 Fyif 이걸 i'rigoorle Getting to the 18th meeting of the criminal justice committee. We have no apologies this morning and we have two main items of business today, completion of stage 2 proceedings on Fair Work's Bill and consideration of a number of SSIs. Before we move on to amendments I'd like to remind members that we need to complete our stage 2 scrutiny of the bill before the deadline of next Wednesday, 8 June. Felly, while I am very keen for members to fully debate and scrutinise the remaining amendments to the bill, I intend that we complete stage 2 today. If necessary, I will run the meeting to 1.45pm. While I am anxious to avoid the situation, if we do not manage to get the SSIs completed today, we will need to rearrange their consideration at an additional meeting for members and the minister early next week. Agenda item 1 today is to recommence our consideration of the fireworks and peri-technics article Scotland bill at stage 2, from where we stopped last week, which was with amendment 80 in section 10 of the bill. 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 back Ash Regan, 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 move to consideration of amendments. I call amendment 81 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments 82 and 83. Jamie Greene to move amendment 81 and speak to all amendments in the group. Good morning, convener, good morning minister, colleagues. OK, so we've got a lot to get through today. This small group of amendments are technical amendments, which seek to improve the nature of the licensing scheme, should it proceed. Amendment 81 relates to section 10 of the bill and ensures that ministers make provision for paper copies of a person's licence, where, for example, it has been issued digitally. That is simply to allow for those who are unable to or are excluded from the digital world, as we know that is a common theme that crops up. Amendments 82 and 83 are, again, technical amendments related to that subject matter, but, specifically, amendment 82 and 83 relates to section 12, where a licence has been revoked. Specifically, amendment 83 requires that the licence holder must return a paper copy of a licence, which is held, should it be revoked or indeed expire, which is another subject to be made come on to in terms of the length of licences. Essentially, they are aimed at improving common sense arrangements for the issuing and the returning of licences, simply to ensure that people who should not have one are not so using them after they've expired or been revoked in that unlikely event, but nonetheless remains so. And really to press upon the Government that we want the licensing scheme to be as accessible and open as possible to as many people as possible, whether that is digitally or as we've discovered over the last few years with Covid-stificates, for example. We've seen where that can go well and where it can go quite wrong for people. I hope that they are helpful and I appreciate that the Government will probably say that much of this would be in the secondary legislation that we've brought forward once in nature. The scheme has been agreed and pinned down, and I respect that, but I thought it would be helpful to put it on the face of this bill to improve where possible the legislation scheme in advance of its production. Thank you. The amendments in group 11 make provisions relating to the format of the fireworks licence, particularly looking to set out entitlement to a paper licence within the legislation and to set out specific steps in the licence revocation process based on the format of the licence. As a member has picked up on it, it had always been planned for paper licences to be developed. I think that I made references at stage 1 for them to be available for the operation of the system, because I recognise that in the 2020 Scottish Household Survey around 14 per cent of people in Scotland, even with access to the internet, didn't have access to a smartphone. I wouldn't want to create a licensing system that prevents anyone from holding a licence simply due to the format that it's available in. While I agree that entitlement to non-digital forms of the licence is essential, I don't believe that it's necessary to make provision in regulation in order to make sure that there's an entitlement to a paper licence. In my opinion, this is an operational detail that will be put in place as the system is designed. However, should it become an issue in practice, amendment 18 in my name, which was voted on in the past last week, does provide Scottish ministers with adequate powers to achieve this by secondary legislation if required. Regarding the revocation of licences, it's intended that information regarding the date of that takes effect will be included within the revocation notice, and this will apply to all forms of licence. I don't believe that amendments 82 or 83 are necessary. Indeed, I do believe that they could even create some confusion regarding what is necessary for the different forms of the licence. The wording of the legislation is very deliberate in not specifying a format. The reason for that is that, by leaving it open, we are catering for all the different possibilities, be that digital, be that paper, some combination of the two, or another format that may emerge in the future that we are not aware of at this point. On that basis, I'd ask Mr Greene not to press his amendments, and if he does, I would ask the committee that they're not supported. Thank you very much. Jamie Presser. I'd just briefly thank the minister for that response. I think that the reassurance that is given around the acceptance of this point is helpful and appreciated, and for that reason I will not move any amendments in this group. Thank you. Members content? Thank you very much. Can I just ask you to formally confirm that you're withdrawing the amendment? Just 81 or all three? Just 81. Okay, I formally withdraw 81. Perfect. Thank you very much. I now call amendment 50 in the name of Katie Clark, who is already debated with amendment 58. Katie Clark to move. Not moved. The question is that section 10 be agreed to or we all agreed. Thank you. I call amendment 51 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 58. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. The question is that section 11 be agreed or we all agreed. Thank you. Amendment 82, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 81. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Can we clarify the difference when withdrawn and not moved, just for the point of clarification or is it Clark's? Just to be better explained. If the members content not to move us, you don't have to move it, it won't be debated. If a motion is moved then it has to be debated by the committee and agreed to be withdrawn, so if you don't require to move it, you don't need to move it. Okay, that's very helpful. In that case, not moved, 82. 81, sorry, 82, not moved. Thank you. It's a call. Amendment 83 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 81. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. The question is that section 12 be agreed or we all agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. And the question is that section 13 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 84 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 84. Thank you, convener. Amendment 84 is quite self-explanatory, unusually for amendment, it includes the premise of an appeals process. Essentially, reading from the amendment, it says that the Scottish ministers must provide information to a person about how the person may appeal at two various points in proceedings of a licence, one at the point of applying for a fireworks licence under section 9 and be when a decision has been made by ministers under section 14.1. The first point is simply to provide them information up front about the process of application and what would happen in the scenario of a rejection of a licence if such an event were to occur. And at the point of when a decision is made, that information is given to the applicant about the process of appeal. What I have intentionally done is not to go into great detail about the who, the when and the who too in the spirit of being helpful, that that information will be clarified either before stage 3 or in future regulations. But I think it is important that as the public awareness of the potential of a licence scheme comes up, and given what we debated last week around the very scenarios where, for example, previous criminal convictions or other factors may be taken into account, that there is a possibility that some people will be rejected for a licence and will want to know why and how to potentially appeal that decision in line with other licence and schemes where there is some form of independent appeals process. Again, I have not gone into great detail. All I am simply asking is that that information is given to two specific points in the process. Thereafter, it is up to ministers to come forward with further regulations. I hope that this is a helpful discussion point that the minister can elicit what appeals may or may not look like as we move forward. Thank you, convener. Any other members wish to come in? Thank you, convener. Amendment 84 sets out the requirement for Scottish ministers to provide information about how to appeal a decision to refuse a licence application, attach a condition to a licence or revoke a licence. While the bill sets out the process that an applicant or licence holder can follow to appeal a decision, Mr Greene is right that there is no requirement in the bill for the Scottish ministers to share this information when applying for a licence or when that decision is made. I can confirm that it has always been the intention of the Scottish Government that information about the ability to appeal a decision will be made, available as part of the process. This will be further developed as part of the implementation of these provisions to ensure that people have access to the necessary information when it is required. Confiener, I do have concerns that amendment as drafted could be quite restrictive, but I do agree there is value in including such a provision in the bill. So I'd be grateful if Mr Greene were not to press his amendment at this time yr oedd chi'n gilyddio'r Things versaan a chylinewr hwn yn�in, a gwelwch dweud i siw g inventedig yr ensyn presidio, ac mae gwnau gweld o'rdestatio am oedd hyn ymgyng容易b er mwyn, roi, sonor Donald Duck, asi a ti andie, a adeilad yn hwyonaeth eu gwysig dros wander er dos doton a hwn yn hyn pen taith yn ti a sefydlu ein llithol drwy'i pwn mor mae gennyn nhw. Pawn hyn yn yn gweled dda'r soundsaeth hynny, oedd gwern iddyn nhw i lawd y kaibon i'n wneud i fathblogi, fel y byddwn ni'n deilig i ddwylo'n flasgrif iawn. Dwi wedi'n ddwylo'n ddwylo'n fathblogi.ерdraethau. A pob ddifrwyddo? Fy fawr, iawn i gyd dda o ddysgan Firewall 14, mae ar y cyuderon? Ond hefyd â ëRAILFINLYí ar hyn talw i ddegwyd dros y ffawr maes hyn. Russell Findlay to move, or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Okay. I call amendment 86 in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 62. Russell Findlay to move or not move? Move. Okay. So the question is that amendment 86 be agreed to, or are we all agreed? No. Okay. Thank you very much. So we're not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. So can I ask all those in favour of the amendment to raise your hand? All those against raise your hand, there are no abstentions, thank you. So the number of votes for the amendment is two, the number of votes against the amendment is six, the amendment is therefore not agreed, thank you, that's 87. So the question is that section 15 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. So I call amendment 87 in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 62. Russell Findlay to move or not move? Not moved. Okay. I call amendment 88 in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 62. Russell Findlay to move or not move? Not moved. Okay. So the question is that section 16 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. And the question is that section 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Okay. I call amendment 19 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 58, minister to move formally. Moved. Okay. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. I call amendment 20 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 58, minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. No. Okay. We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hands. Those against the amendment, raise your hand. There are no abstentions. Thank you. So the number of votes for the amendment is six, the number of votes against the amendment is two, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I beg your pardon, the amendment, just to confirm the amendment is agreed, my fault. I call amendment 21 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 58, minister to move formally. Moved. Okay. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Yes, thank you. The question is that section 18 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 89 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 58, Jamie Greene to move or not to move? To move. Okay. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. No. Okay. We're not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Those in favour of the amendment raise your hand. Those against the amendment raise your hand. There are no abstentions. So there are four votes for the amendment, four votes against the amendment. So there's an equality of votes, therefore as convener I shall use my cussing vote and vote against the amendment, the amendment is therefore not agreed. So I call amendment 52 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 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 53 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 58. Move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Thank you very much. We move on to our next grouping. I call amendment 90 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments 56, 1 to 9 and 57. Jamie Greene to move amendment 90 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have two amendments in this group and another committee colleague has further two which I'll come on to. My two amendments in this specifically are around the concept of post-legislative scrutiny. It's a theme that often crops up at stage 2 in the drafting of bills. It's often notably absent in the first draft of legislation and is a common feature. The wording I've proposed is based on very similar wording that's not just been debated but also agreed and included in historic pieces of legislation. Amendment 90, first of all, is a review of the licensing scheme. This is further to last week's debate that we had around the nature of the scheme, indeed the very concept of the scheme and a very long conversation that we had about the fee structure and the effect that they may have on applications. I think that whilst there is probably widespread consensus on the committee or at least an acceptance that there will be a licensing scheme of sorts, members have sought to improve it. Given that so much of the nature of the scheme will be subject to future legislation, not primary legislation, with limited opportunity, I say that respectfully to review the nature of what's been proposed by the Government within the confines of the committee. I felt like it was important to put in a review of the licensing scheme, which will ask ministers to carry out the operation and, more important, the effectiveness of the scheme moving forward. Section 2 of my amendment in amendment 90 has three asks of the Government that the review must undertake. One is a review of the fee itself and its appropriateness. Again, I'm not stipulating the nature of the fee. We've had that debate about rises or whether there should be a fee at all. Simply that the Government will review the fee and its appropriateness, which is the key word in that section. Secondly, whether there is any evidence that the fee is deterrent to a person applying for a fireworks licence. The Government won't know that, obviously, until after the scheme is launched and has quantitative data on whether there is any evidence that it is putting people off, as has been suggested by members, and was discussed quite robustly by the committee at stage 1. Lastly, whether there is any evidence that the scheme itself is contributing in any way to any illegal activity, including the illegal supply and purchase of fireworks, and by that I think that it's clear that I mean the black market in any way, shape or form. On completion of that review, I'm asking that ministers will prepare, publish a report of its findings, lay a copy of that before Parliament, and thereafter make proposals as they consider appropriate to change the licence scheme where it is clearly obvious that there is a need to do so. I may transpire that, of those three points, it concludes that the licence scheme is working well, effectively and appropriately, in which case no further changes need to be made. But without putting on the face of the bill that such a review takes place, there's no guarantee that it will take place, other than the Minister promising, of course, we'll do that. But, more importantly, I think that this may give some comfort to members who do have genuine concerns. And it's not just members. I'd like to refer to a letter that was sent to the committee yesterday by the British Fireworks Association, who, quoting from that letter, stated, this bill will not reduce the misuse of fireworks, it will have precisely the opposite effect and will create a black market in Scotland, the likes of which you have never seen before. No, I don't have a particular view on that theory, but that is their view as the people who are at the coface of the industry. Nonetheless, it's clear that some people do have reservations about their proposals and, as such, I think a review is a sensible way of allowing the Government to proceed with its plans but make good on its promise to be open-minded and transparent about the efficacy of its plans. Amendment 129, slightly different, is a review of the legislation itself. It's not as specific in nature as the licensing scheme asks. Again, the wording is fairly straightforward, but I am asking the Government to prepare and publish a review on the legislation itself. In doing so, again, as always, prepare and publish a report, lay that report before Parliament for discussion, but more importantly, in carrying out the review, ministers should consult persons as they consider appropriate. I have had previous amendments where I have tried to outline the people that I think should be consulted. That was rejected by the Government. That's fine. This, therefore, is, hopefully, more helpful. The timescales are reasonable, in my view. The review period is no later than three years after the commencement of the act, and at least once every three years thereafter. It ensures that there is a cross-parliamentary session review of the legislation. If the Government has a problem with the timescales, I'm very happy to work with the Government on changing that. However, the concept of a post-legitim scrutiny review is an important one and an accepted practice. I do welcome and support the amendments that are alternatively proposed by Collette Stevenson in this group, which impose a reporting requirement on ministers and how effective the legislation has been. However, specifically amendment 90 goes further because it relates to a review of the licensing scheme, which is additional to post-legitim scrutiny. I hope that members will carefully consider the debate and will hopefully support my amendment. Thank you. Collette Stevenson, to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group. I'm pleased to propose these amendments, having raised the issue of post-legitim scrutiny alongside my colleagues in the Criminal Justice Committee in our stage 1 report. As a committee, we spent quite considerable time discussing the data that is available in relation to the impact of fireworks and the importance of a post-legitim scrutiny review of how the bill has been implemented. I welcome the minister's response to our recommendations on these issues, her willingness to give this further consideration and the opportunity to meet with her to discuss this further. The amendments that I have brought forward, amendments 56 and 57, would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to report to Parliament on the operation of provisions within the bill within five years following royal assent. Based on what we have heard from the minister during stage 1 and as outlined in the accompanying documents to the bill, it is expected that the provisions will come into force over the first two years following royal assent. In practice, that provides three years to gather the required information and monitor and report on any change. It appears to me that this is a proportionate timescale to allow time for implementation and initial operation of the proposed measures, and therefore to ensure that the report that is submitted is sufficiently detailed and worthwhile. Amendment 56 sets out that the report would be required to include appropriate information about criminal precedence, convictions, the number of incidents in the reporting period and, importantly, the views and experiences of people in Scotland on how fireworks use has been impacted in their communities. Convener, I recognise that Mr Greene has lodged amendment 129, which, similar to my own amendments, would require Scottish ministers to review the operation in effectiveness of the act. I believe that we are aligned in our desire to make certain that the legislation is working, as intended, and to afford Parliament due levels of scrutiny. I do consider, however, that commencing the reporting period on the day of royal assent, as is set out in the amendments that I have lodged, will mean that there is no delay to this. The period will be easily understandable and not tied to individual provisions coming into force. In my view, the amendments that I have lodged will help to improve the transparency of the bill's implementation, allowing members to develop a full understanding on how requirements are being made in order to ensure that the legislation is working effectively. I hope that members will support both amendments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do any members want to come in? I'll bring in Rona, Pauline and then Fulton. I will support Collette Stevenson's amendments and I will not support Jamie Greene's. I will support Collette's for the reasons that she has outlined. I will not repeat those. For Jamie Greene's, I do not think that it is necessary for the reasons that have been outlined. I understood that you were wanting to review the appropriateness of a fee, which I do not think can be done retrospectively. It is very much part of this bill, as is the licensing system. I do not think that you can suddenly go back and almost undermine the purpose and effect of this bill. Those are the reasons why I will not support your amendments. Pauline. Thank you very much. First, I want to thank both members for those amendments because I think that they are critical. I think that they are both aligned with the report in which we all expressed a lot of concerns about this legislation. I want to start with Jamie Greene's amendment 129. The review of the licensing scheme. For me, the biggest weakness in the legislation is the licensing scheme and the lack of detail because a lot was going to be done by statutory instrument. It seems to me to warrant a review. I was concerned about the