Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a bit of ground to cover. I will not go over everything that I originally said about why I believe that this is the right thing to do, but I will begin by saying that I agree with Fulton MacGregor. It is not about seeking to criminalise people; we are here to try to reduce the misuse of fireworks, which is about educating people and seeking to encourage responsible behaviour. However, giving the courts the options is a very good and wise thing to do.

Going back to Jamie Greene’s amendment 59—which is about the desire to ensure that existing legislation is being used properly—one of the arguments against it was that this new law will be the go-to, all-singing, all-dancing piece of legislation to deal with the issue of firework misuse. If so, it should be as powerful as it can possibly be. It is worth emphasising that including the additional higher sentence or fine options is not to say that those will come to pass or be used disproportionately. I trust sheriffs to use their judgment.

The minister made the point about the ability to use other legislation in relation to, for example, 999 workers being attacked, and the ability to apply sentences up to life sentences. I think that Fulton MacGregor also made that point. That may be so; however, we have to look at the long list of offences that the disposals relate to. To take one example, amendments 91 and 92 relate to buying or giving fireworks to under-18s.

The minister referred to retailers possibly being deterred from selling on the basis of the threat of an increased sentence. However, that is slightly unlikely. It is also a curious point: one, because we are trying to discourage the sale of fireworks; and two, because we have had a lack of evidence from retailers about what their intent might be because of the act. I do not know whether using that as an argument against having effective sentencing therefore quite sits with the point that we are trying to make.

In relation to amendment 91, we are talking not about legitimate and responsible retailers, but about the white van man in Blackburn that we have heard about. We are talking about people of that nature, who have no regard for the law, whatever bit of legislation it is in. If such people supplied fireworks to children and subsequent serious damage was caused because of that, that would be one example of why it would be worth while to have that additional higher sentencing option.

If this bill is to be the go-to, gold-standard legislation, it must do one fundamental thing—which is the point that Jamie Greene made but that I omitted to make in my opening remarks—which is to act as a true deterrent. We are not seeking to criminalise people; we simply want to give the courts the options. What we propose in the amendments is therefore reasonable in the circumstances.

I will press everything other than amendment 126, which I am happy to withdraw on the basis of the minister’s explanation, which has informed my understanding.

Thank you.

Amendments 63 and 46 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5—Supply of fireworks to unlicensed persons

Amendments 64 to 66 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

On amendment 67 and raising the age to 21, I agree with the points that Jamie Greene made. From memory, in the stage 1 debate, the minister responded by saying that raising the age would not be proportionate or consistent with age restrictions in legislation on other matters, but I am not entirely persuaded that the comparisons are necessarily relevant. Whether we like it or not, it is, as Jamie Greene pointed out, those in that age group who are the greatest problem when it comes to dangerous misuse, rather than general noise and so on.

Like Fulton MacGregor’s proposal on education, Jamie Greene’s proposal seems a sensible move and a bold one. I think that it would have public support—and, indeed, it has the industry’s support, which will perhaps surprise people. I am curious to hear the minister’s response.

There is a specific issue in relation to amendment 68, which has been touched on, around liability and insurance. What would be the position if an individual licence holder was acting on behalf of a community organisation? Has the Government sought any advice from or had a conversation with the insurance industry as to whether such a person would be liable as an individual or whether the community group could share the liability or take the responsibility? Could there be a form of licence that did both, which the individual could apply for on behalf of group A? Is there another way of dealing with the issue?

I welcome amendment 15 in the name of the minister, which extends the provision to spent convictions. It makes perfect sense. I also welcome her suggestion that we look at amendment 74 and broaden the scope of offences to be disclosed. Indeed, she has identified the most obvious offences—wilful fire raising or offences of that nature. Jamie Greene talked about offences related to more general antisocial behaviour and violence, and off the top of my head, I would suggest convictions related to football or violence against emergency service workers, which currently do not have to be disclosed or considered. I welcome the move in that respect, and there is work to be done on the matter.

Ultimately, this is about creating a system that is not only fair but robust and which, as Fulton MacGregor suggested, does not deter people who are perfectly entitled to hold a licence or are legitimate licence holders. Nevertheless, offences that common sense would suggest would be of concern should be considered.

