 I apologise to the one member. I was unable to call the point of order, Mr McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just wanted to apologise to you in the chamber that I should have made the chamber aware once again that I'm a member, a board member, of moving on to Enver Clare local addiction service. I apologise to the one member. I was not able to take it, but what I had feared would come to pass did come to pass. We've got a very busy afternoon ahead and we had to try to keep as much as possible to time. I will now move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 5122 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles Scotland Bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak against the motion, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 5122 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. We will now move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is, SP Bill 10A, the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. We turn to group 1, entitled licensing, removal of licensing scheme. I call amendment 2 in the name of Katie Clark, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I call Katie Clark to move amendment 2 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 2 and all the other amendments in this group, which have the impact of removing the licensing scheme that should be created by the bill. The licensing scheme would be a Scottish Government, Scottish-wide, centrally run scheme, which we understand would have a £20-50 fee attached to cover the administration costs. I have put down this amendment because of the real risk that the unintended consequence of the provisions would be to create a black market in fireworks in Scotland. There is little detail provided in the bill as to what the licensing scheme would look like. We do not have a principled objection to a licensing scheme being created, but given the concerns that have been raised by and with the criminal justice committee, we do not believe that it is appropriate that this should be dealt with by delegated legislation, but it should require the Government to come forward with primary legislation on a licensing scheme to enable a proper scrutiny process. I am very grateful to Katie Clark for giving away. I agree with Katie Clark that this licensing scheme should have been better and further thought out. However, I am also gratified to note that others are amending the bill to include reviews at various stages. Does Katie Clark agree with me that this will go some way to ensuring that the bill does what it intended to do? Does she also agree that there is a pressing need for this legislation to deal with repeated instances of antisocial behaviour, particularly in the Murrah House area of my constituency? I agree with the member that we have a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. We will be looking at the amendments as we go through the afternoon. It is quite clear that we need to tackle that problem. The issue that I am bringing into the chamber is that the licensing scheme is not the method or indeed not the way that will do that. The bill does not ban the use of fireworks. It allows for professional organisations to have firework displays anywhere in Scotland all year round. Those professional organisations do not have to apply for a licence. Local authorities will not oversee the ability of professional organisations to have a public display. I will speak to an amendment later that seeks to give councils the power to ban all fireworks in certain areas, including by professional organisations. However, the bill restricts the ability of individuals to buy or use fireworks in Scotland for much of the year. Therefore, it would be a criminal offence to buy and use fireworks during those periods. I am not suggesting that they should change. Under the bill, it would only be possible to buy fireworks on 37 days, including the firework season, bonfire night, new year, Chinese new year and Diwali. It would be possible for individuals to legally use fireworks on 57 days around the same period. It is likely that law-abiding citizens will foul of those provisions and use fireworks on the wrong day. The bill states that the individual needs to buy a licence to use fireworks or to indeed to buy them. There is no doubt that, if the bill, as drafted, becomes legislation, law-abiding citizens will take steps to acquire a licence and only use fireworks if they have one. However, there is a significant problem with anti-social use of fireworks in Scotland. It is unlikely that those who fall into the category of misusing fireworks will apply for a licence. They are more likely to obtain fireworks on the black market with a trade developing of fireworks being available from unregulated sources. That is what has happened in a number of other countries where similar schemes have been introduced. In the committee, there was much discussion about people buying fireworks out of the back of white vans. If we look across Europe, in Italy restrictions were brought in in 2015, but there is no sign that the significant anti-social and dangerous use of fireworks has been impacted. Indeed, the evidence is of illegal fireworks factories as evidenced by the seizing of large quantities of illegal fireworks and explosives by the authorities. In spite of those regulations, it was reported in January 2021 that, following the new year, which is its biggest fireworks event, 79 people were injured, a huge number of birds were left dead. Sky News Italia reported on 1 January 2022 that, a year later at that new year, in spite of bans being brought in some cities, 124 were reported injured, 31 hospitalised, 40 of whom were seriously injured, with 28 miners among the victims. In the Republic of Ireland, fireworks have been banned, but that has not addressed the anti-social use of fireworks where stockpiling and the illegal use of fireworks are significant problems. In Northern Ireland, a licensing scheme has been introduced, but there is significant evidence of unlawful use of fireworks being imported illegally. As I said, the bill makes it a criminal offence to buy or use fireworks outside specified days. That would stay in place whether there was a licensing scheme or not. The issue is what are the benefits of having a licensing scheme against the risks of a black market with people buying from unregulated sources who are less likely to comply with safety and industry standards? I agree that there was significant discussion on the issue in the committee, but the member may also be aware of correspondence that has come in from the Royal College of Physicians of Glasgow, that sets out that a quote, firework licensing would change the purchase from impulse to one of planned decision making with the burden of responsibility on the purchaser to provide proof of age and suitability to purchase fireworks. Does the member agree that that is a strong case to have a licensing scheme in place? I agree with the convener of the committee that some individuals would apply for a licence and would not use fireworks the rest of the year. That is indeed the case. The issue is whether the licensing scheme would affect the culture change that the cabinet secretary has spoken about. I plan to move on to that, hopefully after I have taken that intervention. Before the intervention is taken, I would counsel the member that she should probably be starting to bring her remarks to a close Russell Findlay. I wonder if the member will also agree that the Scottish Government has not brought forward any analysis or modelling in respect of how many licences are likely to be applied for. Another feature, as the member knows, is that there are very few fireworks convictions being taken through the courts despite the fact that there are many hundreds and thousands of complaints each year. The two main reasons, as I understand it, that the Scottish Government gives for a licensing scheme—the minister will come back on that, obviously—is that it is an attempt to shift the culture around fireworks in Scotland. Anyone who applies for a licence will be required to undertake an online training course. I agree that there is definitely a need to shift the culture around fireworks. We have a significant problem with the antisocial use of fireworks, including fireworks being used as weapons against emergency services and others. Pets and other animals are often distressed and there are particular problems for specific groups such as those with autism. However, we need to change the culture. The issue is whether a licensing scheme of this nature will do so. There is no doubt that it will prevent some people who would set off fireworks in their gardens from doing so, which I think is the point that Audrey Nicol was making. However, the risks of a growth of a black market are probably more significant. I agree that there is a strong argument for training and I personally would support robust, face-to-face training for those fireworks into how to handle them, but there is no suggestion that that is being proposed here. It is an enabling piece of legislation. It will allow the Scottish Government to introduce a licensing scheme by delegated legislation. Any licensing scheme needs proper scrutiny by this Parliament. For this reason, I ask for support for all of the amendments in this group. We know that the creation of these restrictions is likely to lead to the demise of specialist firework shops that currently provide advice and guidance. We believe that the creation of this licensing scheme potentially creates more problems than it solves. I thank Katie Clark for her amendments. From the outset, I say that we cannot support the approach that she has taken to simply remove the licensing scheme altogether. I think that there is some merit to it, but she rightly raises issues about the devil being in the detail and the fact that it is not in the face of the bill that is something that the stage 1 report from the committee raised. From the very opening minute of Ms Clark speaking, I heard the minister shout across the room the word rubbish. I hope that that is not the direction of travel for today's debate and I will tell you why. Those are serious issues that we are going to debate. There are a lot of very considerate and thoughtful amendments that are being proposed by members right across the board. It