letter that Jamie Greene referred to, which I think that we only got a couple of days ago. For the minister's benefit, which I presume to have had the opportunity to read this letter, the minister said that, in respect of the licensing requirements, the minister stated that a delivery driver would have legal obligation to check for a licence as they do with other age restrictive products. Delivery drivers have a duty to check for age verification on age-restricted products, not a licence. It is notwithstanding the way to circumvent this, as we see it, is to send a product in plain packaging. They also go on to say that, for the record, the minister said that fireworks can only be delivered by specialist couriers. This is incorrect fireworks. Under the EDI regulations can be delivered in limited quantities up to 500kg. Since that is a reference to the knock-on effect of people not using the licensing scheme, and we do not know yet if people will see that as onerous or not, that is where the whole debate about the black market comes in. That all ties in together. For me, whether or not this can be tied up in stage 3, I do not know, as a review of the act, but a specific review of the licensing scheme, for me is really important because I really have my concerns about being the best way to control fireworks. I welcome both amendments, and, as things stand, I would like to hear from the minister who tends to vote for both amendments. I want to speak in support of amendments 56 and 57 in the name of Collette Stevenson. It is a fair reflection of where we were on the committee. I think that also in terms of Jamie Greene's amendment 129, I am very sympathetic to that amendment as well, but I think that 56 and 57 capture the spirit of that. I would hope that given Collette said that she worked with the minister in bringing them forward that Jamie will consider withdrawing 129 given that 56 and 57 are very similar in terms of that respect. I think that they are good amendments. I hear what Pauline McNeill is saying about amendment 90, and perhaps there is something that could come forward at stage 3 to capture what she said there, but I do not think that amendment 90 is currently presented to us as necessary. I think that one of the main reasons for that is because, in terms of the licensing scheme, it is going to be quite complicated to get an idea of its effect given that its other factors will be taken into account as well with the education aspects and the training courses and various other things. I am not minded to support 9 at the moment, but I think that the other three amendments are good in 56 and 57. We will get support. Thank you very much. No other members want to come in. I would like to thank Ms Stevenson for meeting with me to discuss her amendments, and I welcome the detail that she has given in highlighting the importance of post-legislative scrutiny on the bill's implementation. The Scottish Government set out our intention that a full review of the measures introduced through the bill would be undertaken within three to five years of implementation in the business and regulatory impact assessment. However, I recognise that having that enshrined within the legislation strengthens this commitment and provides reassurance to the committee regarding the contents of any review and also the timeframe for this taking place. I consider that amendments 56 and 57 strike an appropriate balance. They provide enough time for meaningful data to be reported, provide for the lived experience of people in Scotland to be taken into account and to hold the Scottish Government to account as well. I welcome the committee's call for amendments in their stage 1 report and Ms Stevenson's work in bringing them before Parliament, so I support those two amendments. Moving on to amendment 90, brought forward by Mr Greene. This one requires a review solely of the licensing scheme and in particular the potential for unintended consequences of its implementation. I understand that this amendment has been lodged to ensure that there will be no upsurge in a legal activity following the implementation of the licensing scheme and that the licensing fee does not deter those who would enjoy fireworks responsibly. However, I don't consider that the requirement for review of the licensing scheme is necessary given both Ms Stevenson's amendments and indeed Mr Greene's own amendment of 129 which require a review of the implementation of the act as a whole. A review of the licensing scheme would be required to take place under any such review. In relation to amendment 129, as I said, I welcome the committee's call for review of the implementation of the bill and I do consider amendments 56 and 57 to be more robust in that regard. They provide for the information which any such review must include while also leaving no room for interpretation regarding the reporting period. I note that a key addition to amendment 129 is for review to be required to take place every three years. While, of course, all policies are continually monitored, I don't believe that review every three years thereafter is either proportionate or necessary and therefore I'd ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 90 or amendment 129. Ms McNeill, while I consider it was significantly off-topic in her contribution, I did want to just take an opportunity to rebut one of the points that she made if that is okay with yourself, convener. The reference was about the licensing scheme which Jamie Greene's amendment 90 refers to. I've already said that that is covered under the review period and it was already in the business senate, it was already in the Bria as well. The bill already provides that at section 5 the supplier must take reasonable steps to establish the person that they are supplying has a licence or is exempt under schedule 1 and this extends to wider parts of the supply process. The supplier at that point would be required to check the licence status of the recipient to ensure that they do not commit the offence of supplying to an unlicensed person and that it's not possible to send fireworks through the normal postal service. That is a point that I made last week's committee and I just want to reiterate that again now. Sending dangerous items in the post is an offence because of the risks and required safety precautions that most couriers will not deliver fireworks to people's homes and fireworks retailers who provide online mail order sales generally rely on specialist couriers to deliver fireworks to people's homes. I want to put that on the record, convener. Thank you. Thank you. Jamie Greene, to wind up, press or withdraw? Thank you. Can I thank members for their contributions? As I said, from the outset, I was happy to support Collette Stevens' approach to review of the operation of the act and the legislation. It's probably better worded, perhaps even with the assistance of people who draft these things better than I do. I'm happy to support that. For that reason, my amendment, which tries to do the same thing, 1-2-9, will not move or withdraw whichever is easier, but the point being around amendment 90 is a different point. Just going back to a point that I think made by Ms Mackay and that's that a review of the fee itself, I think the phrase was can't be done retrospectively, I think that's the whole point is I want it to be done retrospectively. It's unclear from the proposal at the moment on the review of the legislation where there will be a specific review of the fee and whether it is effective, or as I propose, whether that has led to a lack of uptake in the scheme, whether that has led to any potential black market or has any unintended consequences as the committee discussed stage 1. I think that Pauline McNeill is absolutely right to raise the fact that there are still concerns and issues out there. I think that what is key though is that if we think about the volume of people who currently purchase fireworks, which depending on who you ask estimate to be around a quarter of a million individuals of which there are probably multiple purchases per person, we do have a rough idea of the use at the moment, so I think what we're looking for is some commitment that in the future the Government will look at how many licences are being issued on an annual basis. We don't know what people purchasing and when and how much, for all the reasons we debated last week, but if it transpires that that number is low then clearly there is an issue. On the fee itself, we had a quite wide range of discussion about whilst we don't want to sit the level of the fee on the face of the bill. It is important for the Government to do a piece of work to identify whether the fee is itself putting people off acquiring a licence. The point of the licence, as we all agree, is to get a licence. You need to perform the training, certification and course, which we all find is useful to improve firework use and safety around that. Just one second, yeah. We want to encourage people to take up the licence. If it becomes apparent that for whatever reason the licence scheme is not working, I am simply asking the Government to perform a review of that. That's why amendment 90 is different from amendment 129, which is a much more general approach to, for example, some of the statistics around crime data and so on. On the crime data, and I will come back to the member in a second, I would be looking for some commitment from the Minister to be forthcoming and transparent with the data that we are able to get through this process. By that, we should be looking at an annual review of prosecution rates, of maximum fines, of volumes of people who are being prosecuted, not just under this legislation, but all fireworks-related legislation. That information should be coming to either the committee or the Parliament, ideally on an annual basis. It's not in the review, as proposed in the wording. I would like to have been, but then we could have a sensible conversation about whether this legislation and other pieces of legislation are being used to their extent properly, because we know that numbers speak for themselves. Existing legislation has clearly not been used to its capacity. I will take an intervention. Thank you for taking an intervention, or just a point of clarification on the fee aspect. I understood that amendment 90 was about whether the fee was appropriate or not. I'm not sure what your review is to be, do we decrease the cost of the fee, or do we abandon the fee altogether? My point is that we can't abandon the fee altogether because it's an integral part of the scheme and it goes with the whole bill. I'm just unclear about what you actually want to review the fee for, if there's shown to be a reduced uptake. I'm not sure how you would measure that, by the way. I'm confused about that. Can you explain that? I'm happy to clarify. I've specifically not said what the Government should do after its review on purpose. The only provision that I have said is that they should make proposals in relation to the scheme as they consider appropriate. That gives ministers quite a wide-ranging power because if it transpires through consultation or analysis academic or otherwise, the fee is putting people off to make policy decisions, ditch the fee and continue with the licence scheme, that would be a political decision of the Government of the day to do so. If it transpires that the fee is too low, it's not covering the operating costs, for example, and that we need to go up and modelling had been done on the effect that that would have, the ministers could do that as well. The flexibility is entirely there for ministers after performing the review to decide what effect the scheme itself is having on part of the take-up of the scheme at all. It's not an onerous ask, I don't think. The idea that the information would not be available, I think, would be unhelpful. It should be available. Again, I haven't been specific for that very reason because it gives the minister the flexibility. I will push amendment 90 for that reason, but I'm happy to concede 129 in favour of my colleague's alternative. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. I could ask all those in favour of the amendment to raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. Thank you. There's no abstentions. Thank you very much. There are four votes for the amendment and four votes against the amendment. There's an equality of votes. Therefore, as convener, I'll use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. Amendment 90 is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? All agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 91 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 62. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 92 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 62. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We now move on to the next set of groupings. I call amendment 93 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments 96 to 97 and 22. I remind members that if amendment 96 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 2 due to a preemption. Jamie Greene to move amendment 93 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The next two groupings grouped 14 and 15 relate to the restrictions on the days specified on the supply of fireworks and group 15 on the restrictions on the use of fireworks. Let me talk to these amendments. Some of them are consequentials which relate to the main theme of this group of amendments, but essentially it seeks to remove the specified dates as proposed by the Government around the restrictions on when fireworks may be supplied. I think that what was clear from stage 1 proceedings is that there was a quite wide ranging discussion about what seemed the arbitrary nature of when fireworks can be sold by whom and at which times of year. There is a spectrum of views on this. Those who simply want to ban the sale of fireworks altogether for lots of reasons and those who believe that restricting the sale and supply of fireworks altogether is not something they could support. I think that the Government, to be fair, is trying to find a middle ground throughout this process, but as proposed it does raise some problems. When the Petitions Committee of the House of Commons reviewed this very issue one of its conclusions notably said that greater restrictions and controls on the sale of fireworks would not be appropriate because of the very real risk of creating a black market and making matters worse, not better. When the BFA gave formal evidence to the committee, they claim that it will I quote the proposal that the Government has come forward with effectively shuts down the industry those who specifically work all year round. There are two types of retailers that we identified and spoke at in great length in our Stage 1 report. Those who are specialist fireworks retailers who sell all year round and those who are other types of physical retailers who sell all year round and those who are other types of physical retailers who sell occasionally or at different times of the year anyway and for whom this may be less of a problem. But we do have to accept as a committee that we are by passing this part of the bill shutting down that cottage industry whichever way whether we like that or not. I think what they are saying to us though is what they don't want to do is come back and say I told you so. We told you about the unintended consequences of people purchasing dangerous products, unregulated products from unregulated and licensed people. There are still questions that remain over the sale of fireworks specifically around larger retailers. I have to say on the record none of which spoke to us which is unhelpful in itself. We don't know unfortunately if they will even bother to stock fireworks if they are only limited to sell on certain days of the year. We don't know how they will approach it from a staffing point of view what training will be provided around the licensing scheme and whether it is even worth the hassle for them. If they choose not to what effect that will have on the potential for stockpiling or the black market whether that is online, illicit sales or the white van man scenario in communities where there is problematic behaviour, we don't know if retailers will be able to or willing to store hundreds of kilograms of fireworks if they are only able to sell on restricted days. We don't have the answer to any of those questions either because retailers have not been consulted or have been and have not been forthcoming with their views of all of this. There is an explicit point of view that the proposals may lead to more injuries which defeats the point of it. Effectively what we are doing is taking nearly 365 days of the ability to purchase fireworks and condensing it into 37. What I am asking for in this amendment is for the Government it's not saying that there shouldn't be restrictions on the supply of fireworks but that the Government takes a step back and revisits its consultation process with stakeholders on all of this. Have a proper think about the dates and make a better case as to why it's chosen those dates. Answer some of those unanswered questions. Consult with people who are telling us that they haven't been consulted properly or even the consultation process that they've been through was inadequate their words, not mine and come back to the Parliament with further regulations on its proposals for restricting the supply. What I am not seeking to do before anyone claims such is simply remove the nature of restricting supply making it all year round which is the status quo that defeats the point of the bill. I understand that, that's not what I'm trying to achieve. The amendment as drafted asks ministers to consult then lay before draft regulations which we can debate and discuss we can hear from stakeholders and we have suggested some if you don't like that list we can change it ahead of stage 3, no problem but more importantly when laying those regulations we'll explain how they will improve public safety that's in amendment 975dc explain how the regulations will improve public safety because that is at the core of all of this we all want to improve public safety but there are misgivings the restricted dates will achieve the opposite now I don't know what the future will hold but I would like to think that we all passed legislation which does improve public safety and does not have unintended consequences I'm keen to hear what members and the minister has to say about this proposal, the same will go for the next group around restrictions of the use although I will make a slightly different argument around that, thank you I would like Neil to speak to amendment 2 and other amendments in the group thank you very much amendment 2 is a consequence of what I'm seeking to do in the next group of amendments which is the days of which fireworks can be used so this is consequential on the supply of fireworks so I'll leave the substantive debate to the next round I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene's argument about the arborty nature of when they can be sold and I think that needs to be clear as we approach stage 3 I suppose that the connection between the supply and the use of fireworks would be equally my concern is that given the whole part of the concept of the bill is to deal with the stress that communities feel around the times where fireworks are used that there's quite a wide range of days which they can be used so this is consequential to reduce the number of days in which it's supplied so I'll leave the other arguments to the next group minister to speak to amendment 22 under other amendments in the group thank you currently all retailers who wish to sell fireworks are required to have an appropriate storage licence in place and they're able to sell fireworks at set dates throughout the year without holding an additional sales licence and these dates where this additional sales licence is not required are set out in the fireworks regulations of 2004 so I'm bringing forward my amendment 22 to align the permitted dates of supply in the bill with the periods where an additional sales licence is not required by the fireworks regulations that permit Scottish retailers to supply fireworks during the permitted periods of supply that are set out in the bill without requiring an all-year storage licence and I hope that members will support it so turning now to amendments 93, 96 and 97 brought forward by Mr Greene seeking to remove the permitted days of supply as currently set out in the bill and replace with a regulation making power to set these out instead convener a majority of those who responded to our 2021 consultation on the bill's provisions agreed with the restrictions being introduced on the days that fireworks can be sold to the general public and the proposed permitted periods were clearly set out in the consultation and support for this in the consultation was primarily on the basis that this provides more clarity to the public as to when fireworks are likely to be used and to enable people to better predict their use and to plan and mitigate accordingly so I consider that the provision in the bill at present provides the right balance of certainty and flexibility it's the result of extensive consultation with relevant groups which are aligned with existing legislation and the bill includes a power to amend these if necessary so I don't support those both Mr Greene and Ms McNeill use the phrase that the permitted dates are arbitrary in nature for the committee in the strongest possible terms the permitted dates broadly align with existing periods so they're not arbitrary and they have been consulted on extensively and in terms of the black market issue that Mr Greene raised in his contribution I did send a letter to the committee last week that has set out the extensive steps that will be taken on that issue Mr Greene also raised a point about retailers continuing to supply and sell fireworks so there is an established group of major retailers we've had some engagement with them and no indications have been made from that group that they plan to change their plans to sell fireworks so it is quite simply not correct for Mr Greene to say that the bill will continue to sell the vast majority of retailers at those traditional times of the year of course Is the minister seriously suggesting that businesses who sell fireworks all year round who are now restricted to only selling them on 37 days of the year will feasibly and commercially still operate as going concerns because nobody that I've spoken to in the industry believes that That's a different point altogether that we're talking about the member made reference to supermarkets they are the vast majority of retailers, there's over 300 of them and they only sell at the moment they only sell at these traditional times of the year the permitted dates of supply in the bill broadly align with those dates so there isn't a huge amount of change to them in taking that forward to these permitted dates of supply the specialist retailers which Mr Greene has mentioned are in a different category so they do sell all year round there's a very small number of them in Scotland we estimate there's 9 or 10 of such businesses and of course we will be coming on to discuss this when we discuss the compensation scheme so if it's okay with the member I suggest we leave that argument here for now and we can pick it up as we move through the groups so if I turn back to amendment 2 so this was the one brought forward by Ms McNeill that looks to shorten the permitted days of supply over the bonfire period as opposed to the 15 days currently provided for in the bill so convener this bill will for the first time