 I welcome to the 17th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee. There are no apologies this morning. Agenda item 1 today is consideration of the fireworks and pyrotechnics articles Scotland Bill at stage 2. I would ask members to refer to their copy of the bill and to the marshaled list of amendments and groupings for this item. I welcome Asher Egan, Minister for Community Safety and our officials to the meeting. I remind the officials that they are there to assist the minister during the stage 2 debate. They are not permitted to participate in the debate. For this reason, members should not direct any questions to them. We now begin our consideration of amendments. Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 12 and 13. Minister to move amendment 11 and speak to all amendments in the group. The provisions within the bill are designed to tackle the danger to public safety and wellbeing, caused specifically by pyrotechnic and fireworks misuse. It is therefore very important that the bill is clear on what articles the legislation covers and where necessary provide additional clarity and reassurance about this. The Government amendments in this group seek to provide that additional clarity and reassurance in relation to the definition of pyrotechnic article in section 1. By expressly excluding ammunition items from the definition, amendment 11 ensures that the bill does not unintentionally capture ammunition or give the impression that it does. Amendment 12 is a technical amendment and amendment 13 enables ministers to add, amend or remove articles in the future, which should not be treated as pyrotechnic articles for the purpose of the bill. Amendment 13 is future proofs, if you like, the legislation, enabling ministers in future to explicitly exclude any other articles that are or could be seen to be unintentionally captured by the offences, and it would also allow the definition to be narrowed to reflect future technical innovations. Amendment 11. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 11. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 11. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 1 be agreed to, are we all agreed? So now move on to the next grouping. Call amendment 58, in the name of Jamie Greene grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jamie Greene, to move amendment 58 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. Good morning, minister and colleagues. As you'll see, I have a number of amendments today, so I'll try and make my point concisely and sensibly. Amendment 58 is the first one today. It's one of a number of amendments where I've sought to change the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure that will pop up in various groupings that we debate today. Essentially they all seek to serve the same purpose, and that is to increase scrutiny by ensuring that regulations are approved through the affirmative procedure, ideally by the Criminal Justice Committee, thus allowing both the committee and members of the committee of all shapes and colours the opportunity to reflect on future government actions. As we know, committee members, the negative procedure is often, unfortunately, a bit of a shoe-in for changes in regulations. We saw that only last week when we reflected on an SSI under that procedure with very little discussion, debate, no member of the Government present or indeed any method of voting on the subject matter itself. That crops up frequently, not just in this committee but many others in the Parliament. In this instance, the specific regulations under subsection 2 are indeed subject to the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. Those under subsection 2 are not, so in the spirit of consistency, I have sought to alter that. That will crop up as a theme in future groupings as well, and I hope that the Government will reflect on the committee's request to further enhance the bill as we go through the process, given that so much of it is and will appear in secondary legislation and not in the face of the bill itself, something that cropped up in our stage 1 report. My other amendment in this group is amendment 89. Essentially, that seeks to further enhance the list of suitable parties who must be consulted by the Government when drafting certain regulations under this bill. In this instance, it relates specifically to those deemed most likely or maybe likely to be affected by the licensing of fireworks as a master principle. I have in this amendment listed specifically and overly who I believe will be consulted by the Government. That includes community groups who may have a view on the future of the fireworks regulations and licensing scheme, charities, many of whom have already made representation tours during the process, and indeed those who have not, who are still discovering about the process and passage of the bill. Retail groups, be they physical or virtual or online, for obvious reasons. Industry organisations and trade bodies, who today I think have provided invaluable feedback on the bill's proposal and who also know their industry best. And finally, religious groups and organisations who will place such a large part in the restrictions around the use of fireworks as proposed by the Government in the current draft of the bill, specifically around the use of fireworks and the restrictive dates, propose something that we will come on to later. In my view, too few organisations have had full and proper say in the content of the bill, not in the premise of the bill. The consultation was extensive and expansive. We all accept that. We all know there is a strength of feeling that we all want to do something, but people are still coming out of the woodworks, even as we are sitting here stage 2, who want to have a say on the content of the bill because the devil is very much in the detail. Going forward, I think that they must all have a good chance to share their views, which is why I have sought to expand this list of consultees. It is neither exhaustive nor limited. The Government will also have the flexibility to add consultees to this list as it deems fit, and that is entirely appropriate. Other amendments in this group. I have sympathy with some of the proposals from Katie Clark, which I hope are in line with mine to strengthen the negative and affirmative procedure, but we will hear from the member shortly, no doubt. Our view is that amendment 52 remains unclear but is the purpose and intent of that, so I will reserve judgment on amendment 52 until the member has spoken and I perhaps might address it in summing up. We are also happy to support the Government amendments in this group, with the exception of amendment 20, which, upon first reading, is unclear as to what purpose and effect that amendment will have on the bill. It says in section 18, page 8, of the line 34, that it removes ministers' power to make further provision by regulation in relation to the fireworks licence, for example, specifying its form and content. It is unclear why 2C has been removed in this amendment. With that, convener, I have no further comments in the group at this time. Minister, to speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The delegated powers and law reform recommendation that the broad regulation making powers at section 181 should be subject to affirmative procedure, and I welcome the recommendations of the committee, and amendment 21, in my name, gives effect to this. However, I believe that section 18, as introduced, also contains powers on administrative and operational points of detail, to which it would be disproportionate to apply the affirmative procedure. Therefore, amendments 14, 18, 19 and 20 make adjustments to other sections to ensure that this change does not disproportionately impact on the administration and the operation of the licensing system, while ensuring that, in hand, scrutiny applies if section 18 is used to make any further provision about licensing that may be required. I believe that, collectively, those amendments reflect the DPLRC's recommendation, and I hope that committee members will recognise the balance that is being struck here and support them. In terms of the other amendments in this group, amendment 58, in Mr Greene's name, seeks to make the regulation making power about persons with specialist knowledge at section 22b, subject to affirmative procedure. Where the DPLRC has recommended a change of procedure, I have brought forward an amendment to ensure that Parliament is afforded the appropriate levels of scrutiny. I do not consider that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate or necessary for section 22b. This section provides Scottish ministers with the power to make further provision in respect of demonstrating specialist knowledge for the purposes of the definition of a category F4 firework. The requirements for specialist knowledge are currently set out in the pyrotechnic articles safety regulations of 2015, and the power in section 22b should only be required should we need to respond to any changes to the requirements made by the UK Government on such persons to ensure that high hazard fireworks remain subject to the required stringent safety measures. The provision does not enable amendment of the bill itself. The requirements are technical in nature, and it is appropriate that regulations to change them are subject to the negative procedure. I hope that members do not support that amendment. Amendment 89 seeks to include a list of specific groups that Scottish ministers must consult when making regulations about the licensing system. The bill sets out that Scottish ministers must consult with those likely to be interested in or affected by the licensing system. That was deliberately drafted in such a manner to ensure that a wide-ranging and effective consultation takes place. It was always intended that the groups listed would form part of a wide-ranging consultation on any regulations. However, I believe that actively identifying and engaging with groups who are most likely to be affected is a much more effective approach rather than listing a limited number of groups in the bill, so I do not support that amendment. I would ask Mr Greene not to press, and if he does, I hope that the committee will not support them. Amendments 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 seek to change the regulation-making powers in part 2 that are currently subject to negative procedure, subject to affirmative procedure instead. The consultation requirement set out at section 19 means that Scottish ministers will have a duty to consult before making any regulations under this part of the bill. That provides the opportunity to gather views on proposals for what may be included in the regulations, for example, the licence fee. It is not intended that any of those powers will be used on a frequent basis. However, it is necessary that, when they are used to set out operational or administrative detail in the system, that that should be done in a timely manner in order for the licence system to be able to continue to operate in an efficient and optimum manner. I do not consider that the affirmative procedure is suitable or proportionate for those types of regulations. I do not think that it would represent a good use of valuable parliamentary time. On amendment 52, the regulations in section 3 are already subject to affirmative procedure. That is a technical regulation-making power, which will be used if it is necessary to adapt to changes to the categorisation of fireworks or if new classifications or types of fireworks enter the market. I believe that it is important to be able to utilise such a power in a timely manner and make sure that the system covers relevant fireworks. That would be paramount in ensuring safety and that the system operates as it is required. If it is used, relevant stakeholders will be consulted such as the fireworks industry, experts or trading standards. However, it is not necessary to include that in the duty to consult in section 19. Amendment 53 seeks to include a new section setting out requirements on Scottish ministers before laying regulations in relation to part 2 of the bill and the licensing system. I am open to enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the licensing system and I believe that I have demonstrated that through accepting the DPLRC recommendations and by having included the requirement to consult on regulations about licensing from the start. However, the matters to be covered in regulations under this part of the bill are simply not of the nature that requires this kind of superaffirmative procedure that this amendment would apply. In most cases, powers to set out matters of operational detail or administrative procedure. I urge Ms Clark not to press her amendment and, if she does so, I would urge the committee not to accept. I have two sets of issues in the amendments that I have put forward in this group. Both of them would enhance the parliamentary scrutiny that would be required for any secondary legislation for a licensing scheme. Amendment 47 and the related amendments would change the process from a negative process to an affirmative process, similar, I believe, to that already outlined by Jamie Greene and the amendments that he has already spoken to. The lead amendment 52, however, on the other issue, goes further in that it would make provision for a more detailed pre-laying procedure that would require the Government to lay a draft of the regulations before the Parliament and for the Scottish Government to be required before finalising regulations to seek the view of this committee on the terms. I believe that that is appropriate given the level of interest and the work that this committee has already been involved with in terms of this legislation. Indeed, it is also appropriate given the concerns that were raised in the report that we have already published. The proposal would therefore give the opportunity for an enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. Indeed, the minister has already spoken about some of the issues in relation to consultation. That is more focused on the parliamentary scrutiny of regulations rather than on the consultation process with outside bodies. Although I support the proposals that are being put forward by Jamie Greene in relation to consultation and what the minister has said about an enhanced consultation in relation to those issues. The principle of the amendments is that this committee should have the opportunity to have a meaningful role in the scrutiny of the regulations, with sufficient time to seek its own views or to take evidence should it wish to do so. The amendment 53 says that the regulations should be before the Parliament for a period of 120 days, six of which must not be days that the Parliament is dissolved or in recess. However, I am quite happy to consider other timescales if that is problematic. The principle is not the number of days that is a matter of practicality. The principle is that this committee has the opportunity to undertake effective parliamentary scrutiny. It is for that reason that I have put the amendments before this committee so that we consider how we ensure that whatever regulations come forward at the end of the day are robust, are workable and will not lead to the kind of problems that this committee has spent weeks hearing evidence about and considering. I hear what the minister says about the move from negative to affirmative. I guess the balance judgment that has to be made around which go through which process, but I guess the phrase which I do question is one which I think the quote was, it disproportionately impacts the work of the committee or indeed the committee's time. I'd argue that that's for the committee to decide how we use our time, not for the government. I don't believe it would disproportionately impact. We can very easily and quickly do on a weekly basis process affirmative SSIs and secondary legislation with due process. The problem with the negative instrument as a principle is that it leaves very little room for manoeuvre, as the minister well knows. Indeed, with any form of secondary legislation there is very limited opportunity to have full and proper debate on the matters and indeed virtually impossible to consult with wider stakeholders, which is why I'm quite drawn to this pre-laying down process. I'm not quite sure where that fits in with the parliamentary process, but what has struck me throughout our deliberations of the bill at stage one is what is clear is that often what we do in this room is not well publicise that side of it and it's only when people catch the wind of where things are heading that they get in touch with us and want to further consult with the committee and its members about areas of concern that they have with the bill and that was quite apparent in the production of stage one report and the limited opportunity between its publication and its debate and indeed voting on it in the chamber. Even on the day of the debate people were getting in touch and emailing members with concerns about the content of the stage one report itself, but the same will be true with regulations that come before us and some of those regulations introduce a lot of unknowns unfortunately. I do dispute that and I will push the amendments and ask the committee to strengthen the committee's scrutiny ability and if anyone in the committee feels otherwise they'll be intrigued to hear why they won't. On the issue of consultation again, there's always the danger when you create lists that you start creating lists. We have this conversation every time we pass a bill at stage two. However, in this instance, given the very specific nature of what the bill does and who it affects directly, I feel it's entirely appropriate to hear from the organisations that I've overly listed. Again, it's not an exhaustive list, it's not saying you must only consult with these people, it's saying that they must be consulted with. The problem with leaving it open to the Government must do wide range in consultation or whatever other proposal is in the bill is that that is true only if those people are genuinely consulted and it's quite clear that not all of them have been and that's become apparent through this process. In order to ensure that they are consulted, I want them on the face of the bill, it's as simple as that. Again, I don't see why we wouldn't want to hear from religious groups, trade bodies, charities and community groups, the very people who will be most directly affected by the legislation that we pass. By putting it in black and white on the face of the bill, we make sure that they have a voice in future regulations. I appreciate that I'm summing up so that that probably doesn't give the minister any comeback, but at any point today the ministers are welcome to intervene, question or agree or disagree with what I'm saying. Katie Clark, I listened to her arguments and I'm happy to support all the amendments that she proposed. So the question is that amendment 58 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you, we're not agreed therefore we will move to a vote. It's all those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. All those against, raise your hand. Thank you and no a pity abstaining. So the result of the vote is four members are for, four members are against the amendment. So there is an equality of votes therefore as convener I will use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. Clarification from the clerks, I just wondered as convener, do you not normally have to say how you use your casting? Just so we know how you're going to use your casting vote, I just thought there was maybe a convention so we know what to expect going forward. So you know in the case of the presiding officer they vote for the status quo, it was usually just so we know how you're going to use your casting vote, if that's okay. Thank you for that member for the point of order. So in relation to conveners and casting votes in committees there's no convention on how the convener should use his or her casting vote unlike the presiding officer who normally votes for the status quo in the chamber and of course it's up to the convener if she wants at any point in proceedings to make it clear how she intends to use her casting vote throughout proceedings or to just make it clear on each occasion that she's using that that would be a matter for this convener. Thanks very much. So just for clarification amendment 58 is not agreed. The question is that section 2 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you very much. So now move on to the next grouping. I call amendment 59 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 59. Thank you convener. This amendment sits in a group of its own. Very keen to hear what other members have to think. I know you're all shy this morning as early but it's important we do have a proper debate about these issues. Essentially this amendment does a number of things. First of all, and it's fairly self-explanatory although it's a whole page in length, it requires ministers to review current legislation in so far as they relate to the supply and use of fireworks and pyrotechnics and that's the important bit. Secondly ministers must determine as a result of that review whether any part of that legislation requires to be repealed as a result of the introduction of this bill and bring forward and address any gaps in existing legislation. The list includes legislation which through research and the kind assistance of the parliamentary legislation team who I should put on record a huge amount of thanks to for helping members turn around these amendments are the most commonly used in the