Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, in a moment.

Again, I am pointing to a pattern of inevitable confusion among the wider public and potential challenges to the dates. Imposing restrictive dates in the way that is being proposed may have unintended consequences, which we will not know about until they happen.

Those are only a couple of our concerns. I am happy to give way.

I have no idea how one disposes of fireworks; I am sure that we will need to ensure that there is a strong education programme for the wider public in that regard.

Equally, there are issues around whether someone is willing or able to stockpile, and how and where they do that. Most people do not do it because they do not have to. However, if we suddenly impose restrictions for use on certain dates, and a householder has, for whatever reason, maxed out their opportunity to use their fireworks, they face a conundrum as a licence holder. Do they want to do the right thing, and store the fireworks in order to use them on the next permitted date? That may not be when they originally wanted to use them, but they might use them anyway, as they have probably spent a lot of money on them.

Alternatively, are they able to return the fireworks to the store or dispose of them? If they have bought the fireworks online, are they going to phone a specialist courier company to come and get them? Those are valid questions, and—I think—sensible ones at that, to which we do not know the answer.

I see that the minister wants to intervene.

I will in a second.

All that I am asking the Government to do is to ensure that restrictions on sale are not put in place until a clear package, which the Parliament has had a chance to consider, is in place. At that point, of course, the restrictions can be put in place.

There are two simple solutions. The first is that the member presses her amendment, the committee votes on it and, if it is agreed to, the Government can tidy it up at stage 3 if it is not competent. Alternatively, the minister can give the member a commitment to take the issue away, consider whether community groups or individuals should be able to make representations to local authorities on the designation of firework control zones, and bring back an alternative proposal, in which case the member will not need to press amendment 9. The amendment raises an important point.

Amendment 84 is quite self-explanatory—unusually for an amendment—and is based on the premise of an appeals process. It says:

“The Scottish Ministers must provide information to a person about how the person may appeal—

(a) at the point of applying for a fireworks licence under section 9,

(b) when a decision has been made by the Scottish Ministers under section 14(1).”

Information would be given up front to an applicant for a licence about the application process and about the appeal process in the scenario in which their application was rejected.

I intentionally did not go into great detail about who, when and where; in the spirit of being helpful, I thought that that information could be clarified before stage 3 or in regulations. As public awareness of the licensing scheme develops, and given our debate last week about taking account criminal convictions and other factors, there is the possibility that some applications will be rejected. Those people will want to know why, and how to appeal the decision.

That approach would be in line with other licensing schemes that include some form of independent appeals process. As I said, I have not gone into detail: I just ask that the information be given to applicants at specific points in the process. It would be for ministers to make regulations in that regard.

I hope that this is a helpful discussion point that will elicit from the minister information about what an appeal process might look like.

I move amendment 84.

That is my point. My amendments ask the Government to go away, have a proper think about the dates and come back to us. The committee could then have the debate again, quickly and soon. It will not make sense to people that two religions—or arguably three, if we include the Christian religion—have been included, with the Government being specific about the dates on which fireworks are permitted to be used, but others have been excluded. As you said, the wider public will not understand why this is included but that is excluded. Whether an awareness-raising exercise needs to take place is another matter.

It has been a robust debate and has aired some good points on the record. However, I will make a couple of points.

My first point is in response to Fulton MacGregor. He is absolutely right that, at certain times of the year, our inboxes are flooded with messages from people who see fireworks as a nuisance. The problem is that the bill will not change that because the times of year when our inboxes are flooded are also the permitted days of use. That will not solve the problem. The reason that our inboxes are flooded is the misuse of fireworks. The bill will not fix that either.

One of the points that I raised that I did not get a response to—I am unable to come back in on that debate, because of the groupings—is the issue of the enforceability of the zones, which is one of the concerns that has rightly been raised. I have not had time to go through all the minutes of the working group within the confines of the meeting, but I am keen to do so. However, what we know and have on record is evidence that the police gave in their written response to the consultation on the legislation. It is worth putting on record the fact that, because there were so many responses to the consultation, a lot of evidence has been lost in the online hinterland. However, the following quotation from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents should raise concerns for us ahead of stage 3. It said:

“In short, it is almost unenforceable. If the Local Authority has overall administration of licensing and zoning, it is the general belief of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents that the public will still involve the Police to resolve disputes (actual or perceived) over zoning. It is a minefield that does not need to be created.“

I have not heard a response to that valid concern in anything that has been debated today. Does the member share my concern?

It just seems a bit vague. I am worried that people might be alerted to—and alarmed by—things that they might have in their house that it is now illegal for them to have in their house. How might you address those concerns?

Is the minister seriously suggesting that businesses that sell fireworks all year round, which will now be restricted to selling them on only 37 days of the year, will feasibly be able to continue to operate as going concerns? Nobody whom I have spoken to in the industry believes that.