Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to both instruments at the same time in this short opening statement.

The Surrender of Offensive Weapons (Compensation) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 provide the legislative framework for a scheme to allow legitimate owners of certain highly dangerous offensive weapons to hand them in to the police and receive compensation from the Scottish Government for doing so.

The scheme, which follows that of a similar scheme in England and Wales last year, is required, because a change in the law will shortly be implemented that will criminalise the private possession of such highly dangerous offensive weapons. Before that change can be made, legitimate owners have to be given the opportunity to be compensated in order to protect their property rights under human rights law.

The scheme will operate on very similar terms to the scheme operated in England and Wales by the UK Government and police forces down there. There is no requirement to claim compensation and weapons can be simply surrendered without compensation being given. However, if compensation is wanted, a claim form must be filled in and handed to the police at the same time as the weapon is surrendered. The Scottish Government will then process the claim.

Under the regulations, any overall claim must be for at least £30 to ensure that there are no undue costs in administering individual claims. Again, that is the same as the equivalent scheme in England and Wales.

The type of weapons covered include knuckle dusters, hand claws, foot claws and push daggers, all of which have no benign use and already carry with them tight restrictions such as a ban on sale, manufacture and importation. However, some people might have purchased such weapons prior to the restrictions coming in or might have inherited them, and the scheme protects the rights of owners of such weapons while getting the weapons out of circulation and out of harm’s way.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (Scotland) Order 2022 adds what is called a zombie knife to the list of highly dangerous offensive weapons already subject to the restrictions on their sale, manufacture and importation. In other words, zombie knives will be treated like knuckle dusters, push daggers and so on and will no longer be able to be sold, manufactured or imported.

The type of weapon called a zombie knife has been developed in recent years following its glamorisation in zombie-type films. Although they are not known to be common in Scotland, we think that it is sensible to add those weapons to the existing list. The order will also allow Scottish ministers to make arrangements for a surrender and compensation scheme for those knives in the same way as I have just set out.

The zombie knives scheme is required for the same reasons as the scheme under the 2022 regulations. In other words, it is required to protect the property rights of legitimate owners, as was done in England and Wales by the UK Government.

From the perspective of members of the public, there will be just one overall scheme. It will run from 1 July to 30 September this year for zombie knives and the other weapons covered by the regulations. Once that has happened, the Scottish Government will proceed to commence the new law, which makes it an offence to possess those weapons in private.

The permitted periods in the bill are broadly in line with the traditional fireworks periods, as we discussed under the previous group. That is when most retailers in Scotland are permitted to sell fireworks, and it is when the use of fireworks by the general public is most prevalent. Our intention in introducing restricted days of use is to address the negative impacts of unpredictable firework use while retaining periods during which fireworks may be used appropriately by the general public. It was recognised that setting permitted periods for use provides flexibility to allow celebrations to go ahead on or around the date, which allows for postponement or delays due to inclement weather or unsafe conditions.

Will Jamie Greene take an intervention on that point?

Yes—I wanted to come in on that point. That is the reason why the period for the use of fireworks extends slightly beyond the supply period: to give an extra couple of days, for the precise reason that the member has raised. Also, if there is a situation where someone has bought them—as the member said, they might have spent several hundred pounds on fireworks but they have not been able to use them within that permitted period of use—they can store them safely and appropriately if they wish and then use them in the next permitted period of use.

That is one of the good things about the training course, because, in the training course materials, we will be able to educate people on appropriate ways to store fireworks and on how to use them safely.

Of course.

There was much discussion at stage 1 regarding enforcement of fireworks legislation and particular emphasis was given to the number of prosecutions in the data provided by the Crown Office.

During stage 1 proceedings, our colleagues in Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation made it clear that a presumption of contents clause would be an appropriate and efficient cost saving measure, removing the requirement to submit all items for examination in order to prove an offence. The Criminal Justice Committee heard those concerns and recommended that I bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to address the issues.

I welcome that recommendation from the committee and amendment 44 gives effect to it. It makes provision for an evidential presumption to operate in proceedings for offences under the bill. Evidence will only require to be led to prove that element of the offence if a party seeks to rebut the presumption by contrary evidence. I consider that that will ease the burden on our police forces to evidence offences under the bill, while still allowing for fairness to the accused.

Amendment 45 seeks to reduce the burden falling on evidencing certain matters so that only one source of evidence is required. My officials have engaged with Trading Standards Scotland and the Explosives Industry Group to confirm the existing process that is followed in relation to testing and certification of fireworks and engaged with the Crown Office in the process of drafting the amendment. I am confident that it provides for a robust and appropriate means of reducing the evidential burden on enforcement agencies while maintaining the integrity of Scots law.