set out the permitted periods when people in Scotland can be supplied with fireworks and we've set out in the bill the periods that we think reflects the right balance based on the consultation so that's between the desire to celebrate special days in our communities while still curtailing the general supply and use of fireworks I believe that at this time limiting supply could risk a situation where people have very limited number of days to purchase fireworks and are inadvertently encouraged to store them in domestic settings and it also risks squeezing the supply chain over the very busiest periods for fireworks purchases and retailers overstocking which could lead to safety issues around storage if there's evidence that permitted periods of supply should be reduced further in the future and it will provide an opportunity to do that via secondary legislation so I can't support amendment 2 and I would encourage Mr Neil not to press it thank you thank you minister does any other member wish to come in Wilton thanks convener happy to support 22 in the name of the minister in relation to Jamie Greene's amendments I mean that this was an area that we talked about during stage 1 as the minister will know and actually for at least a number of weeks it was myself there was leading up in the question of witnesses in this particular area and I have to say that you know, Jamie Greene talks about there being a debate in different views I think that refers to between members as opposed to the witnesses because we actually had quite consistent feedback from witnesses and I hope the minister doesn't mind me saying here I actually tried to find some doubt amongst witnesses that these days were required and I couldn't find it from the criminal justice agencies to those involved with welfare whether that was with people or animals they were all pretty supportive of this and I think that backs up the consultation that the minister refers to so I don't see why we would the exception possibly been the fireworks industry accept that but even then I would say that this wasn't their primary concern about the bill this was way down their list as well they had other concerns about the bill as a whole which have already been articulated so I really don't see the point in taking evidence at quite substantial lengths like we did just to you know then say well we still don't agree with that so I'm not minded to support that the days although I initially had some concerns about it one individual was not backed up by the evidence that we got the evidence was pretty solid on it and has elevated any concerns I had so I don't feel inclined to vote for these amendments in terms of Pauline McNeill's I think out of fairness Pauline herself has said that she is going to develop her arguments in the next round so I'll leave that to then as well I think out of fairness thank you very much if no other member wants to come in Jamie Greene do you want to wind up and press or withdraw? yeah just briefly there are different types of retailers and they interact with the consumer in very different ways and I think the point that was clearly made and it's not about compensation it's an entirely different conversation by talking about conversation you've essentially concluded that you are shutting down the industry but what I think is clear from them whilst of course they're trying to protect small family-run businesses that's human nature to do so but the relationship they have with their consumers is a very different one from someone who is purchasing online or in a large retailer that sells the million other products the ability to interact with customers to make them aware of the safety concerns recommend products for example the theme that came up at lower volume fireworks is something that they specifically are in a very good place to promote and push I think we would all prefer to see more of those products are widely available and it's that one-to-one relationship with the consumer that will be lost and no one's really answered that question the case isn't being made clear I understand that the Government wants to restrict the use of fireworks but it is unclear as to what effect the specific 37-day restriction of the sale of will have on people's behaviour and I do refer to the issues of stockpiling on people looking elsewhere for products outside of that environment now people that don't have a licence that still want to buy fireworks will do it anyway but if they can't buy them in a legal setting from a legal retailer with specialist knowledge of a product then the question is where else will they get them and it's the where else that bothers us and bothers the wider public and I said I put this amendment because I don't think those questions have been adequately responded to and I think they're justified questions as we look at this legislation I feel like as is often the case with these amendments it's a futile battle and the numbers of the committee speak for themselves and none of these will pass but I think it's an important point to make nonetheless Thank you very much Can I just confirm you're pressing the amendment, Jamie? No Do you wish to withdraw the amendment? Which one? 93 Thank you very much I call amendment 94 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move Not moved Thank you I call amendment 95 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move Not moved I call amendment 96 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 93 and I remind members that if amendment 96 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 2 as preemption Not moved I call amendment 2 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 93 Not moved I call amendment 97 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 93 Jamie Greene to move or not move Not moved Thank you The question is that section 22 be agreed to Are we all agreed? I call amendment 22 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 93 minister to move formally Not moved The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We'll now move on to our next groupings I call amendment 98 in the name of Jamie Greene grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings I remind members that if amendment 101 is agreed to I cannot call amendments 3 and 4 due to preemption Jamie Greene to move amendment 98 and speak to all amendments in the group This follows on just from the last grouping around the dates around the restriction of supply group of amendments on the restrictions on the days of use for the benefit of those in the bill the days of use is greater than the days of supply as proposed by the government In the minister's response to previous comments in the last debate the minister refuted that the word arbitrary is an appropriate description of these dates I will argue to the contrary on that Again understanding that there is a spectrum of those who want no fireworks to be used at any point and those who wish the status code to remain at some point the government does have to choose a set of dates if its proposal is to restrict the use of fireworks My problem with the 57 days that it has chosen is there are a couple of points around this one is the confusion element that it may create The chosen dates Whilst I understand the reason that they have been chosen is equally as unclear as why other dates have not been at the fundamental core of my argument here it is welcome that the Chinese New Year is included it is welcome that Duvalais is included I think that shows sense of respect for those communities who use fireworks around that period and I wouldn't challenge that that fireworks are used around Bonfire Night which used to be when they were only used to be honest and often at New Year and other special celebrations but 57 days is actually quite a lot and some may argue that that as ministers have the power to add to it they may be forced to add to it it is in no way clear why other religious groups are excluded from this chosen list I have no idea why Eid is excluded why Hanukkah is excluded why other secular festivals are excluded and they argue that they don't use fireworks is not true in fact whilst we were debating this during the period of Ramadan there were fireworks going off during the day celebrating such festival that is not included in this list I think those of other religions and even those of none may challenge the government on this and I would say rightly so we could end up in a scenario where whilst the good intention of the bill is to restrict the use of fireworks essentially we are encouraging the use of fireworks and specify dates and dates that I think will only be added to because it only takes one organisation to challenge this in court and we successfully do so before we open up the Pandora's box of more dates having to be added to this restrictive list again I don't have a view whether it's too many or not enough I do understand the balance that the government is trying to seek here but by creating a list which we often try and avoid doing on the face of legislation by creating a list we are by its very nature being exclusive and exclusionary one of the specialist fireworks providers wrote to the committee in a submission and said to us that there is a total lack of equality in this bill as for example it favours Chinese in the year and the value but discriminates against the wider Scottish public they make a good point I also make the point of confusion amongst the public around dates because certain festivals change and move in the annual calendar the value itself is one of them how many people in the wider public can know that how many people will phone the police when they hear fireworks going off not knowing that that date in that year is a permitted date but the previous year was not and future years will not be how will the police know that the fireworks going off is within a restricted date or is part of some other form of display i.e. an organised display put on by a company or indeed a private individual what's to stop the Muslim community paying a company exempt from the licence scheme exempt from the restricted use of fireworks to put on a display on their behalf and it simply makes a mockery of the scheme the other point around confusion and the police interaction with this I think was summed up by the Scottish Police Federation who gave evidence to us who said the public need to know what is in the legislation they have told me that they think fireworks are going to be banned next year which means they have got the wrong message I suggest we need to get ahead of the game and I don't disagree with that this series of amendments in this group does exactly what I asked to do in the last group and that's asked the Government to go away and have a proper think about the dates that it is proposing be confident that it has consulted with everyone that it affects and come back to us with draft regulations and all the other processes that I propose in the amendment now it's clearly amendment is not going to pass if I moved it but nonetheless the questions that I raise in my speaking points today have not been answered and I look forward to hearing what the minister says in response to those okay, thank you very much Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 3 and other amendments in the group thank you very much to continue the debate which Jamie Greene has began I think it's really important to be concise as to what we're attempting to do here so I want to be clear from the beginning that my amendments are probing for that reason I want to hear all of the arguments I think it's a fair point from the minister who has previously said that a lot of these dates are in existence and I'll be honest in the sense that I'm not sure that everybody understood that and I'll mean members of the public here that those dates are the dates which are already permitted and there's been some additional dates but I would still question at why why if you take the bonfire season and I'm happy to be contradicted if I've misunderstood this but in my mind the bonfire season is November and you expect to hear fireworks probably more than any other time of the year going off people's back gardens so even if it is within the previous legislation we should still debate why that period is from the 27th of October over to the 12th of November that is quite a wide period that fireworks are permitted now if you're concerned about the social use of fireworks going off people's back gardens the nuisance that that causes then that is quite a wide period of time and similarly I thought well people want to set fireworks off a new year so why is it 26th of December because that's not a new year until the so I'm just probing this what is the logic of this albeit that that is the existing dates I wanted to have this maybe to a slightly different tack from Jamie Greene on this in the sense that my understanding is that the dates captured are not necessarily to capture all religious festivals but to capture festivals whether they're religious or not which have a traditional firework element to it so happy to be more informed about what those festivals actually are I'm aware that the minister did answer this question on the floor of the Parliament about why Eid wasn't included and I felt satisfied with that answer I'd also be concerned if Eid was included because there's more than one Eid and that's the date which moves and if there are other festivals which the dates move you can see why we really do need to debate this because how are the public going to understand what days it's in offence and what days it's not in offence yes of course that's my point what my amendment is asking the Government to do is go away and have a proper think about these dates and come back to it as a committee we can have this debate again and we can have it quickly and soon I think but it will not make sense to people why two religions arguably three Christian religion have been selected as including and being specific about the dates that they are permitted to use fireworks and others have been excluded and as you say the point is that the wider public I don't think we'll understand why that's in and that's out so whether that's an awareness exercise needs to take place is another matter I absolutely 100% agree that's why I say it's arbitrary I do agree with the member the most important point is the understanding of the days you can and can at the moment I'm less concerned about the choosing of the festivals because okay I need to be more informed about this I was not aware that I've attended many Eid celebrations none with fireworks so I need to be clear in my own mind and at the moment I didn't see that that was my personal take on it I didn't see that that was the division that the minister was choosing and because if that was then I think there's more there's more problems my primary concern is the 57 days can be added to and that's why I also agree with Jim McLean on this point if the ministers did feel that they then had to add other periods then that 57 days is going to expand further and to me that somewhat undermines any concerns that the public may have about the the days in which you can set fireworks off so if you're at home and you hear fireworks go off in any of these 57 days how would you know I know we're going to get to another discussion about information but it's important that the public know can they lift the phone because it is an offence and we need to tie this together so you are entitled to phone the police and say there's fireworks going off not on a permitted day so please take action so this whole thing is so important I think for this really to work I suppose my biggest concern is that if the 57 days becomes 67 days we'll really get into quite a substantial part of the year where fireworks will be permitted I think my final point is it's just an observation that a lot of the festivals and dates that are in the bill I would have thought tended to be organised displays anyway certainly I've been to Diwali and the sake and they tend to be organised and in my own mind it just seems that that's what should be encouraged for larger groups that they should be organised display I don't really think that I didn't really see the purpose of this bill is really to try and regulate what religious organisations or indeed communities like Chinese community are doing I didn't really see that this is what the bill was designed to do and it's getting a little bit confusing at times so I'll leave it there for the community Thanks very much Just in agreement with Jamie Greene on the effect of these dates it seems that the only direction they're going to go in is upwards when people from other cultures or religions or different causes to use fireworks to celebrate seek to have their dates included I'm not entirely sure what the mechanism of that will be whether it will be straightforward whether it involves going to court whether the Government will be one obvious one I think is July the fourth, Americans living in Scotland do celebrate July the fourth with fireworks as they do in their homeland and right now they are would be prohibited from doing so I'd dare say if I went through a calendar I could find all sorts of other groups some of which Jamie Greene's already identified Yes Thank you very much It also occurred to me that we had evidence from our retailer and it was good evidence but it's likely to concern me when he said that he was still on fireworks for birthdays and big anniversary events and I just wondered if the member thought that that was a concern that there might be a growing culture that we haven't factored into the current legislation of using fireworks for big events Indeed I mean going back to the days I mean it might surprise people watching this that right now I'm understanding that as you can let fireworks off 365 days of the year that's correct isn't it so this does seek to prohibit it but in so doing you're causing the problem potentially of other groups being not included and then you've got the whole national phenomenon of people using fireworks to mark big occasions whether it's weddings or birthdays and indeed there's a risk by limiting the sales going back to some of the earlier points around stockpiling people who might realise that their date of interest date of intended use doesn't fall within the 57 days if there's no clear or sympathetic mechanism to have it concluded or whether that's just a non-starter if it's safe for a wedding you might find people inclined or tempted to stockpile get a licence by fireworks and hold on to them for the date in question so it just requires some clarification and I fully agree with the amendment just very briefly on the debates that we've been hearing I'm a bit confused but there seems to be an argument for agreeing with restricting the dates and then on the other hand you're saying but what about everyone else and making it open-ended so I'm pretty confused about really what it is you're trying to do or what the actual outcome, what the point could be I think the point is even whether or not we are arguing for more or less it seems inevitable that when you've got a bit of legislation defining what Jamie's described as arbitrary dates and the minister disagrees with that description it seems inevitable just from the discussions we've had that there will be challenges and it's likely to grow and whether that's through the route of an expansion of the dates legally or whether it's through potentially fueling a black market it's just something we need to be mindful of that's what the likely consequence will be I'm happy to let the minister answer as I understand it we all understood it that there was extensive consultation with stakeholders but I'm happy to let the minister answer Fulton I think the debate we're having here probably is a sign of the debate of the whole bill and the difficult position that the Government, the Minister and our colleagues have been in because in all the time that I've been an MSP and I know that colleagues don't know about that as well at certain days of the year our inboxes are flooded with people who have perhaps children with well and difficulties or with pets distressed about the impact of fireworks and then on the other hand of that we're trying to allow some freedom so I think these amendments are in the debate around it the essence of the bill and the difficult position that the Government have been in what's struck me is I've got some sympathy with what Jamie Greene said there about eating other festivals and it's something that I raised in committee as well in the stage 1 but I think what came across really clearly as I said in the last debate is that it does seem as if these dates have been very well thought out that have not just been plucked out there I don't think anybody's suggesting that there's been a lot of work put into them that looks like all the relevant bodies have been insulted and therefore I think that there is still scope in the bill for, as people have said, for the dates to be added to if things change and fireworks becoming important part of certain celebrations so I don't get the sense that AMD's been excluded or left out that's not been anything that's come to us in evidence and therefore I don't think that these amendments are necessary on that basis in terms of Pauli McNeill's I totally accept that she's trying to get more information going forward but the worry I would have in the amendments the way they're written just now is that increasing the dates would maybe lead to stop filing them within homes and stuff like that but I know Pauli and herself is reflecting on that too Just to answer Rona Mackay's question what I was seeking to probe in these amendments is they need to have 57 days but to actually reduce them to what I see as the seasons of fireworks but I think where I probably have the similar concern is that inevitably whatever days you choose by regulation we could end up with even more days and I would have thought we might be concerned for everyone Thanks for clarifying that That's me, can be not yours Thanks very much The permitted periods in the bill are broadly in line with the traditional fireworks period as we've discussed in the previous group and this is when most retailers in Scotland are permitted to sell and when the use of fireworks by the general public is the most prevalent so our intention in introducing restricted days of use is to address the negative impacts of unpredictable fireworks use whilst retaining periods during which fireworks may be used appropriately by the general public so that permitted periods for use provide flexibility to allow celebrations to go ahead on or around that date which allows for postponement or delays due to inclement weather or unsafe conditions Of course Thank you very much It occurred to me during the evidence that we've been taken that one of the issues is potential challenges using the Equalities Act and Jamie Greene obviously has spoken specifically in relation to religious communities which would be directly covered by Equalities legislation we also heard in evidence for example that fireworks are being used for gender reveal events and I just wondered first of all whether there's been an equality act impact assessment but what consideration has been given to the equality act aspects given as Pauline McNeill has outlined the 57 days would be a baseline so therefore if there was equality act challenges that were successful they would add to the number of days I can confirm there has been an equality impact assessment in general the provisions in the bill are to strike that right balance I think that most people would agree that we're looking to reduce that unpredictable use of fireworks so we've spent a lot of time engaging with stakeholders, members