Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will bring in Lucy, but before I do, I was saying that I guess that that is why we take evidence. As committee members, we do not control what people say to us.

Why do you think that we heard such strong evidence from sports organisations and others? I had an idea of where their evidence last week might go, but I was quite surprised by how clear they were—

Naomi, do you want to comment?

I will move on to the question about the three-month reflection period, which Naomi McAuliffe also touched on. The bill provides a mandatory three-month reflection period, with a requirement for the applicant to confirm at the end of that period that they wish to proceed. Again, we have heard some strong evidence that that is unnecessary and perhaps even derogatory.

Does the panel have any thoughts on that? I see that Naomi McAuliffe is nodding her head again, but I wonder whether Catherine Murphy or Sandy Brindley wants to come in. If not, that is okay.

Does Jen Ang want to come in on that?

Do you have any thoughts on the term “acquired gender”? Do you want to comment on that?

I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment because he consistently raised the issue, as did Katy Clark, throughout the stage 1 evidence taking and in the stage 1 debate. However, a requirement for review is not needed in the bill. Katy Clark assures us that it would not delay the bill’s implementation. The minister might have different views on that. Any risk of delay is simply not worth it, because the committee has invested a lot in an already truncated timescale, which has been widely debated.

We are talking about there being a possibility that current legislation is not being used effectively. The argument could be made that we need new legislation so that the powers will be used. The new legislation would be in the public eye and in prosecutors’ minds to use. We all want effective legislation.

Perhaps the minister will offer that a review like the one required by the amendment could be carried out anyway. Katy Clark touched on that. The Government could do that and it does not need to be in the bill. Therefore, I am not minded to support the amendment.

I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment 67. On the face of it, it seems to make sense that people in the younger cohort are more likely to be involved in problematic firework use. However, on the other side, moving the age to 21 would perhaps negate some of the benefits of people applying for a licence and going through the training that we have talked about. Actually, that group is probably the one that we want to capture most with the training. Jamie Greene might respond to that by saying that there are other ways to ensure that people are educated, through schools and other methods. However, the licensing gives a unique opportunity for young people to look at the issues and see the consequences.

There is also the issue of criminalisation for 18 to 21-year-olds if they are prevented from getting a licence. Obviously, we want to encourage people to get a licence. On that basis, I am not likely to support amendment 67.

As Katy Clark said, on the face of it, amendment 68 seems fairly sensible, and we heard about the issue in committee. However, I would like to hear what the minister has to say on the amendment, because it raises questions for me. If one person could apply on behalf of a community, could everyone in the community use the fireworks? Who would be responsible for the risks associated with that? There are probably more question marks.

On the face of it, amendment 68 looks quite good, but it probably raises more questions, and I think that the minister is likely to ask us not to vote for it. I will wait to hear what she says on that.

I am generally supportive of amendments 60 and 61, in the name of Jamie Greene; at least, I am supportive of the principle behind them, which is an attempt to tighten up the use of licences, which is a big part of the bill.

However, as Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark have said, and as Jamie Greene has reflected on, the amendments might not be the finished article. I am keen to hear whether the minister has any concerns and if so, what they are and whether the possibility of overcriminalisation is one of them. If people are trying to do the right thing, criminalising them would not be the right way to go. However, Jamie Greene has offered to work with the minister with regard to what he is trying to achieve with the amendments, and perhaps we could take that forward at stage 3. That is a sensible approach, because we want to see the licensing scheme work.

I think that Jamie Greene’s fear—which the minister might be able to alleviate when she speaks—is that, if there is a way not to present a licence, then most people will not present one and licensing will not really be enforced. We would like to see it the other way about: if a licence is needed, you need to present one, unless you can demonstrate why you do not have to do so. I will wait to hear what the minister says about that.

I am not entirely clear how amendment 46 would work. I appreciate Katy Clark’s explanation of it, but it would be good to hear what the minister thinks about that, too.

Jamie Greene makes a point about the number of prosecutions. Who are we to say what a high number would be? As far as the amendment is concerned, what number would he have been satisfied with—500, 1,000 or 2,000? Would that still be too low? We do not really know.

Particularly in this committee, what I come back to is that, when we legislate, we cannot simply look at the number of prosecutions as the only factor. Nor should that be the only factor in the committee agreeing the principles of the bill—which, as the member rightly said, we agreed at stage 1—and whether to introduce new legislation. Part of the role of legislation is to act as a deterrent; it is not necessarily about ensuring criminal prosecutions, which, as I think we will also agree, can harm individuals, too. I wanted to make that point.