charging of offenders or the prosecution of offenders relating to the legal sale or misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics. Again, this list is not exhaustive and subsection or clause J allows ministers to amend the list and indeed add to it where it deems appropriate. That's the what, I guess the main question is the why. What became very apparent to committee members and stakeholders alike in their feedback to the committee is that we already have a large amount of laws which do currently regulate the use of the sale and the purchase of fireworks to an fairly extensive range already and rightly so. But the other reality that we heard is that they're currently not being used to their full extent and the evidence for that is abundantly self-explanatory. The numbers speak for themselves. We know for example it is already illegal to use a firework as a weapon. There is legislation to deal with that. It's ready to use a firework for anti-social behaviour or to attack people including attacks on emergency service work because it's something again we took evidence on and something which I think the whole committee has agreed we need to tackle. But the problem is we are now seeking to introduce new legislation without a proper and full review of what is already out there in the public domain and how well and effectively we're using existing legislation to deal with the very problems that the essence of this bill seeks to deal with, which is the misuse, anti-social behaviour and illegal sale of fireworks. So on fireworks misuse for example over the past five years there have been 6,000 incidents involving fireworks recorded by Police Scotland. It's quite a lot. Of those, 518 of them were recorded under the Explosives Substances Act 1883 and other pieces of legislation including the keeping and supplying of explosives, among others. Of those incidents only 136 charges were laid and of the 136 only 16 resulted in the conviction over five years. There is clearly a disproportionate ratio of the amount of incidents that should occur. How many that leads to criminal charging, prosecution and successful conviction will come on to convictions in a later grouping. In fact it's actually been quite hard for the committee, quite impossible to quantify the scale of the problem in terms of nuisance complaints surrounding fireworks be they to either 101 or 999 emergency services, local authorities or training standards. But what we do know is that the conversion rate from incidents recorded to successful prosecution I'm afraid is pitiful. We might not rush this bill through in the way that we are if we actually use the laws that already exist to their full extent. This amendment asks the Government to do such. In fact the Scottish Community Safety Network argued in their evidence too, has questioned whether further legislation was indeed needed at all. It says, they said, new restrictions specify limits to the quantities of fireworks that may be sold, the times of sale, the times of use. We suggest that these measures are given adequate time to bed in and take effect. This might help Government, local authorities and industry to measure the impact and inform which, if any, of the additional proposed restrictions are actually needed. We've included some very specific laws in this amendment including the Public Order Act 1986, which covers the majority of breaches of the peace offences and use of dangerous items in public place. My colleague Russell Finlay has other amendments that he will speak to later on widening the scope for offences that could or should bar people from holding fireworks licences and come on to that. But what we are asking is not onerous. We want the Government to prepare and publish a review of the use of existing legislation with specific relation to the sale and use of fireworks, or indeed misuse of fireworks, and lay before Parliament a report, presumably for debate or scrutiny, when we think that the Government would proactively want to maintain oversight of the use of existing laws that govern fireworks and power techniques. Whilst we have got no ideological problem with adding new legislation as the bill tries to do, it is clear that many people in our communities are blighted by the misuse of fireworks and social behaviour, intensifying concentrated geographic pockets, and it is that issue that has not clearly been addressed. With the great range of powers that are already available to the police and the prosecutors, they rightly ask why not. I rightly ask why the Government cannot agree to conduct an exercise such as this. I look forward to hearing members' feedback on an issue that our own stage 1 report flagged as being a point of huge worry and concern. I think that I am sympathetic to what James Greene has outlined in terms of understanding the existing legislation and how it operates, and to note the figures that are used. However, I do not think that the address is one of my concerns, and I wonder if James Greene could answer that particular point. There seems to be a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system that comes to using existing legislation, so the lack of convictions, for example, to me tend to indicate that either the police are the crown or not using the legislation. If you see the distinction that I am drawing between, is the legislation comprehensive enough and are our criminal justice authorities actually using that? I am sympathetic to the arguments, but I would like you to address how that address looks like. I think that the committee looked at the report. There is a lack of data around whether the crown is actually using this legislation to prosecute people. My biggest concern about the bill is that, even passing it, will we see the crown of us and the police services actually using the legislation and prosecute people who are breaking the law? That would be helpful. I would like to point to the amendment that James Greene has brought forward on animal health and welfare Scotland Act 2006. One of the single biggest issues that all of us have heard about is the fireworks that are causing distress to animals, whether that be domestic pets or agricultural. I think that I have quite a useful perhaps real world and recent example of what backs up the point that James Greene is making. That relates to a farmer who came to a surgery of mine recently. He had problems with a local hotel setting off fireworks, causing his cattle distress, quite severe distress. He had lost calves to the trauma, some of them and some of the animals that escaped onto roads and so on. I tell you all that just to show that the real cost to individuals with the misuse of fireworks he wanted to know whether there was existing legislation that made causing knowing distress to animals illegal. That led to us coming across a public warning issued by the SSPCA one year ago on fireworks night, citing this particular act, the 2006 Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act, stating that it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to captive for domestic animals if the person you are ought to reasonably have known. It seemed pretty clear. I then sought advice from Spice on two elements. One, whether that interpretation was indeed correct, and two, whether there had been any prosecutions and how many prosecutions there might have been over the past five years. Eventually, the Scottish Government provided Spice with information and long story short to the best of their ability. It seems that there were no fireworks related prosecutions brought under the relevant section of that act. Furthermore, the Government went on to say that it would be an offence if an animal was intentionally harmed by fireworks. That addition of the word intentionally seems slightly less certain than perhaps even at odds with the SSPCA's position, which is annoyingly causing. In the meantime, the farmer reached out to the National Farmers Union of Scotland to told him that, as far as they were concerned, the SSP interpretation was correct and annoyingly causing distress as an offence. The point that I am trying to make is that it took a great deal of time and effort between an individual, myself and Spice to establish that there is an act that appears to do something quite helpful for a fundamental problem that this bill seeks to address and it does not appear to be getting used. To go back to Pauline McNeill's point, which is that if we are bringing forward legislation that will end up going much the same way and not being utilised by the police and the Crown, it is at risk of becoming just legal clutter for want of a better phrase. We have already heard from Jamie Greene that the prosecution rates in relation to the number of recorded incidences—I think that the word that he used was pitiful—and I agree. The frustration that I have had on this committee as a new member is that, even just getting that data has been extremely difficult from the relevant public bodies. Using that as an example and all those other bits of legislation, I assume that much the same could be said about them. It would be very interesting to hear the minister's response to all those points. I echo the points that have been made in all the contributions so far and the concern about the lack of prosecutions under existing legislation. Indeed, the further concern that that might mean that there would not be effective use of the legislation if it was brought in, although it would result in law-abiding citizens having to go to a great deal of extra trouble and expense to adhere to the licensing system. I would not envisage that the amendment would delay the implementation of the legislation. I think that what the amendment is about is actually about providing information to the whole of the country, but in particular to Parliament and to the committee that should probably already have been shared. I think that we need to understand why there has been a failure to prosecute with existing legislation. That is both a failure to investigate and to prosecute. In the debate in the chamber, the minister referred to reasons why it might be difficult to prosecute under existing legislation. The impression that I got was that that might be technical difficulties to do with preparing cases and perhaps meeting the evidence standard. I am not clear about that and it would be useful if the minister or the Government could provide information about that, about why there may be difficulties. We know, for example, in other types of cases, rape cases. That is an issue that we would have looked at in detail to understand why prosecutions are taken, why prosecutions are not taken, why the evidential base might be there, why it might not be there. It would be useful to understand why it is that the Crown Office has not taken prosecutions. Is it because there has not been resources or priority given to those kinds of cases or whether there are other reasons? I think that that is exactly what would be highlighted in a review. I do not envisage that the amendment would delay the implementation of the legislation, but it is information that we need. Putting it on the face of the bill is an effective way to ensure that that is built into the work of the Parliament and the work of the Government. For that reason, I support the proposals that are being put forward by Jamie Greene today. I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene's amendment, because it is something that he has consistently raised in the stage 1 process and in the stage 1 debate, but I do not feel that it is needed on the face of the bill. Kei Clark is assuring us that she does not think that it will delay the implementation of the bill. The minister might have different views on that, but I think that any risk of a delay is simply not worth it, because the committee has already invested a lot in an already truncated timescale, which has been widely debated. I do not think that it is necessary. I also do not see it as being necessarily the same thing. We are talking about the possibility that current legislation has not been used effectively. The argument could be that we need new legislation that the powers will use and that there will then be new legislation that will be in the public eye and the prosecutor's minds to use, because we all obviously will not have effective legislation, but I am just saying that maybe the minister would offer in terms of the amendment that a review could be carried out anyway. Kei Clark touched on that. It is something that perhaps the Government could do and does not really need to be in the bill, so I am not minded to support that amendment. I appreciate a lot of the points that have been made, but I feel that we are going down a bit of a rabbit hole with them talking about existing legislation and why it has not been used and almost pre-empting or prejudging whether or not this legislation will be used. This is new legislation. We know that the police and the courts are in favour of it. There is absolutely no reason for something like this to be on the face of the bill, because this is, if you like, a fresh start. We have the support of the courts and the police, as I said. I do not feel that this is going to be necessary on the face of the bill. My ministerial colleagues and I are always prepared to keep the law under review. Indeed, it is the willingness to review the law that has led us to introduce this bill. The bill reflects a period of significant consultation and engagement with the public and stakeholders, alongside careful consideration of the evidence that is available, of which a key component 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. The firework review group, just to be clear for the committee, did review the existing legislation. The bill that you have in front of you is based on their programme of work and their evidence gathering. For the clarity of the committee, the amendment reads as requiring a review of gaps or unnecessary legislation, not enforcement. I therefore consider that further review before commencement is not necessary. In fact, by delaying the commencement of these necessary provisions, I believe that this amendment would do a disservice to those stakeholders and the general public who have made their views on the need for legislative change very clear. I would ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 59, and should he do so, I hope that the committee would not support it. I will try to address some of the comments and issues that have been raised by members. I thank you for your respectful tone, which feedback has been given. First, I will address Pauline McNeill's concerns around the lack of confidence in the current legislation. I am not pretending for a moment that this amendment will fix that issue. Indeed, we did think in the short time that we had available to draft a stage 2 amendment how we would work this and what would be required of the Government. As the minister rightly points out, it does not say that the current legislation needs to be enforced, because I think that we work on the presumption that legislation is enforced and should be enforced. It should not need to be on other legislation to say that. We have tried to work around within the confines of this bill what we think the Government could do. We know that there is a lack of data. The data that we have is concerning enough. We know that, since 2016, there have only been 136 charges made with fireworks-related offences. 136 is not a lot. The minister talks about this amendment doing a disservice to the public. I think that what does a disservice to the public is the fact that it is blinding the obvious to everyone that the current legislation has not been used to its full extent. The question why is another matter. Unless we accept that it has not been used to its full extent, we are not going to be able to fix that problem in itself. I am not saying that we do not add new legislation to the picture. We voted in favour of the bill at stage 1. What I am saying is that—in response to Fulton MacGregor's point—if it is not on the face of the bill that the Government must conduct a review, I am afraid that it will not happen. Listening to the minister's answer, it is quite clear that there is not going to be one. If the answer has been, yes, do not put on the bill, but we will undertake such an activity, I would be minded not to move it and trust the Government on that. That is not what we are hearing. What we are hearing is that we already did that and we do not agree that there is a problem. I am afraid that there is a problem. The committee itself believes that there is a problem. In fact, in our own recommendations, number 348, the conclusion reads that the committee notes that there are only 136 charges over five years, which resulted in 16 summary convictions according to the figures provided to us by COPFS. Again, we had real issues in getting data on this in its very last minute. That raises the question of enforcement of the current law. Other witnesses in recommendation or in clause 341 questioned whether that information said that we were prosecuting to the full extent of the law. In 338, in our own stage 1 report again, we say that concern was expressed about the current level of prosecutions today for firework offences and whether sufficient action is being taken by the police service and the Crown Office to identify and prosecute offenders. Nothing I have heard so far in the Government's response will fill anyone with any comfort that that is an issue that is not only being acknowledged but would be dealt with. Nowhere do I say that we need to stop adding legislation. In fact, I explicitly put in this amendment in subsection 2, that section does not apply to section 21 of the act. Section 21, members will know, is the issue around proxy purchasing and supply of fireworks to miners. No one wants to stop that going ahead as quickly as possible. In fact, that is exempt from— Will the member take it? Yeah, sure, in just one second. That is exempt to allow—because we all identified that there was a reason why we were rushing the spell because there was a loophole that needs to be fixed and we all want to fix it and we will let that happen. I also dispute that this will delay the introduction of the legislation. Again, this is a stage 2 amendment. I would be happy to reword it if the Government wanted to put in a shorter timescale for such a review. I think that our review could be conducted quite quickly by the minister, our team and civil servants. The list of offences will be of no surprise to anyone in the justice sector. They all include offences that are relevant to the use and misuse of fireworks and the illegal sale and purchase of. I am happy to take an invention. I thank you again for taking an invention. It is actually going back to the previous point that you were talking about there, about the numbers of prosecutions. I think that the point that I would like to put to you about that is who are we to say what a high number is, where would you have been satisfied with if it was 500 or 1,000 or 2,000? That would still be too low. We do not really know that. I always come back to this committee that, having legislation in place, you cannot just look at simply the number of prosecutions as the only factor in and around that. It should not also be the only factor in how we decide, as a committee, which we have agreed at stage 1. As you rightly said, the principles of the bill about bringing forward new legislation, part of legislation's role is to act as a deterrent, as well as not necessarily criminal prosecutions. I think that we also agree that we can do harm to individuals as well. I thank the member for that point. I do not disagree with the premise of what he is saying. What is clear, and this is feedback that we have taken directly from those communities who are most blighted by the misuse of fireworks, is that there is a correlation between what they are reporting and what they are seeing come out at the other end. It is that lack of inaction, which is the most point of most frustration. Whether a new legislation will fix that or simply add to the legislative environment landscape that we are working in, it is hard to say at this point. I hope that it does not. As I said, I am not saying do not add further legislation in the way that the Government seeks to do so. However, all that I am asking for is a review of the landscape of where we are at at the moment. We do not have all the data available to us. It would be nice to know how many people, what that correlation is between those who record incidents through to where that goes in the justice system and why they are not proceeding. Last year, for example, there were 974 fireworks-related complaints to the police, nearly 1,000. There were 29 charges brought forward of which that resulted in zero convictions. We talk about public confidence in the system, the point that Pauline McNeill made. How can the public have confidence in the system, where there are 1,000 direct fireworks-related offences of which no one has successfully prosecuted? How is this bill going to change that? All that I am asking for the Government to do is to take a step back and look at whether we are using existing laws. I cannot fit the life of my work at why the Government, with all the resources available to it, would not want to do so. