Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that I mentioned to Fulton MacGregor that we received that 10-point plan, and that some of those recommendations were for the UK Government to consider, not us. There were some good suggestions in the plan, and we considered the issue that you mention.

However, we do not have plans to raise the minimum age for buying fireworks at the moment, because a blanket ban on the sale and use of fireworks for adults between the ages of, let us say, 18 and 21 or 25 could be disproportionate and, potentially, discriminatory, particularly compared with other relevant age limits on comparable goods and services.

We do not have evidence that suggests that the bill will fuel a black market. We have looked carefully at evidence from countries where restrictions have been tightened, and we did not find any that it has fuelled the black market. There does not seem to be much evidence of a black market in Scotland at the moment. Clearly, the agencies at work in the area will continue to review that. I hope that we will be able to come back to the committee with evidence on that in a few years, so that we can discuss what impact the measures have had.

When we talk about restricting fireworks, people will often talk about the merits of a ban or not having a ban. As I set out, we considered that. I think the member will accept that, for constitutional reasons, Scotland is not able to do everything exactly the way it would want to; we have to work within the constitutional arrangements. Natalie Stewart and I have explained how that impacted on what we are doing here. We also decided not to pursue a ban for policy reasons anyway, because we did not think it was proportionate. I have already set that out in detail.

On businesses, about 650 retailers supply fireworks to the public, I think, most of which do so on a seasonal or temporary basis. They supply them at the typical times of year, as you might expect: around bonfire season and new year. The provisions in the bill broadly align with that. A small number of businesses—nine, I think—sell fireworks all year round, and another business sells and also imports them, which takes us up to 10. Elinor Findlay will correct me if I am getting this wrong. Those 10 businesses have a different licence to sell. Clearly, the provisions on supply that are contained in the bill will potentially have an impact on those businesses.

We have said, therefore, that when we are able to receive evidence on the type of effect that the bill has had on those businesses, we will develop a compensation scheme for them to ensure that they will not suffer in that way.

It is important to look at what other countries are doing. There is no point in reinventing the wheel with this policy. It is obviously a good idea to look at things that have worked well elsewhere. The converse is also true. We want to look at where things have not worked well, if we can find the data. The problem is that it can often be difficult to find data that can be used to illustrate the policy. The data also comes from a different setting. It is not advisable to take something that works well somewhere else and just drop it into Scotland, because of the different context. We took all that into account.

The review group spent some time looking at other jurisdictions, particularly Northern Ireland and Ireland, to see what was working elsewhere. Obviously, those two jurisdictions are not the same—Northern Ireland has a licensing system, while Ireland has a complete ban—so, again, the context is quite different. Nevertheless, from the data that we have been able to see, it looks as though there has been a reduction in harms in both those settings.

I think that Elinor Findlay has found the right page of the briefing, so I will let her give you a bit more detail on that point.

In 2019, I launched a public consultation following incidents over the bonfire season in previous years. There was an overwhelming response of more than 16,400 replies. Analytical work was also undertaken, including an opinion poll, to provide views representative of adults in Scotland. A strong message emerged from that work that the status quo was not an option.

It was clear that people wanted change and to see tighter controls on the sale and use of fireworks in Scotland. The representative opinion poll showed that a majority of adults in Scotland felt that there should be more controls over the sale of fireworks, at 71 per cent, and over their use, at 68 per cent. Contributing factors included the misuse of fireworks and the wider harm, noise and disturbance that fireworks can cause. People thought that there is a place for well-organised firework displays, but the unpredictable use of fireworks by members of the public was identified as a problem.

I established the independent firework review group to consider all the available evidence and the legislative options for change. The group reached a majority consensus that a fundamental change is required in how fireworks are accessed and used by the public. The misuse of pyrotechnics is a growing problem that can cause injury, distress, alarm and damage to property. Although we are not aware of any fatalities due to pyrotechnic misuse in Scotland, there have been severe injuries. There have been fatalities in other countries, and I want to do all that I can to prevent fatalities or further injuries from happening in Scotland.

In response to the significant concerns that have been raised, the Scottish Government hosted a series of discussions with stakeholders to look at what more could be done. As a result, I made the decision to consult more widely on the misuse of pyrotechnics as part of the broader 2021 consultation. The results of the consultation show that a majority of those who responded agree with each of the provisions that are included in the bill, that 84 per cent agree that a fireworks licensing system should be introduced and that 83 per cent agree with the introduction of no-firework areas.

The bill has five key policies. First, it proposes a firework licensing system, which will require the public to apply for a licence to purchase, acquire, possess and use F2 and F3 fireworks. Secondly, it proposes restrictions on the days on which fireworks can be supplied to and used by the public, which will broadly align with existing traditional firework periods. Thirdly, it proposes firework control zones, which will provide local authorities with the power to designate areas where it is not permitted for the public to use fireworks, so that communities can have a much greater say in how fireworks can be used in their local area. Fourthly, the bill proposes a proxy purchase and supply offence to ensure that adults who supply fireworks or pyrotechnic articles to children, under any circumstances, can be held accountable. Finally, it proposes an offence of being in possession of a pyrotechnic without reasonable excuse while travelling to, being in the immediate vicinity of or attending a designated sporting or music venue or event, or a public procession or public assembly.