is notable that all members of the committee have worked extremely constructively with the Government, civil servants and, believe it or not, with each other. I hope that we can maintain that level of respect throughout this afternoon's debate as we put forward our own ideas about how we think we can prove the bill. The Government is welcome to disagree with those ideas. They are welcome to vote against them when we vote on them. However, I would like us to at least go into this debate with that considered approach. The only point that I would like to make in addition to that is that I appreciate Mr Cole-Hamilton has talked about the need for doing something to address fireworks. At no point has anyone in this chamber, across whatever your views on the approach of this bill, accepted that we can just sit back and the status quo will remain. What we do have in front of us this afternoon is a wide range of amendments that seek to improve the bill, that seek to strengthen it in many ways. I would point out that, when we try to do that at stage 2, almost every single amendment splits the Justice Committee on an equal splitting, and most of the amendments fell purely on the casting vote of the convener. I think that that is testament to the fact that there is cross-party support for some of those amendments. I hope that members who perhaps did not sit through the stage 1 evidence session or did not participate in the drafting of the stage 1 report, actually do read and have read the stage 1 report, was a very considered and thoughtful one, and indeed contained many criticisms, many of which have not been addressed, which we will seek to do over the course of this afternoon. I would like to join with Jamie Greene before we have the stage 3 under way. We have supported the Government's attempts to control fireworks as a consensus on this, but we must be allowed to scrutinise this stage 3 without heckling from the minister. Perhaps you want to intervene on me because we are doing our job, because if you ask the public if they want more control over fireworks, of course they will agree, but in their minds they want to halt the misuse of fireworks, and they might not be thinking of themselves sitting in the back garden in November when they are setting fireworks off. The bill is quite clear, and this is an important point. The 57 days in which you permitted to use a firework can stand alone without a licensing scheme, so the offences can stand alone. You do not need a licensing scheme to create criminal or breach of the regulations. The question that Katie Clark puts, and rightly so, is whether a licensing scheme does add anything to the type of restrictions that the public wants, and it is a legitimate question to ask whether people do not apply for a licence under this bill that perhaps will go somewhere else to get their fireworks. The industry is quite clear that it is challenged the minister on her assertion when she says that a delivery driver would have a legal obligation to check for a licence as they do with other age-restricted purchases, but the British Fireworks Association says that that is true, but this duty does not extend to checking the licence for a firework. If that is what the industry is saying, I think that there is a duty on us to examine whether or not there might be unintended consequences of this licensing scheme, and I am happy to give way on that point. The licensing scheme is a core part of the bill. It was developed as a result of the recommendations from the review group. I also think that the members are muddling up different schemes in international jurisdictions and comparing a scheme where fireworks are completely banned to the one that we have here is introducing a little bit of disingenuousness, I would suggest, to the debate. I would say to the member that there is still a legitimate route for people in Scotland if this bill is passed to be able to buy fireworks legitimately. I think that it might be reasonable to say that if we had closed down all legitimate routes to buy fireworks that people might seek to buy them elsewhere. What we are saying is that you can still control fireworks without a licensing scheme, because the 57 days that the minister has chosen as to where fireworks can be permitted would be in offence to letting a firework off with us 57 days. We are also saying that we do not think—and you will presumably acknowledge—that the committee did a hard to fast track the scrutiny of this, which has turned out to be one of the issues that we have not had time to examine international evidence. You would be quite correct to say that Ireland is a different scheme. We did not get a chance to look at it too late, and that is one of the points that Katie Clark made. We just did not have enough time to look at it. I want to be clear that Scottish Labour supports the Government's attempt to control fireworks. We do accept that the public will not action what we are questioning whether the licensing scheme might have unintended consequences. We do not feel that it is properly and adequately being addressed by the Government in relation to the black market, which the industry has repeatedly asked about. I do not feel that they have been satisfied with the answers to that, and I think that we are entitled to them. I remind members when they are referring to each other that they should not refer to you, because that is referring to me, and I have no role in this beyond sharing the proceedings. I call Fulton MacGregor, who is joining us remotely. I will not speak for long on this grouping, because I know that we have got quite a long day, but I want to come in and say that I will not be supporting the amendments in the name of Katie Clark. As the minister said in an intervention, the licensing scheme is pretty much the main or at least a primary aspect of the bill. I do wonder how close some of those amendments have come to breaking amendments, because as members that have sat on the committee with me will know that the licensing scheme is so important in that aspect, although I do respect the fact that Katie Clark has continued to bring this forward from stage 2. The other thing that members who have not been involved in this group should know is that there is widespread support from stakeholders on the introduction of a licensing scheme. We took a lot of evidence at stage 1, we had a lot of panels in front of us, and there is in the main a lot of support there from stakeholders. We had heard from the industry that there could be the threat of a black market, but we wrote to the Irish Government, who gave us a very quick response, because we were at that stage running out of time when we heard that evidence, and they did not back up those claims with any clear evidence. I think that that is also worth noting. At the essence of the licensing scheme and the bill in general is the attempt to change the culture that we have, the relationship that we have with fireworks here in Scotland. That is what our constituents want, and that is what the Government is trying to attempt. As I said in the stage 1 debate when I spoke, and I think that other members said as well, nobody is under any illusion that this is going to happen overnight, but we have got to start the culture change somewhere. A licensing scheme is going to be a big part of doing that, and therefore I do not support those amendments, including Katie Clark's name. While that group includes a substantial number of amendments, it seeks to achieve one significant effect, which is to remove the licensing system from the bill. Ms Clark lodged an amendment at stage 2 to start a debate on whether the licensing system should be removed, and I understand that that group of amendments have been lodged to seek to progress that point. As I stated during stage 2 proceedings, I consider amendments to remove the licensing system to be a wholly disproportionate step to take. The licensing system is based on extensive consultation and engagement, a point that Mr McGregor has just made. That includes the 2021 public consultation, which demonstrated significant support among respondents for a firework licensing system, with 84 per cent agreeing that it should be introduced. During stage 1, the committee heard from a range of stakeholders who were supportive of the range of measures in the bill, including the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who stated that the licensing system encourages people to engage in some training in how to use fireworks, as well as making it significantly more challenging to buy fireworks and putting some control around that process. I understand that members have expressed concerns about the level of detail that is in the bill and what will be set out in future regulations. Following stage 1, I shared a licence user journey with the committee and set out the practical steps that a person must follow in order to apply for a licence. All that detail is already included in the bill. I hope that that provided members with the reassurance that the fundamental principles and the core functions of the system are included within the bill. The licence user journey also pointed to the four areas where regulations are required for implementation of the system. As I have previously stated, I believe that the most appropriate approach to take operational details is to set those out in the regulations. Those regulations will be subject to a consultation requirement and the public and stakeholders will have the opportunity to share their views on proposals. I also brought forward amendments at stage 2 to accept the DPLRC recommendations and require certain regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would give the Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise those regulations further. That relates to the broad regulation making power at section 18, which means that where regulations may go beyond any type of administrative detail, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure. To conclude my comments to the group, I consider that this group of amendments and the attempt to remove the licensing system is excessive. This approach will actively work against the results of the consultation and the engagement that has contributed towards the development of the system. I would ask Ms Clark not to press those amendments and, if she is minded to do so, I