Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will make two points. First, I am unaware of Police Scotland’s response to the amendments. It would have been helpful to be aware of that, given that Police Scotland raised the issue in oral and, I think, written evidence, and members tried to propose changes. It is unhelpful that we will have to vote on the amendments today. I would like to get a feel for whether Police Scotland supports the Government’s revised approach. If we knew that, it would help with the decision-making process when we come to vote for or against the amendments.

My second point, which is more technical, is about the classification of devices. The minister might supply guidance in that regard. My understanding is that we do not want to overly penalise the use of category 1 fireworks. I think that the word “sparklers” was used, but the minister will be aware that sparklers can fall into multiple categories. A category 1 sparkler is one that is up to 7.5g; anything over that is in category 2 and will be excluded. How will that be enforced?

The same goes for flares, which come in three categories. A flare of up to 20g is in category 1, a flare between 20g and 250g is in category 2, and the biggest flares, which are between 250g and 1kg, are in category 3. There seem to be three types of device whose use is problematic in public places and specifically at football matches, demonstrations and other events. There are smoke generators, which I think are pyrotechnic articles; marine flares, which are legally purchased pyrotechnic articles; and other flares, which fall into the category of fireworks. The most commonly used flares at football games are Bengal flames, which are perfectly legal category 1 fireworks when they are up to 20g, but which can be in category 2 or above.

I want to be sure that the Government has considered all the technicalities when it comes to which fireworks are exempt and which are excluded, because it is not as simple as talking about F1, F2, F3 and so on, given the interaction between articles and their use, illicit or otherwise, in different places.

Amendment 127 seeks to insert a new part into the bill, called “Improvement of Firework Safety”. In essence, the whole bill is about improving firework safety. I am asking Scottish ministers to publish and lay before Parliament a firework safety plan, the content of which is detailed in my proposed amendment. I will run through it quickly.

Proposed new subsection (2)(a) provides for

“the development of an annual ... safety campaign”,

which will educate the public through a variety of channels about the dangers of fireworks and how they can be used safely. It is not just for those people who go through the licensing process but is much wider than that.

Proposed new subsection (2)(b) goes on to address the sale of illegal fireworks online to ensure that people who are selling or attempting to sell fireworks through non-legitimate channels are deterred from doing so. I ask the Government to work with social media companies, for example, to clamp down on or remove posts that involve illicit selling. That should also provide an opportunity to interact with young people on such platforms and to educate them accordingly.

Subsection 2(c) of the proposed new section relates to

“the provision of additional, seasonal funding to help tackle any increase in illegal fireworks”.

Specifically, that may be helpful to the emergency services, which experience peaks of problematic behaviour at certain times of the year. We know that, when the emergency services are properly funded and resourced, they do good work. Members may be aware that, last year, for example, around £20,000 of illegal fireworks were seized in the Drumchapel area just ahead of bonfire night. That is one of many examples; there were other examples in Pollokshields. It would be important as part of the safety plan for ministers to outline what funding will be allocated to the enforcement of the

“detection and apprehension of illegal fireworks”,

which is specifically asked of the Government in paragraph (d).

The next point is an interesting one. I believe that the fireworks safety plan should also include a central point of contact for reporting the misuse of fireworks. One of the big issues that the committee has raised is the inability to identify the scale of the problem and the confusion among the wider public when there is misuse of fireworks. Who should they report that to? Is it illegal, or is it just antisocial? Are calls being made to trading standards officers, to local authorities, to police or to the fire service, whether using emergency or non-emergency numbers? Some centralisation of reporting and data collection would be extremely useful and would help the Government to understand whether legislation such as this has been effective.

Paragraph (f) relates to the standardisation of

“reporting for injuries caused solely by fireworks”.

We have heard evidence throughout this process of a lack of clarity as to whether, when people present in accident and emergency units, the injury is solely related to fireworks or is part of a bigger picture. It is difficult to understand the scale and volume of injuries caused by fireworks, and some standardised reporting would be of great benefit.