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. All those against, raise your hand with no abstentions. The number of votes for the amendment is four and the number of votes against the amendment is four. There is an equality of votes, therefore as convener, I shall use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. Amendment 59 is not agreed. The question is that section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We will now move on to the next grouping. I call amendment 60 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments 61 and 46. Jamie Greene to move amendment 60 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. This short group has two amendments of mine and I believe another from Ms Clark who will speak to that. The first one is amendment 60 essentially seeks to clarify who would be exempt from holding a licence. This relates to the main statement that it will be an offence for a person to purchase, acquire, possess or use fireworks without a fireworks licence, which is the very essence of the Government's proposal in this part of the bill. The term without reasonable excuse, in my view, opens up a bit of a legal minefield of both excuse making and lack of clarity as to the effect that it might have. In fact, I'd argue that this wording is a defence list as a dream. It's too vague and my approach is to create what I would say is clear blue water between who must hold a licence and who is overtly exempt from holding a licence. Exemptions are, of course, detailed in schedule 1. I appreciate that the use of the words without reasonable excuse is a commonly used legal term, but in the relevance to this and in the spirit of being crystal clear about who is or who is not required to hold a licence, I believe that exemption schedule, which itself could be amendable, is a better way of doing so of making it clear who does not require a licence. If the Government can convince me otherwise, I'm happy to listen to that. The next amendment is section 61. It asks that a person who holds a licence must present that licence at the point of purchase of fireworks. It specifically says that a person's fireworks licence must be present at the point of purchase in all instances, both in person online and irrespective of location of supplier. I come on to the reason why it's worded in this way. Apologies if it's not worded in a competent way, but again that's down to the timescales of the drafting. Essentially what I'm seeking to do is shift the onus of responsibility for producing a licence onto the licence holder. This means that at the point of purchase the licence holder must present their licence in order to obtain fireworks. Now, for example, in the event of a retail physical purchase, that would be a physical process, but also they must provide evidence if they hold a licence at the point of online purchases. The bill, as it's currently drafted, I believe there exists a loophole that online retailers will not have to check for a licence. In fact, I think there may even be a debate about whether the Scottish Government or even this Parliament can legislate to mandate retailers to check for the possession of such a licence. More so if that retailer is not in Scotland or indeed in the UK. It's a short amendment, but I believe an effective one, which shifts the balance of onus on the purchaser, is the only way to competently make a purchase. It does not address, however, the wider issue, which we did struggle to come up with a draft that did this on how on earth online fireworks sellers will actually check that a Scottish-based customer or resident who holds a licence or who perhaps has had a licence, which has been subsequently revoked, will be verified when making a purchase. Any online retailer feasibly could sell to any UK registered address after the bill passes, but it is unclear how that would be dealt with by those retailers from a legislative point of view. If the Government considers there's a better solution to this problem, I'm fine with that. I'm keen to hear their thoughts. If the Government's not minded to support my amendment, I think it still must outline why there is no requirement in the bill to physically or digitally present a licence at the point of purchase, and how on earth it is going to police the online sales of fireworks by suppliers outside of Scotland or outside of the UK when selling to Scottish consumers, something that is not addressed in this bill and to which there remain unanswered questions. I don't think that this is an issue that can be kicked into the long grass of secondary legislation, because it is a key component of ensuring that we limit any opportunity for black market, which so many of us have highlighted, as a very real risk. That's what the amendment does, it's what it's meant to do, and that's the issue that it's meant to address. If there's a better way of doing it, I'd be happy to withdraw it and work with the Government to bring it back at stage 3 to make that offer. In relation to amendment 46, I'm keen to hear Ms Clark speak to it. It's a four-word amendment that's quite slight in nature, but I believe that it's quite big in effect. So it's quite unclear as to what the member seeks to achieve with that amendment and how, on a technical level, that will affect the rest of the bill. I did have some concerns about the brevity and the nature of what it was doing, so I'll let the member speak to that myself. Katie Clark, to speak to amendment 46 and other amendments in the group. If I perhaps start by addressing the point that Jamie Greene has just raised in terms of the brevity of the amendment, that was a matter that I discussed with the clerks, and indeed there would be, I think, probably quite a substantial number of consequentials if the amendment was passed and it was felt that it was better to put the principle before the committee today and any consequentials would be dealt with at a later stage in the bill. So I hope that that explains the brevity of the amendment, but obviously there would be consequentials if this amendment was passed. So the effect of the amendment would be to leave out section 4 of the bill, so the legislation would still have firework control zones restrictions on the days where fireworks could be purchased and used, the new criminal offences relating to the prohibition of supply of fireworks to children and indeed all the other provisions of the bill, but the effect of this amendment would be that, whilst there would be a new framework, the licensing scheme would be withdrawn. I have to say that I have no objection to a licensing scheme on principle. However, I do not believe that this scrutiny process has been sufficient given the lack of detail in the bill, but also the risks of the creation of a black market, which this committee has heard about, and so I believe that the Government should come back with primary legislation for a scheme that could undergo a proper scrutiny process and indeed a consultation process and that that would enable this committee to ensure that any scheme that was put forward was robust and indeed was fulfilling the various concerns that have been raised by the committee. I believe that the provisions of the scheme, as is being put forward in the bill and, of course, we do not have the detail, so therefore we do not know exactly what the eventual proposals will look like, but it means that it is likely that law-abiding citizens will inadvertently fulfill the law, whereas those who use fireworks in an antisocial manner, which are the problem that we are trying to address, will simply not apply for a licence anyway, but will find other routes to acquire fireworks. The proposal before the committee is that we take out the licensing scheme because of all the problems that have been indicated that we have discussed as a committee and that the Government would be required if it feels that a licensing scheme is required to come back with the proposals in a form that would enable a proper scrutiny process, and I would wish this to be put to a vote. In terms of Jamie Greene's amendment 60, although I have some sympathy to what he was saying, I also have some concerns and I will listen very carefully to the debate on this going forward, but I think that the concern that I would have would be to take out, effectively, the defence of without reasonable excuse, and having a prescriptive list would mean that there would be scenarios where probably all of us would accept that it might be legitimate for someone to have a firework or a pyrotechnic that falls within the scope of this legislation, but it would be a criminal offence under this bill. It is a technical point, but it takes away the discretion of the courts to look at the facts and the particular circumstances in each case. I have some concerns about having a prescriptive list, but I will listen to that debate going forward. I want to start with Jamie Greene's amendment 61, which is a very necessary debate to have and a very necessary inclusion. I wonder whether Jamie Greene would address one of the issues for me in reading that, although I agree that it is irrespective of the location of the supplier, so we need to make sure that we cover the licence that is presented physically in a shop, but also the licence that is presented online, which I think the committee would have agreed upon and that is what they would like to happen. I guess that we cannot make the supplier ask for the licence, so there would be a difficulty in, I suppose, necessitating that in law, but maybe you could come back on that point, but yes, I do think that it is necessary to make that clear in the bill. In relation to amendment 46, I will take an intervention to answer that point. That is probably easy to deal with now, or I will forget in my summing up. You are absolutely right. It was quite apparent that it is nigh on impossible to mandate in the statute books retailers in the way that we might need to to ensure that someone holds a licence. That therefore is why I have worded it in the way I have that the onus is on the licence holder to present their licence at the point of purchase, because that is most definitely within the competence of both the Parliament and the bill. On amendment 46, it is a substantial debate to have and a substantial amendment. As I have expressed my concerns of the passage of the bill, I am concerned about whether the public will understand all the complexities that are required to remain within the law. There are so many different offences and concerns about the lack of detail around the actual nature of the licence scheme. I welcome the letter that the minister sent to the committee. I will run through how that would help. It would be important to point out that, in supporting amendment 46, it would simply be saying that the Government should come back with firm proposals on what the scheme should look like, rather than not necessarily take out the scheme from the bill altogether. It would still leave, as Katie Clark said, firework control zones, and it would still be against the law to set them off within the 57 days. My first concern, as I have expressed in the previous debate, is whether or not this legislation will be used by prosecutors. My second biggest concern is whether it will be well understood. As Katie Clark makes the point, aspects of the offences and current law deal with the misuse of fireworks. The licensing scheme is to create, as the Government says, a culture. People have been understanding that use of fireworks is something that they need to be regulated. Further down the line, I have an amendment on the affordability of the licence and the issue that the committee raised. It would make sense to me for the Government to have put specific proposals on that scheme before us, so we could have considered it. Lastly, I am not convinced that the Government's assessment of the issue of the black market is necessarily right. I have to confess that I was concerned when I heard the industry's presentation to the committee, and I am afraid that it is still in my mind that if we get this wrong, and I hate to see ordinary people trying to conform to the licence scheme, trying to conform to the right number of days that they can set them off and the right number of days that they can buy them, only to find that it is too easy to go and get these fireworks elsewhere. There is no doubt in my mind that life tells you that there is going to be this issue of people exploiting how difficult it might be to lawfully set off fireworks. For that reason, I am sympathetic to 6.1 and 4.6. Lastly, I tend to agree with Katie Clark on amendment 6. I am still not that clear of why he would need to use the language unless explicitly exempt under schedule 1. Again, my only objection to that is that, without reasonable excuses, the term is normally used, so I have a question mark over that one. I find myself quite generally supportive of Jim Greene's amendments to 6.1, at least the principle behind them, which I think is trying to tighten up the use of a licence, which is obviously a massive part of the bill. However, as Pauline and Katie have said, as Jim Greene has reflected on, there may be not the finished article. I will be keen to hear from the minister about what concerns she has about what she might be and if one of those concerns is the possibility of a perhaps over-criminalisation of people who are trying to do the right thing, then, obviously, I do not think that that would be the right way to go. In general, I think that Jim Greene has made the offer to the minister what he is trying to achieve here and perhaps take that forward through stage 3, which I think is sensible, because, obviously, we want to see the licensing scheme working. What I think is fear might be—and the minister might be able to leave it, her fear is on this when she speaks—that, if there is a way not to present a licence, most people might not do that, and it will not really be enforced. Whereas we would like to see it the other way about, if you need a licence, you need to present that unless you can demonstrate why not. I will wait to hear what the minister says about those. In terms of amendment 46, I am not entirely clear how that would work. I appreciate Katie Cot's explanation of it, but it would be again good to hear what the minister thinks on that. On amendment 61, the honus is already on the retailer to ask for proof of age for alcohol or cigarettes. I do not think that that is the problem or that you are pre-empting something that might not be a problem. On Katie Clark's amendment 46, I think that licensing is an integral part of the scheme, and it dovetails in with other measures. If you left it out completely, which, if we agreed with 46, regardless of Pauline Sain, it could come back. If we agreed with 46, then licensing would be gone from the bill. I think that it would sort of negate the purpose of the bill if licensing was not there, and the purpose being that people have to be responsible and realise how to be responsible when buying and setting off fireworks. If there was no licensing, then that would defeat the purpose. I agree that the detail is very important, and we would have to look forward to the scrutiny that we can of that when it comes round, but it is far too sweeping to say, just take it out of the bill just now. I would like to speak to amendment 61 of Jamie Greene's. I think that the need for licence holders to declare that they have a licence when we can of purchase is just basic common sense. I note Rona Mackay's point about high street retailers having a responsibility to check ages and other circumstances, but that is on the basis of not taking into account, I do not think, the wild west of online sales. You know, you have got incredible grey areas, multiple jurisdictions out with the reach of this Parliament. If you take, for example, the issue of fraud, much of which occurs online, and is just not subject to meaningful investigation by the authorities in Scotland because of the fact that they just do not have the resources to do so, the notion that anyone would be checking whether some random seller on the dark corner of the internet had sought a licence before selling to someone in Scotland is for the birds. Therefore, it is very important that we bring that in. I think that the Government, in fact, would probably welcome it, but I would be interested to hear the response to that. Section 4 of the bill sets out that, among other things, it is an offence for a person that reasonable excuse to purchase, acquire, possess or use a firework without a firework licence. Regarding amendment 60, I understand that Mr Greene is seeking to strengthen the language in relation to those offences and ensure that the offences can be effectively enforced and address any concerns around that. However, I have issues with that amendment. Section 4 has been carefully drafted with the understanding that people who otherwise would not be exempt may make a genuine mistake—I think that that was the point that Katie Clark was alluding to—or be in a situation outwith their control, where, for example, they are inadvertently in possession of firework. Similar provision for defence of reasonable excuse also operates in relation to offences involving, for example, possession of corrosive substances. That is under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. If it is against the law to purchase, possess or use fireworks without a licence unless you are explicitly exempt in the list of exemptions, in which scenario would the minister foresee someone purchasing, being possession or using fireworks justifiably without a licence? A reasonable excuse, for example, could be, and there are lots of examples. I do not want everyone to read too much into this particular one that I am using, but I am just using it for illustrative purposes. Let us say that a parent sees their child with a firework and they do not know where they got it from. They certainly did not give that to the child. They take that off the child and then take it to the police station or go to destroy that firework. Under the section, as is currently drafted, they would not commit an offence because they would have a reasonable excuse for having those fireworks in their possession without having a licence. I anticipate that we cannot foresee those situations or others at present as to what they might be. I have no doubt that they will be very infrequent. However, as it is drafted, section 4 enables people to rely on the reasonable excuse to avoid committing an offence and the subsequent prosecution and conviction that could follow. I am sure that the committee does not wish to criminalise people who have done nothing wrong and just find themselves in very unusual circumstances. The entire section needs to be read to give the context. Section 4.4 already makes it clear that the section is subject to exemptions listed in subsection 1. Amendment 60 is not necessary. We have also heard from Mr Greene regarding amendment 61, which would require a fireworks licence to be presented at the point of purchase either online or in person. There is already a requirement on suppliers to take reasonable steps to establish that the person that they are supplying has a licence at the point of purchase, which is a point that Rona Mackay made. Crucially, that extends to other parts of the supply process, such as a courier who is making a delivery following an online purchase. At other points in the supply chain, they will have that duty to check the licence. For instance, a delivery driver. That happens in practice with other age-restricted products as well. I thank the minister for taking my many interventions. However, just to be clear about what the law is seeking to do, where does the ultimate responsibility and honest lie on checking whether someone holds a licence? Is it at the point of purchase? Is it at the point of delivery? If that is in a physical scenario and it is an online purchase, is it the person who processed the order at the other end of the back office? I do not even know what we can and cannot legislate to do in that area, but it still remains unclear as to where the ultimate responsibility lies and the bill has drafted as to whose job it is under the eyes of the law to check if the purchaser holds a licence or is exempt. It is unclear, hence my amendment. There is a duty, a requirement on suppliers to take reasonable steps. There is also a duty on the person purchasing to have the licence in order to comply with the law. In the example that I have just given you, that will also apply to delivery drivers. That covers the point that has been made by Russell Findlay among others about online sales. I thank you very much for taking the intervention. I think that the example that you cite of couriers now being responsible for for this element of the supply chain does not negate the need for this amendment, but actually cements the need for this amendment by putting the onus on the buyer, because while couriers, no doubt, are in the main, legitimate and responsible, it is about sellers who may not be within the jurisdiction of Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. There is no accounting for what methods they might deploy to send fireworks to people in Scotland. By accepting this amendment, you are putting the legal onus on the purchaser. It seems common sense, but I am curious to hear your views on that. The member is partly right in that we cannot regulate behaviour outside of Scotland. That is the case. That is why the legislation has been drafted in such a way that we use the term supply. That covers all parts of the process, not at the point of purchase. It is only specialist couriers that can deliver fireworks, and they will be marked as explosives so that they cannot be delivered by normal couriers. That does make sense, but it is about that being entirely dependent on people selling them, being honest and declaring what they are sending, and that cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, going back to the point, the amendment would put the onus on the buyer. As I have laid that out, there are requirements on the seller, on the purchaser and on the supply chain. That will work in a very similar way to the delivery of age-restricted products, where the person delivering the products must satisfy themselves, so that the recipient is over permitted age to receive the delivery. I am sure that we have all seen or noticed that with things such as alcohol being delivered as part of your online shopping, for instance. I believe that that is covered there. The specific provision relating only to the point of sale is not only unnecessary, but it would cause confusion and lead to a misunderstanding or even complacency in the wider supply chain regarding licensing checks. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the letter that I sent over to the committee. I hope that the committee was able to receive and have a look at that yesterday, because I set out in detail the steps that are being taken in order to look at some things like illegal sellers online and so on. There is quite a lot of detailed response in there about the steps that the Government and its partners, such as trading standards, would take in order to address Russell Findlay's point. We have heard from Ms Clark that section 4 should be omitted entirely and that would mean that there is no offence committed by a member of the public by not having a licence when purchasing, using or possessing fireworks and the onus would be shifted entirely on to suppliers and the offence that would be committed by supplying fireworks to an unlicensed person. I think that removing section 4 would significantly weaken the licensing system and the ability to achieve the policy aim of ensuring that all firework users have completed training on the safe and the lawful use of fireworks. Focusing on the consequences of not having a licence solely on the suppliers would weaken that policy and further in trying to bring about more responsible, more appropriate and safe use of fireworks by members of the public. Making it a criminal offence not to have a licence is a fundamental part of driving the societal change in that area and ensuring that there is a high degree of compliance with the requirement to undertake the training. The licence scheme was based on a significant amount of consultation and evidence gathering. I think that what Katie Clark is suggesting is a very disproportionate amendment, in fact, in this case, as it totally removes the licence scheme. A licence scheme, of course, received rather significant public and stakeholder support. Is it true to say that if there wasn't a licence scheme, if you hadn't gone for a licence scheme, you could still create an offence for setting fireworks off and you can still say that you can only set fireworks off on those days? I totally accept the point that without a licence scheme or the whole point is for a licence scheme, if you don't have a licence you can be prosecuted. But under the bill you can also create an offence if you let a firework off on the 57 days and it's also an offence to purchase a firework out with the 37 days. Notwithstanding that's the Government's position but it's fair to say that you would still prosecute people for not using fireworks. I was a bit unsure about that in the bill in terms of if everybody will understand it and I will get to this debate later about what information you're going to give to the public about it because the 57 days although there's a rationale for why they are but I don't remember the public's got to know so it was just on that point. Yeah so obviously there's a number of ways that you could have approached this and the fireworks review group as we know who came up with a set of recommendations. The licensing scheme is a key part but it's a part of a wider set of provisions so as Pauline McNeill mentions there's other provisions in the bill to deal with certain types of behaviour and the idea behind the licensing scheme was to turn the purchase of fireworks away from that sort of spontaneous event that people would do without having to understand about how to use them, where to use them, how to use them safely etc into something that was more of a planned purchase and so now when people when if the bill is passed and people apply for the licence they will have to learn about the safe and lawful use of fireworks before they're able to use them and so I consider it's a very key part of the set of the provisions of course. I'm very interested in what you're saying and what you seem to be saying is that the main purpose or one of the main purposes anyway of the licensing scheme is to require people to undertake training. Of course there's other ways that that could be done, that could be a legal requirement that people have to undertake training whether that would be face-to-face training, whether that would be online actually would be very sympathetic to face-to-face because I think it would be a more robust form of training whereas I understand it's probably more likely to be online but that's a discussion we may have later on or going forward. We know that very few people get convicted of fireworks offences, we've heard evidence in relation to that and as the bill stands at the moment and we'll be coming on to discuss this later you know it's only people that have got fireworks convictions that would have to declare them and that would be considered so for most people given that very very few people have fireworks convictions most people are going to get the licence I presume if they pay the money so the main issue is the money and as you say the training scheme but the training doesn't need it doesn't need to be in this form does it it doesn't need to be a licence with the money you know with the provisions that you've given it and this only will be coming on to who's covered by the licence later but for example it's not clear for example whether community groups would be covered or not and a range of other organisations would be covered by the licensing scheme so are you saying it's the training that you think is the fundamental issue about the licence I think it's part of the whole policy intent of which training is just a part and I think I've outlined that already in my response so I mean I take the member's point but if you said that you would just like people to be trained before they use the firework without having a licence and making it mandatory you'd be reducing it to some sort of voluntary system so I think is that what the member was implying it wouldn't necessarily be it could be mandatory and there could be a provision in the bill for that a bit within the powers that are available to this parliament this this was the method that was designed in order to take effect of the policy intention which is to make people use fireworks in a safe and lawful way and to make it not into a spontaneous purchase where people can kind of just run into the shops buy them and use them you know in ways that most of us would consider to be antisocial for at least for part of it so I hope that answers the member's question so for these reasons I don't support any of these amendments so that's 46, 60 or 61 and I would ask the committee not to support them thank you minister Jamie Greene to wind up press or withdraw thank you convener and thank thanks to members and the minister for the debate just to clarify a few points I think on just to deal with minute 46 I'll probably share concerns and reservations raised by other members around the nature of what it seeks to achieve I do have problems with how the licensing scheme is being proposed but I don't have necessarily a problem with the licensing scheme per se so I'll be unable to support that that the government would actually have to come back with specific proposals given all the concerns which would be in primary legislation so it's not a principles objection to the licensing scheme sure it's just unfortunately that the manifestation of the principle is that it removes the scheme entirely section 4 and its removal does create issues I think I suspect with the benefit of time the member would have been able to formulate something in a way for example and I'll come on to in a second why I have another couple of amendments coming up which are of a similar ilk where I have reservations about the proposed and I want the government to revisit them but I've proposed the way in which it should revisit them and the timescales more importantly amendment 90 which I hope the member will reflect on later whether that's the day or next week is unclear on post-legislative scrutiny includes a review of the licensing scheme and the effect that is having for example on the black market and illegal purchasing so there are other things coming up which I think we'll have a good debate about and I hope the member will be willing to support in return for my lack of support for this one. On amendment 60 I absolutely have heard concerns I think valid points been raised about the reasonable excuse debate and I won't be moving that amendment 60 to be clear yes on 61 though and this is the one that I am pushing because I mean it's quite a simple amendment it's we still have a I think quite a muddied water in terms of the what we can do within this bill to ensure that people present their license I think Rowan Mackay is right because retailers already do you have to for example verify age on the sale of certain products and that's all well and good in a physical environment here in Scotland so if you buy fireworks from a Scottish retailer then I don't think there's a problem I think it's very clear in the legislation who's responsible for that purchase and sale if you're doing it through UK retailer it's perhaps slightly less clear where the jurisdiction lies and if you're outside of the UK then it's even less clear other than the courier will land entire responsibility if someone makes a purchase and I've just googled during this debate by fireworks from the EU and there are dozens and dozens and dozens of websites who will happily sell fireworks to somebody right here in Scotland and nothing in this bill will legislate for that I'm afraid therefore the simple solution in my view was to put the onus on the purchaser to present their license to that retailer in whichever manner is possible these days that shouldn't be too difficult to achieve from a technical point of view much of that will lie in the technical solution the government procures and introduces to administer the license scheme but it's not beyond the bit of man I think to allow for a license to be presented somehow digitally or physically at the point of purchase and again it puts that onus back on the license holder that you need your license with you if you're going out to buy fireworks in the same way you need your age identification do you want to go out and buy alcohol or cigarettes and so on because we cannot legislate wholesale to enforce this on the retailers online or physical we simply can't we know that so it puts the onus back on the purchaser and again I struggle to see why that's an issue so I will move 61 thank you very much so just to confirm your intention to withdraw amendment 60 correct thank you our members content thank you so call amendment 61 in the name of jamey green already debated with amendment 60 jamey green to move or not move move thank you so the question is that amendment 61 be agreed to are we all agreed yes we're not agreed therefore we'll move to a vote so all those in favour of the amendment please raise your hands thank you all those against raise your hands and there are no abstentions thank you so the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the number of votes against is four therefore there is an equality of votes therefore as convener I shall use my casting vote and vote against the amendment so the amendment is therefore not agreed so we'll move on to the next grouping but before we do so I'd just like to propose that the end of this grouping will take a comfort break of around 10 minutes or so thank you so I call amendment 62 in the name of Russell Finlay group with amendments as shown in the groupings Russell Finlay to move amendment 62 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you now this may look like a lot of talking but I think the number of amendments belies the fact that most of them pretty much do the same thing taking numbers 62 and 63 is the starting point 62 relates to the maximum prison sentence and 63 relates to the maximum fine for a particular offence relating to the illegal buying acquisition or possession of fireworks in a much the same vein 64 65 is to do so without a licence 85 86 is to make a false statement to get a licence 87 88 is to produce a false licence another document 91 90 do is to buy four or give fireworks to under 18 94 95 is to supply fireworks out with the designated 37 proposed dates 9900 is to use them out with the designated 57 proposed dates 110 111 is to use fireworks in the firework control zones in breach of the terms laid out 118 119 is to possess pyrotechnics after going to an event and 124 125 is to give false information to trading standards I'll come on to 126 later it's the only one that's slightly different but for each of these the first number relates to the maximum prison sentence and the second number relates to the maximum fine the prison sentence just now the bill states can be a maximum of six months and the fine can be a maximum of 5 000 pounds and what we are what my amendment is proposing is raising the prison sentence maximum to 12 months and the fine maximum to 10 000 pounds now this is not to say that the amendment is suggesting that is the correct sentence to be applied we have no crystal ball we do not know what each and every case will be in front of a sheriff down the line but we do think it's very important that the judiciary are given the power to have that discretion it seems unlikely that they will imprison somebody for 12 months for many of these offenses but we cannot foresee these circumstances therefore it seems logical to give them that that power. I wonder when he was looking at this section of the bill whether he considered whether there should be any other forms of disposal because there's only prison sentences or fines that would be as options for the courts there's obviously a range of other non-custodial disposals that might be available such as you know community orders or probation or a range of other types of disposals is that something that he's given any thought to and what would his views be in terms of expanding the range of disposals? What my understanding and the minister no doubt can put me right is that those disposals would be available in relation to the legislation as it stands but we'll hear from the minister on that point. Going back to the specific issue of the sentencing being potential up to 12 months now in 2019 the government introduced or legislated for a presumption against short sentences that means that sheriffs are disinclined to sentence anyone for a period of less than 12 months which kind of makes a new bill stating a maximum sentence of six months somewhat disingenuous possibly redundant or perhaps certainly something that the public might not fully understand so given the expectation on sheriffs not to imprison for anyone for a period of less than 12 months even though they can do so the bill changing it from six to 12 months would be a lot more clear that they have that range of options available to them. Thank you very much. It's just been helpful so earlier you said that your intention was to make sure that sheriffs could if they wanted to thought that it was serious enough half 12 months supposed to six months and then you made the point about short sentences but is it your intention for or hope that sheriffs will therefore use that additional scope to give heavier sentences because I am sympathetic to this but depending on your answer to this that would concern me because I wouldn't be out for making heavier sentences but I would be sympathetic. No it's absolutely not our place nor it's my nor is it my intention to suggest what a sheriff might use this or any disposal is entirely up to the circumstances in front of them however given the presumption against short sentences putting six months in a new piece of legislation just seems slightly disingenuous and it gives sheriffs those options there might be some case down the line that absolutely merits a greater sentence and we often hear sheriffs expressing concerns that they can't satisfactorily sentence an individual due to whatever particular legislation states so it's maybe future proofing it it's maybe giving them the range of options that seems eminently sensible so hence the need to do so it may be that individuals would agree or disagree with some of the ones that I've read out depending on the perceived seriousness or otherwise of of each element and I'd just like to conclude in relation to amendment 126 which is the only one in this group that is does a different thing essentially my understanding of that is let me just get that in front of me and find it but the understanding about that is it future proofs this section against something such as Covid coming along and any undue delays to prosecution it just means that if there are significant delays brought about by circumstances that nobody could foresee or something in the nature of Covid then this does not fall this this 12 month period does not become redundant and the clock starts ticking after any such additional delays are brought into place if that makes sense so I move those amendments. Thank you. Jamie Greene to speak to amendments 66 and other amendments in the group. Thank you. I'll speak to 66 first. It's a short amendment. It leaves out the word is and inserts the words maybe instead and if the members are looking for the context it's section 5 page 3 line 14. That's my only amendment in this group although I will speak to Russell Finlay's amendment in the second. It relates to the supply of fireworks to an unlicensed person which we had a debate on previously. It's part of this area of legislation which could effectively criminalise retailers, online sellers, shop workers, delivery drivers who do sell to someone without licence which itself is a controversial enough debate but it is still entirely unclear if the liability lies on the individual at the point of purchase or for example whoever is recorded on the receipt of the purchase or the owner of the premise or the owner of the business or the owner of the website, retailer, executives, trustees and so on. Subsection 3 explicitly states that it is a defence to show that the person took reasonable steps to establish at the purchaser either had the licence or was exempt from having a licence. Going back to the previous debate we had around offering flexibility in the judiciary which I've conceded. I've changed this to it may be an offence to allow for that discretion which we agreed to earlier this morning for the police, the courts and the justice system on a case by case basis to determine if the defence that has been provided is bona fide and robust. I would argue that it cannot be black and white as it is a defence, a mistake I made in my previous amendment. On a wider point I reiterate that notwithstanding this amendment there still remain unanswered questions as to the practicality of who is committing an offence and under what circumstances if an unlicensed customer is able to successfully purchase a product. I would ask the Government to reflect on that issue on the other amendments around the penalties. I concur and agree with what has been said so far but I think that there is an additional point to be made and that is the message that it will send off if we increase the penalties, the option of the increased penalty at the disposal of the sheriff. It's not an automatic increase that all fines will go up and that all sentences will go up but it does offer them a wider toolkit. The reason that is important is that it will act both as a deterrent to those with whom we know that there is problematic behaviour. I also think that it reflects the strength of feeling that we have heard from the communities who have suffered and feel that the law is not necessarily a deterrent as it is but it also sends a strong message that we will take this seriously. For the technical reasons around the presumption against whatever one's view on that is irrespective but everyone knows that a six-month sentence is not a sentence served. That's a fact. The increase of that means that there is a real potential that the most serious of offences and the most serious of offenders run the risk of going to prison. That currently does not exist. I appreciate that we are making that jump across water but it's an important one because it does now give the sheriff that disposal which it does not have available to them because, meaningfully, someone could go to prison for the most serious offences. It's not saying they will, it's not saying that's our view but it does give the sheriff that option and that's an important jump which is why we've increased it to 12 months and that's why I would ask the Government and members to support that increase or explain why we shouldn't. I think that when members take time to lodge amendments and with what together as a team and committee always try and find some common ground even if, you know, I'm not intending to vote for it but I have to start with that. I almost an apology to say that I completely disagree with the amendments in this group. I think that, you know, I feel that the bill that we've already taken through stage one strikes the right balance here. For me, you know, this bill and the ministers been clear on this, it's not about, you know, the unnecessary criminalisation, it's