would ask members not to support them. I call on Katie Clark to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 2. Not moved. Not moved. Could you formally withdraw the amendment? Of course. Presiding officer, I withdraw the amendments. I am trying to deal with that, if I could just deal with Ms Clark's withdrawal of the amendment first. Ms Clark seeks to withdraw amendment 2. Does any member object? No member objects. Amendment 2 is therefore withdrawn. I missed whatever was going on there, but it is going to be a long afternoon. I encourage everybody in the chamber to settle into the spirit of stage 3 and we can all get through this in a reasonable fashion, hopefully. I now move to group 2, licensing proof of licence. I call amendment 68 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendment 69. I call Jamie Greene to move amendment 68 and speak to both amendments in the group. Mr Greene. Thank you. I never mind the spirit of stage 3. We will only need a spirit of some sort by the end of this afternoon, by the looks of it. I know, it was a bad joke, but they get worse, do hang around. Group 2 is about proof of having a licence. I am pleased that the member has withdrawn amendment 2. I hope that we will continue that theme with the others in the group, but it will be an even longer evening. Amendment 68 and 69 are quite self-explanatory. They relate to the licence scheme, but more importantly, the interaction between the purchaser and the retailer. Specifically, the circumstances where proof of a licence will be needed or required. Amendment 68 ensures that it is the onus on the purchaser of fireworks to provide proof of holding a licence at the point of purchase. Be that electronic or paper, the detail of that we are yet to see. People traditionally buy fireworks in two sources, in person through retailers. That then is broken down into two subgroups. They will be specialist retailers who only sell fireworks 360 odd days of the year or through most likely other department stores or larger retailers where they will purchase fireworks. The other place that they will buy fireworks is online, and many people do. Of course, some of those will be Scottish-based retailers who sell online as a sideline. Others will be other UK online retailers, but many others will be outside of the UK. What the bill currently states is that individuals, unless they are exempt to hold a licence, must have a licence at the point of purchase. No words can say that they must present it at the point of purchase, which strikes me as quite odd. Amendment 69 closely related to that will require the seller of the licences to take reasonable steps to view and, where possible, retain a copy of the buyer's licence at the point of purchase. It is not mandatory, but they must take reasonable steps. Essentially, this is not an onerous ask of either the purchaser or the seller. The reason I put those in is the issue of online sales, because there are two things that the legislation cannot do. That is why I believe that there are holes in the licence. The first is that you cannot force retailers to check for a licence, which is why they must take reasonable steps. I understand that that is not within the competency of the bill or the Parliament. The second loophole is that you cannot regulate online sales in the way that you can and seek to regulate face-to-face sales. My second amendment is what it is striving to do, to strengthen the need for retailers to check that a purchaser does indeed hold a licence. It still remains unclear in my view at this stage, even at stage 3, the whole murky world of online firework sales. There are some unanswered questions that I hope can be answered as a result of these amendments in today's debate. Will online sellers of firework still sell to consumers in Scotland? That is a question that we do not know the answer to. Will they check for licences? Are they legally obliged to check for licences? Can this Parliament, through legislation, force them to check for licences more so if those businesses are outside of our jurisdiction? What happens if they do not? Will they be prosecuted by Police Scotland under section 5 of the bill, as it is currently drafted? Secondly, what happens if someone drives across the border to, for example, Northern England to purchase fireworks? Will those retailers have to check for a licence? If they do not, does that mean that a non-licensed person could purchase licences in a retailer across the border? How will that retailer know that the purchaser holds a licence if they are neither checking a Scottish central database, unless the licence is produced at the point of purchase, which is the point of my First Amendment? Even worse, how will they know if someone has been refused or rejected the licence, which is possible in the legislation, or worse still have had a licence but it has been revoked by ministers or otherwise? Is not it true that we do not really know the answer to all those questions? I suspect that the answer would state that none of the above is covered in the bill. Those are unfortunate loopholes that my relatively simple amendments try to fix in the only way that they can in the competency of the bill. Amendment 68 seeks to require a fireworks licence to be presented specifically at the point of purchase, either online or in person. That is unworkable as the bill does not and cannot regulate behaviour outside of Scotland. Section 5 of the bill ensures that suppliers will take reasonable steps to establish that they are not supplying fireworks to an unlicensed person. That is not confined just to the point of sale but to every part of the process of supply. For transactions with retailers outwith Scotland, which was the example that the member gave, it is the delivery company that will be subject to the requirements of section 5. For example, if fireworks are purchased from a European website online and the delivery address is in Scotland, the physical handing over or delivery of the goods is part of the supply of fireworks. It is that part of the process where enforcement action in Scotland for online sales can be focused. It is anticipated that that will work in a similar way to delivery of age-restricted products, where the person delivering the products must satisfy themselves that the recipient is of a permitted age to receive the delivery. I believe that amendment 68 is not feasible and I will not be supporting it. Amendment 69 seeks to provide examples of what constitutes reasonable steps to determine if a person has a firework licence by setting out that that includes viewing and retaining a copy of the person's firework licence. Although I sympathise with the intention behind the amendments, I do not think that it is right to provide such examples. We do not want to cause unintended consequences or narrowing of the scope of the defence. I believe that we had quite a detailed exchange on that at stage 2. We should leave it to the police, the prosecutors and the courts to determine in each individual case if the evidence supports the defence applying to a particular supplier. For that reason, I would ask Mr Greene not to press his amendments. I call on Jamie Greene to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 68. I thank the minister for her response. I mean, when drafting these, it was a bit of back and forth by the legislation team on how we go about this, given the technical nature of what we can and can't do in the scope of the bill. If the minister's lawyers are content that this would create problems if it passed stage 3, I accept that. In the response to my comments, I think that it demonstrates the point that I am trying to make. If we cannot force someone to present their licence at the point of purchase, if we cannot force the retailers to check for a licence and none of the questions that have been answered is how do you know someone has a licence if they are not required to show it? Secondly, what happens if someone does not have a licence or has had a licence which has been revoked? If we cannot legislate from outside of our own jurisdiction, i.e. a Scottish retailer who sells fireworks in face-to-face environment, then how on earth is this bill going to have any teeth if the majority of fireworks move to an online environment? It is quite possible that people can still go on the internet, google fireworks, buy them and at no point will they be asked to present their licence at the point of purchase by the retailer. Shifting all of this on to courier companies, by the way to which we took no evidence from at any point in the proceedings, is simply to say that the supplier must check, not the retailer, not the seller, but the person who turns up at your door and knocks it and says, do you have a licence, can I see it? That is not in the bill and we took no evidence on that. I am afraid that diversion from this is the only place that we think we can regulate that does create an issue. It is unbelievable that we get to stay free of the bill and there are clearly still massive holes in what the bill is seeking to achieve versus what it can do through competency or reality. I am afraid that nothing in the answer that I have heard fills me with confidence that those issues will be addressed. Nonetheless, no member wants to put in an amendment at this stage in proceedings that will create legal problems in the legislation, so I will withdraw amendment 68. Jamie Greene seeks to withdraw amendment 68. Does any member object? No member objects. Amendment 68 is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 3, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Amendment 3 is not moved. Amendment 69, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 68. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 69 is not moved. I call amendment 4, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 4 is not moved. We now turn to group 3, licensing fees. I call amendment 70, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendment 71. I draw members' attention that if amendment 70 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 70. Amendment 71 is not moved. I call Pauline McNeill, to move amendment 70 and to speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I move amendment 70, in the name of Pauline McNeill. This is in relation to the cost of the licensing fee, an exchange that I had with the minister at stage 2. I acknowledge that the minister is in the same position as I am. We do not want to make a fee so prohibitive that people will not apply for it. I will say this before the minister does, because it is always usually the case. The wording is not perfect in this amendment. I had reflected on what the minister said at stage 2. I read the proposal again, but my concern is that the cost of running the scheme will also include monitoring the existing licence holders and legal enforcement of the scheme. That is what it says in the note. However, if the scheme is going to cover all those things, it could potentially be expensive. The minister knows where I am coming from in all of this. I have the same concern about the licensing scheme. If it is too costly, it will prohibit people from applying for the licence and they will not be able to enjoy fireworks, which will be there entirely to do on the 57 days of the year. I want to highlight that point, because we did not debate that at stage 2. If legal enforcement is going to be included in the cost, that would be a matter for the legal enforcement authorities. It should not be covered by trying to raise the cost of the scheme. I would be grateful if the minister could respond to that point. I hope that there are no damp scribs and no rubbish. I heard what Pauline McNeill had to say about the cost of licences with her amendment number 70. The first amendment of my name is number 71, which is in the same group in which I move in my name. It is about the licences, but it does not go quite as far. Pauline McNeill wants to scrap the fees altogether. If there is going to be a licence, we recognise the need for a fee. Of course, the scheme will not pay for itself, but the public should not be unfairly penalised. My amendment is about protecting consumers and responsible users of fireworks. The omission of an actual cost in the bill has been explained by the minister at stage 2. The Government says that licences are likely to cost between £20 and £50. The Government is asking us to pass the bill and then trust it on this detail. Even £20 to £50, I would suggest, is a broad spectrum. How many people willing and able to spend £20 on a licence would then pay £50? If you want to buy a £30 typical box of family fireworks and a £50 licence does seem too much and every incremental increase within the suggested price scale would surely result in fewer people applying for a licence, although the Scottish Government appeared to have done no modelling on this whatsoever. Some might suspect that this might be the real intent to make licences unaffordable and unappealing, resulting in fewer fireworks, but the bill's omission of a licence price and any explicit commitment to maintain its affordability has risks. Like so much else in the Russian legislation, there is a real danger that a prohibitive fee would deter legitimate users and drive them towards a black market. Again, where is the modelling on that? That is why the bill, through this amendment, needs to include a commitment to keep the price sensible, affordable and accessible. The Government's stated intent is for licences to encourage safe use of fireworks with online training being central to that. I hope that the minister will give consideration to this amendment and that she is not minded to support Pauline McNeill's proposed scrap licence fees altogether. That would go some way to ensuring that cost does not become a barrier to those seeking responsible enjoyment of fireworks. There has, understandably, been much debate about the licence fee during stage 1 and 2. Turning firstly to Ms McNeill's amendment, it seeks to amend the bill to remove the requirement that Scottish ministers must have regard to reasonable running costs of the licensing system when setting a fee and that only a nominal fee could be charged or that the fee could be remitted entirely. I know that Ms McNeill has raised concerns about system running costs at stage 2 and how that could impact the licence fee level that is set. Although cost recovery will be a key determinant of the fee level in line with the standard approach for all such fees, I believe that a proportionate fee should generally be chargeable in order to ensure that applications are made with due consideration of the responsibilities involved in holding a fireworks licence. I will just come on to addressing Ms McNeill's particular question that she asked me during her contribution. She asked me, I think, about legal enforcement or legal administration. I think that that was the term that she used. It is not the intention—I can confirm that. It is not the intention that the cost will cover elements of enforcement. It is for administration purposes only. I will give away. If, over the course of future years, after the licence scheme was in place, it becomes apparent that we know that it is the cost of the licence fee that is putting off people from applying for a licence, would the Government see that as a success, i.e. fewer people are seeking to buy fireworks, or would they see that as a failure of the licence scheme? Then, thereafter, remove the fee or reduce it to a nominal amount, which would encourage more people to come for a licence, which was the most likely scenario that the Government would take. I think that the member raises a legitimate point. We will keep the fee under review and the modelling that we have done, which the member will have seen. We are modelling a reduction in the number of fireworks sales, so we have modelled that. We will keep it under review, and if, as the member says, there is evidence to suggest that, we will look at the level that the fee is set at. To reiterate the point that I made previously, I remain committed to ensuring that the licence fee is proportionate and that it is fair and that it will be set following a wide-ranging consultation and at a rate that ensures that, while robust checks and balances are in place, the fee is not a restrictive barrier to the safe and lawful use of fireworks. I do not consider the amendment to be necessary. The bill already requires the fee to be set with regard to the reasonable costs of the licensing system. Any impact of inflation on those costs will form part of the fee level that is determined. Consultation on the fee that will be required before any regulations are made will also ensure that the fee amount is reasonable and it will allow other cost pressures on individuals to be reflected. I understand that the requirement to obtain a licence and pay a fee will incur additional costs to people who wish to buy and use fireworks. I reiterate my point in relation to the amendment that I remain committed to ensuring that the licence fee is proportionate and fair. Ensuring the safe and responsible use of fireworks is imperative to achieving the policy aims of the licensing system. Therefore, I believe that a balance has been struck through the illustrative modelling in the financial memorandum between introducing a licence fee on one hand while avoiding overly restrictive barriers to lawfully purchasing and using fireworks on the other. Pauline McNeill, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 70. I welcome the fact that we have had another opportunity to have this exchange. I want to reassure the chamber that I was not trying to re-gurgitate a debate that we already had. It was that particular point about legal enforcement and I am really content that the minister said that the costs of running the scheme would not include legal enforcement. I also acknowledge that the minister has said from the beginning that those costs need to be proportionate. We can take a view of what proportionate it is, but I think that we know that if it is set too high because in the consultation it was between £20 and £50, £50 being the higher end, I think that in the cost of living crisis clearly we could agree that we wouldn't want to see the fee at that end. I have also supported what Brussels funding has been trying to do from the beginning. I was just trying to ensure that whatever the fee is, that it is kept close. I suppose that the rate of inflation is not a good guide at the moment, given that it is at 9.1 per cent. We are all on the same page, which is that whatever your view of a licensing scheme is, there is no point in creating something that would prevent people from applying what is too expensive. On that basis, I am content to ask approval to withdraw amendment 70 in my name. We move to group 4 licensing procedure for regulations. I call amendment 5 in the name of Katie Clark, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Katie Clark, to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group. Those are two sets of amendments in the group that relate to parliamentary scrutiny. Both would enhance the parliamentary scrutiny, which would be required for any secondary legislation, in particular the licensing scheme. Amendment 5 would change the process so that the regulation making powers in part 2 of the bill that are currently subject to a negative procedure would instead be subject to an affirmative procedure. Amendment 34 goes further and sets out that the Government would have to lay draft regulations that would be brought before the Scottish Parliament via a pre-laying procedure. That would require the Government to lay a draft of the regulations before Parliament and for the Scottish Government to be required before finalising the regulations to seek the views of the criminal justice committee on the terms. For the committee to have the opportunity for a meaningful role to undertake effective scrutiny of those regulations should they wish to do so. As has been said before, there were significant concerns raised about the bill and the licensing scheme by the committee. The reason for those amendments is simply to enhance the parliamentary scrutiny that would be required, given the complexities of the licensing scheme, which I have already outlined, and the potential risks given that the way that those schemes have operated in other countries, and in particular Northern Ireland and Italy, where there are similar schemes. It is imperative that there are ample opportunities, not just to consult stakeholders but also to ensure that there is sufficient debate and scrutiny by members of this Parliament. Stage 2, the minister suggested that