of the public community groups in order to try to get that balance right and that has been consulted upon extensively so to pick up on points made by several members about faith groups and just to confirm this we engage with the Muslim Council of Britain the Hindu community the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and Interfaith Scotland have all confirmed that the proposed permitted periods were not problematic so I hope that gives the member some comfort on those points if I turn to amendments 98, 101, 102 and 103 so these seek to remove the permitted days as currently set out in the bill and replace with a regulation making power I think my view is that this would reduce clarity for members of the public I think that we all agree that it's important it's going to be important in how the legislation works going forward I think that would remove clarity for the public regarding the permitted days of use and it would significantly increase the time and resources required to implement it so I think I've said already that the dates that we've picked have undergone considerable amounts of public and stakeholder consultation so I've already addressed the faith groups that we spoke to but we also spoke to community groups we spoke to retailers, members of the public as well so this has extensively been consulted on prior to setting this out in the bill when we were doing that consultation where concerns were raised with us an additional evidence was presented they were updated in light of this engagement so an example of this is the period from the 7th to the 16th of April and that was intended to cover the seek festival of Wasaki so that was just to put that on the record for the committee as well so I believe that the provision in the bill at present provides the right balance of certainty and flexibility so I can't support the amendments that are in Mr Greene's name amendments 3 and 4 looked to shorten the permitted days of use over the bonfire period to 8 days and the new year period to 3 days so in coming to the provisions that we have in the bill to reduce the negative effects on our vulnerable populations whilst balancing this out with the enjoyment members of the public can and do get from using fireworks and of course reducing the impact on businesses and ensuring that adequate safety measures remain in place so I think that by limiting the period further we could risk a situation where people have a very limited number of days to use them and they are inadvertently encouraged to use them in situations where perhaps it wouldn't be safe to use them because they've run out of days that they can use them an example of that perhaps would be if people were using them in bad weather where it would be less safe to do so so in the case of these amendments it would also mean that fireworks are available to purchase for a number of days before they're permitted to be used and I'm concerned that that could lead to issues around stockpiling so their permitted days for use in the bill deliberately extend slightly beyond applied and that's to avoid that situation where people buy fireworks towards the very end of the supply period but they're not able to use them of course I'm really listening very carefully to everything you're saying I mean I'm just trying to formulate an opinion that makes sense to me and but why would we permit members of the public just probing this to let fireworks off the 10th of November when bonfire season is the fifth I mean I just wonder does that make sense because are we not encouraging people to oh there's a big period where you can set fireworks off legally and given that I think we're all agreed that it does provide a certain nuisance to communities and I totally acknowledge the minister's point about the balance between enjoyment and with you on that totally and I just think the period seems really long so the date that the members mentioned that would actually be the weekend after fireworks night so we're often finding that and I'm sure members will find this in their own experience that the bonfire period is not just restricted to people setting fireworks off on the night it's usually that whole period usually including the weekend before the weather is like sometimes it's just to do with the fact that it's on a Tuesday night or something and people prefer to have their celebrations later on so the idea with that is the most traditional period that people in the UK people in Scotland use fireworks and we are trying to align with that I think at the moment I feel that does strike the appropriate balance but we do obviously have the provision in the bill that should we feel in the future as we see how the bill beds in and is used and it may be appropriate to do that at that time but I think at the moment it's best to broadly align it with the dates where fireworks are most traditionally used Apologies if I've maybe missed this but if a group was to seek to be added to the permitted days of purchase and use what's the mechanism going to court or is there some kind of application process that they can go through with the Government Can the community just give me one moment I'm excited already we do retain a provision in the bill in order to add groups or dates that we feel have been missed out I'm quite confident that we haven't missed any out because of the extent of engagement that we've undertaken but the mechanism is there if groups feel that they have been unfairly disadvantaged they can contact the Government and the Government would also be able to look at that and decide whether it was appropriate to add further dates Thank you Okay So I believe that the days of use as drafted is sufficiently robust and it's a result of a period of prolonged consultation and coupled with the existing power within the bill to amend these and subject to affirmative procedure I'm afraid I can't support amendments 3 and 4 amendment 5 that's also proposed by Ms McNeill that information is available and that public awareness is raised about the days in each year when it's permitted to use fireworks and the three existing Scottish Government funded communication campaigns will be updated and aligned to ensure that there is broad public awareness and understanding of the changes brought in should the bill be passed because I agree with the committee that it is extremely important but I consider that the information described in this amendment will be made available to the public in this way and there's no need therefore to include this provision in the bill in order to achieve it So convener, for those reasons I don't support any of the amendments in this group and I would urge the committee not to support them if they're pressed Thank you minister Jamie Greene to wind up and press or withdraw your amendments Thank you, it's been quite a robust debate I think it's got some good points aired on the record but I want to make a couple of points in response to Fulton MacGregor's point that he is absolutely right at certain times of the year our unboxers are flooded with people who see fireworks as a nuisance The problem is that this bill won't change that because the times of year when our unboxers are flooded are the times of year which also are the permitted days of use so that is not going to solve that problem The reason our unboxers are flooded is the misuse of fireworks so that this proposal fix that problem either because the dates first of all are permitted dates in which fireworks can be used and will not solve the problem of understanding whether if somebody hears fireworks on a permitted day we'll know if that's legal use or illegal use because all they will do is hear and see the fireworks will still be flooding our unboxers and still be complaining to the police Can I take Mr MacGregor first and then the minister? In terms of the point that the member raises would he agree that it's different in different areas of the country I guess but the purpose of this bill is to limit the indiscriminate use of fireworks and he was saying that our unboxers are flooded on times where they're now still permitted there's two points I've made to that one that's not always been my experience sometimes the minibots can be flooded around about sporting events for example and the second point I would raise is the whole purpose of this scheme is to create a licensing process whereby it would hopefully reduce the number of inappropriate fireworks so I wonder if the member will accept that point I'll respond to that point the point about indiscriminate use will still happen it is inevitable that there are people who will still let off fireworks outwith permitted periods the big point is around the enforcement of that now in realistic terms if somebody hears a firework going off on a day when it's clearly not a religious festival clearly not a permitted day let's say the firework lasts maximum a minute usually much less a couple of those go off they phone the police it takes about 33 seconds to get through to 999 if you phone 101 probably a couple of minutes by that point it's done and dusted are the police actually going to get in their car and drive to your street and work out who on earth set off a firework the reality is we don't know and I very much doubt it the indiscriminate use will still continue the issue about the licensing scheme that could be a helpful solution to the problem people who are going to misuse fireworks whether they've got a licence or not will do it they're more likely to not have a licence it's not going to stop them sourcing fireworks and using them so I think you make a fair point but I still think our inboxes are flooded around periods on which dates won't still be permitted it's not solving the fundamental problem which is about the misuse and the antisocial behaviour to resolve the minister wanted to intervene on me so I'm happy to give way so we're obviously talking about indiscriminate use and Mr McGregor has made an important point that we think that the provisions in the bill but not just these ones about permitted days of supply and use but also the ones about the licence scheme which is a point well made by the member but also about the fireworks control zone so that's another provision that's attempting to address the issues that the member is raising so if a member of a public living in a firework control zone once this is enacted they won't be able to use fireworks so it will be clear to people that they're not allowed to use them at that point so I think that the provisions in the bill but taken as a whole so not looking at individual provisions are an attempt to address exactly the problem that the member has identified and I think we'll go some way to solving that issue I'm pleased that the minister is confident of such but I think that that itself adds to another layer of confusion that the public are going to face we've been working on this bill for a number of months we've scrutinised it on a line by line basis but Diwali this year is the 24th of October so in a community where there's problematic behaviour of fireworks and the hear-it-fire work going off on the 24th of October is the first thing they're going to say to themselves oh well it's Diwali, it's okay, there's not a problem there are they then going to dispatch someone or are they not because it's a permitted day or will they think oh no this is probably problematic behaviour whether that person has a licence or not, whether they bought them from a retailer or illicitly from white van man is irrelevant the problematic behaviour is what lies at the root cause of much of the complaint around usage the other point I wanted to make is around the concern that by having these permitted days we are simply making firework days so that if effectively you want to let off fireworks on the 24th of October whether you're celebrating Diwali or not that is a day when the law says you can do it and you will do it if you've stockpiled if you get to the last date in that range and there is a very valid point that we haven't discussed around adverse weather conditions where it is dangerous to let off fireworks in adverse weather if you get to the end of the permitted dates and you've spent quite a lot of money on fireworks and it's the last day that you're able to use them are you going to put them back in the garage or are you going to let them off anyway which could create a safety issue so I'm not querying yeah just in a second so again what I'm pointing to is that there's a pattern here of inevitable confusion in the wider public potential challenges to the dates and by imposing restrictive dates in the way that it's being proposed it may have unintended consequences which we won't know until it happens and that's only a couple of our concerns happy to give away just going back to one of the specific points you made about people who for reasons out with their control might not be able to use fireworks within the permitted dates and it's probably not a question the member can answer but perhaps the minister could do so it's what happens if any consideration has been given to those people who have bought fireworks legitimately have been unable to use them for whatever reason how do they then safely dispose of them has any thought been given? I have no idea how you dispose of fireworks and I'm sure that's something that we will need to ensure that there's a strong education programme to the wider public equally whether you're able to or willing to stockpile how, where you do that most people don't do it because they don't have to a date of restriction if you do impose a date of restriction of use and you for whatever reason have maxed your opportunity to use them the conundrum faced by households is whether, as a licence holder you want to do the right thing do you store them and use them at the next permitted date maybe not when you wanted to use them but you might use them anyway you've probably spent a lot of money on them or you're able to return them to the store or dispose of them if you've bought them online are you going to phone up a specialist courier company to come and get them these are valid questions and I think sensible ones which we don't know the answer to the minister wanted to intervene I'll come in on that point so that is the reason why that the use of fireworks extends slightly beyond the supply period to give that extra couple of days for that precise reason that the member has raised and also so if we did have a position where someone has bought them and spent several hundred pounds on fireworks they haven't been able to use them within that permitted period of use they can store them safely and appropriately if they wish and then use them in the next period when it's available to do that and that I think is one of the good things about the training course because in the training course materials we'll obviously be able to educate people on appropriate ways to store fireworks and how to use them safely but if the law doesn't permit you to do so then we are creating a problem that currently does not exist happy to leave it there do you want to oppress or withdraw the amendment? so this would be amendment 98 98 to withdraw 98 okay, thank you the member's happy with that sorry, can I confirm because 98 is the first one in the group but it is a technical consequential of the substantive amendment which comes later so whilst I withdraw that one I may move a future substantive amendment so we'll go through that okay, so that one's been withdrawn thank you so I therefore call amendment 99 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move? not move I call amendment 100 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62 Russell Findlay to move or not move? not move I call amendment 101 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 98 and I remind members that if amendment 101 is agreed to I cannot call amendments 3 and 4 due to preemption so Jamie Greene to move or not move? not move I call amendment 3 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 98 not move I call amendment 4 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 98 not moved I call amendment 102 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 98 Jamie Greene to move or not move? moved okay so the question is that amendment 102 be agreed to are we all agreed? we're not agreed therefore we will go to a vote all those in favour of the amendment please raise your hands thank you all those against raise your hands there's no abstentions therefore the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment four votes against the amendment there's an equality of votes therefore as convener I'll use my casting vote and vote against the amendment therefore the amendment is not agreed I call amendment 103 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 98 Jamie Greene to move or not move? not move the question is that section 23 be agreed to are we all agreed? I call amendment 5 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 98 Pauline McNeill to move or not move? I'm not moving it on the basis that I think I heard the minister say at the end that he's covered in the bill I'm not moving thank you we'll now move on to the next grouping after which I intend having a short break so I call amendment 23 in the name of the minister of amendments 132 and 133 minister to move amendment 23 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you convener so I recognise the potential impact of restrictions on days of supply to specialist firework retailers and it's right that adequate consideration is given to how such businesses might be supported as a result I accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that regulations around compensation are subject to affirmative procedure and that's given the interest in such compensation scheme from these businesses and also from Parliament so as such my amendment proposes that regulations made under section 241 are subject to affirmative procedure so let me turn now to the amendment support forward by Mr Greene that seek to ensure the restricted days of supply and use provisions that come into force until regulations for the compensation scheme have been laid so in response to the committee stage 1 report it was already our intention but I accepted the recommendation to commence work with the fireworks industry as soon as the bill is enacted and before the relevant provisions come into force and as the committee report notes this will be important to lay the groundwork for how such support can be delivered in a timely and proportionate way helping such businesses adapt and respond in light of this change and this will of course involve working closely with those businesses to understand the potential negative impact and following this the detail of the scheme will be developed and the necessary regulations will be laid in the Parliament so I believe that Mr Greene's amendments are not necessary and I would ask that he not press them but I move amendment 23 in my name thank you very much Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 132 and other amendments in the group thank you and can I thank the minister for amendment 23 which as always strengthens the scrutiny process which we will support amendments 132 and 133 132 itself is a technical means to an end the main amendment 133 does not say very much it is actually quite important it states that regulations under subsection 2 may not come for section 22 may not come into force until regulations under section 24 have been laid and essentially I am reliably told that this ensures that the compensation scheme has been set up and is in place prior to the restrictions on the supply of fireworks which goes back to the previous conversation that we had around those who will affect the most so as we know there are around a small number of businesses around 10 out of about 650 known fireworks retailers in Scotland I think it's fair to say that the provisions in the bill will have a substantial impact on those businesses particularly small run businesses mostly family run small businesses who've been on our high streets and communities across Scotland for years if not generations the sort of business you expect to see on high streets I guess I think it's a given that if you restrict the sales supply which we previously debated at that point that they will suffer immensely there isn't virtually impossible to see how they keep a shop front open with staff all year round when they're unable to sell product I mean it's nothing more than an information centre becoming a look at fireworks that you can't buy I just can't see it being feasible and I think we have to just be honest as a committee about that so we are shutting them down therefore and it is welcome that the Government has suggested there may be some form of compensation Stage 1 report I think went into this in great detail the Scottish Government must commence work with the fireworks retail industry as soon as the bill is enacted and before relevant provisions of part 3 come into force to lay the ground work for a mechanism by which those retailers can assess the likely impact of their business and seek compensation one of those businesses who will be having their doors closed as a result of the legislation submitted to us this policy will put me in other fireworks doors out of business that's not something we should take lightly he also goes on to say that the public will buy online or drive down to England this will be impossible to police we've debated those points in great detail and I am concerned that that is his view not just of course that he's losing his business but the effect that it might have on where people will go to get fireworks if he's unable to sell them to him to them I think we also have to understand that these are real livelihoods these are people's hard-earned family businesses who have probably already suffered over the last couple of years as many have in the retail sector who are about to lose their livelihoods and will struggle the compensation must be robust it must be transparent it must be well fought through the Government will need to be clear about how people will be compensated for how long under what metrics that compensation will be given how will be estimated the financial amount what scrutiny will be given to the financial amount so is it a one-off payment is it an annual payment is it based on profit is it based on turnover is it based on loss of earnings is it based on all of the above loss of stock, destroying of stock of leases all those things that you do when the Government comes along and shuts your business down and I think these are things that the Government will have to be nice and of sensitively respectfully but also be willing to put its money where its mouth is because I'm afraid if Government introduces a law to shut down an industry the Government should be willing to accept the consequences of doing so yeah in a second and all I'm asking the Government to do is to make sure that restrictions do not come into place for the restriction of sale until that package is in place and clear and indeed the Parliament has had a chance to look at it at which point of course the restrictions can come into place thanks for taking intervention I'm not arguing of course businesses should be compensated obviously they should but I just take a bit of issue with you constantly saying the business will be shut down I mean the retailer can still sell for 57 days of the year how that retailer rearranges his business model is entirely up to them and if compensation comes into play as well it doesn't necessarily mean that they will no longer have a business I just wanted to put that on record I think the answer to that is let's ask them you know we haven't passed the bill yet it's a stage 