I am aware that legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom to ban certain types of fireworks, such as bangers. That has been successful, as has been highlighted by the fireworks industry. It is clear that legislation can have a positive and direct impact in reducing harm.

To conclude, convener, these issues are complex, but the bill strikes a proportionate balance between introducing the necessary restrictions and ensuring that robust checks and balances are in place to mitigate unintended consequences, while fully utilising the powers of the Parliament to reduce harms and help us to protect our communities.

I think that they were called firework control areas. Elinor Findlay will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that was in the first consultation.

There are well-established processes for enforcing the existing regulations. I return to my previous point that the legislation is an attempt to change primarily the way in which we buy fireworks and to a lesser extent the way in which we use them.

As I said, an immense amount of work goes into preparing for the run-up to bonfire night. As the committee may have heard, it is no longer just one night—it has turned into a season that is spread out over a longer period. Once fireworks get into the hands of people who are intent on misusing them, there is a much bigger challenge for us in dealing with that. The legislation in front of the committee is an attempt to go some way towards addressing that. I think that, once we see a change in how we use fireworks and in the culture of their use, that will, over time, have an impact on enforcement.

There were quite a few parts to your question. I will try to cover all those points, but you can come back to me if I do not cover them all. You asked about existing legislation and, in particular, the issue of under-18s. There is already UK legislation on that—it is currently illegal to supply fireworks on a commercial basis to those who are under 18. However, we have heard—I do not know whether the committee has heard this—significant anecdotal evidence that parents, and certainly adults, are purchasing fireworks and supplying them to children. The proxy purchasing offence was developed in order to close that loophole. Children will not be criminalised at all, but the provision is an attempt to hold those adults to account for that. It also ensures that we are limiting where fireworks potentially end up. Fireworks are explosive devices, and we want to be careful about who is able to use them.

In addition, the measures in the bill give us the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage. We can then prevent some of the issues that many of us see in our constituencies from happening.

Does Elinor Findlay want to add anything on that point?

I think that I have already answered that question, and I have been quite clear about it. With regard to proceedings, it is up to our independent court service how it chooses to take things forward. We can give that information to the committee.

I come back to the point that I was trying to make earlier. I am not sure that the scale of the problem is reflected in the way that Jamie Greene is trying to characterise it. The evidence that the review group and the Government looked at included emergency services incident data, for example. That evidence includes the volume of firework-related incidents that were reported to the police, and data on attacks on emergency service workers, which tells us that there is a spike in attacks on fire crews over the bonfire period. I know that Jamie Greene has a personal interest in that issue, and I am sure that he would be keen to see an improvement in those figures. Around 40 per cent of those acts of violence happen around the bonfire night period. I am sure that Jamie Greene would say that we should take that evidence very seriously—

I will let Elinor Findlay come in and give that information again. We have already given that information—it has been freely available and was published by the Government several years ago, and we have said that we will share it with the committee.

I agree with that, but first I will respond to your point that people who use fireworks antisocially are unlikely to apply for a licence. Previously, they would just go into a shop and buy the fireworks or—we have anecdotal evidence on this—adults would buy the fireworks for them if they were under the age of 18.

I was in Pollokshields with a group of boys, who I think were between the ages of 15 and 17, who had been involved in antisocial behaviour with fireworks. I sat with them while they were going through a programme that was being run specifically in the area for people who had been involved in antisocial behaviour with fireworks. The programme was about safety, the law and how to use fireworks appropriately. When we change the legislation, we hope that people who are under 18 will not be able to just go to the shop to buy fireworks. In addition, hopefully, their parents will understand that they are not allowed to buy fireworks to give to under-18s. Therefore, I hope that the legislation will bring right down the numbers for the spontaneous purchasing of fireworks for antisocial use.

A lot of work has been done in Pollokshields. I have seen some of it for myself. I do not remember when I went there; it was probably more than two years ago because it was before the pandemic. I can try to find out a little more about that programme. That example comes from the non-court disposal side of things. We will try to get more information from the Crown Office to answer your question.

Collette Stevenson makes a good point. I am really interested in that. We can all see that reduced-noise or silent fireworks, while not addressing misuse, would go a long way towards addressing concerns about noise disturbance. There can be sporadic noise over quite a long period, which can be very disturbing for people who have animals.

We looked into that. Industry experts advised us that, at present, there is no recognised standard or specification to identify or distinguish lower-noise fireworks. I think that the industry might be working on that; Elinor Findlay might be able to say more. It is an interesting development that could be beneficial. In an attempt to future proof the bill, we have put in the ability to update it. Should it become possible to identify and use low-noise fireworks, we will be able to update the bill on that accordingly.

Elinor, do you have anything to add?