Paragraph (g) asks the Scottish ministers to co-operate

“at border control for the prevention of illegal fireworks entering Scotland,”

given that we will have a different regulatory regime. That is not asking ministers to enforce things outside our jurisdiction, but there is real potential for an influx of illicit products from England and Europe. That should be part of the safety plan.

Paragraph (h) covers

“co-operation with retailers about their continued supply of fireworks,”

which is fairly self-explanatory. That provision takes into account the results of those provisions in the bill that will change the retail landscape of the sale of fireworks.

As always, there is also a provision to cover

“such other matters as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”

I have created a non-exhaustive list. It will be familiar to many members: it has appeared, in parts, in the industry’s submission to the Government regarding a firework safety plan. In response, the industry has supported my amendment, saying:

“The Scottish Government has a real opportunity to not only improve fireworks safety, but to also minimise the risk of unintended consequences. By working with the industry, the message of the safe, considerate and responsible use of fireworks would be channelled through official retailers. By working with the industry, we could provide vital training to enforcement authorities on what to look for with regard to illegal storage, selling and illegal product.”

For the benefit of members and the official report, that letter is on the record.

Amendment 127 has been widely well received by the fireworks industry; it was also proposed by the industry. I have tried to remove elements of its plans that I deemed to be outside the competence of the bill or indeed the Scottish Government.

I hope that that is a sensible approach to putting on the statute books a requirement for the Government to publish a plan and lay it before Parliament for consideration—if the Government does not accept the amendment, it could come back with its own proposals at stage 3. Ultimately, the approach proposed in the amendment will produce the beneficial outcomes that we all want, many of which the bill will not produce—as we all know.

I move amendment 127.

Mr Findlay is entitled to intervene.

Good morning. We have a lot to get through today.

The amendments in this small group are technical ones that seek to improve the licensing scheme, should it proceed. Amendment 81 to section 10 would simply ensure that ministers make provision for there being paper copies of a person’s licence if, for example, it has been issued digitally. That is simply to provide for people who are unable to access, or are excluded from, the digital world. As we know, that is a common theme that crops up.

Amendments 82 and 83 are also technical amendments on that subject, but they relate to section 12 and when a licence has been revoked. Amendment 83 would require that a licence holder must return a paper copy of a licence should the licence be revoked or expire. We might come on to the length of licences.

The amendments are aimed at improving the bill by providing commonsense arrangements for issuing and returning licences. They would simply ensure that someone who should no longer have a licence could not still use a licence that has expired or use it in the unlikely event of its having been revoked.

I press on the Government the point that we want the licensing scheme to be accessible and open, including digitally, to as many people as possible. For example, in relation to Covid certification over the past couple of years, we have seen where such a system can work well and where it can go wrong.

I hope that the amendments are helpful. I appreciate that the minister will probably say that much of what is in them will be dealt with in the secondary legislation that will be introduced when the nature of the scheme has been agreed and pinned down. I respect that, but I think that it would be helpful to include my amendments to improve, where possible, the licensing scheme in advance of its production.

I move amendment 81.

I am happy to clarify that. I have on purpose not said what the Government should specifically do after its review—all I have proposed is that it should make proposals in relation to the scheme as it considers appropriate. That would give ministers a wide-ranging power. If through consultation or analysis—academic or otherwise—it transpires that the fee is putting people off, and the Government makes a policy decision to ditch the fee but to continue with the licence scheme, that will be a political decision for the Government of the day. If it transpires that the fee is too low and does not cover, say, operating costs, and therefore needs to go up—and modelling has been done on the effect that that would have—ministers can do that, too.

Ministers would have the flexibility after carrying out the review to decide what effect the scheme is having on firework safety and whether the fee is playing any part in take-up. That is not an onerous ask. The suggestion that the information would not be available is unhelpful—it should be. In any case, the reason that I have not been specific is to give ministers that flexibility.

I will press amendment 90 for that reason, but I am happy to concede amendment 129 in favour of my colleague’s alternative.

I support Katy Clark’s amendments 54 and 55. They are a simpler method of achieving something similar to my own amendments.