about changing our relationship and use of fireworks in this country which is a major problem for communities and I can't think of an example when both Russell and Jamie were talking there that, you know, they would merit a custodial sentence because even in the most serious instances which we can imagine such as assaults on emergency workers and stuff, they're already covered by other laws as well which can be utilised by the prosecution services. You know, I think what we're talking about here is the use of fireworks as we're currently experiencing in Scotland so, you know, I already think that this bill strikes that balance, it's putting already power into the course to look at and you know, we took some evidence and one of the panels, I can't remember what one it was now but in terms of, you know, the disposals that would have people, particularly young people, I think we mentioned, looking at their behaviour, we know that some community groups are doing really good work in that area as well so, you know, I already think that, I'm not going to go through all the different individual amendments but in this group and I do respect the work that the Russell's obviously put in to bring these together, you know, because it is quite a lot there but absolutely not when I support these amendments, I think the bill already finds a balance. Thank you very much. Any other member wish to come in? I'm going to start. Thank you, convener. So I believe that the maximum penalties that are set out in the bill are proportionate to the offences in the bill and I think that's the key point there with all the offences subject to level 5 penalty caps and these levels have not been arbitrarily chosen, they have been deliberately included following careful consideration and based on the types of offences in the bill and the levels of penalty applicable within other fireworks legislation and this ensures that there's consistency, there's transparency and there's proportionality across the bill and the laws on fireworks as a whole and I've listened to the arguments that have been put forward by Mr Finlay and Mr Greene on this so in addition it's likely so that the members raised, you know, incidences where something very serious had happened involving fireworks but of course that in those cases it's likely that offences and I think Mr McGregor made this point where fireworks or power techniques are used let's say against emergency workers in a very serious offence those could then be taken forward through other legislation so in that case it would be possibly through the common law assault or reach of the peace and of course in both of those there are longer custodial sentences that can be handed down in fact up to life imprisonment so I hope that gives the member some comfort on that point of course just going back to your earlier point I think the issue about consultation is interesting I'm just curious to know was this consultation around the proposed sentences and disposals done with the Lord President, the Sheriff's Association and the Scottish Sentencing Council for example? No it was actually consideration and it was to do with aligning it with other types of legislation that are similar okay thank you so we are not aware of any specific or compelling evidence that higher maximum penalties are necessary to deal with the offending behaviour that specifically we're speaking about that's in the bill and so I therefore believe there's little justification in increasing those maximum available penalties and that the penalties that are set out in the bill do strike the right balance and that they are proportionate and that they give the courts the appropriate powers to deal with those who breach the offences I think Katie Clark raised a point about other disposals and of course other disposals are available at the discretion of the court and based on the circumstances of the case so I'd ask Mr Finlay not to press these amendments and if he does for the committee to vote against them. The Scottish Government's policy of presumption against short sentences was debated during this point but I think it's important to keep in mind of course that this is a presumption it's not a ban and it means that the court can decide in any given case to impose a short period of imprisonment but only if no other method of dealing with that person is appropriate. Can the minister elicit if anyone has ever gone to prison say in the last five years for a fireworks related offence and what the maximum fine issued by any court has been to date for such an offence? Can the committee give me a moment so I haven't got that in front of me so I'd have to look up that information? It's important in the context of what we're debating in this amendment. Part of the information that we did in the data that we did give to the committee we're obviously just looking at it very briefly here but it looks as if there hasn't been any custodial sentences that have been given out for this type of offence or for existing fireworks offences I should say but of course that doesn't mean that if there was a more serious incident in the way that I described earlier if somebody you know had injured emergency service worker for instance because that would be proceeded against under a different piece of legislation if that makes sense. Yes thank you that and I'm sorry for putting me on the spot but it is very relevant because isn't I mean the discussion of whether the maximum fine is five thousand ten thousand five trillion isn't it all slightly irrelevant if such levels aren't being nowhere reached as it is and what I'm keen to understand this is part of the problem about not having the data on any of this available to the committee is I'm guessing is that we're talking in the hundreds of pounds is the maximum fines which have been issued not the thousands or the tens of thousands so there's a very real issue at the moment that notwithstanding current levels whether we seek to increase them or not and that will be voted on in a moment but there is real no pertinent deterrent as it stands within the system and indeed has the government asked questions as to why the fines being issued are so low in the first place and is it truly serving as any form of deterrent for the misuse of fireworks. I think we're significantly getting off topic here convener so these specific set of amendments for instance the first few of them relate to use of fireworks without a license possession of fireworks without a license so that is the offences that we are discussing here and so I would say to the committee that I am content that I think that the penalties that we're discussing here that are in the bin already are proportionate and I think that those that are suggested by Mr Finlay are not proportionate for these offences and that they have been carefully considered in the development of the bill in order to align them with other similar offences and to align them with other fireworks legislation so if we can move on then to amendment 66 it's standard for these type of offences for a supplier to have the defence they took reasonable steps to establish that the person they supplied had a licence or was exempt so for example versions of this can be found in the UK government's recent offensive weapons act of 2019 as it applies in Scotland in connection with age restricted sales and in the Scottish government's proposals regarding age restricted sales of alcohol which is in the licensing Scotland act of 2005 so the current defence allows for the court to make a judgment as to the facts of the sale and it means that when a person is sold fireworks he should not have been there is no offence if the retailer can show that they genuinely tried to follow the rules but nevertheless did not due to something that would not have been apparent to an ordinary supplier who was acting diligently and this could include rather for example a genuine mistake or clever deception on the part of the of the buyer I'll finish what I'm saying and then I'll come back to the member so a defence of this nature provides a degree of comfort to retailers that they don't have to take extraordinary and impractical steps with regard to sales of products which are subject to legal restrictions and it was for this reason that this standard approach was taken in the bill and so Mr Greene's amendment would greatly reduce that comfort it would mean that that defence would not be available even if the supplier did take reasonable steps to establish that the person they were supplying had a licence or was otherwise exempt and I don't think it's fair that a supplier should face criminal conviction or punishment in those circumstances and the likely consequence of this amendment would be a reluctance to sell fireworks possibly given the possibility of conviction despite taking reasonable steps to comply with the law where sales did continue the transaction may prove overly onerous and time consuming adding to the cost of doing business for both the supplier and the professional businesses legitimately purchasing fireworks in circumstances where they are exempt but having to go to extraordinary lengths to prove it so I understand it sympathise with the intent to ensure that suppliers comply with the law however for the reasons that I've set out I don't think it's appropriate and I'll give way to Jamie Greene at this point thank you minister so in this scenario again I refer to the potential of driving people to online purchases how would websites or organisations such as pyrofire.eu, best pyro.eu, pyrobest.eu, dynamite pyro.eu and so on that list is not exclusive or the retailers are available what would be a reasonable excuse given by them that they have taken all measures necessary to ensure that a Scottish consumer has purchased, told the licence how will they even know that there is legislation in Scotland that pertains to the sale and restriction of products to unlicensed people unless they're exempt because again that is still unclear from all the answers that we've heard so in that case that the member has outlined it would be the delivery company who has the duty under that legislation so if we move on now to amendment 126 and I understand that the member has lodged the amendment in order to provide clarity but I fear that rather than clarify any perceived issues the addition of this amendment could in fact cause some confusion so the criminal procedure Scotland act of 1995 sets out that summary criminal proceedings for statutory offences must ordinarily be commenced within six months from the time when an offence is committed however it already sets out that this section applies unless another piece of legislation fixes a different time limit as is the case in this bill so this 12 month time limit that it set out in the bill is deliberate in order to be consistent with other fireworks legislation and that another piece of legislation can be made by Scottish or indeed the UK parliament to alter this time limit that is already clear from the powers of those parliaments and the clear wording to that effect in the criminal procedure Scotland act of 1995 and so this amendment I believe is therefore unnecessary and it could ultimately cause confusion and so I'd ask Mr Finlay not to press that amendment thank you convener thank you very much Russell Finlay to wind up presser withdrawal okay thank you very much there's a bit of ground to cover I'd like to start by saying that I won't go over everything I've said originally about why I believe this is the right thing to do but I will begin by saying I agree with Fulton McGregor this is not about seeking to criminalise people we are here to try and reduce misuse of fireworks and that's to do with educating people and seeking to encourage responsible behaviour however I do think that giving the courts the options is a very good thing to do and a wise thing to do going back to the earlier amendment 59 which Jamie Greene put forward the desire to ensure that the existing legislation was being used properly one of the arguments against doing so was that this new law would be the kind of go to all singing and dancing piece of legislation that would deal with the issue of fireworks misuse and if so if that's indeed the case it should be as powerful as can possibly be and it's so worth emphasising that by including the additional higher sentence or fine options it's not to say that these will come to pass or be used disproportionately we trust sheriffs to use their judgment and going back to the point I think the minister made about and I think Fulton also made about other legislation being able to be used in relation to for example 999 workers being attacked and up to I think life sentences being applied that that may be so but when you look at the the long list of offences that these disposals relate to taking one for example which is points 90 91 92 and that's to buy or give fireworks to under 18s now the minister referred to retailers being possibly deterred from selling on the basis of threat of an increased sentence but I think that's slightly unlikely I think it's a curious point because one we are trying to discourage sale of fireworks and two we've we've had a lack of evidence from the retailers about what their intent might be because of this act so to use this in argument against having effective sentencing is slightly I don't know if it quite sits with with the point we're trying to make and I'm taking 91 not talking about legitimate responsible retailers but talking about the the white van man that we've heard about in blackburn people of that nature who have no regard for the law and whatever bit of legislation these people where they supply fireworks to children and subsequent serious damage was to be caused because of that I think just taking that as one example that's worthwhile to have this additional higher sentencing option and I'll just conclude by saying if this legislation is to be the kind of go to gold standard it must do one fundamental thing and that's the point Jamie Greene made and which I omitted to make in my opening which is to act as a true deterrent and and just to conclude by saying we're not seeking to criminalise people we're just wanting to give the courts the options and I think what we're proposing and what the amendment proposes is reasonable in the circumstances so I'd like to press, do I need to read these all out? I'll press everything other than one, two, six which on the basis of the minister's explanation and informing my understanding I'm happy to withdraw. So the question is that amendment 62 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed so we will therefore go to a vote so all those in favour of the amendment please raise your hand all those against raise your hand all those abstaining raise your hand thank you so the number of votes for excuse me is two the number of votes against the amendment is four there are two abstentions therefore the amendment 62 is not agreed so I now sorry to interrupt but my understanding of the procedure I might have made a procedural mistake in pressing those all at the same time but there's no need to do so is the point I'm just not moved thank you so I now call amendment 63 in the name of Russell Findlay all already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move let not move not move okay so I call amendment 46 in the name of Katie Clark already debated with amendment 60 Katie Clark to move or not move and the question is that section four be agreed to are we all agreed okay thank you very much so I'd call amendment 64 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move not move I call amendment 65 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move not move I call amendment 66 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 62 Jamie Greene to move or not move not move okay the question is that section five be agreed to are we all agreed okay thank you members so I'll now suspend the meeting for around 10 minutes for a comfort break thank you welcome back I now call amendment 67 in the name of Jamie Greene grouped with amendment 68 Jamie Greene to move amendment 67 and speak to both amendments in the group thank you convener amendment 67 proposes the prospect of raising the legal age of purchase of fireworks from 18 to 21 there are a number of reasons for muting this idea past the committee and the minister I think it's clear to anyone who lives in a community that's been blighted by firework misuse and antisocial behavior that stems from that is there is often the 16 to 21 year old cohort who makes for the largest proportion of those who are misusing devices we also know again it's not been easy to uncover data but if we had the benefit of time we could have that the average age of an offender for fireworks related defences is around 22 years of age again that subject to some further analysis would have been helpful if we had that information or had time to get that information but the point being is that there clearly is a pattern of behavior between those aged 18 to 21 in those communities where fireworks misuse is a problem furthermore there already is an acceptance within sentencing guidelines that young offenders up to the age of 25 are treated somewhat differently in the eyes of the law in sentencing so the law already has some precedent of acknowledging that young offenders are dealt differently within the eyes of law whatever your view on that the police scotland submission to the committee during stage one talks for example about the availability of fireworks as I quote a concern when considered in conjunction with the profile of in this case many football ultra groups which often attract teenage boys this shows that the younger groups are a big concern to the police and it also a point reinforced when they said that protecting children and young people from harm is of paramount importance and in order to do this potential supply chains to young people may be must be interrupted well one way to control the supply chain is to simply raise the age of purchase now 21 on the face of it may seem high and relevant to other pieces of legislation but it is also worth noting that other governments are making active considerations about raising certain ages for example the age of smoking 21 is an issue which has been mooted because there is general consensus academic and otherwise that cultural and societal shift can happen when minimum ages are increased of course cigarettes whilst harmful are not dangerous weapons fireworks can be so i'm putting this amendment out there to see what members think it is also worth noting that this is a proposal from the fireworks industry itself it's actually in their action plan for government on cracking down the misuse of fireworks so that is from the industry itself somewhat to my surprise the people presumably with a more vested interest in selling as many products as wider cohort of people as they possibly can but even they recognise as an industry the problem of antisocial behaviour amongst the younger cohort of society and by accepting that have proposed themselves that the age of purchase should be raised to 21 it's unclear what the government's position on that is but i'm sure we're just about to find out the next amendment is amendment 68 this is a point that briefly came up in the earlier part of a debate around who can hold a licence and the nature of the licensing scheme i think what i want to do or i'm trying to achieve and if this amendment doesn't do it we can revisit it perhaps is essentially and i hope it's helpful to the government is allow for a scenario where a community group who wishes to put on a display which we accept may be a proportionate and sensible way of conducting fireworks displays that someone may apply for a fireworks licence on behalf of such a group or indeed a group may apply for a licence in my scenario this allows the group to collectively apply for a licence or perhaps to to use that phrase a point a 90 person who acquires a licence on behalf of a group for a specific use i think there are a number of benefits to this one i think the first is the most obvious one and that's to prevent the possibility of stockpiling amongst individuals who will form part of a community led display who will all go out individually and purchase fireworks which is essentially a display made up of many individuals using many individual licenses where there is actually no real control over the volume quantity and scale of the display this could result in fairly large scale displays being put on during the prescribed period where they are allowed to do but equally community groups have expressed concern that they might not be able to for small community groups licensing may be time consuming and expensive if it had to be done on an individual by individual basis i think the obvious solution to that problem would be stockpiling in fact that individuals would go out as is currently allowed in the bill and purchase up to the maximum volume that they're allowed to five kilograms i understand that's quite a lot of fireworks by the way so i would be interested to see what the government thinks in relation to the potential for group licenses or licenses with nominated individuals on behalf of the group um this may also have repercussions which would need to be discussed around clarity regarding liability upon the license holder if for example an organised group purchases stocks and uses fireworks under one license rather than attribute liability onto an unlucky individual um this might be something that the government would need to explore further but this is the point of stage two to probe these issues and with that i rest my comments and i'm keen to hear the debate on those two amendments