Seòmar agus comataidhean

Currently, all retailers who wish to sell fireworks are required to have an appropriate storage licence in place, and they are able to sell fireworks on set dates throughout the year without holding an additional sales licence. The dates on which an additional sales licence is not required are set out in the Fireworks Regulations 2004. Therefore, I have lodged amendment 22 to align the permitted days of supply in the bill with the periods where an additional sales licence is not required by those regulations. That will permit Scottish retailers to supply fireworks during the permitted periods of supply that are set out in the bill without requiring an all-year storage licence. I hope that members will support amendment 22.

Amendments 93, 96 and 97, which were lodged by Mr Greene, seek to remove the permitted days of supply as set out in the bill and replace them with a regulation-making power to set those out instead. A majority of those who responded to our 2021 consultation on the bill’s provisions agreed with the introduction of restrictions on the days on which fireworks can be sold to the general public. The proposed permitted periods were clearly set out in the consultation. The support for that proposal in the consultation was primarily on the basis that it would provide more clarity to the public as to when fireworks are likely to be used and therefore enable people to better predict their use and plan and mitigate accordingly.

Therefore, I consider that the provision in the bill provides the right balance of certainty and flexibility. It is the result of extensive consultation with relevant groups and is aligned with existing legislation. The bill includes a power to amend the days if necessary. Therefore, I do not support those amendments.

Mr Greene and Ms McNeill referred to the permitted dates as “arbitrary”. I want to rebut that in the strongest possible terms. The permitted dates broadly align with existing periods. Therefore, they are not arbitrary, and they have been consulted on extensively. On the black market issue that Mr Greene raised in his contribution, I sent a letter to the committee last week that set out the extensive steps that will be taken on that issue.

Mr Greene also raised a point about the retailers that would continue to supply and sell fireworks. There is an established group of major retailers. We have had some engagement with them, and there have been no indications by any of the retailers in that group that they intend to change their plans to sell fireworks. Therefore, it is quite simply not correct for Mr Greene to say that the bill will shut down the industry. The vast majority of retailers can continue to sell fireworks at the traditional times of the year.

I thank Ms McNeill for the time that she spent discussing amendment 9 with me a few weeks ago, in advance of stage 2. Her commitment to empowering local communities is to be admired. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind her amendment, I think that there are issues with it.

Amendment 9 seeks to provide a formal process for community groups to instigate consideration of a firework control zone, and to impose a duty on local authorities to respond to such groups. Sections 30 and 31 of the bill enable the Scottish ministers to make further regulations about firework control zones and to issue guidance that local authorities must have regard to. I believe that that guidance, which will be co-designed with local authorities, is a more appropriate route than amendment 9 is for setting out further detail on the procedures for control zones, including procedures for involving local communities.

Amendment 9 could result in a considerable resource burden being put on local authorities. It makes no provision for a limit on the number of times that the same group of relevant people could make a request and it does not say whether a local authority could decline a representation if it had carried out a consultation recently.

With firework control zones, it is intended that more than antisocial behaviour will be taken into account. For example, it will be possible for the impact of noise—even noise that results from responsible use—and the proximity of vulnerable populations to a designated zone, which Katy Clark addressed in the debate on a previous group, to be taken into account.

For those reasons, unfortunately, I cannot support amendment 9.

My ministerial colleagues and I are always prepared to keep the law under review. Indeed, that willingness to review the law led us to introduce the bill.

The bill reflects a period of significant consultation and engagement with the public and stakeholders, alongside careful consideration of the evidence available, a key component of which was examining the existing legislation. The conclusions of the firework review group and the misuse of pyrotechnics stakeholder discussions identified gaps and a need for primary legislation.

Just to be clear, the firework review group reviewed the existing legislation, and the bill that you have in front of you is based on its programme of work and its evidence gathering. Further, amendment 59 would require a review of gaps in existing legislation or unnecessary legislation, not enforcement. Therefore, I consider that further review before commencement is not necessary and that, in fact, by delaying the commencement of these necessary provisions, the amendment would do a disservice to those stakeholders and members of the general public who have made their views on the need for legislative change clear. I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 59, and, should he do so, I ask the committee not to support it.

The member is partly right, in that we cannot regulate behaviour outside of Scotland. That is why we used the term “supply” in drafting the legislation, so that it covers all parts of the process that are not at the point of purchase. Only specialist couriers can deliver fireworks, and the fireworks will be marked as explosives so that they cannot be delivered by normal couriers.

Yes. Obviously, there are a number of ways in which you could approach that. As we know, the firework review group came up with a set of recommendations. The licensing scheme is a key part of the bill, but it is a key part of a wider set of provisions. As Pauline McNeill mentioned, there are other provisions in the bill to deal with certain types of behaviour.

The idea behind the licensing scheme is to make the purchase of fireworks a planned event and to move away from the situation where people can buy fireworks spontaneously without having to understand how to use them, where to use them, how to use them safely and so on. If the bill is passed and people have to apply for a licence, they will have to learn about the safe and lawful use of fireworks before they are able to use them. Therefore, I consider the licensing scheme to be a key part of the set of provisions.

It is both. There is a requirement on suppliers to take reasonable steps to establish whether the purchaser has a licence or is exempt. There is also a duty on the person purchasing to have a licence in order to comply with the law. That will also apply to delivery drivers, which covers the point that Russell Findlay and others made about online sales.

No. Training is just a part of the whole policy intent, as I think I have outlined in my responses. I take the member’s point, but if you said that you would just like people to be trained before they use a firework, without a licence and mandatory training, you would be reducing it to some sort of voluntary system—[Interruption.] Is that what you were implying?

Within the powers that are available to Parliament, that is the method that was designed in order to effect the policy intention, which is to make people use fireworks in a safe and lawful way and to ensure that people cannot spontaneously purchase fireworks—they could not just run into the shops, buy fireworks and use them in ways that most of us would consider to be, at least in part, antisocial. I hope that that answers Katy Clark’s question.

For those reasons, I do not support amendments 46, 60 or 61, and I ask the committee not to support them.

Can you give me a moment? I do not have that information in front of me, so I will have to look it up.

Will the member take an intervention?