My colleague Russell Findlay has rightly raised the point that what started as no-fireworks zones—which are self-explanatory; there would be no fireworks—have become firework control zones. There is a lack of understanding of what they will be in practice, not only in this discussion but for communities, policing and enforcement.

My amendments in the group—amendments 120 to 123—are to an extent technical and seek to remove exemptions from schedule 1. It is another way of achieving what Ms Clark is trying to achieve. Specifically, they remove the reference to people organising public displays, which I appreciate might be controversial. However, what is the point of having a firework control zone that still has fireworks going off in it? Fundamentally, that is the question that we need to answer in this debate.

It remains the case—and a bizarre consequence of the bill if it is passed as drafted—that there will be 57 days of the year on which members of the public with a licence will be able to privately let off fireworks while, on the other 308 days, they will not be able to do so unless they employ the services of a professional fireworks company. You could argue that that is pointless, because it creates a two-tier system in which people who can afford to put on a display will use that legal loophole to do so. Equally, creating such an exemption makes a slight mockery of restricting the use of fireworks.

Therefore, I seek to remove—or at least probe the removal of—those exemptions. If the Government thinks that they should remain, I am intrigued to learn why keeping them falls within the spirit and scope of the bill that the minister is trying to pursue.

My other point concerns enforcement. My understanding is that there is not unanimous agreement that the concept of a firework control zone or no-fireworks zone is practical. In its response to the consultation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents made two comments that stood out to me. First, it said that no-firework areas

“will only serve to create another battleground”

where

“existing neighbour and community disputes will be fought.”

Secondly, the association feels

“in the strongest terms that this has the potential to cause significant issues.”

I presume that the association is referring to parts of the country where there are concentrated pockets of fireworks misuse.

The creation of firework control zones does not address displacement. It does not address whether people will be driven to move out of control zones into public areas, where, as Russell Findlay has stated, it is already illegal to let off fireworks. My understanding is that at the working group meetings, Police Scotland talked about some issues that it had with the concept of the zones. I do not have the minutes for those meetings; if I can source them ahead of stage 3, I will do so.

Again, no one is against the premise of the zones, but we need to be clear what they are and what they are not. For the reasons that Russell Findlay and Katy Clark elucidated, there is an expectation that, where a zone has been created, the public and those within the zone should not expect to see or hear fireworks and could rightly call the police if they did.

In my view, we will create an absolute minefield if we create these zones and then make a whole bunch of exemptions. If an application to establish a zone in a local authority were to be granted, but someone claimed an exemption under schedule 1 to the bill and proceeded to let off fireworks, it would defeat the point of the zone. That would be the case, especially if the zone was being established for good reason—for example, because it contained a community with problematic behaviour, animal sanctuaries, farms or other things for which having an exclusion zone would have practical benefits.

I like the idea of simply going back to having no-firework zones, which is what Mr Findlay is trying to achieve. The amendments in this group try to do that. It is a very useful group for us to debate.

The minister is talking about national awareness campaigns and the generality of the bill, which is fine. However, amendment 7 is specifically about firework control zones. That is a specific local issue. What the member who lodged the amendment is seeking to do is make sure that people within a local authority area are given adequate information. Amendment 7 will mandate that that happens. It has nothing to do with the national awareness campaign about the bill.

When I read the papers, it was my understanding that the order was intended simply to include so-called zombie knives, as defined, to the list of offensive weapons. However, the impression that I got from the minister’s opening statement is that this is actually a wider exercise and that there will be a more general amnesty for knives and weapons. That might not be understood outside this room. Minister, can you clarify whether we are opening up a wider amnesty for knives and weapons, in which members of the public can go to a police station with something that they think might or might not be a weapon and deposit it safely in return for a promise of no prosecution and possible compensation? The public should be aware of that.

Secondly, what public awareness work will the Government carry out to ensure that people know that that is happening?

Group 14 relates to the restrictions on days of supply of fireworks, and group 15 relates to the restrictions on days of use of fireworks. Some of the amendments are consequentials and relate to the main theme of this group but, essentially, they seek to remove the Government’s proposed restrictions on days when fireworks may be supplied.