thereof thank you any other member talked to come in Katie very much and i think this is a very important amendment and hopefully it will draw out a lot of the issues that the committee has been grappling with over a number of weeks because it's never really been clear exactly what the definition of public events would be and whether groups such as community groups would be included in that definition or not or whether they would require to obtain a license in the same way that individuals do now this clearly has got massive ramifications because if community groups and charities are considered to be within the group that would require a license then obviously there's financial consequences but also there's consequences in terms of the restrictions on them in terms of the use of fireworks and when they're able to to organise displays so i think this is an incredibly important amendment and i hope that it will be an opportunity to hear a lot more from the minister around the thinking in terms of how all of this will operate i do have concerns that community groups will have unreasonable financial pressures put on them by having to be involved in the licensing scheme when professional organisations will not have those same requirements and they won't have to pay for a license now we obviously don't know what the cost of a license would be we're told it probably 20 to 50 pounds so of course a word yes that in itself perhaps is testament to why we need a solution like this because in the current scenario a community group could pay for an organised display from a private company as is allowed in the bill that sounds to me a lot more expensive than simply having a license themselves and i think these are all the issues that we're grappling with and i don't claim to be an expert in terms of the regulation of professional fireworks displays and what that would be in terms of how that's defined that may well be professional organisations that have a very high standard in terms of professional qualifications and a sector that's well regulated but that would be interesting to know more about as well so it may well be that professional organisations already have you know very you know sort of strenuous obligations on them in terms of their regulation and their costs and their requirements to keep you know safety certification etc up to date so it would be interesting to hear a lot more about that i'm very sympathetic to the amendment but it would be useful to hear a lot more in terms of the thinking from the government in terms of whether it had always been the intention that organisations such as community groups and charities would be included within the licensing scheme or whether they would be considered to be the type of organisations who would undertake public events because the definition of public events is something that the committee has discussed on a number of occasions and it's one of the concerns there is round about the licensing scheme that it's not actually completely clear who would be included in it and who wouldn't so i look forward to the discussion I've got some sympathy with amendment 67 from Jamie Greene because it would you know on the face of it it would seem to make sense that you know the younger co-op are more likely to be involved in problematic firework use but on the other side of that as well i think that by moving the age to 21 would perhaps negate some of the benefits you know of applying for a license and going through the training that we've talked about so actually probably that's the group we want to we want to capture most with that and i know that Jamie will probably respond by saying there's other ways to make sure that people are educated through schools and in other areas but i think the license in itself gives a unique opportunity for um these young people to actually maybe look at it and see the the consequences so on that and also well there's also the the issue of the criminalisation aspect for the 18 to 21 year olds if they go out and are you know prevented from getting a license which we're wanting to obviously try and encourage so on that basis i'm not likely to support 67 again a bit like Katie Clark with 68 you know on the face of it it does it does seem a fairly sensible amendment and it's put forward it is something that we heard about in committee but again i'd like to hear what the ministers got to say on it because you know the question marks are just coming to me you know in terms of well if it's one person on behalf of a community can all the community then use it and then who is responsible for the risks associated with that so there's probably more question marks a bit well on the face of it it looks quite quite good i think the probably raises more questions and i think that the minister's you know likely to ask is not not to vote for it so i will wait to hear what she says on that and thank jimmy green for bringing these amendments forward because i do think it is important the stage two to have this debate you know start with amendment in 68 um so the scheme as i understand it is aimed at individuals a licensing scheme and in my mind then i'm thinking this is aimed at family social gatherings people in their back gardens as the minister said previously getting people to realise it organizing fireworks displays even if it's on that level you need to think about planning for that so as i read it this amendment would widen that scope because an individual could apply for the license on behalf of a community group so my first issue is does that slightly confuse the purpose of the licensing scheme notwithstanding that i do agree with Katie Clark and jim green on this issue of sorting out any barriers to community groups either financially or others being able to organize displays on where that's desirable but i'm wondering what is preventing an individual at the moment for applying for a license and using it for a community purpose does the bill already cover that it occurred to me that uh since jimmy green mentions the issue of liability well as it's constructed at the moment the the ordinary understanding of it that the individual would be responsible even though they were doing that behalf of a community group because that would be the same philosophy for anyone so that would be perhaps a difficulty in sorting that out i suppose in conclusion on that one i want to be clear in my own mind if i was to support it that there's a licensing scheme is for individuals but there's something else for organized displays that would include community groups so that's my shoes around that one on the question of the minimum age i mean again i think this is a very important and valid debate to have i've never subscribed to the view that there should be a minimum age for every purpose some people have argued that that because you can do certain things at 16 you should be able to do i've never subscribed to that view i think it's a nonsense argument because in other parts of legislation it's appropriate to be 17 or 18 and of course we've signed up to the convention on the rights of the child which makes that 18 obviously that would be beyond that if the amendment is intended to highlight how dangerous fireworks are and that there's still kind of a concern for those aged 21 i'm sympathetic to that if the intention because i wouldn't want in any sense to support something that would imply that it's aimed at criminalising that age group because we think they are more likely to so i suppose it depends what the intention of of that amendment is but since police scotland did raise it i think it's perfectly dissimid to have that debate thank you and other members thank you just starting at number 67 and the raising of the age potentially to 21 now i agree with the points that jamie greens already made and i think from memory the minister in the parliamentary debate stage one responded to this by saying it wouldn't be proportionate or consistent with other age restricted legislation in relation to other items but i'm not entirely persuaded that the comparisons are necessarily relevant and we know as jamie greens already pointed out that that age group whether we like it or not or those who are the greatest problem when it comes to dangerous misuse not talking about general noise and so on and as well as what folton is proposing around education and so on it it seems like a sensible move quite a bold move one i think would have public support and indeed one that's got the industry support which perhaps will surprise a lot of people so it's really just to make those points again and i'm curious to hear hear the minister's response um in terms of 68 one specific issue about that and it's been kind of touched on is around liability and insurance so if an individual license holder was acting on behalf of a community organisation has the government sought any advice or conversation from from industry as to whether those people would be liable in some way as individuals or whether the community group could could share that liability or take that responsibility whether there could be a form of license that did both so it could be for example the individual on behalf of group a i don't know just to see if there's another way of dealing with this issue so thank you thank you sorry sorry minister sorry missy no just very briefly i just wanted to say on 67 on the the age um amendment i mean i do have a lot of sympathy with it to be quite honest but i think maybe that there could be unintended consequences and that could be um it could push more people into the you know buying by proxy for their 20 year old type thing you know that that could be and also you know it does risk widening a black market that that would be those would be my comments but i'm interested to hear what the minister has to say minister thank you convener so we've heard uh mr green speak to raising the minimum age to apply for license as well as seeking to add a provision to enable fireworks license to be granted an individual on behalf of a community group or charity um with regard to the minimum age the pyrotechnic articles safety regulations of 2015 make it a fence to make fireworks available on the market to anyone under 18 years old so if this amendment should be accepted the legal age to purchase fireworks would remain 18 whilst the age that someone could apply for a license to be able to lawfully possess and use uh would be 21 so um convener comparative age restricted products with licensing schemes in scotland and i would disagree with mr green i think that this is comparable and that's the one for air weapons do align the permitted age to purchase with the minimum age for licensing for example so the scottish government is of the view that 18 is an age when most persons are able to assume the full rights and responsibilities of adulthood and so denying those persons aged 18 to 21 the right to apply for a license to possess and to use when it's deemed appropriate them appropriate for them to possess and use other goods that require similar levels of maturity could undermine i think and possibly discredit the fireworks licensing system and this could discourage compliance with the law which is i think was a point made by rona mkai and remove the opportunity for better training and education which was the point made by ffulton mgregor as the safe lawful and appropriate possession and use of fireworks as per the mandatory training course so again whilst i'm sympathetic to the intention behind this i can't support amendment 67 moving on to amendment 68 to include a specific provision enabling a person to apply for a license on behalf of a community group or charity so um convener there were no calls during stage one from community groups or similar organisations to include additional provisions within the licensing system to enable a license to be applied for on behalf of this type of group and in fact the bill has been drafted to include exemptions which enable community displays to continue to take place so there's nothing to stop a member of any such group applying for a fireworks license um should they wish to do so so there's already a provision um so that's in section four three to address community groups where a person who has a fireworks license can purchase, possess and use um on behalf of that group or indeed on behalf of another group um as long as they have that license um there were a number of issues then raised sure i appreciate the very helpful feedback i appreciate this is more of a technical nature this this amendment but just to clarify it so if you're a community community group and you want to put on a display you still need to nominate an individual to use their personal license to purchase, possess and use fireworks on behalf of a community group for a community display which shifts the entire liability responsibility burden on to the individual not the group i mean doesn't that strike as a bit of a problem and why are for example paid for organisations and companies who put on professional displays exempt from holding a license but a community group who does the same activity and puts on a similar or the same display would not be exempt it seems to me that there's still we haven't really addressed the issue in the bill of how community groups in a commercial free environment are able to put on displays other than relying on the goodwill of individuals within that group to use their license to make multiple purchases for what could be fairly large volumes of fireworks which defeats the whole point of the bill okay so the the individual so that the licensing scheme is designed to be used by individuals so that the members correct it would be on an individual basis only not the community group that would apply for the license and they would be responsible in that case for the use of fireworks only so there were some wider issues raised around and this is not within the scope of this bill about you know organised displays and that would come under the public entertainment license and potentially include public liability insurance so that's not within scope of that so it's just to clarify the individual would be just be responsible for the fireworks element of that and not to do with the wider display itself so i think with 68 it's unclear how it would work in practice the proposed amendment doesn't enable a license to be applied for or used differently than it's currently drafted so it's just on that individual basis solely so i'm concerned that this amendment if it was accepted it could be perceived that because a license has been granted to a person on behalf of a community group or charity that everyone connected to that group or charity would then be permitted to use that license i wonder if the member will take that point on board and that this would be at odds with the aim of the system which is to ensure that everyone permitted to purchase and use fireworks in scotland would know how to do so safely and lawfully having completed the mandatory training course so i'm concerned that this amendment could create a situation where members of such groups you know inadvertently for instance commit an offence by using a license that's been granted on behalf of the group to a person so again whilst i am sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment for the reasons that i've set out um i can't support it and i would ask the committee members not to support it thank you minister drapey green to wind up and press or withdraw thank you convener um i think lots of very valid questions have been raised but i think that in itself proves my point is that this is an unaddressed issue and simply dropping the amendment isn't going to resolve the problem nor is it going to answer the questions that we have um so there is still is a lack of clarity about the scenario where a community group or a charity or an organisation or community council or even just a group of people in the same street want to put on an organized display probably for not-for-profit reasons for whatever reason as currently happens um and will be allowed to and how that interacts with the individual licensing scheme which i understand aimed at individuals and promoting safe behaviour and barring people who who expect not to be safe and i understand and get all that but it's still unclear as to what i think is quite an odd link between a community group who do want to put on a display relying on either an individual to use their individual license and individual liability to purchase possess store and use the fireworks on behalf of the rest of the group or indeed of multiple individuals within that have the ability to do the same to the perfectly feasible scenario where 100 people in the street all use their license to go out and buy five kilograms of fireworks put on a 500 kilogram of firework display i mean that's substantial um and that would be perfectly legal and allowed in this scenario um so i still don't think we're there with the legislation i'm afraid i still think there are unanswered questions which community groups may want answered ahead of stage three so whilst for the reasons that on a technical level my amendment does probably create issues wasn't the intention there are issues which could be fixed but i still think the government will need to come back with some clarity around community groups charities and not public displays because i think i don't think that issues i don't think that's been cleared up given the discussion that's taken place it's his understanding now that probably the effect of this legislation would be to push community groups down the path of using professional bodies and that that perhaps is the direction of travel that that we're going in and obviously they on the basis of the legislation is drafted can operate all year round does he think that's probably where we're going well here's where it's interesting that and i hope the minister takes cognisance of this community groups they want to put on the display and i have two choices under this legislation 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 those companies are both exempt from the licensing scheme which is an individuality based one and also exempt from the permitted days of use as prescribed in the bill so justice committee community group puts on a display at any point in the year if they have enough money to do so by paying someone to do it if they don't have enough money to do that then the only way they can put on a display is by doing it during the permitted period of use you're welcome to clarify if i'm wrong they could however put on a display using the individual license of an individual within that group but only during the permitted periods is my understanding of i'm wrong please correct me that member's heart right and members right about the professional displays but for public displays they also exemptions also apply to them and so they are not contained by the permitted days of use that's even worse i mean now i mean we're coming on to the that grouping a later point but we're now in the scenario where anyone could use their status as a community group however that's defined i've tried to define that using the community empowerment act 2015 but there's nothing stopping a group of people saying they are putting on a community display at any point in the year and claiming exemption so we could have displays every day of the year which truly defeats the whole point of what the legislation is trying to achieve happy to give way yeah um i agree with all of that i have two concerns one is the actual purpose even though it's flawed as i understand it was for to deal with individuals not community groups that's the design of the scheme what i thought the minister was going to answer um maybe she could still answer the question is there anything in the bill which is why i think you're suggesting preventing an individual on behalf of a community group don't think there's anything preventing about that but that was at the purpose of the scheme and what concerns me about this as well as i agree with everything you're saying it's all a bit of a mess i'm not sure that i am would be happy to legislate to allow community groups to nominate an individual under this scheme because they're going to buy more fireworks for a start i would have thought for a public display so i do agree that this is an unaddressed issue but i just wondered if you thought it might just negate the actual main purpose albeit flawed yeah i'm happy to concede that i appreciate my amendment as worded might not be the solution to the to the conundrum but i think what it has clearly shown perfectly in this debate is that there still is a conundrum which is unaddressed and i don't know how the government tends to respond to that ahead of stage three but it will need to be fixed or indeed make it or it's up to individuals to bring it back at stage three because this is something that will need to be clarified it does raise the wider issue around the exemptions and the permitted use and the very real scenario that polemic neal raises as a concern is that many individuals within a group will simply use their individual licences to acquire and use and put on the display so it's very much an unregulated environment in that respect other than there's just a lot of people who happen to be using their licences to buy and put on fireworks at the same time in the same place kill surprise what a coincidence it doesn't sound me like a very coordinated approach to how we deal with public displays so i think that's again something i would reflect and ask the government to reflect on the point about raising the age i don't have a view on it i should add i've put in this amendment because i think it's a debate worth having i would be really