put people off getting a licence. For someone to get a licence, they go through the safety training course and get a certificate. Surely we want as many people as possible to get a licence, so anything that is prohibitive should be frowned upon by us all. Again, it is an issue that I think we could sensibly revisit.

There is a lot of sympathy in the room today. It is very nice, but nobody ever votes for my amendments. [Laughter.] Thanks anyway.

I thank the minister and members for the debate. I will clarify a few points.

I probably share other members’ concerns and reservations about the nature of what amendment 46 seeks to achieve. I have problems with how the licensing scheme is proposed, but I do not have a problem with a licensing scheme per se. Therefore, I would be unable to support amendment 46.

Can the minister elicit evidence on whether anyone has been sent to prison in the past five years, say, for a fireworks-related offence? To date, what is the maximum fine that any court has issued for such an offence?