the affirmative procedure would not be a good use of parliamentary time. I disagree with that. Those are issues that require proper scrutiny so that the legislation and in particular the licensing scheme functions well, particularly given the risks of a black market that needs to be addressed, which has been raised with the committee but also has been a feature in other countries. As I said, amendment 34 was further than the other amendments with a superaffirmative procedure, which requires the committee's involvement. The legislation is complex, although there is a lack of detail in relation to the licensing scheme itself. It could have been much more simple and for that reason I believe that it is appropriate that there is effective scrutiny should there be further regulations brought forward. If it is helpful, especially considering which amendments to move or not to move, we would support all the amendments in this group other than amendment 33, which I think presents an issue around the licensing scheme. I suspect that it may be a consequential of other endeavours to remove the licensing scheme altogether. However, the other amendments in this group make an important point by changing the negative to the affirmative procedure, thereby increasing scrutiny of future regulations. We know that because so much of the devil of the detail of what the bill will create will be brought through regulations, I always would support amendments where they arise to improve scrutiny by either committee or the chamber itself. Especially amendment 34, which is the member rightly points out, ensures that Parliament itself must be consulted about regulations. I think that it is only right, given the lack of detail of much of the regulations that will form how the bill is delivered, that the Parliament itself has increased accountability transparency. In just some good process that has been solely lacking as we have gone through this truncated scrutiny of the bill at this stage. I hope that we are not put in that position again as we look at the detail of the bill in the future. For that reason, we will support all but 33 in this group. In that openness, two increased scrutiny has already been demonstrated by accepting the DPLRC recommendations on affirmative regulations and by including from the outset a consultation requirement at section 19 of the bill. This requirement ensures that there is an opportunity to gather views on proposals for what may be included in these regulations, for example, in relation to the licence fee that we were discussing earlier. Amendments 5, 7, 11, 18 and 20 seek to make the regulation making powers in part 2 that are currently subject to negative procedure instead subject to affirmative procedure. I do not consider that the affirmative procedure is either suitable or proportionate for these type of regulations, which will be used to set out operational and administrative details for the licensing system. It is not intended that these powers will be used on a frequent basis, but it is necessary that when they are used they can be used in a timely manner in order for the licence system to continue to operate efficiently and at an optimum level. In my view, requiring affirmative procedures for operational and administrative changes would not be appropriate. Amendments 32 seeks to extend the consultation requirement to regulations made under section 3 of the bill. This section sets out the categories of fireworks that are covered by part 2 of the bill, which relates to the licensing system. The regulation making power at section 32 has been included to future-proof the licensing system and enables any changes to the categorisation of fireworks or the addition of new classifications of types of fireworks. It is important that the power can be used in a timely manner so that the licensing system can continue to operate effectively. It is a technical regulation making power. It is intended to be used only if required to take account of legislative change elsewhere, industry or industry developments. If it is used, relevant stakeholders, such as the firework industry, experts or trading standards, will be consulted in line with good practice rule regulations. It is not considered necessary to include it within the duty to consult in section 19. If that power is used—this is the case there for that—I would only come to a committee of the Parliament under the negative procedure, in which case the only option available to members would be simply for a motion to a null. That is not real scrutiny, is it? As I have set out on the members, I have moved on a number of areas where I thought it was proportionate for the regulations to be negative. I have moved them to affirmative, where they are considering substantive details. As I have set out, they are technical, they are administrative. It is appropriate, as we have done in many other types of legislation in this Parliament, while I have been here, to put those into being negative procedures. However, the member is quite right that the committee still has the power to knock those amendments back, should they seek to do that. While not subject to the consultation requirements, those regulations are subject to affirmative procedure, meaning that they will have enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of regulations laid using this power. Amendment 33 seeks to remove section 19 from the bill completely. It is related to the group of amendments already debated that aim to remove the licensing system from the bill. That is a core policy of the bill, and this provision for consultation on regulations is essential, in my view, to ensure that the detail of the licensing system will operate well in practice, and members will therefore understand that I cannot support that amendment. Amendment 34 seeks to include a new section setting out a requirement on Scottish ministers before laying regulations in relation to part 2 of the bill and the licensing system. However, the matters covered in the regulations under this part of the bill are simply not of the nature to require this kind of superaffirmative procedure, which this amendment would apply. It is, in most cases, power to set out matters of operational detail or administrative procedure. While it is always open to the Parliament to seek additional scrutiny in this manner, I believe that this kind of superaffirmative power is really best suited to matters of significant importance, complexity or difficulty. I hope that, for the reasons that I have outlined, members will understand why I cannot accept these amendments. I am grateful to the minister for her comments. It would be my intention to move amendment 5 to the vote and amendment 34 and to withdraw amendment 33. I have outlined earlier the differences between the amendment and the nature of amendment 5, which would change the process to an affirmative procedure and amendment 34, which lays out a more detailed procedure that would involve the committee having time to look at the matter in detail. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, and as this is the first division of this stage, I suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 5. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Faisel Choudhury. I was trying to log in. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Choudhury. We will ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Sarah Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Point of order, I would have voted yes. I also struggled to log on. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Boyack. We will ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 5, in the name of Katie Clark, is yes, 46, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 6, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 7, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 5. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. We move on to group 5 licensing, disclosure of offences, and I call amendment 8, in the name of Russell Finlay, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Russell Finlay, to move amendment 8 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Group 5 comprises eight amendments in my name. I want to begin by thanking the minister for responding positively to my stage 2 suggestion, which led to a constructive meeting with her and her officials. This meeting resulted in amendments 8, 9 and 48, in my name. At stage 2, it struck me as common sense that anyone with convictions for fire-raising should be required to disclose these while seeking a firework licence. I'm glad that the Scottish Government has agreed with me and I welcome their support of these amendments, numbers 8 and 9. Amendment 48 is a consequential of them, which updates the definition of relevant offences for the purpose of a report of the operation of the act, as required in section 44A. However, I believe that those welcome amendments do not quite go far enough, and that the bill still contains significant gaps relating to what types of conviction a licence applicant would need to disclose. I'll provide a very brief explanation of each amendment. Number 72 relates to convictions for terrorism. Surely all members can agree that a convicted terrorist should have to declare such convictions while seeking a licence to legally purchase explosive material. It's no stretch to suggest that the contents of fireworks could be misused by those with ill intent, and I would therefore encourage members to vote for this amendment. I'll now turn to amendment 73. This would require anyone convicted of crimes of fraud to disclose these convictions while applying for a licence. During the criminal justice committee visit to Blackburn, we heard about the so-called white van man who sells fireworks to people, often children. He's the type of person who's fundamentally dishonest and would have no regard for this bill, whatever it says, and that I would argue is the type of person who's likely to acquire and then exploit a licence for gain. It therefore seems proper that someone with convictions for dishonesty should have to declare them. Amendment 74 includes the need to disclose convictions for antisocial behaviour. Again, I don't see how this could be reasonably disagreed with. Right now, apart from today's inclusion of fire-raising, both reckless and willful, the only disclosable convictions