intrigued a has the government consulted on the specific question i where the public ever asked should we raise the minimum age of the first fireworks from 18 to 21 if that question was asked what the answer was and if it wasn't asked why not if we were to ask it now because this issue is now quite on the public agenda what people would say it's not for me to conject what the public might answer to that but i would say there may be a fair portion of people who may be sympathetic to it more so knowing that the industry themselves are sympathetic to it so i still think there is space for consultation around this issue or at least on the face of the bill or somewhere in legislation to give the government the ability to change that at a future point and i presume that the bill isn't set up in a way that it could be changed at a future point so that the minimum age could be raised for this legislation or other legislation if it became apparent that that was either the will direction travel or something that would benefit society by not passing the amendment or even by not moving it it still doesn't address the issue that that cohort of people between the ages of 16 and 18 to 21 are the group who are most likely to be offenders of the misuse of fireworks so for that reason i have other amendments later about education and so on which i'll come to happy to sum up there can you just confirm your pressing amendment 67 67 i will not move you'll not okay so you just to confirm your withdrawing that amendment indeed thank you i'll call amendment 68 in the name of jaymie green already debated with amendment 67 that jaymie green to move or not move not move okay i'll call amendment 14 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 58 minister to move formally moved thank you the question is that amendment 14 be agreed to are we all agreed we'll now move on to the next grouping and i call amendment one in the name of pauline mcneill grouped with amendment 69 pauline mcneill to move amendment one and speak to all amendments in the group thank you very much convener so the cost of the license was the subject of considerable questioning and debate at the stage one a number of members were concerned about what the cost of the license he would be and acknowledged that the government themselves are live to that very issue i'm sure and some agreement that some people can't even afford 20 pounds but there is a big difference between 20 and 50 i want to probe this issue and so far as i do think there should be an upper limit on the face of the bill i've suggested 25 but that that's something that i admit is arbitrary but i just thought well it's to go above 25 pounds definitely be something which would be unaffordable for a lot of people it concerns me a little bit that the scheme is designed to pay for itself but yet the committee have got no indication as to what that actually looks like since we don't know how onerous the scheme is is a tick box exercise videotaining exercise then you can't even imagine what the actual cost for the government to run it or to set a see where a scheme that pays for itself would look like it definitely could be prohibitive for many families who can maybe just about afford to buy fireworks who are to consider the additional cost of a firework licence and given quite serious costs for concern that we don't have anything on the face of the bill and there's an argument to say in fact if the principle is to make people think that they have to plan why should there actually be a fee at all is an argument but for me the whole the whole idea is going to fall if we do not get this right so i want to probe this issue and wouldn't really be happy to vote through the bill at stage two or stage three with some serious commitment from from the government on how we address this question amendment 69 seems probably potentially better wording than mine about the rate of inflation so i'll be happy to support it if it's pushed and on that convener i conclude Russell Findlay to speak to amendment 69 and other amendments in the group thank you and understand Pauline McNeill's amendment does much the same thing albeit it specifies a fee which i think is perhaps something that is unusual and not really typical of legislation for all sorts of obvious reasons and i think we've identified we're approaching the same problem with a slightly different solution in that rather than trying to set a fee now that would quickly become out of debt we would seek through this amendment to ensure full consultation with all relevant stakeholders about what would be considered to be an affordable and reasonable sum of money to charge for a licence you know this is dependent on as we know regulations coming in after the event so even outwith in normal times the amount of money that might be charged for this licence could hugely influence the number of people willing to pay for it and to apply for it and if it did become disproportionately expensive and a deterrent to go down the legal route it's got the potential for leading to sort of black market sales and so on and furthermore in respect of future price increases they should be capped by pegging it to whatever mechanism the sort of standard inflation related mechanism that is typical of other legislation i think there's a number of ways of doing that i'm sure the minister can keep me right so that's uh thank you thanks governor again i've got quite a lot of sympathy with these amendments you know i think both Pauline McNeill and Russell family have put you know they don't sound like you know they're coming at these amendments in a you know a hard fashion from from what i picked up obviously Pauline will sum up on that but i think it's a sort of a request to the government to hear more information what they're thinking is on this because it obviously was an area where we had quite a lot of discussion about you know it goes back to a previous point that i made i think the whole purpose of this scheme is to try and get folk on to the license and therefore through the training so the less barriers to that clearly the better you know and you know the higher it's common sense to think that the higher the fee um the more people start dropping off and start you know thinking that they might not go for a license um also i think we've just got to be honest and say we're in the middle of a cost of living crisis you know it's impact in all our constituencies i know that my constituency is is very much impacted in well i'm not any expert on costs and prices and where that where the public might be with that i do agree with Pauline that you know 20 25 pounders seem more reasonable in your mind than somebody thinking 50 pound when they're struggling to heat their homes so on that basis again like other members are interested to hear what the government i think you know this and i know from the session that the minister attended there is something they're very consciously aware of and that this government i have always been consciously aware of across the board in terms of cost of living so thank you thank you jimmy did you want to come in yeah just briefly i mean i i'm sympathetic lots of sympathy in the room today it's very nice but nobody ever votes for my amendments but thanks anyway thanks Russell just as well the sympathy i have is actually the level of the fee i think it sounds like a reasonable number it will be no surprise that putting on the face of primary legislation numbers is difficult and dangerous and probably not sensible however principle might be there and i think there might be a principle for how we work together as a committee ahead of stage three even indeed with the government on how the government will go about setting the fee and the sort of work that will need to go into that which could be on the face of the bill which could address some of the issues that i think all members have raised and i think that's something that we will all work constructively on if the member was minded not to move this one it's still something we should revisit and the second and that falls into the second point as well around the inflationary cap which we sought to achieve in 69 there are other ways of wording it i've seen various pieces of legislation that word it and peg it to different levels of increase and there are number of disposals available to the government to do that and we could do that perhaps in a better way with the government has a problem with the way we've set it out but again all that can be withdrawn and can come back to that but it does kind of paint a wider picture again a pain towards amendment 90 which unfortunately sits in a different grouping around post letter scrutiny but equally could sit very well in here around the process that the government should set out because the policy intention surely is not to put people off getting a licence because to get a licence they need to perform the safety training course get the certificate and then get their licence actually we want as many people as possible to get a licence surely so anything that's prohibitive should be found upon by us all so i think again this is an issue that we could sensibly revisit thank you very much minister thank you convener so i understand that amendments one is 69 i've been lodged to seek to ensure that the license fee and any subsequent changes to the fee level are proportionate and accessible for the people of scotland and i will say that i am sympathetic and potentially understand that perhaps pulling McNeill has seen this set of amendments as a probing amendment in order to discuss this issue further which is totally understandable i don't however consider that this is the most effective way to ensure that a fair license fee is in place so amendment one seeks to set an upper limit on the license fee of 25 pounds and i consider that this preempts the consultation process that is required to be undertaken to seek views on the license fee and it would also mean that an assessment of the running costs would not be able to be undertaken before the limit is placed on the amount meaning that it would not be possible for operational costs to be properly considered when setting the fee and both amendments one and 69 seek to ensure that fee increases are in line with inflation i think there's some technical problems with that and the amendments do not include or refer to the measure to define the rate of inflation and a number of members mentioned that perhaps the face of the bill is problematic for for putting a fee on that and that's because placing a statutory limit on the fee or on the amount of fee increase permitted could in future lead to a protracted process to amend primary legislation legislation to adjust this upper limit or frequent use of secondary legislation to increase the fee in in small increments there is practical issues there as well so convener remain committed to ensuring that the license fee is proportionate and fair and it will be set following wide-ranging consultation which i hope addresses russell finlay's one of the points that he made in his contribution and at a rate that ensures that while robust checks and balances are in place the fee is not our restrictive barrier to the safe and lawful use of fireworks so i'd ask that these amendments are not pressed and if they are i would urge the committee not to vote for them. Thank you minister. Pauline McNeill to wind up and press or withdraw. Thank you very much. I did see that this was a probing amendment and I imagined all the various arguments against it which I acknowledge we wouldn't necessarily want to put it on the face of the bill because I can see the problems with that but I have to confess that the word running costs alarms me and equally what you're asking the committee to do and the parliament to do is still to vote for a bill but we do not know what the running costs will be and the minister doesn't know what the consultation will bring up and I just wondered what would ministers do if the running costs turn out to mean that that between that 20th upper limit of 50 it's nearer 30 or 35 pounds and I'm just wondered if you thought you know you thought about that because where would that leave us and I wondered if at least ministers would what I'm saying is if you do a consultation which I wouldn't want to stand in the way of but as I say concerns me that I would have to do that in good faith because we won't know we have to pass the bill and then you're on the consultation but what if the running costs of the scheme turn out to mean it's higher than 25 pounds I can't imagine ministers would be happy with that so would you then take the view if that was the case you just might have to run the scheme at a loss if you wouldn't mind and given a answer to that I would be I appreciate what the member's saying and it's understandable that she's asking these questions I can't answer the question because we haven't been able to undertake the exercise but I have think I have been clear on the record in saying that I am committed to ensuring that the fee is set a reasonable rate because I very much understand the arguments around making it a barrier so we don't we don't want to do that we want to ensure that people are able to do the right thing thank you and container I'm known it as I said I'm not going to push this amendment I am going to come back at stage three I want to debate this again because what I'm looking from for the government is some comfort any comfort around the issue of the consultation outcome showing that their running costs would be a level which none of us would be happy with and what do we do then I think I hope that we would at least agree that oh everything the licensing scheme it would potentially undermine people's desire to be part of it thank you just to confirm the withdrawing thank you very much members happy with that thank you so I call amendment 69 in the name of Russell Finlay already debated with amendment one Russell Finlay to move or not move not moved not moved thank you I call amendment 47 in the name of Katie Clark already debated with amendment 58 Katie Clark to move or not move not move thank you the question is that section 6 be agreed to are we all agreed thank you we'll now move on to the next grouping and I call amendment 70 in the name of Russell Finlay grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings Russell Finlay to move amendment 70 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you convener so number 70 sits alongside 71 72 73 74 77 what this boils down to is the nature of the convictions that would need to be both disclosed by an applicant and indeed considered upon the granting of a license and it seems to be what what the bill is doing just now is pretty limited and in my view kind of fairly inexplicably limited it only seems to require consideration of convictions in relation to fireworks related offenses now we've already heard that there's a perception or a view that these are underutilised there's very few convictions of that nature and in order to better assess an applicant's suitability a proper picture of any criminal offending would be hugely beneficial now in terms of disclosure we believe that all convictions should be disclosed that does not mean that that would be detrimental to the applicant it just allows for the those making the decision to have a complete picture going back to the decision making process rather than looking through the very narrow lines of what the bill is proposing it should certainly i believe include any conviction consideration of any conviction under solemn proceedings not just those listed and as i said this is not to it's a public safety it's about ensuring applicants are people who proper due consideration is given to their suitability on a case-by-case basis based upon a full information being available to those making the decisions and it's a private process it's not about compromising people or forcing people to disclose their pasts in an inappropriate way so that's essentially the thinking behind these amendments minister to speak to amendment 15 and other amendments in the group thank you convener so i'm bringing forward amendment 15 to remove the disclosure requirement during an application only covering spent convictions to widen this to include any relevant conviction whether that conviction is spent or unspent so the management of offenders scotland act of 2019 reduced the periods in which a conviction becomes spent so for example a fine is considered spent and therefore not needing to be disclosed after 12 months rather than the previous period of five years and for those under 18 when convicted the disclosure period for a six-month prison sentence has been reduced from three and a half years to one and a half years and a fine is from six months instead of two and a half years so following careful consideration during stage one i consider that this amendment is a proportionate and a balanced way to strengthen the effectiveness of the licensing system whilst ensuring that only relevant offences are taken into consideration and i want to make clear that a person having a previous conviction is not a blanket ban on holding a fireworks license and nor will disclosure of these lead to an automatic refusal of a license application so the purpose of this amendment is to allow an informed and a balanced decision to be made on each application so if we move on to mr finlay's amendments i understand that mr finlay wants to ensure that a robust system is in place but i consider that those amendments adjust the wording of the disclosure requirement in a way that i think could potentially cause confusion and doesn't substantively change the requirement on applicants and i don't support them but in relation to the requirement to disclose convictions for offences involving fire i can see the potential value in progressing an amendment to this effect and this would include offences such as willful fire raising and i consider that there is a valid point to be made that it may not be appropriate for those who have demonstrated such past behaviour to be able to hold a fireworks license and so i'd welcome further discussion with mr finlay to explore this point further ahead of stage three in addition in relation to amendment 77 i don't consider this one to be necessary or appropriate to include in legislation and Scottish ministers will of course take into account all disclosed convictions when making an assessment of whether or not to grant a license so i can't support these amendments as they are at the moment so i would encourage mr finlay not to press them and if he does i would encourage the committee not to support them but it's just to clarify to mr finlay that on amendment 74 i would be happy to work with him ahead of stage three to help to create an amendment for stage three which i am able to support at stage three i think that that's a very welcome offer i think that the issue around whether where the misuse of fire has been a factor was quite an obvious one that jumped out is in the first instance for example arson or other types of quite serious misuse of fire but which clearly would should prohibit someone or at least be explicit on their application to help inform that decision but when we thought outside of that block there were clearly other types of behaviours which we felt should be disclosed on the application which may again help inform the decision making process and it strikes me as a scenario where someone as they repeat serial offender of anti-social behaviour whether fireworks have been evolved or not there is a judgment made about whether that person is and i'll use the phrase phrase fit and proper to hold a fireworks license and i think that's what's missing from the essence of this in terms of relevant offences in section four the four offences that the government have explicitly chosen section four fireworks act prior technic art prior technic articles regulation explosive substance and explosive act are all only related to fireworks not addressing the serious issue of anti-social behaviour or other types of quite serious conviction including those convicted on indictment which my colleague also wishes to add i still think that in addition to the misuse of fire as a factor there still could be wider scope for other offences or indeed an ability for those who administer the licenses to take into account other offences and indeed to make it a mandatory requirement to disclose those offences if it's not explicitly the case as it is at the moment because i think those are quite these those can be quite serious offences which should be taken into account which was the point of expanding that list from the four that the minister has come up with to the additional four that we've tried to add in so even if we do not move them i think that still needs to be something that the government could look at ahead of stage three because ultimately it's that fit and proper test which must apply to whether someone is suitable to hold a license or not thank you I don't I can't support the amendments before by Russell family as they stand just now I think that disclosing every offence is unnecessary and possibly far far too intrusive i mean there's tight regulations around the disclosure of offences and it's only in certain scenarios such as appearing at court for sentence and other reasons that you would that someone would need that in it in particularly more more so you know with the minister's amendment which includes spent convictions as well which are amt and are minded to support so that that probably makes it even more important however the later amendments from Russell family I think do have some scope and it's good to hear that the minister in conversation with Jimmy Green there as well you know that they're going to look at that going into stage three i think there is a scope for widening it because you know perhaps it doesn't just need to be firework offences and we can all think of other various offences which might be relevant but i think there's got to be a lot of work done between the government in in in Russell in terms of how that's going to work and where it might infringe on you know other rights in human rights as well and again it goes back to I think I've now said this for about the last three groupings you know it's a lesson in the scheme we want people to take up ultimately and if somebody thinks that you know you know I've got an offence from 20 years ago and they don't really know whether it's going to come up or not they might well be put off applying for it and continue to use fireworks anyway so a lot of work needed to be done there but I definitely welcome it and I do think that it's definitely scope to increase the number of offences. Thank you Gilton. Any other members? Russell Findlay to wind up press or withdrawal? Okay thank you very much. I first of all welcome the minister's amendment in relation to this point convictions I think that makes perfect sense and also welcome her suggestion to look at amendment 74 and broaden the scope because the minister identifies I suppose the most obvious one which is willful fire raising or offenses of that nature. Jamie Greene also identifies those of more general anti-social behaviour of violence and just off the top of my head I can think of things like football related convictions for example or violence against emergency service workers which aren't currently required to be disclosed or considered so I think that's a welcome move and there's work to be done there. Ultimately this is about creating a fair system but one that's robust and not of course as Fulton MacGregor suggested deterring people who are perfectly entitled or legitimate licence holders but nonetheless the consideration of offences that I think just common sense would suggest would be of concern should be considered so thank you. Do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 70? 