Amendment 79 is pretty straightforward. The purpose of seeking to limit the duration of the licence to two years is that, to be frank, five years is too long. It could be open to abuse and encourage stockpiling or black-market behaviour by a licence holder. Furthermore, much can happen with an individual in five years, whereas two years seems like a reasonable length of time to have a licence. One year might be considered prohibitive but, if the licence is to cover bonfire night, it could do so over two years.

A line must be drawn in the sand somewhere and I will be curious to know how the period of five years was arrived at. It might be that there is a good reason or some proper research has been done that came up with that figure, or it might be that someone somewhere just decided that it is a good number. I would be happy to hear the minister’s response to that.

The number of amendments in the group might suggest that a lot of talking is required, but that belies the fact that most of them would pretty much do the same thing.

I will start with amendment 62, which relates to the maximum prison sentence for illegally buying, acquiring or possessing fireworks, and amendment 63, which relates to the maximum fine. In much the same vein, amendments 64 and 65 relate to the particular offence of doing so without a licence; amendments 85 and 86 relate to the offence of making a false statement to get a licence; amendments 87 and 88 relate to the offence of producing a false licence or other document; amendments 91 and 92 relate to the offence of buying fireworks for, or giving them to, under-18s; amendments 94 and 95 relate to the offence of supplying fireworks outwith the proposed 37 designated dates; amendments 99 and 100 relate to the offence of using fireworks outwith the proposed 57 designated dates; amendments 110 and 111 relate to the offence of using fireworks in firework control zones in breach of the terms laid out; amendments 118 and 119 relate to the offence of possessing pyrotechnics after going to an event; and amendments 124 and 125 relate to the offence of giving false information to trading standards.

I will speak to amendment 126 later, as it is the only one in the group that is slightly different. In the other amendments that I have referred to, the first number relates to the maximum prison sentence for each offence and the second relates to the maximum fine. The bill states that the maximum prison sentence can be six months and the maximum fine can be £5,000 but, in my amendments, I seek to raise the maximum prison sentence to 12 months and the maximum fine to £10,000. I am not saying that the amendment sets out the correct sentence to be applied—we have no crystal ball that shows each and every case that will come before a sheriff down the line—but we think that it is very important for the judiciary to have the power of discretion on that matter. It seems unlikely that many of those offences will result in people being imprisoned for 12 months but, as we cannot foresee all the circumstances, it seems logical to give the judiciary that power.

The example that you cite of couriers now being responsible for checking that in the supply chain does not negate the need for amendment 61 but cements it by putting the onus on the buyer. Although I have no doubt that couriers are, in the main, legitimate and responsible, the issue is sellers who might not be in the jurisdiction of Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. There is no accounting for the methods that they might deploy in order to send fireworks to people in Scotland. Moving and agreeing to amendment 61 would put the legal onus on the purchaser. That seems like common sense, but I am curious to hear your views on that.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 61, I think that the need for licence holders to declare that they have a licence when making a purchase is basic common sense. I note Rona Mackay’s point about high street retailers having a responsibility to check ages in other circumstances, but that approach does not take into account the wild west of online sales. There are incredible grey areas and multiple jurisdictions outwith the reach of the Parliament. To take an example, there is the issue of fraud, much of which occurs online. It is just not subject to meaningful investigation by the authorities in Scotland, because they just do not have the resources to do it. The notion that anyone would be checking whether some random seller in a dark corner of the internet had sought a licence before selling fireworks to someone in Scotland is for the birds. Therefore, it is very important that we bring in such a declaration. In fact, I think that the Government would probably welcome it. I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that.

Sorry to interrupt, convener. I understand that I might have made a procedural mistake in pressing all the amendments at the same time.

Pauline McNeill’s amendment 1 does much the same thing as my amendment 69 would, albeit that amendment 1 specifies a fee, which, for obvious reasons, would be unusual in legislation. We are approaching the same problem with a slightly different solution. Instead of trying to set a fee now that would quickly go out of date, I seek to ensure full consultation with all relevant stakeholders about what would be considered an affordable and reasonable sum to charge for a licence.

As we know, the issue depends on regulations being introduced after the passing of the bill. Even in normal times, the amount that is charged for a licence could hugely influence the number of people who would be willing to apply for it. If the licence became disproportionately expensive and a deterrent to going down the legal route, that could lead to black market sales and so on.

Furthermore, future price increases should be capped by pegging the fee to the standard inflation-related mechanism that is typical of other legislation. There are a number of ways of doing that—I am sure that the minister can keep me right.