Seòmar agus comataidhean

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82 and 83 are also technical amendments on that subject, but they relate to section 12 and when a licence has been revoked.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no longer have a licence could not still use a licence that has expired or use it in the unlikely event of its having been revoked.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 hear what the minister says about changing from the negative procedure to the affirmative, and the balanced judgment that has to be made about which process is used. However, I would question whether the affirmative procedure would have a disproportionate impact on the work of the committee or indeed on the committee’s time. I would argue that it is for the committee to decide how we use our time, and not the Government. I do not believe that using the affirmative procedure would disproportionately impact the committee. We can easily and quickly process affirmative instruments, with due process—we do it weekly.

The problem with the negative procedure, as a principle, as the minister well knows, is that it leaves little room for manoeuvre. With any form of secondary legislation, there is limited opportunity to have full and proper debate, and it is virtually impossible to consult wider stakeholders, which is why I am quite drawn to the pre-laying procedure, although I am not quite sure where that fits in with parliamentary process.

What struck me throughout our deliberations on the bill at stage 1 is that what we do in this room is often not well publicised outside it. It is only when people catch the wind of where things are heading that they get in touch with the committee and want to consult us about their concerns. That was quite apparent with the stage 1 report, when there was limited opportunity for consultation between the publication of the report and the stage 1 debate and vote in the chamber. Even on the day of the debate, people were getting in touch with members with concerns about the content of the stage 1 report. The same is true with any regulations that come before us, some of which, unfortunately, introduce a lot of known unknowns.

I will press amendment 58 and ask the committee to strengthen its scrutiny ability. If anyone on the committee feels otherwise, I would be intrigued to hear why.

On the issue of consultation, there is always the danger of starting to create lists. We have this conversation every time we do a stage 2. However, in this instance, given the specific nature of what the bill does and who it affects directly, it is entirely appropriate to hear from the organisations that I have overtly listed. It is not an exhaustive list—it is not saying that we must consult only those people. The bill will say that they “must” be consulted. The problem with leaving it open, and saying that the Government must do wide-ranging consultation, or whatever other proposal is in the bill, is that that is true only if those people are genuinely consulted. It is quite clear—it became apparent throughout stage 1—that not all of them have been consulted. In order to ensure that those people are consulted, I want them included in the bill. It is as simple as that. I do not understand why we would not want to hear from religious groups, trade bodies, charities and community groups, who are the very people who will be most directly affected by the bill. By listing those people in black and white in the bill, we will ensure that they have a voice in future secondary legislation.

I appreciate that, because I am summing up, the minister is probably unable to come back on those points. However, at any point today, the minister is welcome to intervene, and to question, agree with or disagree with what I am saying.

I listened to Katy Clark’s arguments and I am happy to support all her amendments.

I thank the minister and members for the debate. I will clarify a few points.

I probably share other members’ concerns and reservations about the nature of what amendment 46 seeks to achieve. I have problems with how the licensing scheme is proposed, but I do not have a problem with a licensing scheme per se. Therefore, I would be unable to support amendment 46.

Can the minister elicit evidence on whether anyone has been sent to prison in the past five years, say, for a fireworks-related offence? To date, what is the maximum fine that any court has issued for such an offence?

No problem. It is important information in the context of the amendments that we are debating.

Yes, it does. Thank you for that. I am sorry for putting you on the spot, but that information is very relevant.

Is the discussion about whether the maximum fine is £5,000, £10,000 or £5 trillion not slightly irrelevant if such levels are nowhere near being reached at the moment? The fact that the data on such matters is not available to the committee is problematic, but I am guessing that the maximum fines that have been issued are in the hundreds of pounds, not in the thousands or the tens of thousands.

Regardless of whether we seek to increase the current level of fines—we will vote on that shortly—as things stand, there is no pertinent deterrent in the system. Has the Government asked why the fines that have been issued have been so low? Are such fines truly serving as any form of deterrent to the misuse of fireworks?

Here is where it is interesting. I hope that the minister takes cognisance of this. Community groups that want to put on a display will have two choices under the bill. The first choice is that, if they want to put on a display at any point in the year, they can pay a private company to do so, because such companies are exempt both from the licensing scheme, which is based on individuals, and from the provisions in the bill about permitted days of use. Therefore, if it has enough money to do so, the justice committee community group could put on a display at any point in the year by paying someone to do it. If the group does not have enough money to pay someone, it can only put on a display during the period of permitted use.

I will not press amendment 67.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 68 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Ash Regan]—and agreed to.

It is always nice to be thanked for something that I have not yet said. [Laughter.]

I have no problem with amendments 16 and 17. I did not really understand what the amendments do, so they must be sensible.

Amendment 75 simply seeks to ensure that ministers will comply with procurement legislation with regard to the fireworks safety courses. Given that there is an expectation that the certification and licensing scheme will be Government led, we want to ensure that, during that procurement exercise—to come back to Pauline McNeill’s point—we get value for money. We also want to ensure that the scheme is future proof, so that many of the requirements of the licensing scheme can be easily integrated with certification that is technologically future proof, that it includes transparency and accountability and that it allows data sharing, where that is relevant, suitable and proportionate. If the minister has no problem with the wording of amendment 75, I do not see why we cannot put it in the bill. It is not controversial.

The same goes for amendment 80. I think that it would be very helpful if the successful completion of the safety training is clear on the licence and not just a requirement of getting the licence. Again, if that is not controversial, I do not know why it cannot be on the face of the bill. I appreciate that there is an argument that it could be an operational matter but, as far as possible, the committee is keen not to shove too much of that into secondary legislation when we know that it would be beneficial to put it in the primary legislation, That is what these two—quite helpful—amendments seek to do.