2 if those retailers with a vested interest to only sell fireworks and sell them all year round want to talk to the committee they should I encourage them to do so what effect will the bill have on your business it's a simple question and let's ask them if the answer to that is yeah you're right we can move to an online model we can reduce operating costs by shutting the store down we may need less compensation because we're able to operate in a different model in a different way that's fine and if that's their answer then the Government I'm sure will take heed of that and compensate them appropriately if the answer though is no way we could operate and we will shut down the Government will need to react to that as well but we won't know until we ask them which is precisely what I'm trying to do with these amendments very much Wilton Thanks Commander I'll just take the outset I'll support amendment 23 and agree because of that the 132 and 133 aren't really needed but in terms of the debate the Jamie Greene and MacI were having there I think that's probably the key point I agree with Rona Mackay I don't think that Jamie Greene can say that we're shutting these businesses down or that the Government's shutting these businesses down I think that the point that he makes is a good one that they could close down as a result of the legislation so I think that it's probably right that we challenge the Government to say that hopefully and I'm sure this is the purpose of it and the compensation scheme is one that supports these businesses to stay open and I'm sure that will be primary in the thoughts of the compensation scheme that is one that, as Jamie Greene said, is robust enough and is going to be strong enough to support the businesses to last more than the 50 odd days that they can and I'm sure that's at the heart of this amendment and it's the purpose of it here I don't think anyway we're talking about this probably small number of small family run businesses that could be the good struggles as a result of this I mean it might be that the compensation scheme needs to look at supermarkets and stuff as well but from my point of view I don't think that's necessary they've got other sources of income but it's the small businesses I've just finished a bit it may be something that the minister can clarify but it's not so much necessarily people might have sympathy for supermarkets or big suppliers but more of the companies who supply them who may well be family businesses will see a significant downturn in business in Scotland due to what's being proposed I think that's a point as you said yourself we'll pass that over to the minister that's myself going to be up okay thank you very much no other member wants to come in minister thank you that was a good debate I'm very sympathetic to the member seeking to raise concerns on behalf of the specialist retailers it is something that we had recognised ourselves it's right that the bill includes a provision to support such businesses that may be affected and hence that's why it is provided for in the bill and this support will help businesses to adapt and respond to this change Jamie Greene I think that this was a point that was picked up by Rona Mackay of saying that these businesses were forced to close their doors I don't think we can establish that at the moment because primarily these businesses will still be able to sell fireworks that they can sell fireworks to community groups all year round and they would also still be able to sell to professional display organisers all year round as well and a number of these businesses so themselves professional display organisers as well so we need to be able to understand the impact of the restricted days of supply provision in practice and only then will we be able to identify what level of support is appropriate I think that's the right way to go about this I give my absolute commitment to the committee that this engagement with those businesses will take place if the bill is passed as soon as possible in order to understand the impact that it has on those businesses and if necessary provide compensation to them thank you very much minister so the question is that amendment 23 be agreed to are we all agreed yes the question is that section 24 be agreed to are we all agreed and the question is that section 25 be agreed to are we all agreed thank you so you'll be glad to know in 10 suspending this meeting for about 5 minutes for a short comfort break thank you and welcome back and I now call amendment 104 in the name of Russell Finlay, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings Russell Finlay to move amendment 104 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you amendment 104 is connected to 14 other amendments in my name but I'll resist the temptation of doing a bingo callers rhyming them all off now other than licensing and the sale and use dates in the bill I think firework control zones pretty much define the bill and where there's already a lot being said about the confusion around licensing and the dates there's a lot that can also and should be said about the confusion around these zones as proposed now there's significant support for no firework areas zones as they were described in the public consultation it seems to be what people want and indeed expect recently is December 2020 just 18 months ago the minister was referring to these in documents submitted on the government website as no firework areas zones however members of the public who probably in the main are still not aware of what this actually means will probably be surprised to discover that these no firework areas zones are now firework control zones and they do not prohibit the use of fireworks within them which as I've already touched on people seem to want and expect what they will allow for is the use of fireworks for 57 days per year by those not those with a licence by private companies who can be brought in to hold displays on behalf of members of the public now Jamie Greene has already talked about what he called the Pandora's Box of these 57 days increasing and that remains a live issue going forward going back to firework control zones the greatest support for these came from pet owners farmers animal charities and those with sensory issues or conditions such as some autistic people and those suffering from PTSD Rob Holland of the National Autistic Society Scotland gave evidence and when I asked him if firework control zones should actually be no firework zones as initially proposed he said people might assume that there would be no fireworks in a firework control zone and he's correct to do so he continues to say that could create confusion which could in turn lead to families having to deal with added unpredictability about when fireworks could be used now the SSPCA say that firework control zones are welcome but I don't really appreciate how they are going to do anything to mitigate distress caused to animals at their facilities because there will still be firework use permitted around these areas albeit limited to professional displays it's not as if there will be any predictability other than the designated dates because as far as I'm aware there's no requirement for those hosting displays within zones to notify neighbours or the likes of SSPCA facilities industry have also called for the scrapping of proposed firework control zones but for other reasons they have said that the minister had cited overseas examples to justify the effectiveness of the zones but these examples that were cited by the minister my understanding was were to prevent the use of fireworks in public places and it's the law just now has been the case in the United Kingdom that there's been a ban public use of fireworks in public places since 1876 and later on in evidence given by the minister she clarified that and agreed that that was indeed the case but it did seem to be at odds with earlier claims for us to look towards places like Munich, Berlin and Amsterdam that were deemed to be a success now a couple of other points the firework control zones as proposed also risk creating a two-tier system between the haves and have-nots person A who is not in a firework control zone can get a licence and use fireworks at home and be who happens to live in a firework control zone would have no point in getting a licence because they would have no ability to legally purchase or indeed let off fireworks in their private garden so these people would be penalised by virtue of having the much greater cost of hiring a private company and given that we know so little about where firework control zones are going to be larger in area they might be I think we've heard evidence that they could be as big as the entirety of a local authority not only does that create this two-tier system and penalise some people by virtue of their postcode I think also has the risk of fueling what we've heard already about a black market now legislation often requires compromise but for all the reasons I've touched upon I think firework control zones are a real muddle and will cause public confusion and indeed disappointment whereas no firework zones give clarity now that also opens up issues about how you enforce a no firework zone but those same issues relate to firework control zones I don't expect all the members will agree with all of this and if the amendments are unsuccessful but these issues will absolutely remain so I look forward to hearing other members' views and indeed the minister's response thank you Katie Clark to speak to amendment 54 and other amendments in the group thank you very much amendment 54 and 55 which I think in some ways are similar to the amendments which have been moved by Russell Finlay my amendments would enable local authorities to designate an area as a firework control zone where fireworks could not be used by any person and no person would be exempt so that would include professional organisations so fireworks would effectively be banned in that area the statutory defence would obviously remain in place so for example if this provision was enacted it could be that a local authority could decide that in for example the vicinity of an animal rescue centre or a riding stables or a hospital or a facility for a vulnerable group or indeed a larger area or a neighbourhood where there were particular problems to ban on fireworks I have a number of statements in support of this amendment and I do not intend to speak in detail on the amendment as I believe the minister and this committee are well aware of the antili social impact and indeed the health and safety concerns that can relate to the use of fireworks but I do have statements which include statements from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals the Blue Cross the National Autistic Society and the Community Safety Network that I will provide to the clerk and go into details as to why they would be sympathetic to these amendments at this stage as I say I do not intend to go into detail but I would be interested in an explanation from the minister as to why there is not a provision that is similar to the one that I have outlined or indeed perhaps similar to the one that Russell Finlay has outlined included on the face of this bill Thank you very much Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 120 and other amendments in the group Thank you I just briefly speak to these amendments I support Katie Clark's proposals in this so perhaps more simplified method but it seeks to achieve a similar result I think what my colleague Russell Finlay rightly is doing is raising the point that what started is no fireworks zones which I think is quite self-explanatory no fireworks have become fireworks control zones and there's a lack of understanding about what they actually will be in practice not just in this discussion but in terms of communities themselves and indeed policing and how you enforce that and that's the two points I want to raise My amendments in this group 120, 22 and 23 are technical to an extent they go to the schedule of exemptions and seek to remove exemptions and that's another way of achieving perhaps what Ms Clark is trying to achieve specifically removing reference to those who are organising public displays which I appreciate might be controversial but I think what we're trying to achieve in this whole group is what's the point of having a firework control zone that still has fireworks going off in it and I think fundamentally that's the question we need to answer in this debate here this morning it still remains the case and it's a bizarre one I think is a consequence of the legislation of its past and its current form that there will be 57 days of the year in public with the licence can privately let off fireworks and on the other 308 days they cannot unless they employ the services of a professional fireworks company you could argue that's pointless because it again it creates this two tiered system where those that can afford to put on a display will put on a display anyway and legally do so using this loophole but equally it makes a slight mockery of the concept of restricting the use of fireworks if you've created this exemption so I seek to remove those exemptions or indeed probe the removal of those exemptions and if the government thinks they should remain I'd be quite intrigued as to learn as to why keeping those exemptions falls within the spirit and scope of the legislation that the minister is trying to pursue with this bill the other point is around enforcement and it's my understanding that it's not unanimous that the concept of a firework control zone or no firework zone will be practical just looking at some of the evidence that received during the consultation the Scottish Police Association of Scottish Police of Pretendence in their responses to the consultation made two comments that stood out at me one and I quote said this will only serve to create another battleground where existing neighbour and community disputes will be fought and the second is that they feel a quote feeling the strongest terms that this is the potential to cause significant issues and I presume what they're referring to is those problematic areas of parts of the country where we have misuse of fireworks in concentrated pockets the creation of those zones doesn't address the issue of displacement it doesn't address the issue of will that drive people from moving out of control zones into public areas where it is already illegal to let off fireworks as my colleague stated and my understanding is that Police Scotland themselves spoke in the working group meetings albeit I don't have minutes to those meetings but if I can source them ahead of stage 3 I will try to do so around some issues they had with the concept of these zones again no one is against the premise of them but they need to be clear what they are and what they are not and I think for the reasons that both Russell Finlay and Katie Clark elicited there is an expectation that the public and those within that zone should not expect to see fireworks and rightly could call the police in that scenario it will create an absolute mindfield in my view if we create these zones and then a whole bunch of exemptions too that were for whatever reason there is a zone applied to a local authority and again we don't know the process for that and it is granted on this claiming exemption under schedule 1 of the bill and proceeds to let off fireworks anyway defeats the point quite frankly especially if you are creating a zone for good purpose and good reason whether that is a community with problematic behaviour or animal sanctuaries farms in other areas where you can see a practical benefit of having an exclusion zone I like the idea of simply going back to no fireworks zones if men try to do that so I think this is a very useful grouping for debate Minister to speak to amendment 37 and other amendments in the group Yes but if I just recap the reason for the firework control zone provision because there has been a bit of debate about that in general so this provision was brought in primarily to curb legitimate use of additional reduction in the volume or amount of fireworks being used for local authorities to give them an additional tool to help them to address that issue in their areas and we all know that this is not an issue that is spread across the country there are obviously hotspots and some local authorities will no doubt want to take advantage of this and it was also a recommendation of the review group that provoked a lot of attention and scrutiny and I did say at stage 1 to the committee that I would listen to the Parliament on this to see if I had reached the appropriate or struck the right balance in this so I've listened carefully to what members have said both in stage 1 in front of the committee and in the debate as well about strengthening the provision to make it more straightforward for the public and to further reduce the unpredictability of fireworks use so the amendment that I've brought forward today would remove the exemption for professional operators to deliver private firework displays in a designated control zone meaning that this would only apply for the purpose of public fireworks displays so this ensures that members of the public will not be able to use the services of a professional operator in a designated zone I recognise that for some members this potential will not go far enough we've heard from both Mr Finlay and Ms Clark regarding the potential for these zones to prohibit the use of all fireworks if the local authority wishes it I have to say that my officials and myself have all considered this possibility at great length both prior to the introduction of the bill and again following the recommendations of the committee in the stage 1 report and I'll speak first to the current exemption for regulatory authorities such as trading standards and for businesses engaged in the supply of fireworks so it's essential that these exemptions are retained because they ensure that enforcement bodies are able to continue to carry out their duties as required in a designated zone and for businesses engaged in manufacture or supply of fireworks to any safety checks that are carried out on fireworks as part of due diligence can continue we've also allowed for community groups and professional operators to use fireworks at publicly organised events and the Scottish Government recognised and I recognise the value of these events their ability to foster community spirit their ability to bring people together and I don't want to deprive communities of that opportunity to do that so this is in line with the recommendations of the independent fireworks review group and it's also what we heard coming through quite strongly in our consultations both in 2018 and in 2021 so I consider that amendment 37 in my name strikes the right balance here in further cutting down unpredictability of fireworks use while allowing for vital work to be carried out by regulatory authorities and businesses to continue and also recognising the value of local public displays local authorities are already able to determine the suitability of these displays in a particular place in many cases through their public licence processes and throughout the stage 1 process much was made of the potential for public confusion regarding where they can and where they cannot set off fireworks so I would question whether having control zones varying from zone to zone from local authority to local authority would in fact make the potential for that confusion to be worse Mr Finlay's amendments would appear to allow a local authority to apply any exemption that it wished to an individual zone this could be small variations but it also could be very large variations as well between the position in different areas and I think that would add unnecessary complexity to the zones Mr Finlay brought up I think possibly Mr Green as well about the change of name from firework control zones so even with the amendments and the exemptions in this group proposed by Mr Finlay and Ms Clark local authorities would still have the ability to set exemptions so that certain uses of a zone would be permitted and I consider therefore that zones are correctly described as firework control zones as there are places where the use of fireworks is controlled more tightly than it is in other places so convener it will be a criminal offence to use fireworks in a control zone unless exempt is consistently applied in all areas particularly so that those involved in public fireworks displays and others can understand the law as it applies to their activities Mr Finlay also asked about the size of the firework control zones so it's just to clarify for the committee that it's not intended that a local authority can designate their entire local authority area as a firework control zone so there is an ability for Scottish ministers to, by regulation, set limits on the size of a place or area in that local authority that may be designated as a firework control zone so it's just to clarify that for the committee so I hope the committee would be of course I just wonder just if any indication is to the likely size of such zones I don't have any indication of those at the moment so we should be very keen to apply those particularly local authorities that we know have an issue I can speak to the city of Edinburgh I think that we are all aware or certainly representatives who represent Edinburgh over the particular hot spots that are involved and the local authority will be very aware of those as well so I would anticipate that local authorities will seek to set those just to cover the areas where they have issues but I don't have any they haven't indicated to me at this stage which is why we retain the power in there to set the size should we need to in the event of the circumstance that the member has raised thank you so I hope the committee will support my amendment and unfortunately I'm not able to support the amendments by Mr Finlay and Ms Clark so I'd ask them not to press them and if they do press them the committee not to support them thank you very much minister anybody any other members wish to come in no Russell Finlay to wind up and press her withdrawal yes thank you convener I intend to press now I've heard what the minister said in response and other members but I do think that the fundamental issue of even with the minister's amendment which proposes to not allow for private companies to provide displays within firework control zones it still will allow for the use of fireworks through organised public displays and in terms of the expectations of members of the public and the vast numbers of consultation responses that defeats the purpose of what was perceived originally to be a no firework zone furthermore there's a inconsistency or a duality about whether you happen to live in somewhere that the local authorities designated as a firework control zone where you therefore become prohibited from using fireworks whatsoever you are basically unable to apply for a licence you are completely peripheral to this entire process and I genuinely think that as the minister described that this was designed to curb legitimate use the risk is therefore that it will fuel illegitimate use it seems like an absolutely inevitable consequence so on that basis I think it's important that we do push for a no firework Yes One of the points I raised which I didn't get a response to and I'm not unable to come back in on this debate due to the groupings is the issue of enforceability of zones and concerns that have rightly been raised and I haven't had time in the confines of this meeting to go through all the minutes of the working group but I'm keen to do so but what we do know that I have on record