relate to firework misuse, but this is too narrow. What about those who cause torment and antisocial behaviour on our streets? Amendment 75 would require those with convictions for football-related offences, including violence and disorder, to disclose them. In recent years, we've seen an increasing prevalence of flares and pyrotechnics at Scottish football grounds and other events like music festivals. Police Scotland says that pyrotechnics can be highly dangerous and reach temperatures of up to 1,200 degrees. Two years ago, the minister herself said that there is no question about the potential serious harm that they can cause. This is completely unacceptable, and I agree with the minister. I hope that she will agree that those with a record of causing trouble at football would need to declare that. In terms of amendments 72, 73, 74, 75, it's worth stating that this is simply about the need to disclose. It does not block those with convictions from either seeking a licence nor does it mean that they will be refused one. It's important to emphasise those points. Those four amendments 72, 73, 74, 75 sensibly allow those issuing licences to make an informed decision, which is clearly in the interests of public safety. Finally, amendment 76 seeks to ensure that licence applicants undergo a disclosure check. Again, that seems to be common sense. While the other amendments in the group put the onus on the applicant, they are premised on all applicants being truthful, which strikes me as being overly optimistic. It may be that some applicants are genuinely unsure about what they need to disclose. It may be that others will just not come clean. By requiring ministers to ensure that a standard disclosure check is completed, this would verify what was disclosed. Those making the decision can be confident that it's being reached with sight of the best available information, and that is in everyone's best interests. I just want to reiterate two simple points. The first is that what my colleague is trying to do is ensure that those offences and their very self-explanatory terrorism and social behaviour and other types of fire-raising offences are disclosed. It will not and does not automatically refuse the issuing of a licence. That's the first point. The second point is in the context of what then happens. A point that we raised and indeed tried to amend at stage 2 was around the technical capabilities of whatever the licence scheme looks like. We do know that it will be a nationally administered scheme, not run by local authorities. It's worth clarifying for that confusion because I don't think that it has been clear throughout the process. However, whoever administers the scheme, be it someone in central government, whichever agency or body we're not sure yet, the government will come forward with those proposals. The onus is on them to check that the information that's been provided is true. Again, I had similarly but different worded amendments at stage 2 on this. It puts the onus back on the administrator of the licence. Those who issue the licence says that the duty is on them to check that the information that's been provided around disclosure is truthful. There are mechanisms available to do that. My colleague is suggesting some through his own amendments. I would ask ministers to not just the ones that have agreed to work with us on additional offences, but the overall premise of how those offences are dealt with when issuing licences. If that is not the way to do it, I would like to hear how the licences administrators will check the information that's been provided by those who provide the information. Unfortunately, not everyone will be truthful or knowledgeable about which offences should be disclosed. The onus therefore lies on those who give out the licences to ensure that that information is accurate in the interests of public safety. I welcome amendments 8, 9 and 48 from Mr Finlay, which have been developed following our very constructive discussions since stage 2 proceedings. I was not minded to include a requirement to disclose a broad range of offences during a licence application. However, I recognise that there is value in offences where the misuse of fire has been a factor being considered during a licence application. I understand that members have previously indicated a preference for their disclosure requirement to be much broader and to include all serious offences. However, I believe that there is a fine balance to be achieved. I don't want to dissuade people from applying for a licence by requiring them to disclose a broad range of irrelevant offences. I want people to apply for a licence. I want them to undertake the necessary training course and to be able then to use fireworks and how to use them safely and also lawfully. The bill currently requires offences involving the misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics to be disclosed. Should members vote in favour of Mr Finlay's amendments 8 and 9 today, that will extend to offences involving the misuse of fire. I believe that that is proportionate and I will ensure that all relevant offences can be taken into consideration when the decision is taken to grant or to refuse a licence application. Just to pick up on Mr Greene's points there, the Scottish Government will be administering and there will be an enhanced verification process developed. Can you, Russell Finlay, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 8? I will press amendment 8, yes. Thank you. You may wind up, Mr Finlay. I am new to this. I will go back to amendment 8 and to wind up. The minister is writing what she says that we do not want to deter applicants due to a high bar of disclosure, but I do not think that it is a high bar. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable one. The phrase, irrelevant offences, was used in the response and I struggle to see how terrorism especially but not the other ones could be described as being irrelevant for the purpose of acquiring a firework licence. I did not hear anything in respect of amendment 76 about the requirement for a disclosure check. Therefore, I move amendment 8. Thank you. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 72 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. I couldn't connect to the digital platform. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 72 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 43, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 73 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 74 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 75 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 9 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 10 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 76 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My device would not connect to the parliamentary system and therefore I would have voted yes. Thank you Mr Mountain. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 76 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 42, no 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 5. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 12 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. We move therefore to group 6, licensing, appeals and conditions. I call amendment 13 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jamie Greene to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you Presiding Officer. Group 6, we're halfway there. First of all, I find it quite bizarre that we've just voted down an amendment that states if you have a terrorism-related offence, you don't have to disclose it when applying for a fireworks licence. I mean, what on earth? So that brings me to the next group, which is what happens if you are refused a licence? Who knows if a terrorist will apply for a pyrotechnic device and misuse it? I really hope that is not the case and never happens. But if someone is refused a licence, there may be valid reasons for it. If the scale of the system is overwhelmed, there may be other reasons why a licence has been refused. In any case though, there should remain the option and I think it's only fair that there is an appeals process. I had an amendment at stage 2 around what must happen in that scenario, the scenarios in which some of we presented helpful information on what an appeal might look like and how to go about it. I can't recall if we moved it or pushed it to a vote, but in any case the minister responded thankfully quite positively to the concept. I agreed to discuss that further with the minister and would like to thank her for the constructive manner in which we went about that. We've come up with these subsequent amendments instead, amendments 13, 16, 22 and 25. I understand that it had always been the Government's plan that information about the ability to appeal a decision on a licence would be available through various processes. Whether it was through the application, the licence itself or through the revocation process. But I appreciate that the minister acknowledged that there is merit in including a duty on ministers to provide that information about the appeals process on the face of the bills my amendments seek to do. I think in the interests of clarity and transparency about what the appeals process might look like, we would ask members to support those amendments and thank the Government for them. I'm also supportive of other amendments in this group, namely that amendment 17, Fulton MacGregor's amendment and other tidy up amendments as well. My colleague Russell Finlay has amendment 77 in this group. I will let him speak to that in any further comments or reserve to my summing up. But effectively I would ask members to support all amendments in this group. Fulton MacGregor, to speak to amendment 15 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to bring these amendments, which are technical in nature, but I believe important in providing clarity about the types of condition that can be attached to a fireworks licence. I'd like to thank the minister for engaging with me in advance at stage 3 on these amendments. I've greatly appreciated it. In terms of the amendment, section 10 of the bill already makes reference to additional licence conditions and optional licence conditions, which can be specified in regulations in which the Scottish ministers may attach to