Seòmar agus comataidhean

I accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that regulations about the requirements that a person must meet in order to be treated as a professional organiser of firework and pyrotechnic displays should be subject to affirmative procedure. While the matter is finely balanced, I understand that, if any regulations are made in this area, it will impact on whether such persons are exempt from certain offences under the bill. Amendment 31 therefore delivers the DPLRC’s recommendation that regulations made under section 35(2)(b) are subject to the affirmative procedure. Regulatory authorities, as well as those acting under their direction, are fully exempt from the restrictions on the days of use of fireworks, including on fireworks within a firework control zone, and from the possession of pyrotechnic articles at certain places or events. Those exemptions are necessary to enable regulatory authorities to continue to undertake essential enforcement functions in connection with fireworks legislation and offences—including, for example, test purchasing, testing of firework products, and controlled disposals.

Following the bill’s introduction, we identified that similar exemptions from the licensing requirement for certain activities carried out by third parties on behalf of regulatory authorities, as I have just described, are also required. Amendments 32 to 35 therefore seek to fulfil the original policy intent of the provisions, to allow regulatory authorities to continue to carry out their essential work.

Amendments 39 and 42 ensure that young people under the age of 18 in education, training or employment will be able to access and use fireworks and pyrotechnics when needed for legitimate purposes in direct relation to that education, training or employment.

Amendment 42 adds an exemption from the prohibition on providing fireworks or pyrotechnic articles to children to ensure that those in education, training or employment are not adversely impacted. Amendment 39 removes an exemption relating to under-18s employed in firework businesses, which is no longer necessary as a consequence of amendment 42, which is broad enough to include such persons.

Amendment 43 ensures that certain individuals carrying out vital functions, including armed forces members, cadets, law enforcement and other emergency services, can continue to carry out any of their functions that involve possessing or using pyrotechnic articles. The amendment provides exemptions from the restrictions in the bill for the armed forces of Her Majesty, cadets and overseas members undertaking activities with the armed forces cadets, as well as for those members of other services or organisations involved in law enforcement, search and rescue services or the preservation of life. That could include, for example, search and rescue volunteers.

I move amendment 31 and I hope that committee members can support it.

Amendment 31 agreed to.

Section 35, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1—Exemptions

Amendments 32 to 35 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Ash Regan].

The definition used mirrors the one provided in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.

There are two instruments in front of you, the first of which provides a legal framework to allow certain offensive weapons to be handed in to the police. The member is right that compensation can be sought in return, but we have to do this ahead of the change in the law that is coming into force in a few months’ time and which will criminalise the possession of certain offensive weapons in a private setting. That is the new part of the law, but in order to bring it in, we must provide a compensation scheme.

I can go through the weapons that are listed for the committee, but the list is very long. In any case, all the knives and weapons that are affected by the instrument are listed so, if the member is interested, he can check what they are.

We want to get those weapons out of circulation, and we are encouraging the public to go to a police station at a designated time. However, they should check that their local police station is the right place to hand weapons in. They can be handed in at certain times of day, and there will be certain ways in which people can do so.

The second instrument just adds zombie knives to the list of weapons affected. There are two separate instruments, but they operate as one to all intents and purposes.

We intend to publicise the scheme. I ask Philip Lamont—who has now reached the right page of his briefing—to explain how we will do that.

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?