There was a wide-ranging discussion at stage 1 about the arbitrary nature of when fireworks can be sold and by whom. There is a spectrum of views on that. There are people who want to ban the sale of fireworks altogether, for lots of reasons, and we have spoken about those. There are people who believe that restricting the sale and supply of fireworks altogether is not something that they could support. To be fair, the Government has been trying to find a middle ground throughout the process, but its proposal raises some problems.

When the House of Commons Petitions Committee reviewed the issue, one of its conclusions, notably, was that greater restrictions and controls on the sale of fireworks would not be appropriate because of the very real risk of creating a black market and making matters worse, not better. When the BFA gave evidence to this committee, it claimed that the measures will

“basically ... encourage people to source product from unlicensed or unauthorised dealers.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 23 March 2022; c 14.]

The Government’s proposal in effect shuts down those in the industry who work all year round. As we identified and spoke about at great length in our stage 1 report, two types of retailers are involved: those who are specialist fireworks retailers who sell all year round, and other types of physical retailers who sell occasionally or at different times of the year, for whom the bill may be less of a problem. The committee has to accept that, by passing the bill, we will be shutting down that cottage industry, whether we like it or not.

The industry has told us that it does not want to have to come back in a couple of years and say, “We told you so—we told you about the unintended consequences of people purchasing dangerous unregulated products from unregulated and unlicensed people.”

Questions remain over the sale of fireworks by larger retailers. I have to say on the record that none of those retailers spoke to us, which was unhelpful. Unfortunately, we do not know whether they will even bother to stock fireworks if they are limited to selling them on certain days of the year. We do not know how they will approach the issue from a staffing point of view, what training will be provided on the licensing scheme, and whether it is even worth the hassle for them. If they choose not to stock fireworks, we do not know what effect that will have on the potential for stockpiling or on the black market, whether that is online illicit sales or the scenario of a white van man selling fireworks in communities where there is problematic behaviour. We do not know whether retailers will be able or willing to store hundreds of kilograms of fireworks if they can sell only on certain days.

We do not have the answer to any of those questions, either because retailers have not been consulted or because they have been consulted and have not been forthcoming with their views. There is an explicit point of view that the proposals may lead to more injuries, which defeats the point of the bill. In effect, we are taking the ability to purchase fireworks on nearly 365 days a year and condensing that into 37 days.

With my amendments in the group, I am not saying that there should not be restrictions on the supply of fireworks, but I am asking the Government to take a step back and revisit its consultation process with stakeholders on the issue, have a proper think about the dates and make a better case as to why it has chosen particular dates. I am asking the Government to answer some of those unanswered questions and consult the people who have told us that they have not been consulted properly or that the consultation process that they have been through was “inadequate”—that is their word, not mine. The Government can then come back to the Parliament with further proposals for regulations to restrict the supply.

Before anyone claims otherwise, I point out that I am not seeking to simply remove the restriction on supply and keep the status quo, in which there is supply all year round. I understand that that would defeat the point of the bill, but that is not what I am trying to achieve. Under amendment 97, ministers would have to consult and then lay draft regulations that we could debate and discuss, and on which we could hear from stakeholders. I have suggested some stakeholders but, if members do not like that list, it is no problem to change it at stage 3. More importantly, under proposed new section 22 (5D)(c), which amendment 97 would insert, when laying the regulations, the Government would have to explain how they will improve public safety.

That is at the core of all this—we all want to improve public safety. However, there are misgivings that the proposed restricted dates in the bill will achieve the opposite. I do not know what the future holds, but I like to think that we will pass legislation that improves public safety and that does not have unintended consequences.

I am keen to hear what members and the minister have to say about my amendments. The same goes for my amendments in the next group, which is on restrictions on use, although I will make a slightly different argument on that.

I move amendment 93.

I thank the minister for the offer. I am happy to kick off the morning on a consensual note and agree to work with the minister and her team ahead of stage 3 on suitable wording for an amendment that I would be happy to move, or support, if the minister lodges it. On that basis, I seek to withdraw amendment 84.

Amendment 84, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 14 agreed to.

Section 15—False statements

Amendment 85 not moved.

Amendment 86 moved—[Russell Findlay].