I move amendment 44, and hope that members will support it.

I share Mr Greene’s views on the importance of firework safety.

Much of what is included in Mr Greene’s amendment reflects what was proposed in the British Fireworks Association’s 10-point plan. I have said on a number of occasions that I welcome much of that plan and the good progress that is being made in a number of the areas that are highlighted in it.

However, through my actions, I have already made clear my strong commitment to firework safety, so it is not necessary or appropriate to use the bill to write into legislation stated policy commitments, which follow on from the fireworks action plan that was published in 2019. That plan sets out the range of legislative and non-legislative actions that have been and will continue to be progressed. Those actions will collectively support a change in how fireworks are used in Scotland.

I will address a couple of points that Jamie Greene mentioned. As he will have noted, we provided additional funding to trading standards last year to support enforcement of the Fireworks (Scotland) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2021. That demonstrates our commitment to funding enforcement. Learning from that will be helpful in relation to enforcement measures in general, if the bill is passed. I set out more detail on that in the letter that I sent to the committee last week.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 127 and urge the committee not to support it.

The amendments in group 11 make provisions relating to the format of a fireworks licence. In particular, they set out entitlement to a paper licence and specific steps in the licence revocation process based on the format of the licence.

As Jamie Greene picked up, it has always been planned that, for operation of the system, paper licences be developed and made available. I think that I made reference to that at stage 1. I recognise that, in the 2020 Scottish household survey, about 14 per cent of people with access to the internet did not have access to a smartphone. I do not want to create a licensing system that prevents anyone from holding a licence simply because of the format in which it is available.

Although I agree that entitlement to non-digital forms of licence is essential, I do not believe that it is necessary to make provision in regulations to ensure that there is an entitlement to a paper licence. In my opinion, that is an operational detail that will be put in place as the system is designed.

However, should that become an issue in practice, my amendment 18, which was agreed to last week, provides the Scottish ministers with adequate powers to deal with the matter through secondary legislation, if required.

Regarding revocation of licences, it is intended that information regarding the date on which revocation takes effect will be included in the revocation notice, and that that will apply to all forms of licence.

I do not believe that amendments 82 and 83 are necessary. Indeed, they could even create confusion about what is necessary for the different forms of licence, because by leaving it open we cater for all the various possibilities—a digital licence, a paper licence, a combination of the two or another format that might emerge in the future that we are, at this point, not aware of.

On that basis, I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 81 and not to move his other amendments in the group. If he does, I ask the committee not to support them.

Can the committee give me a moment?

As I have explained already, we retain a provision in the bill to add groups or dates that have been missed out. I am confident that, because of the extensive engagement that we have undertaken, we have not missed any out but the mechanism exists. If groups feel that they have been unfairly disadvantaged, they can contact the Government, which would be able to examine the matter and decide whether it was appropriate to add further dates.

The days of use provision as drafted is sufficiently robust and is the result of a period of prolonged consultation. It is coupled with a power in the bill to amend the days of use if necessary, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 3 and 4.

Amendment 5, which is also proposed by Ms McNeill, seeks to ensure that information is available, and that public awareness is raised, about the days in each year when it is permitted to use fireworks. The three existing Scottish Government-funded communication campaigns will be updated and aligned to ensure that there is broad public awareness and understanding of the changes that will be brought in should the bill be passed. I agree with the committee that that is extremely important. The information that is described in amendment 5 will be made available to the public in that way and there is no need to include provision in the bill to achieve that.

For those reasons, I do not support any of the amendments in the group and I urge the committee not to support them if they are pressed.

I do not have any indication of that at the moment. I imagine that local authorities will be very keen to create zones, particularly those authorities that we know have an issue. Indeed, I can speak to the city of Edinburgh’s position in that respect; we—certainly those who represent Edinburgh—and the local authority are aware of particular hotspots. I expect that local authorities will seek to set zones to cover just the areas where they have issues. At this stage, they have not indicated to me the likely size of such zones, which is why Scottish ministers retain the power under the legislation to set their size in the event of the circumstance that the member has raised.

I hope that the committee will support my amendment. Unfortunately, I am not able to support Mr Findlay or Ms Clark’s amendments. I therefore ask Mr Findlay not to press his amendment and both members not to move their other amendments in the group. However, if they do, I ask the committee not to support them.