70 right sorry that's the all convictions I think we press 70. So the question is that amendment 70 be agreed to are we all agreed? We're not agreed therefore we'll move to a vote all those in favour of the amendment please raise your hands thank you all those against raise your hands thank you no abstentions so the result of the vote is that there were four votes for the amendment four votes against there were no abstentions therefore there's an equality of votes and as convener I shall use my casting vote and vote against the amendment so amendment the amendment is therefore not agreed thank you I call amendment 71 in the name of Russell Finlay already debated with amendment 70 Russell Finlay to move or not move move please the question is that amendment 71 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed therefore we will move to a vote all those in favour raise your hands thank you all those against raise your hands there are no abstentions so there were four votes for the amendment four votes against the amendment there is an equality of votes therefore as a convener I shall use my casting vote and vote against the amendment so amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 15 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 70 minister to move formally moved thank you so the question is that amendment 15 be agreed to are we all agreed yes thank you and we'll now move on to the next grouping and I call amendment 16 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 75 17 and 80 minister to move amendments 16 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you convener the fireworks training course is a core element of the licensing system and it's crucial to achieving the policy objective that those permitted to purchase possess and use fireworks in Scotland have adequate knowledge of how to do so in a safe lawful and appropriate manner following consideration of the committee stage 1 report I considered it appropriate to progress amendment 16 to ensure that the bill makes it explicitly clear that the training course will include information about the law on fireworks and this will include information such as when and where fireworks can be used and the rules around the safe storage of fireworks and amendment 17 ensures that the criteria for a license being granted will also reflect this it's always been the intention that this information would be part of the training course however I hope the specific inclusion of the word lawful provides assurance that the training course will make it clear to people what is and importantly what is not legally permitted in relation to fireworks in Scotland in relation to amendment 75 while I do not consider specific reference to the procurement reform Scotland act of 2014 to be necessary I'd like to reassure Mr Greene and other members of the committee that if such procurement is undertaken for the purposes of the training course all legal requirements will be complied with throughout that process and Mr Greene has also lodged the amendment seeking to enable Scottish ministers to make provision for how the successful completion of a fireworks training course is automatically recorded on a digital license there are no restrictions on such an automatic process being put in place through the system if the license system is capable of this when it's developed I do consider this though to be an operational matter which I think is much better suited to being considered as part of the development and implementation of the licensing system so while I thank Mr Greene for discussing I think I've moved on too far in my pack there I'll stop there convener and I'll return to that in a moment it's been a long morning thanks very much. Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 75 and other amendments in the group thank you convener it's always nice to be thanked for something I haven't said yet already so 1617 I've got no problem if I didn't really quite understand what the amendment does so therefore it must be sensible amendment 75 again you know it simply seeks to ensure that ministers will comply with procurement legislation in regards to the fireworks safety courses I think given there's an expectation that this will be a government led certification licensing scheme I think what we do want to ensure that during that procurement exercise what we do get is come back to bollett moneals point is value for money there's also technologically future proof which means many of the requirements of the license and the scheme can be easily integrated with the certification which is technologically future proof includes transparency and accountability and also has the ability of data sharing where relevant suitable and proportionate as well if the minister has no problem with the wording of the amendment I don't see why we can't put it on the bill it's not controversial and the same goes for amendment 80 I think it will be very helpful indeed if the successful completion of the training safety training is clear on the license itself and not just the requirement of getting a license again if that's not controversial I don't know why it can't be on the face of the bill either I appreciate there is an argument this could be an operational matter but I think what the committee is keen to do is not shove as much of this into secondary legislation as we can where we know it would be beneficial to put it in primary legislation which is what these two I thought quite helpful amendments seek to do any other members wish to speak nope minister to wind up thank you convener so I don't consider these to be the amendments before my screen to be necessary changes to the bill so just give an example on amendment 75 that amendment actually just has no effect this leg as this legislation already applies and it must already be complied with so it has no practical effect so I don't support those amendments for that reason and I move amendment 16 in my name and ask Mr Green not to press his amendments thank you very much so the question is that amendment 16 be agreed to are we all agreed yes yes thank you so I call amendment 48 in the name of Katie Clark already debated with amendment 58 Katie Clark to move or not move not move thank you so I call amendment 72 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 70 Russell Findlay to move or not move not moved okay I call amendment 73 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 70 Russell Findlay to move or not move not move okay I call amendment 74 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 70 Russell Findlay to move or not move okay the question is that section 7 We agreed to and are we all agreed? ok Amendment 75, jamae Green, already debated with amendment 16, jamae green, to move or not move Amendment 49, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 58 Katie Clark, to move or not moved The question is section 8 be agreed to when we are all agreed. I will move to our final grouping of the morning, and I call amendment 76 in the name of Jamie Greene grouped with amendments 78 and 79. Jamie Greene to move amendment 76 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 76 puts the burden on Scottish ministers to ensure that the information disclosed by applicants is accurate. Section 9 is quite explicit already in that ministers must check if an application has been received, that the fee has been paid and that the applicant is able to demonstrate that they can possess and use fireworks safely. However, what Section 9 does not do is overtly mandate ministers to verify the accuracy or veracity of the information provided in an application. If it does, it is hidden away somewhere, I cannot find it. The problem with that means that the legal owner is on the applicant to provide truthful information alone, for example about convictions, something that is very discussed. Amendment 76 makes it clear that it is the licence operator where it is the case that ministers of the scheme are the ultimate check and balance of the information being given to them before issuing the licence. The stage 1 report from the committee raised concerns, for example, around any technical legal issues that may arise from data sharing between agencies on the information that is provided. Indeed, it is at the moment still entirely unclear how the licence operator will ensure that true data sharing arrangement takes place. Of course, the more easily and technically competent that is, the easier it will be for ministers to stomach this amendment. On a legal point, I would argue that ministers have a duty to check the veracity of information provided prior to issuing a licence under a scheme that it created and operates as a prerequisite to someone being issued a licence and the subsequent purchase, possession and use of fireworks. That is amendment 76. Amendment 78 will be a talking point, and that requires that the issue of purchasing history to be recorded. The first is the why. I have concerns that, as it stands, there is nothing to permit a single licence holder making multiple purchases to the maximum-allowed volume of fireworks per purchase, not just in one day or in one venue but in multiple. Theoretically, someone could go from store to store to store and then online and then back to retail and purchase effectively what is a stockpile in the case of the white van man scenario. I know that it is not practical and perhaps not even possible to mandate retailers to record and share purchase history data, although that would be an ideal scenario, but I know that the minister will confirm that we cannot do that. The next question is how we solve that problem and how we address that very real potential. What we can do is ensure that the licence holder uploads or records purchase data on their licence if it is technically feasible to do so. Perhaps the amendment could or should say that in another iteration. I know that it would be a fairly insubstantial technical solution that could monitor purchase history, perhaps even anonymously, and highlight red flags with authorities. In the scenario where a white van man seller is using his perfectly legal licence to make repeated and multiple purchases across different venues, different modes, different geographies, it is that at this point it will become apparent that there is a legal activity perhaps taking place. If we are going to use a new fit-for-purpose licensing scheme, then let's get it right from the start and let's make it a scheme that proactively will help the police, trading standards and ministers track and not just track but flag problematic behaviour before it becomes an issue. Now, if the Government doesn't think that this is a good idea or that this is not the right way to do that, I'm open to alternative means, but at the moment it is perfectly possible that someone could use their licence to stockpile and illegally sell use or misuse fireworks. The licence, I don't think, itself will stop people who abuse the system. That will happen anyway, but the use of the data and big data, I think, will quite powerfully prevent such abuse before it actually happens. This might be one way of doing that. Russell Findlay, to speak to amendments 79 and other amendments in the group. Amendments 79 is pretty straightforward and the purpose for seeking to limit the duration of a licence to two years is that, frankly, five years seems to be too long. It seems to be something that could be open to abuse and perhaps encourage the kind of stockpiling or black market behaviour of a licence holder. Furthermore, in five years much can happen with an individual, whereas two years seems to be a reasonable length of time to have a licence. One year might be considered prohibitive. Two years allows for, if it's a friend about bonfire night, two years. A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and I'd be curious to know how five years was arrived at. It may be there's some good reason or proper asserts that's been done that's come up with this, or it might just be someone somewhere's sighted as a good number. I'm so happy to hear the minister's response to that. I'm worried about the onerous nature of the licensing scheme, and therefore have concerns about restricting the period to two years, given the additional cost. I wonder if there would be another way of dealing with that. For example, if somebody was convicted of a fireworks offence-oriented and other offence they might require, there might be an obligation on them to contact the relevant authorities. I'll just put that into the debate as something that we can consider going forward. There is the mechanism to revoke licences that would include certain convictions, but that is subject to further discussion. I wonder if there's a way of having an initial cost of obtaining a licence to set out whatever the number is going to be. Arrived at, and then a renewal cost could be a fraction of that, if indeed there was a two-year limit or such. Amendment 76, in Mr Greene's name, seeks to set a requirement on the Scottish Minister to be satisfied that the information provided in relation to previous convictions revoked licences, and the successfully completed training course is accurate. It's just to clarify that there were no concerns raised during stage 1 that the bill as drafted left any gaps or any issues regarding the information provided during an application, and if that would be considered when the decision is made to grant a licence. So it's always been our intention that this will occur in practice as part of the process of considering and, most importantly, verifying the applications. Section 18 provides regulations about exactly how that information contained in licensing applications is to be verified, and that will allow for a more nuanced and a more detailed approach to be taken. On amendment 78, that sets out that a firework licence will only be valid if it contains information about the licence holder's purchase history. So I don't consider it to be necessary, a necessary condition to require licence holders to upload information on each purchase made by using the licence. This licence will be held by an individual for a period of time, rather than being linked to specific transactions involving fireworks. I don't think that it would be particularly cost effective to incorporate that very specific requirement into the bill with no appreciable benefit to the information that it captures for the most part. If the amendment is accepted, I'm concerned that that could lead to all licences being invalid, for instance, if the purchasing history maybe wasn't able to be uploaded satisfactorily, maybe due to unforeseen circumstances or technical issues or something of that nature. I can't support that amendment for that reason. Amendment 79 in Mr Finlay's name seeks to restrict the length of time that licences can be permitted to no longer than two years. I understand that the length of time a licence is valid for is an issue that the stakeholders have expressed a varied set of opinions on. I think that it is really important that we strike the proportionate balance between robust checks without being overly restrictive and requiring the licence to be renewed on too frequent a basis. The working assumption that we've got at the moment is for the licence to be valid for five years. That was carefully considered during the development of the bill. That has included considering responses to the 2021 consultation and also looking at other licensing schemes in Scotland that are similar. In this case, that would be the air weapons licence, and that's valid for a period of five years. The licence term will ultimately be set out in subsequent regulations, and this amendment would pre-empt the consultation that we're going to undertake to inform the licence term. I think that the consultation is really important because it allows us to get the views of the public and the stakeholders and take them into consideration before we determine what the licence term should be. That amendment would limit the ability also to adapt to future circumstances and change the licence term in a timely manner to either reduce or increase the time period if it's determined, for instance, that that in the future may be more appropriate. I'm not convinced that those amendments are proportionate or necessary or that they strengthen the bill, so I don't support them. First of all, on the 78, I accept that, as a word, the licence may become invalid if purchase history is not recorded. That would be a by-product of a bad solution, but I do disagree that that information is not useful or helpful. I think that it's very helpful and useful. Where it can be captured or make a plea that, as the licence scheme is developed, if technology is available, it would be helpful. We still haven't addressed the issue of how people misuse their licence to make multiple repeated purchases of products in various locations and resources with a view to stop, pile and sell in the illegal market. There's a real possibility that that may happen and it's unclear as to how that will be monitored. This may be a technical solution to monitor that, even if it's not worded properly. Amendment 76, however, is an issue, because the minister, I think, only checked the official report, said that that's how we hope it will work in practice. That's very different from having a legal duty. Section 9 around the grant of fireworks licences is very explicit by stating the legal duty on ministers that they may only grant a fireworks licence if A, a valid application in any fees being received, B, the requirements under section 67 to be met and C, they are satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess and use fireworks safely and appropriately. What's missing is that my amendment is that they are satisfied that the information disclosed or provided by the applicant under section 71 is accurate. It's a fairly simple ask. I can't see why it would be rejected. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore, we'll move to a vote. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, raise your hand. There are no abstentions. So the number of votes for the amendment is four. The number of votes against the amendment is four. There is an equality of votes, therefore, as convener, I shall use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. So the amendment is therefore not agreed. So I call amendment 17 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 16. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 77 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 70, Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that section 9 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 78 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 76. Jamie Greene to move or not move. I call amendment 18 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 58. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 79 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 76. Russell Finlay to move or not move. I call amendment 80 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 16. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Let me remind myself what it was. Thank you very much. We will pause stage 2 proceedings at this point and resume consideration of amendments to the rest of the bill at our next meeting on Wednesday 1 June. We will also consider several affirmative instruments at our meeting next week. Those will cover criminal justice regulations relating to offences as well as on regulations on legal aid. I thank the minister and the team for attending on the closest meeting.