a fireworks licence. My amendments expand upon the description of the types of licence conditions and make it very clear that if additional licence conditions are set out in regulations, they will be mandatory for all licences. In contrast, if optional licence conditions are set out in regulations, they may or may not be attached to individual licences. It is a decision to attach an optional condition to a licence that a person will be able to appeal under section 14 of the bill. Additional mandatory conditions, as I have said, must apply to all licences and will therefore not be appealable. Those are technical amendments that do not change either the powers of the Scottish ministers to be striped and apply licence conditions nor the appeal rights of individuals from the position that has always been intended in the bill. I do therefore hope that members will support the amendments that I have lodged today. In relation to other amendments in the group, I support those that have been put forward and already talked to from Jamie Greene. I think that they also make sense and hope that the Parliament will also agree to them. I will not speak too much to Russell Finlay, because I know that he will be speaking after me, but at this point I do not support his amendment. I think that it is perhaps too excessive, but I will wait to hear what he says following myself. My colleague Jamie Greene's amendments deal mostly with licencing and appeals around refusal of licencing. As the bill stands, a licence will last for a period of five years. At stage two, I argued that this was excessive for several reasons and suggested that three years might be a more practical time limit. However, I did not move that amendment at that point. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Scottish Government applies some proper scrutiny and analysis of the licence period. It is all very well that the minister is telling us that five years is fine to trust them, but the five-year duration seems to have been based on pretty much informed guesswork. I hope that members will agree that, including the need to review the length of licencing, licencing will be beneficial and should be welcomed by the Government who wants its legislation to work and to win public confidence. Under the Apologies Explosives Substances Act of 1883, licencing can be aggravated as having a terrorist-related connection by the Counter Terrorism and Sending Act of 2021. To reassure the member that that is required to be disclosed by section 7 of the bill. The Minister identifies one area where terrorism would be a consideration, but does she agree that the omission of six specific terrorism acts is a big miss and should be included? I think what we have to do is make sure that it is proportionate. We don't want to put people off applying for a licence. If the terrorism acts that we're talking about here have committed an offence involving fireworks, then that will be required to be disclosed. I think that that strikes the appropriate balance. I'd like to start by addressing the amendments that are lodged by Mr Greene and thank him for his engagement on those amendments in advance of the proceedings today. I believe that those discussions have led to revised amendments that capture the intent of Mr Greene's original amendments at stage 2, so I'm pleased to be able to support those amendments today. As I've previously outlined, it has always been intended that, as part of implementation, processes would be put in place to ensure that people have access to information regarding appeals when they need it. However, as I set out during stage 2, I do see merit in placing a duty on Scottish ministers to share that information with licence applicants and holders at key points when a decision is made. I'm happy to support amendments 13, 16, 22 and 25 and encourage other members to do so as well. I turn to Mr Greger's amendments regarding the difference between additional mandatory conditions that must apply to all licences and optional conditions that Scottish ministers will have the discretion to attach to individual licences. I believe that those amendments provide clarity. They put beyond doubt what has always been intended to be in the bill. As Mr Greger outlined, the amendments don't change the powers of Scottish ministers to prescribe and apply licence conditions nor the appeal rights of individuals from the position that has always been intended in the bill. I'd like to thank Mr Greger for his engagement on those amendments before lodging them. I'm pleased to be able to support 15, 17 and 26. I turn to Mr Finlay's amendments in this group that seek to require a review of the licence term one year after the regulations that set out the term are made and then each year thereafter. I consider that to be excessive. Particularly if a licence term longer than one year is set following consultation, I'm not clear that such a review would provide meaningful results when the licence term will be consulted on and set out in regulations. As I've outlined before, our working assumption is currently that the licence term will be five years. Ms Stevenson's stage 2 amendment that the member will remember requires a report on the effectiveness of the act within five years of royal assent. At this point, when the package of measures in the bill has had that opportunity to bed in following implementation, I consider a constructive review of the licence system as a whole can take place at that point. However, should any issues or concerns about the licence term arise before this, Scottish ministers will be able to progress a change through consultation and further regulations if it's necessary. I can't support Mr Finlay's amendments and I'd ask other members not to support them. To summarise, I support all the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendment 77. I ask Jamie Greene to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 13. I thank all members for their contribution, including the minister, for supporting my amendments in this group. However, on amendment 77, on the review of the licence period, what the amendment specifically doesn't do is state the duration of the licence. There was quite a bit of discussion about this at stage 2, anything between one year and five years and anything in the middle, and I appreciate that there will be a range of views. I also appreciate that the Government will come forward with that proposal through regulations. However, we are asking for a review. If one year or an annual process sounds overly onerous, the Government could easily have brought forward a different suggestion for that. Indeed, there is a process by which the Government can amend amendments that were suggested at stage 3. However, the problem is that the deadline for submitting and publishing amendments is so tight that it probably didn't have time to do so. That is symptomatic of the rushed nature of the bill at stage 3. What I would ask is that, given that we have absolutely no idea how many licences are likely to be applied for, does the member agree that that makes the need to conduct proper analysis even more pressing? Indeed, and that is why I know that we are all looking forward to group 7, which is my set of amendments on reviewing of the licence scheme. At least, if members do not support group 77, which I urge my colleague to push, they will at least consider the next group as and when we come to it. Can the member clarify whether he is pressing or withdrawing amendment 13? The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Amendment 14, in the name of Katie Clark, is already debated with amendment 2. Amendment 15, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, is already debated with amendment 13. Fulton MacGregor, to move or not move? It moves to reflect not so. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Amendment 16, in the name of Jamie Greene, is already debated with amendment 13. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Amendment 17, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, is already debated with amendment 13. Fulton MacGregor, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Amendment 77, in the name of Russell Finlay, is already debated with amendment 13. Russell Finlay, to move or not move? Yes, moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not all agreed. There will be division and I ask that you cast your votes now. The vote is now closed. Greg Hoy, who is joining us remotely. Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer. My heart wouldn't refresh. I would have voted yes. Thank you Mr Hoy. That has been noted. Point of order, Liz Smith. Same for me and I would have voted yes. Thank you Ms Smith and that will be noted and to be recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 77, in the name of Russell Finlay, is yes, 43, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 18, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 5. Katie Clark, to move or not move? I call amendment 19, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 20, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 5. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 21, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 22, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 13. amendment 13, Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2, Katie Clark to move or not move. I call amendment 24 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2, Katie Clark to move or not move. I call amendment 25 of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 13, Jamie Greene to move or not move. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of Fulton MacGregor, already debated with amendment 13, Fulton MacGregor to move or not move. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of Katie Clark, amendment 2. 4. Onw'r cwmparoedd i tirodaeth o'r ni ngynt groove a lwyddo?wrs. 5. Onw'r cwmparoedd i tirodaeth o'r ning SwedhaMarine onw y prydol a allanod ti tiradiw o'r ningynt groove? Cllw cwp i ewn i gael cwp oedd? lingering An ond PEN Fions 2. Cym sw localized up Thor has fel Ashley. 4. ein Sport authority mwg oddy iddynf yn ei fodenedau a S,) wi eisiau i'r 1 y Burkheadsdorf mae hyn pwysig o gerfордol ar hynholm eich direx celaogaeth, os ag yn ans 연ad, wrth gan amyfiad iawn o loch oes crest i wanffordd wouldo Doll��� fickagiaethol iawn o ni wrth ei os edrych â'r Abości o surffodd. 