is evidence that was given in their written consultation response to the legislation and I think it's important putting on the record that because there were so many responses to the consultation a lot of it's been lost in the online hinterland but this quote I think should raise concerns for us ahead of stage 3 so consider this the quotation from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents quote I say short it is almost unenforceable if the local authority has overall administration of licensing and zoning it is the general belief of the SPS that the public will still involve the police to resolve disputes actual or perceived over zoning it is a minefield that does not need to be created I haven't heard a response to that valid concern and anything that's been debated today that one of the members shared my concern Absolutely while the proposal to have no fireworks zones is what people seem to want in respect of the consultation those whose job would be to enforce it don't because of all the reasons that they've given in quite strong terms and I think that speaks to the fundamental issue as to whether this bill is going to cause more problems than it's attempting to fix and I think that will be therefor and I think that this perhaps reflects a lot of the stage 1 report the committee produced this would give some clarity and it's an important thing that should be should be accepted so thank you okay, thank you very much so the question is that amendment 104 be agreed are we all agreed therefore we will move to a vote all those in favour of the amendment please raise your hands thank you all those against raise your hand thank you, there are no abstentions so the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment four votes against the amendment therefore there is an equality of votes and as convener I so use my casting vote and vote against the amendment so the amendment is therefore not agreed thank you so I call amendment 105 in the name of Russell Finlay already debated with amendment 104 Russell Finlay to move or not move move so the question is that amendment 105 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed therefore we will 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 there are no abstentions so the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment four votes against the amendment so as there is an equality of votes as convener I so use my casting vote and vote so the amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 106 in the name of Russell Finlay already debated with amendment 104 Russell Finlay to move or not move not move I call amendment 107 in the name of Russell Finlay already debated with amendment 104 Russell Finlay to move or not move not move I call amendment 108 in the name of Russell Finlay a wneud mur everyone. Azyman Ewfan Cyfan Cabinet in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendments 62. Russell Finlay to move, or not move? Azyman Ewfan C attacked my area, audiences badger in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 104. I signed this Chloe here before KerrALLYne himself. Katey Clark, to move or not move? Is that Section 26 agreed to or we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 112, in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 104. Russell Findlay, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 113, in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment四. in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 104, Russell Findlay to move or not move. So the question is that section 27 be agreed to or we all agreed. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll now move on to the next groupings. And I call amendment 24 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10. Minister to move amendment 24 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. So the bill sets out requirements for a local authority to publish its decision on a proposed control zone and when doing so it should set out any changes that have been made to the proposal and explain how the views expressed during the consultation process have been considered. Following the bill's introduction we identified that this provision would benefit from slightly amended wording in order to make the policy intent clear and that is that the requirement for a decision to be published at least 60 days before it is to have effect only applies if the local authority has made a decision to proceed with the proposal. So this is a technical amendment which simply seeks to provide clarity. I've therefore brought forward amendment 24 and I hope that members will support it. Convener, I've carefully considered amendments 6, 7 and 8 and 10 brought forward by Ms McNeill. It's true that the bill does not set out how the decision to designate a zone is to be publicised or the detail to be included and the intention is that this will be addressed in guidance issued by the Scottish ministers and this is partly to ensure that this is driven by local circumstances as what may work here in Edinburgh is vastly different to what may work in the Shetlands but it's also to make sure that the local authorities are able to adapt to changing methods of communication as well. So we intend to work closely with local authorities in order to co-design this guidance to ensure that their needs are accounted for and met so I don't consider that amendment 10 is necessary and I can't support that one. Amendment 7 sets out that information must be published by every local authority setting out whether any control zones have been designated over the permitted periods of use. Convener, as well as the ability to issue guidance for local authorities, the three existing Scottish Government-funded public awareness campaigns will be aligned to ensure that there is broad understanding of the changes that will be brought in should the bill be passed. So I consider that the measure set out in amendment 7 are unnecessary and I urge the committee not to support them. Yes. The minister is talking about national awareness campaigns about the generality of the bill, which is fine, but amendment 7 is specifically about the far-work control zones, which is a very specific local issue. I think that what the member who will speak to the amendment herself is seeking to achieve is that on a localised basis that people within that local authority are given adequate information, this will mandate them to do so. So this has nothing to do with the national awareness campaign about the bill. I'm coming on to that. So in 6 and 8, also brought forward by Mr Neil, I seek to ensure that, following the consultation of our proposal to designate a mend or revoker zone, there would be additional requirements on the local authority in regard to the level of detail that's published and that this is done in such a way as to bring it to the attention of the people who live and work in the designated zone. So that has always been the intention of the Scottish Government that local authorities would be expected to be clear on what that decision means in practice, including the boundaries, the dates, the effect of the zone and so on. The guidance will be developed that will cover how local authorities best ensure that the general public are aware of what their designated zones will mean in practice. As I've said, we intend to co-design this with local authorities and other relevant stakeholders as well, including communities, to ensure that it's easily understood and applied in practice. The advantages of having this in guidance is that it allows for local authorities to deliver a degree of consistency of approach between the different areas while having discretion to apply their own approaches to reflect local circumstances. However, amendment 6 and 8 are in line with the policy intent for firework control zones and how it's expected that publication of decision on and information about firework control zones will work in practice. I'm therefore happy to commit, in principle, to consider whether it's beneficial in bringing forward an amendment at stage 3 to achieve this, which has the benefit of enabling further discussion and engagement to ensure that it is the right amendment. For that reason, I'm willing to engage with Ms McNeill before stage 3 on this issue, so I would ask if Ms McNeill is amenable to that, that she would not press those amendments on that basis. I begin by welcoming what the minister has just said that she's willing to work with me in stage 3. I'm genuinely pleased about that, because I want to outline why it's necessary to have something on the face of the bill. I acknowledge that it's for every local authority individually to decide the application of a fire control zone as the issues arise. However, I would have thought that every single local authority has the same duty to provide that information that everyone is clear in when they apply a control zone. There are lots of things that local authorities already do to give public information, so the one thing that I did think about was that bin collections, for example, do have something on them. I'm not suggesting that that is how prospective we'd want to be, but that kind of information has helped for a lot of people, particularly for not online. I think that you've acknowledged that. I did think that there should be some reference to that on the face of the bill to ensure that we cover all of that. As Jamie Greene rightly says, we're talking about the application of a fire control zone. It's very important that people know, because in many ways the fire control zone is a critical part of the bill and a very useful part of the bill. Some of the issues that I've been speaking about in the course of it in my local areas in Glasgow, where fireworks are very serious, is that I had a hope that Glasgow City Council would use those powers to apply fire control zones in places like Pollock Shield. It's an aspect of the bill that I think is extremely useful, but in fairness it's important for those who live within it to be absolutely crystal clear. I acknowledge that, as the minister said, there will be some co-design. The reason for lending the amendments in different ways is to give some variety to what would be, and I acknowledge that amendment 6 talks about the designated area, whether it's amended or revoked, should be something that the public should be aware of. Amendment 7 is looking for clarity for those people who live and work in the area. I appreciate that amendment 8 is much more extensive, which is probably my preference, stating the boundaries of the zone and the date from which the designation is to have effect and the date from which the designation is to have effect. Lastly, it's also important that the public is aware that it is an offence. We need to be clear with local authorities that they must tell people residing in those areas that it is an offence to let a firework off, in the same way that it would be an offence to let a firework off if it's not a designated date. With that, I welcome what has been said, and when I'm asked to via the convener, I will not be intending to move any of these on that basis. Thank you very much. Any other members want to come in, Jamie? I'd say that if I had the member moved them, I would have supported them. I think they are very well drafted amendments, but they do make a wider point. If that is going to reappear at stage 3, I agree with the minister that being overly prescriptive is probably unhelpful, but what does need to be in the bill when it comes back is the framework by which the process for establishing, notifying and so on. We actually don't know still how people will apply for their own, who is eligible to apply for their own. We're asking local authorities—we've taken away the licensing scheme from them, which I think is probably quite helpful, given that it's an onerous, resource-heavy task on them, but we are now asking them to administer these, and that cities such as Glasgow, Lanarkshire, maybe Edinburgh and others will seek to use this power, or not even willingly, but to be asked to by people within the community. I think that the things that Ms McNeill is asking are reasonable and could easily appear on the face of the bill. We don't necessarily need to be overly prescriptive about the rules that they have to apply, but I'm always concerned by the notion that this will all just simply appear in guidance, because not only will it not be on the face of the bill, but it won't even be in secondary legislation. How do we ensure that there is consistency across local authorities of the look and fail of that? The application of the rules will be fair and equal, and it won't be a postcode lottery that, if you apply for an exemption or an exclusion zone in one part of the country, it will be treated fairly and equally in other parts of the country in that light. It's important that this comes back at stage 3 in some shape or other, and we can take a view on it as and when it's presented, but I do support the premise of what the member is trying to achieve. I support the premise of what the members are trying to achieve as well. I can't support the amendments as they're currently drafted, but I have given that commitment, which has been accepted by Ms McNeill, that we will work on this and have further engagement to get this to a stage where it's something that we can accept for stage 3. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It's a call amendment 6 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 24. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. A call amendment 7 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 24. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. A call amendment 8 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 24. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. A call amendment 9 in the name of Pauline McNeill, in a group on its own. Pauline McNeill, to move and speak to amendment 9. Thank you very much, convener. So again, this amendment is about, for our work, control zones and it relates to who can make representations in order to apply a control zone. I did have a concern that if the local authority chooses not to apply a control zone and looking at other legislation where local authorities are the only bodies that can apply, so rent pressure zones, for example, and other areas where only local authorities can decide to apply the zone or not, and even though people might be asking for it, there's nothing they can do about it. I thought in this particular case that ordinary people should be able to make representations to the local authority that a control zone is needed. Of course, it's a matter for the local authority ultimately to decide that, but I did think that it was in tune with community empowerment that people should have a say, and the bill doesn't allow for this. I was very keen that community bodies that may not be covered in the bill already have the right to put it in front of the local authority. I'm thinking to do is find more than one route other than the local authority being the sole initiator. The arbitrator in the final decision making possesses the whether it's justified or not, but given the nature of the bill and the widespread public interest in it and people's concerns about fireworks in their own communities, it would make sense that individuals could make representations. I'd like to begin by thanking Ms McNeill for her time in discussing this amendment with me in advance. That was a couple of weeks ago now, and her commitment to empowering local communities is to be admired. Whilst I'm sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, I think that it does have issues. The amendment seeks to provide a formal process for community groups to instigate consideration of a firework control zone and a duty on the local authority to respond to it. In section 1331 of the bill, it enables Scottish ministers to make further regulations about firework control zones and to issue guidance on which local authorities must have regard to. I believe that guidance that we've spoken about, cow design with local authorities, is a more appropriate route than this amendment for setting out those further details on the procedures for the control zones, including procedures involving local communities. That amendment could potentially result in a considerable resource burden for local authorities. It doesn't make provision for the limit on the number of times, for instance, that the same group or relevant people could make a request, or if a local authority can decline a representation if they've recently carried out a consultation, for instance. Firework control zones are also intended to take into account more than just anti-social behaviour. For example, the impact on noise arising even from responsible use and the proximity of vulnerable populations, which was a point that was made by Katie Clark in an earlier grouping, in their nearness to a designated zone. For those reasons, unfortunately, I can't support this amendment. I'm disappointed that the minister's reasons for not supporting it is that it would first of all place a resource burden on local authorities. I would argue that we've got to strike the balance in what is some very serious and very much-needed legislation. Of course, there will be some burden on local authorities. Secondly, for backbench members, when we submit amendments in such a short timescale to sign them off, unfortunately, there may well be flaws in our amendments that may not be in yours. I don't think that's a good enough reason for the minister. I would have accepted that it may not be drafted perfectly, but its purpose is clear, and I feel really strongly about it. If we pass the legislation and only local authorities can initiate a fire control zone and not commentate to themselves, it goes against the grain of what we're trying to do, and I'd be happy to give way. There are two simple solutions to that. One is that the member presses the amendment that the committee votes on. The Government can tidy up if it's not confident at stage 3, or the minister would give the member a commitment to take away this issue and look at whether community groups or individuals can make representation to local authorities and bring something back in its place, in which case the member wouldn't need to move the amendment, but it raises an important point. I would be happy to, if the minister would even consider it, to reduce the scope to a relevant person on behalf of a community body, or what I'm clear about is that we're only to be local authorities who decide if they're even going to take it forward, if that's my understanding of the legislation. No-one else can put it in front of a local authority. If Glasgow City Council decides not to do it, Pollock Shields community can't do it. It's more a question than anything that's occurred to me when you're asking it. I don't know if you've come across this, Pauline, when you've been looking at this amendment. Are community groups able to ask their local councillors to then take it to the council, or community individuals, would that be a mechanism that would work and would it satisfy? I guess it would be. Again, it would be for the local authority. I know that you're thinking or saying that that wouldn't happen. Why wouldn't Glasgow City Council? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that in previous legislation, where we've—I can think of pressurised areas on the ones where you could bring fines that are right to buy, you'd have thought in some areas in Glasgow it would have been used and it wasn't. I know the relevant departments that are engaged with ministers may say they're going to use it, but the decision wouldn't be those—the decisions will be made higher up, I would have thought, by the full council. Although I don't know where that decision would be taken, it just seems—if we don't know the answer to that, then we should make it clear that someone else can ask the local authority, in a formal sense, to consider—we're not saying that it should be applied, but to consider a control zone it is necessary. On that basis, I'm going to push the amendment. I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. I will be pressing it. So the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay, we're not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. All those in favour of the amendment raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. There are no abstentions. So the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment, four votes against the amendment, there's an equality of votes therefore as convener, I'll use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. So the amendment is therefore not agreed. So I call amendment 114 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 104. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 115 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 104. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. So the question is that section 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 116 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 104. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 117 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 104. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 10 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 24. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. So the question is that section 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. So that brings us on to our next grouping and I call amendment 25 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 25 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In developing the pyrotechnic possession offence, we have been conscious of our obligation to be proportionate in our approach and to consider the least intrusive method of achieving our policy objective while still responding to the evidence around pyrotechnic misuse. However, I share the committee's view that the operational challenges raised following the introduction of the bill needed to be addressed. I have continued to work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation on these issues and I have listened to the views from members across Parliament and gained assurances that any extension to the offence to include public places has the necessary safeguards and checks and balances built in to remain proportionate to the issue that is being tackled. As a result of those discussions, I have reassessed the provisions that are in the bill. The Government amendments in this group adjust the existing possession offence and create an additional offence of being in possession of a pyrotechnic in public without reasonable excuse. To ensure proportionality and consistency with existing pyrotechnic prohibitions relating to sporting grounds, those amendments set out two offences relating to pyrotechnic possession. Amendment 26 contains an additional offence that will prohibit the possession of a pyrotechnic article, including fireworks, other than an F1 firework in any public place without a reasonable excuse. That recognises that restricting the carrying of F1 items, such as sparklers and party poppers in public, is disproportionate measure given the low risk that is presented by those items. However, in excluding F1 fireworks from the public place possession offence, we do not also want to relax any existing prohibitions relating to them. Current laws prohibit all fireworks, including F1 fireworks, from being taken into designated sporting grounds. Amendments 27, 28 and 29 adjust the offence currently in section 33 of the bill to separately cover the prohibition of all fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles at a designated sporting or music venue or event. Amendments 36, 38 and 40 all relate to exemptions to the prohibition on pyrotechnic articles at those places and events. They adjust the exemptions, which are set out in schedule 1, to ensure that people who carry out legitimate business using fireworks and pyrotechnics within designated sporting and music venues and events can continue to do so without committing an offence. Amendment 41 ensures that organised, lawful public fireworks displays are not unintentionally impacted by the new pyrotechnic articles in public places offence, and it provides an explicit exemption from that offence for such organisers and their assistants. Those amendments ensure that Police Scotland will have the powers available to take a preventative approach to tackle the misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics by allowing them to use intelligence-led policing and undertake early intervention to stop misuse from occurring. Thank you very much minister. Any other members want to come in, Jamie? I have two points. The first one is that I am unaware of the Police Scotland's response to the amendments, and I think that that would have been helpful because this was an issue that was raised by them and members ourselves, trying to propose potential changes to this. I just want to get a feel—obviously we are having to vote on it now—that it is unhelpful, but whether they are supportive or not supportive of the Government's revised approach to this issue, because I know that it was an issue that was raised by them directly in oral evidence, and I think that written evidence as well. That is the first point. It would have helped the decision-making process on whether we vote for or against the amendments. The second point, though, is more of a technical one. The minister might supply some guidance on this around the classification of devices. My understanding is that we do not want to overtly penalise the use of category 1 fireworks. Sparklers, I think, was the phrase that was used, but the minister will be aware that sparklers can fall into multiple categories. A category 1 sparkler is up to 7.5 grams. Anything over 7.5 grams is a category 2 and would therefore be excluded. How will that be enforced? The same goes with the issue of fflares. Fflares come in three categories. A category 1 flare is up to 20 grams, category 2 to 250 and category 3 being the biggest, 250 to a kilogram. There seems to be three primary sources of problematic use of devices that public place is specifically around football matches and other public demonstrations and events, such as smoke generators that should believe in pyrotechnic articles and marine fflares that are legally purchased in pyrotechnic articles. However, the use of other types of fflares has fallen to the fireworks category. For example, the most commonly used ones, especially football games, are something called bengal flames. Bengal flames are perfectly legal as category 1 fireworks, up to 20 grams, but would be category 2 above. I want to make sure that the Government is fully considered all the technicalities around which fireworks are exempt or in or excluded, because it is not quite as simple as just saying F1, F2, F3 and so on because of the interaction between those articles and their use in different places, elicit or otherwise. In their response initially to the committee, the committee raised issues with that. That was after the introduction of the bill, so that gave me an opportunity to go back to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation to discuss further with them. I can confirm to the committee that both Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation are supportive of those set of amendments for the committee to note that. For F1, just for Jamie Greene's information, that covers all the sparklers, which is why F1 is included as prohibited at sporting events. Everything is categorised appropriately, given the hazard levels, etc., so we fully considered all the technicalities in the draft, and that is why there is a number of consequential amendments. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 32 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And I call amendment 26 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 27 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 118 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62, Russell Findlay to move or not move. I call amendment 119 in the name of Russell Findlay already debated with amendment 62, Russell Findlay to move or not move. I call amendment 28 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 28 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 raise your hand. All those against raise your hand. There are no abstentions. The result of the vote is that there are six votes for the amendment, two votes against the amendment, the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 29 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 raise your hand. All those against raise your hand. There are no abstentions. The result of the vote is that there are six votes for the amendment, two votes against the amendment, the amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that section 33 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 30 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 34 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I will now move on to the next groupings. I call amendment 31 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 31 and speak to all amendments in the group. I accept the recommendation from the DPLRC committee and the regulations brought forward about the requirements that a person must meet in order to be treated as a professional organiser of firework and pyrotechnic displays should be subject to affirmative procedure. Whilst that is finally balanced, I understand that if any regulations are brought forward in this area, it will impact on whether such persons are exempt from certain offences under the bill. Amendment 31 therefore delivers the DPLRC recommendation that regulations made under section 35 to be are subject to the affirmative procedure. Regulatory authorities, as well as those acting under their direction, are fully exempt from the restricted days and use of firework restrictions, including fireworks within a firework control zone, and from the possession of pyrotechnic articles at certain places or events. Those exemptions are necessary to enable regulatory authorities to continue to undertake essential enforcement functions in connection with fireworks legislation and offences, including, for example, test purchasing, testing of firework products and controlled disposals. Following the bill's introduction, we identified that similar exemptions from the licensing requirement for certain activities carried out by third parties on behalf of regulatory authorities, as I have just described, are also required. Amendment 32, 33, 34 and 35 seek to fulfil the original policy intent of the provisions to allow regulatory authorities to continue to carry out their essential work. Amendment 39 and 42 ensure that young people under the age of 18 in education, training or employment will be able to access and use fireworks and pyrotechnics when needed for legitimate purposes in direct relation to that education, training or employment. Amendment 42 adds an exemption from the prohibition on providing fireworks or pyrotechnic articles to children to ensure that those in education, training or employment are not adversely impacted, while amendment 39 removes an exemption relating to under-18s employed in firework businesses, which is no longer necessary as a consequence of amendment 42, which is broad enough to include such persons. Amendment 43 ensure that certain individuals carrying out vital functions, including armed forces members, cadets, law enforcement and other emergency services, can continue to carry out their functions, which involve possessing or using pyrotechnic articles. That amendment provides exemptions from the restrictions in the bill for the armed forces of her Majesty cadets and overseas members undertaking activities with the armed forces cadets, as well as for those members of other services or organisations involved in law enforcement, search and rescue services or the preservation of life. That could include, for example, search and rescue volunteers. I move amendment 31 in my name, and I hope that members of the committee can support it. Thank you very much. I do not want to add anything at all, but to wind up to add. So the question is that amendment 31 be agreed to or we all agreed. And the question is that section 35 be agreed to or we all agreed. So I call amendments 32, 33, 34 and 35, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 31. I invite the minister to move amendments 32 to 35 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 32 to 35? So the question is that amendments 32 to 35 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 120 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 104. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 36 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 25. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. So all those in favour of the amendment raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. So there are no abstentions and the result of the vote is that there are six votes for the amendment, two votes against the amendment. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 121 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 104. I remind members that if amendment 121 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 337 due to preemption. So Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 37 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 104. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 38 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 25. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Was that a no? No. We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. So all those in favour of the amendment raise your hands. Thank you. All those against raise your hands. Thank you. There are no abstentions. So the result of the vote is that there are six votes for the amendment, two votes against the amendment. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 31. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes, thank you. I call amendment 122 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 104. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 40 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 25. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. So all those in favour of the amendment raise your hand. All those against raise your hands. Thank you. There are no abstentions. So the result of the vote is that there are six votes for the amendment, two votes against the amendment. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 123 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 104. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. So I call amendments 41, 42 and 43, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. And I invite the minister to move amendments 41 to 43 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 41 to 45? Thank you. The question is that amendments 41 to 43 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Thank you. So the question is that schedule 1 be agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 36 be agreed to are we all agreed? No. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to are we all agreed? No. Thank you. Tyniad i'n mod happenol eich cwestooねid i'n ryeiddo i doctrineio i fryd. Felly, y cwestiwn yw cwestiwn 39 yn ein… … gwedd yw'r aeddydd. Felly, y cwestiwn yw cwestiwn 40 yn ei… … gwedd yw'r aeddydd? Felly, mae'n gweld yn ddymael ein 1.26, y bedhys exitod ddefnyddol, yn ei ddebyg yw cwestiwn 62. Ddefnyddol yn y ddymael ein 2.26, a ddefnyddol yn ddymael ein 2.26? Y cwestiwn yw cwestiwn 41 yn ein… The question is that section 41 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We will now move on to the next grouping. I call amendment 44 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 45. Minister, to move amendment 44 and speak to both amendments in the group. There was much discussion at stage 1 regarding the enforcement of fireworks legislation, and particular emphasis was given to the number of prosecutions in the data provided by the Crown Office. Throughout stage 1 proceedings, our colleagues in Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation were clear that a presumption of contents clause would be an appropriate and an efficient cost-saving measure, removing the requirement to submit all items for examination in order to prove an offence. The Criminal Justice Committee heard those concerns and recommended that I bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to address those issues. I welcome the recommendation from the committee, and amendment 44 gives effect to this. It makes provision for an evidential presumption to operate in proceedings for events under the bill. Evidence will only require to be led to prove this element of the offence if a party seeks to rub up the presumption by contrary evidence. I consider that this will ease the burden on our police force to evidence offences under the bill, while still allowing fairness to the accused. Amendment 45 seeks to reduce the burden falling on evidencing certain matters so that only one source of evidence is required. My officials have engaged with trading standards and the explosives industry group to confirm that the existing processes that are followed in relation to testing and certification of fireworks and to the Crown Office in the process of drafting the amendment. I am confident that that provides for a robust and appropriate means of reducing the evidential burden on enforcement agencies whilst maintaining the integrity of Scots law. I am pleased to move amendment 44 in my name and hope that the members will support it. Thank you very much, minister. Would any member like to come in? It was just one point that all makes sense, but section 4, part of me leads evidence of the purpose of rebutting the presumption only if the party has given notice of the intention to do so to the other parties. My reading of that is clear that the use of the word only if means that if you do not provide it, you cannot present it for the court. I am only asking that, because in some legislation there are provisions that say on-cause, shown that you can rebut that again. I am happy to support that, but I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 45 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 44. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 43 and 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 127 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 127. Thank you, convener. This amendment seeks to insert a new part into the bill called the improvement of firework safety. Essentially, this whole bill is about improving firework safety. I am first of all asking the Scottish ministers to publish and lay before Parliament firework safety plan, the content of which is in my detailed proposal. I will run through it quickly. Part A relates to the development of an annual safety campaign, which will educate the public through a variety of channels about the dangers of fireworks, how they can be used safely, not just those who go through the licensing process, but much wider than that. Part B goes on to address the sale of illegal fireworks online to ensure that those who are selling or attempting to sell fireworks through non-legitimate channels are deterred from doing so. That should work or ask the Government to work with social media companies to clamp down on or remove posts of illicit selling. I will also give the opportunity to interact with young people on those platforms and educate them accordingly. Part C relates to the provision of additional funding to help tackle any increase in illegal fireworks. Specifically, I think that this may be helpful to emergency services who, for example, see peaks in certain times of the year when this is problematic behaviour. We know that when they are properly funded and resourced, they do good work. Last year, the members may be aware that around £20,000 of illegal fireworks were seized in the Drum Chapel area, just ahead of one for our night. I think that one of many examples, there were other examples on Pollock Shields. I think that it would be important that it is part of that safety plan to promise us to outline what funding will be allocated to the enforcement of the apprehension and detection of illegal fireworks, which goes on in part D to be specifically asked of the Government. The next point is an interesting point. I believe that the fireworks safety plan should also include a central point of contact for reporting the misuse of fireworks. One of the big issues that we have raised in the committee is the inability to identify the scale of the problem and the confusion among the wider public that when there is a misuse of fireworks, who they report that to. Is it illegal or is it just antisocial? Are calls being made to trading standards, to the local authorities, to the police, to the fire service, to emergency and non-emergency numbers? I think that some centralisation of reporting and data collection would be extremely useful, which I think will help the Government in the future to understand whether legislation such as this has been effective. Part F relates to the standardisation of reporting for injuries caused solely by fireworks. We have heard evidence throughout this that there is a bit of a lack of clarity as to when people present in accident emergency services, whether the injury is solely related to fireworks or is part of a bigger picture. It is very difficult to understand the scale and volume of injuries caused by fireworks. I think that some standardised reporting would be of great benefit. Part G asks the Scottish ministers to co-operate around border control for the prevention of illegal fireworks entering Scotland, given that we will have a different regulatory regime. It is not asking ministers to enforce outside of our jurisdiction, but there is a real potential that we will see an influx of illicit products from England but also from Europe. That should be part of the safety plan. H is around co-operation with retailers, through the self-explanatory, around their continued supply of fireworks, especially as a result of the parts of the bill that will change the retail landscape of the sale of fireworks. As always, any other such matters, the minister is considered appropriate. I have created a list, but it is not exhaustive. This list will be familiar to many members. It will have appeared in parts in the industry zone submission to the Government for a fireworks safety plan. In response to that, the industry has supported the amendment by saying that the Scottish Government has an opportunity to not only improve firework safety but also to minimise the risk of unintended consequences. By working with the industry, the message of the safe consider and responsible use of fireworks would be channeled through official retailers. By working with the industry, we could provide vital training to enforcement authorities on what to look for with regards to the illegal storage, selling and illegal products and so on and so forth, and their letters on the record for the benefit of members in the official report. It has been widely received by the fireworks industry itself. It was also proposed by the industry itself, and I have tried to remove elements of its plans that I deemed to be outside the competence of the legislation or the Scottish Government. I hope that this is a sensible approach as to how the Government might come back with its own proposals, if not this proposal and something else at stage 3, on putting in on the statute books and mandatory requirements for Governments to perform this and lay it before Parliament for consideration, because ultimately it will produce the beneficial outcomes that we all want to see. Many of which the bill itself will not address. I think that we all know that. Thank you very much. Do any other member like to come in? Nope. Minister? Thank you, convener. I share Mr Greene's views on the importance of firework safety. Much of what is included in his amendment reflects what was proposed in the British Fireworks Association 10-point plan. I have said on a number of occasions that I welcome much of the plan and the good progress being made in a number of areas that are highlighted within it. However, I believe that I have also made clear through my actions my strong commitment to firework safety. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to use this bill to write into legislation what are already stated policy commitments that have followed on from my already published fireworks action plan from 2019. That plan sets out a range of legislative and non-legislative actions that have been and will continue to be progressed. I believe that those actions will collectively support a change in how fireworks are used in Scotland. There were a couple of points that Jamie Greene mentioned. We have provided additional funding to trading standards last year. The member will have noted that. That was to support enforcement of the 2021 regulations. That demonstrates our commitment to funding that. Learning from that will be helpful in relation to enforcement measures in general, if the bill is passed. Of course, I set out more detail on that in the letter that I sent to the committee last week. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment and I urge the committee not to support it. To welcome the comments that were made by the minister that it is the intention that much of this will form part of everyday government policy. The problem is that governments change. Having on the face of the bill is helpful because it will ensure that any future government, for as long as the bill remains law, will have a requirement to do so. Rather than just taking it for granted that these will be top and centre of future government's plans, which is the whole point of putting it on the bill and not just leaving it to policy and manifestos and so on. That was the intention behind it. All those in favour of the amendment raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. There are no abstentions. The result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment, four against the amendment, as there is an equality of votes. As convener, I will use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 128 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 128. You will be very pleased to know that this is the last grouping, and it is a single amendment. It is quite an important one. I am quite pleased that this is the last amendment that we are debating discussing. One of the most shocking elements of evidence that we took was from our blue light services and our frontline emergency services workers who have been repeatedly, for many years, openly the targets of assault, violence and abuse, where fire was used as a weapon. I appreciate that there is existing legislation to deal with that. However, our stage 1 report went a little bit further than that, whilst we acknowledged that there is legislation to deal with that sort of behaviour. We included wording that was not reflected in any of the Government's amendments. We said that in order to deal with the impact that dangerous firework use has on emergency workers, the committee asked the Scottish Government to consider tougher punishments for those who use fireworks to assault emergency workers. That was a collective view of the committee. My amendment seeks to do just that. The approach that I have taken is to amend the Emergency Worker Scotland Act 2005, which essentially introduces an aggravator for those who assault emergency workers, specifically using fireworks or pyrotechnic articles. The effect of that will allow judges the opportunity to impose harsher punishments on those who attack emergency service workers. I am pretty sure that we all agree that we do not condone attacks on emergency service workers. We do understand that those can be dealt with in the eyes of the law. However, if we are going to stay true to our word and that the Government could consider imposing tougher punishments on those who assault emergency service workers, then that would be one way to do it. Last year on fireworks night, eight fire crews, which is multiple individuals, were attacked and several police officers were attacked and injured on bonfires night. Three firefighters were also injured. This happens every year. One of those firefighters required hospital treatment and missiles, not just fireworks, including golf clubs and other items. However, this legislation is about the misuse of fireworks. We also had a number of submissions in coming to that conclusion at stage 1 that were very detailed and alarming anecdotes of where fireworks specifically had been used as a weapon, particularly those around football matches. Not just the individuals, but police officers on horseback, where it is particularly intimidating. Our emergency service workers deserve nothing less. I worked with the legislation team on thinking of the best way to approach this. We felt that by including an aggravation of the use of fireworks, by amending the 2005 act, was the best way to go about it. The minister has the benefit of solicitors who may disagree. I am hoping that the minister will agree to the principle of the aggravation, but my proposal does not meet the objective and could suggest a better way of doing it in the statute of books. I will be very open to that, because I think that we all want the same results. I am very keen to hear what other members have to say or the minister in response. I am pleased that this is the last amendment to the debate for today. I do not think that there is any need for this amendment. I think that it takes us back to earlier debates that we had in possibly an opportunity for my colleague, who I know puts a lot of thought into the amendments to lay out the policies of his party in terms of justice more widely. The reason I say that is because there will be no argument from AMD at all about the serious nature of assaults and emergency workers. We have heard that in evidence. We all know it. We all get it. In our constitution case, work is an extremely serious offence. It is already covered by separate legislation indicating how seriously this Parliament has, on a cross-party basis, treated it. I do not think that there is any need for an aggravation to be brought in here, because already the courts can enact a sentence that they see appropriate in relation to that. I know that the member is making back when he is summing up and talking about the presumption against short-term sentences, which I very much agree with. However, some of the offences that we might be talking about here, in their extreme form, would likely incur higher sentences in any case. You might have other situations where there are mitigating factors. A group of young people getting together, that sort of thing that we talked about in committee, and it is maybe not clear how the offence has been committed. I do not think that the way that the legislation is already drafted gives the flexibility around that, and it is pretty good. I would not want our last debating point on what has been a very good debate overall for anybody watching us to be thinking that the bill does not allow for harsher penalties where an emergency worker is seriously assaulted or even injured by the use of fireworks or power and techniques. Is there any need for an amendment for that? I agree with my colleague. The amendment is well-intentioned, and we obviously get that. However, I think that we will run the risk of over-legislation if we agree with that. I do not doubt Rona Mackay or Fulton MacGregor's sincerity around those matters. However, I agree that the amendment is important and should be included. It might be the case that the existing legislation arguably addresses attacks on emergency workers. However, that is an opportunity given that we are passing what is going to be the go-to flagship firework and power and technique legislation to include a specific aggravator for attacks on emergency workers, whether that be police officers or firefighters. It has become almost an annual event seeing attacks on firefighters trying to deal with events around bonfire night. I think that that would be a worthwhile and positive thing to do. I just want to ask Jamie Greene about whether he thinks that this is specific to the emergency workers legislation and the other legislation that might be prosecuted. I do sometimes see the need for legislation that can be more symbolic or message-forming because we have such a huge problem. I am very sympathetic to that. However, would you have any concerns that the courts would not treat it as an aggravating factor at the moment? Would you have any concerns that any sheriff looking at the circumstances would not just say, of their own volition, that there is an aggravating factor or that I am going to add an additional sentence because of the nature of the problem? Are you interviewing me? I think that I have got the floor. One of the difficulties that we have had is the lack of detailed information around not just prosecutions and arrests and all the rest of it, but disposals, which is perhaps the ultimate test of how seriously those offences are currently taking. The one example cited by the British Fireworks Association through their own research was the maximum fine that they could find was £150 for a 19-year-old in East Lothian who threw fireworks at two police officers, which, without knowing the full circumstances of the case, seems slightly less than one might have expected. I think that an aggravator, if it was added to the bill, would focus the mind of the judiciary. I assume that the minister or Jamie Greene might be able to correct me. If that was what the individual was charged with, that aggravator would be built into that and would be in front of a sheriff at the time of disposal. Therefore, it might serve as a greater deterrent because, more generally, we have not seen evidence that the laws are being as applied as they are strong as they could be for the deterrent purpose. I am very sympathetic to that. I just wanted some clarification on that. The emergency worker Scotland itself is designed its purpose is to highlight the fact that an attack on an emergency worker should be seen as a specific crime already. In a sense, it is a kind of indirect aggravation because it applies to police, emergency workers in accident and emergency hospitals and ambulance workers. I am sympathetic to that because of some of the evidence that we have had on the extreme end of the spectrum. I mean that in terms of unacceptable and violent attacks against emergency workers with the use of fireworks. Of course, I do appreciate the other legislation that would be used to prosecute, but I just wanted to ask that. Of course, I share the member's view that the criminal courts should have the powers that they need in order to respond to assaults on our dedicated and hard-working emergency workers. I think that that is particularly sickening when we see the targeting of those who are responding to emergency situations in the service of others. I have heard what the committee has said. I note the points raised by Mr McGregor and others about the current powers that the court has in order to take that on board. In relevant cases, a court can and does take into account the circumstances of an offence before deciding a sentence, but I accept that there may be merit in considering whether some form of statutory aggravation could be assessed when it comes to the use of power techniques and fireworks against emergency workers in the context of the Emergency Worker Scotland Act 2005. There are other issues around that. I think that some of them were alluded to by Pauline McNeill and her contribution. I cannot support the amendments as they are at the moment, but I am happy to engage further on this topic with the member. I thank members for their contributions. I am not doubting for a moment that no-one takes this issue seriously. As the minister rightly said, it is particularly galling to see that people use power-technic devices and fireworks as weapons, easy-to-buy weapons, that they can chuck at ambulances. I think that the answer to that is whether it is symbolic or has a direct impact on sentencing. If you were to ask where I can file emergency service workers, would you support your Parliament strengthening the law to include an aggravator in legislation where fireworks have been used against you? That leaves the potential for a harsher sentence. I think that the answer would unanimously be yes. That is what the expect of it. It is what we said we would do. It is what we asked the Government to do. I hope that the minister makes this offer genuinely that we can think about how we could do this in another way or in a better way. As it was a committee recommendation, yes, it would be partially symbolic to increase the deterrence, then it would be good to see something in the bill at stage 3. I am very happy to sit down and work out what that might be, but also to get feedback from emergency services themselves once we do draft something, if they think that that goes far enough or too far or so on. As you said, no one wants to over-legislate in any meaningful way, but legislation is our only tool at the stage as lawmakers. It would be a very important and poignant move by the committee and the Government if we get on with it and make sure that it is very clear to the public that fireworks cannot and will not be tolerated as a means of attacking our emergency service workers. I think that if that is not the way to do it, let's find a way to do it. We are almost there. I call amendment 56, in the name of Colette Stevenson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 129, in the name of Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Just give me a second. Amendment 129, not moved. I call amendment 130, in the name of Russell Findlay, to move or not move. I call amendment 131, in the name of Russell Findlay, to move or not move. In the name of Russell Findlay, I have already debated with amendment 104, Russell Findlay, to move or not move. Not moved. I lost my place. Ysgolwch am y cwestiynau, wrth gwrs, yn ddweud i ddweudio ar y cwestiynau. Ysgolwch am y cwestiynau, wrth gwrs, yn ddweudio ar y cwestiynau. Mae pechnau mwyafio wrth gyfan mewn geiswyr yng ng沙f. Ond y gallwch darfodol iawn y sy thanking herfyrniadol gy instances смотритеu ond 57, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 132 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 23. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 132 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. We're not agreed, therefore we will move to vote. All those in favour of the amendment raise your hand. All those against raise your hands. Thank you. There are no abstentions and the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment, four votes against the amendment, so there's an equality of votes, therefore as convener I'll use my casting vote and vote against the amendment, so the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 133 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 23. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 133 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Yes. Thank you. We're not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. All those in favour of the amendment raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. Thank you. There are no abstentions, so the result of the vote is that there are four votes for the amendment, four votes against the amendment, so there is an equality of votes, therefore as convener I shall use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 50 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 51 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. So I call amendment 134 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 104, Russell Finlay to move or not move? Yeah, I'll think about that, not moved. So the question is that the long title be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. And that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you very much. The legislation team will now produce the as amended version of the bill showing all the amendments made by the committee to the bill and this will be available to members in the next few days and can I take this opportunity to thank all those who assisted the committee during its scrutiny of the bill and we'll now have a short pause for a change of government officials at the table before our next item. So I'll now suspend this meeting for a short time. Thank you very much everyone. So the next agenda item is consideration of evidence on two affirmative instruments. They are the surrender of offensive weapons compensation Scotland regulations of 2022 in draft and the criminal justice act 1988 offensive weapons amendment surrender and compensation Scotland order 2022 in draft. And I welcome to the meeting Ash Regan, Minister for Community Safety, Philip Lamont, Criminal Justice Division of the Scottish Government and Jamie McQueen, legal directorate of the Scottish Government. I refer members to paper one and I invite the minister to speak to both instruments. So I've got a short opening statement for you, convener, but I will speak to both instruments at the same time if that's okay. So the surrender of offensive weapons compensation Scotland regulations 2022, this provides the legislative framework for a scheme to allow legitimate owners of certain highly dangerous offensive weapons to hand them in to the police and receive compensation from the Scottish Government for so doing. The operation of this scheme follows a similar scheme that has been operating in England and Wales and that was last year and it's required as a change in the law will shortly be implemented to criminalise the possession in private of these highly dangerous offensive weapons. Before that change can be made, legitimate owners have to be given an opportunity for compensation and that's in order to protect their property rights under human rights law. The scheme will operate in a very similar term to the scheme that was operated in England and Wales by the UK Government and police forces down there. There's no requirement to claim compensation. Weapons can simply just be surrendered without compensation but if compensation is wanted a claim form must be filled in handed in to the police at the same time that the weapon is surrendered and the Scottish Government will then process the claim. The regulations provide that any overall claim must be of at least £30 and that's to ensure that there are no undue costs in administering individual claims and again this is the same as the equivalent scheme in England and Wales. The type of weapons covered include knuckle dusters, hand claws, foot claws and push daggers and these are all weapons which have no benign use and so already carry with them tight restrictions such as a ban on the sale, manufacture and importation. However some people may have purchased these weapons prior to these restrictions coming in or indeed inherited these weapons so the scheme protects the rights of owners of such weapons whilst getting these weapons out of circulation and out of harm's way. The Criminal Justice Act of 1998 Offensive Weapons Amendment Surrender and Compensation Scotland Order of 2022 will add what's called a zombie knife to the list of highly dangerous offensive weapons already subject to these restrictions on the sale, manufacture and importation. In other words zombie knives will then be treated like knuckle dusters and push daggers etc so they will no longer be able to be sold, manufactured or imported. The type of weapons called a zombie knife has been developed in recent years following glamourisation in zombie type films. I will say to the committee that although they are not known to be common in Scotland we think that it is sensible to add these weapons to the existing list of weapons. The order will also allow the Scottish ministers to make arrangements for a surrender and compensation scheme for these knives in the same way as the scheme that I have just set out. The zombie knife scheme is required for the same reasons as the scheme under the 2022 regulations, in other words for legitimate owners to have their property rights protected as was done in England and Wales by the UK Government. From the perspective of members of the public it would just be one overall scheme and it will be running from 1 July to 30 September this year for zombie knives as well as the other types of weapons that I have set out covered by the regulations. Once that has happened, the Scottish Government will proceed to commence the new law so that it then becomes an offence to possess these weapons in private. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, minister. We will now move to questions. Would any members like to ask any questions? Yes. A zombie knife, how is that legally defined? I will ask. I feel it to answer that question. Thank you. It is defined as having a serrated edge. The definition is included in the regulations, but it is based on the same definition that is used by the UK Government in its legislation. I do not have it right in front of me here, but that is the definition that is used. It is in the regulations, but it is based on the English and Welsh definition. What part of the curiosity, but also I suppose confirmation that there is a pre-existing definition? Thank you. The definition is used and there is the one that is provided in the 2019 act. Thank you. Jimmie, do you want to come in? My understanding when I read the papers is that the point of the order is simply to include zombie knives, as they are so-called, and as defined, to the list of offensive weapons. In the opening statement, I got the impression that this is actually a wider exercise and more general weapon stroke knife amnesty. That might be misunderstood outside of this room, so I wonder if the minister could just clarify whether we are or are not opening up a wider weapon stroke knife amnesty, where members of the public can go to the police station with something that they think may or may not be a weapon and deposit it safely in return for a promise of no prosecution and potential compensation, just so that the public is quite aware of that. Secondly, what public awareness will take place within government to ensure that people know that this is taking place? There are two instruments in front of you. The first one is to provide a legal framework to allow those certain offensive weapons to be handed into the police—the member is quite right—in return, if sought, for compensation. We are doing this because we have to do it ahead of a change of the law that is coming into force in a few months' time, which will criminalise the possession of those certain offensive weapons, but in a private setting, so that is the new part of the law. In order to do that, we must provide a compensation scheme. There are a number of weapons listed. I can go through them all with the committee, but it is a very long list, but if the member is interested, all the knives weapons—it would probably be a good way to describe them—are listed, so that the member can go and check what those are. Members of the public are quite welcome, and in fact we are encouraging them. We want to get those types of weapons out of circulation to go into a police station. It will be at a certain designated time, so they should check that their local police station is the right place to go and hand them in, and it will be at certain times of the day. There are certain ways that they can do that. The other instrument is just to add zombie knives, so although it is two separate instruments, for the intents and purposes, it will operate as one, and it is just adding zombie knives to that list. We are intending to publicise that, but I will ask Philip, who is now got to the right page in his briefing, to explain how we will be doing that. On 1 July, when the scheme opens, not before, we will put information on mygov.scot, which lists exactly what people have to do, including the claim form, and put out our news release in new social media. We do not want to do it before 1 July, because we do not want to create confusion about when the scheme operates. I will ask you a question. There was a bit of confusion around, initially, in England, when the zombie knives were added, that there was a perception that there was any form of serrated knife, but then there was a bit of confusion amongst police officers. I recall that some of the unions were discussing how they would go about enforcing that. The idea that you may have one at home, but it never leaves the house, it would now be an offence to have it in your house. The definition of not just being a serrated knife, but it had to be demonstrated that it was to be used for an act of violence, or it had to have markings on it that it had to be used for an act of violence. It seems a little bit vague, and I am just worried that people might be alerted or alarmed as to that they might have things in their house, which are now illegal to have in their house, how you might address those concerns. What we can do is, certainly through the awareness raising, make special attention to raise awareness of the zombie knife issue. You are right to say that the definition, which is the English and Welsh definition, there have been one or two issues, because it is quite challenging to define exactly what different types of weapons are. But certainly we are not aware of any major issues in England or Wales, but I don't doubt there have been some perhaps issues about understanding exactly what is and is not a zombie knife, when we can make sure that the awareness raising highlights that specifically as an issue. Thank you. Any more questions? No. OK, thank you very much. Now I invite Ashragin Minister for Community Safety to move motion number 4246, that the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the Surrender of Offensive Weapons, Compensation Scotland Regulations 2022 draft be approved. The question is moved. The question is that motion 04246, in the name of Ashragin, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. I invite Ashragin Minister for Community Safety to move motion number 04247, that the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Offensive Weapons, Amendments, Surrender and Compensation Scotland Order 2022 draft be approved. The question is that motion 04247, in the name of Ashragin, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The committee will consider the following negative instrument, the Offensive Weapons Act of 2019, prescribed documents Scotland order of 2022, SSI number 148, and I refer members to paper 2. Do members have any questions on this instrument? Are members content not to make any recommendations to the Parliament on this instrument? Thank you very much and that concludes today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 June when our main item of business will be consideration of stage 2 amendments to the justice provisions in the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland bill. I now close this meeting. Thank you very much.