Seòmar agus comataidhean

When members take time to lodge amendments and work together as a team in committee, I always try to find some common ground, even if I do not intend to vote for those amendments. Nevertheless, I have to start with a caveat—almost an apology—that I completely disagree with the amendments in group 5.

I feel that the bill, which we have already taken through stage 1, already strikes the right balance in this respect. In my view—the minister has been clear on this—the aim of the bill is not to engage in unnecessary criminalisation, but to change the relationship with, and use of, fireworks in this country, which is a major problem for communities.

Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene talked about the need for the option of a custodial sentence, but I cannot think of an example that would merit such a sentence. Even the most serious instance that we could imagine, such as an assault on emergency workers, would already be covered by other laws that could be utilised by the prosecution service.

What we are talking about is the use of fireworks as we currently experience it in Scotland. I think that the bill already strikes a balance, and already puts power with the courts. The committee took evidence from one of the panels—I cannot remember which one—on the subject of disposals that would lead people, and young people in particular, to look at their behaviour. We know that some community groups are doing really good work in that area. I will not go through all the amendments in the group individually. I respect the work that Russell Findlay has put into bringing them together, because there is quite a lot in there, but I am absolutely not going to support them. I think that the bill already strikes a balance.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for amendments 1 and 69. From what I picked up, Pauline McNeill and Russell Findlay do not sound as though they are coming at the issue in a hard fashion. Obviously, Pauline will sum up on amendment 1. I think that the amendments are a request to the Government to say more about its thinking in this area, because the committee has had quite a lot of discussion about it.

It goes back to my earlier point. The whole purpose of the scheme is to get folk on to the licence through the training. The fewer barriers that there are to that, the better. It is common sense that the higher the fee is, the more people will decide not to get a licence.

We have to be honest. We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis that is having an impact on all our constituencies. My constituency is very much impacted. I am not an expert on costs and prices or on where the public might be with that, but I agree with Pauline McNeill that £20 to £25 will seem more reasonable than £50 in people’s minds when they are struggling to heat their homes.

Like other members, I am interested in hearing the Government’s thoughts on the issue. I know, from the session that the minister attended, that the Government is very conscious of the issue—it has always been very conscious, across the board, of the cost of living.

I cannot support the amendments in the name of Russell Findlay as they stand just now. Having to disclose every offence would be unnecessary and possibly far too intrusive. There are tight regulations on the disclosure of offences, which happens only when someone appears at court for sentencing, say, or in other such scenarios. I also point out that the minister’s amendment 15, which I am minded to support, now means that spent convictions will have to be disclosed, which is perhaps even more important.

However, I think that Russell Findlay’s amendment 74 has some scope, and it is good to hear the minister say that the matter will be looked at before stage 3. There is scope for widening the provision beyond, say, fireworks offences—indeed, we can all think of various offences that might be relevant—but the Government and Russell Findlay will have to do a lot of work on how that might work and whether such a provision might infringe other human rights.

As I have said in relation to the last three groups of amendments, we want people to use the licensing scheme, and if someone with an offence from 20 years ago does not really know whether it will come up, they might well be put off applying for a licence and continue to use fireworks anyway. However, although a lot of work needs to be done, I definitely welcome these moves and think that there is scope to increase the offences to be disclosed.

Do you feel that that has increased as there has been a debate around the issue, or have you always been asked for advice on it?

Thanks, Malcolm. I nudge Hugh to answer that as well.

This is more of a remark that does not have anything to do with the legislation, as you have been quite clear that the legislation does not really impact on sport. However, it sounds as though trans people have an unpredictable future in sport, because all that it would take would be a change in organisational structure, the people at the top of the organisation, or in the standing orders for there to be a significant change in their participation. That is more of a remark than anything else, convener.

Good morning. I have two broad areas of questioning. The first is on the evidence that the committee has heard in support of the removal of the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Ellie Gomersall, we have already heard your opening statement, in which you made your views and those of your organisation quite clear. Before I come to Bruce Adamson, do you wish to put any other views on that requirement on the record, for the benefit of committee members?

Thank you for being as brief as you can be about an issue that I know you are passionate about.

I turn to Ellie Gomersall. Can you answer the question in two parts? First, will you look at the criminal offence in terms of the 16 to 18-year-olds whom you represent? Do you have any concerns there? Secondly, will you talk about the wider implications for over-18s? I know that your organisation also represents them.

My question broadly follows on from Alexander Stewart’s line of questioning. You talked about responses to the consultation on the joint guidance that was published. What sort of response have you had since the guidance was published? Have the trends been the same, with the two trains of thought that you have spoken about, or have you had further responses that have given you cause for consideration?

Thanks very much for that and for taking the opportunity to reinforce your earlier point. Bruce Adamson, do you have any thoughts on that area?