5. amendment 34 book a diwrnod ei iawn maeriddawir eu dod o dd tal o ar dill, llwrs I can not call amendment 89 due to a preemption. I call on Jamie Greene to move amendment 78 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This whole group, I'll try and give you enough time to have a good cup of tea, those that are leaving this chamber, but I won't spend too long on it, so keep your eyes out for the divisions. It's about the review of the operation of the licensing scheme. We've had quite a robust chat about the nature of what the scheme might look like. People have shared their opinions and views, but what I would like to do is put on the face of the bill a duty on ministers as soon as it's practicable to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the fireworks licensing scheme. Effectively, amendment 78 asks three things to happen in that review, and in my view there will be much needed given the nature of the debate that we've had today. The report must include information about the effectiveness of the fireworks licensing scheme. The reason for that, I think, is self-explanatory, is the licensing scheme working as intended, is the fee being charged too high, too low, is it prohibitive, is the process bureaucratic burdensome and so on. There are many things that the Government could look at. I haven't been specific in that. The second thing that it asks the Government to do is to report on the number of people who have applied for a fireworks licence. I think that that's important because we know the scale of the market at the moment. Fireworks sales in Scotland a couple of years ago were worth about £13 million. That number probably has risen given the popularity of them in recent years. I think that what we must know in any review is how many people are applying for a licence on an annual basis. The information that will be taken from that will be extremely helpful as to whether the licensing scheme is a success or not. Indeed, whether the legislation is a success or not. That will be one of the key metrics in analysing whether the bill has worked as it intended. The third and most important duty that it will put on ministers is to see whether there is any evidence that the licensing scheme is contributing to improving firework safety. We are told by ministers that that is the very essence of the bill, to improve firework safety. The licensing scheme is central and key to that. I would like to know if that would be the case. There should be duty on ministers to undertake a piece of work around that. Amendments 87, 88 and 89 are consequential to that. As a result of that report, what changes ministers propose is that consultation should take place and that they will report to Parliament. Amendment 88 specifies the time period of what I call the reporting period. It is a reasonable basis. It is three years from the date of royal ascents. Effectively, if the law passes next Wednesday, three years thereafter, the Government will have undertaken this review and come back to Parliament or indeed future Parliaments. I am hoping that the post-legit of scrutiny that I tried to introduce at stage 2, but I think that the committee was rather split on. I hope that this redraft will be easier for the ministers to accept. I do not think that they would find it unreasonable. I would ask members to support it. When the bill was introduced, the Scottish Government set out our intention that a full review of the measures introduced through the bill would be undertaken once they took effect. Following scrutiny by the criminal justice committee at stage 1, I recognised that having this enshrined within the legislation strengthens this commitment and provides reassurance regarding the contents of any review and the timeframe for the process. I was, therefore, pleased to support amendments that were brought forward at stage 2. They are now included in section 44A of the bill, and this requires the Scottish ministers to report on the operation of the act within five years of the act receiving royal assent. For that to include information on proceedings and convictions, data for relevant offences, incident data as well as the views and experiences of people and their communities. This five-year timeframe provides enough time for meaningful data to be recorded and reported, provides for the lived experience of people to be reflected as part of the review and ensures that the Scottish Government is held to account. The process will ensure a comprehensive and constructive review of the operation of the act, encompassing all relevant parts. Amendment 78, brought forward by Mr Greene, requires an additional review solely of the licensing scheme. In particular, I need to include evidence of the scheme's impact on improving firework safety. Amendment 87 would require that the report to Parliament on the operation of the act must also set out what changes, if any, will be made to the act following a review. I understand that those amendments have been lodged to ensure that the licensing scheme meets its objectives, that it works in practice and as intended, and to add to the review requirements for the act as a whole building on section 44A. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that the review requirements already within the bill are robust and appropriate, so I do not consider those amendments necessary. A review of the licensing scheme, which is, of course, a core provision within the bill, will be required to take place as part of that review of the act as a whole, so I do not believe that it is necessary as a separate component on the face of the bill. Any learning or areas of improvement that are identified in the review of the act will be fully considered and will form part of the report to Parliament as a standard, and where appropriate adjustments and amendments will be made to how the provisions that are operating in practice, and if required, to relevant regulations made under the act to which affirmative procedure will apply. That will enable further parliamentary scrutiny before any changes are made. In addition, focusing specifically on legislative changes to the act as opposed to operational changes, I do not believe that amendment 87 would achieve the intended outcome. Due to the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support that amendment. On to amendments 88 and 89. They seek to change the timescale for the review of operations of the act, requiring it to be carried out within three years of the act, receiving royal assent as opposed to the five years that it is currently provided for. It is expected that, if the bill is passed, the licensing provisions will come into force over the first two years following royal assent. Therefore, the five-year reporting period, following royal assent, provides three years in which to gather the required information and monitor and report on any change, reducing that reporting period to three years would only provide just one year of the operation of the system in which to gather the required information. I do not think that this would be enough time to gather meaningful data for that to be recorded and reported and therefore for a comprehensive and constructive review of the operation of the act, encompassing all parts to take place. I do wonder whether what is being proposed, which is, I understand it correctly, the two years of the licence to be put into place and then three years thereafter, there will be some kind of review, but that is assuming presumably that this all goes as well and as intended. However, surely there is a necessity to bring this forward in the strong or possible likelihood that things could go wrong and that needs a look at a lot quicker. Minister. I do not share the member's very pessimistic attitude to how this will be rolled out and I would reiterate to him that we need the appropriate time in order to gather the data to make it meaningful. I would say that the previous time period is striking the right balance there. I can sympathise with the intention behind amendment 88 and I can understand the member's desire for a rolling review period every five years but I can't support the proposal to reduce the reporting period. Of course, I can assure the member that the on-going effectiveness of all policies will be continually monitored, so I would ask Mr Greene not to press these amendments and if he does, I would ask members not to support them. I welcome clarification that a review of the licensing scheme specifically will form part of a wider review of the bill, as is detailed in section 44A, which is a wider report on operation act, which I also appreciate is some way beyond where we were at in the first draft of the bill. My second point is that this is a one-off report on the operation of the act and, although this Government has given a commitment to do so, by not future-proofing it in the way that I am seeking to do in my amendments, there is no requirement on future Governments thereafter to perform any operation on the act or any part there, including the licensing scheme. That is a bit of a miss. I think that we could have addressed that had we spotted that earlier. Indeed, had we had time, I probably would have amended separately section 44A. I do not really see the problem as to why amendment 88, in my name, ensures that that process is an iterative one and a continuous one and that future Governments, wherever their make-up and colour are required to review the effectiveness of this bill. I wonder what happens thereafter. What happens after that one-off report if no future Government decides to perform that piece of work, which is where I saw the gap? I do accept, however, that amendment 78 may not be necessary if it falls under the remit of section 44A. Based on that, I will not push amendment 78 or withdraw as is necessary, but there are other amendments in this group that I may move when asked. Thank you. Jamie Greene seeks to withdraw amendment 78. Does any member object? No member is objecting. Amendment 78 is withdrawn. We now move to group 8, entitled Changes to Dates of Supply and Use. I call amendment 79, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments 80 and 81. I call on Pauline McNeill to move amendment 79 and speak to all amendments in the group. There has been a lot of debate at stage 2 about the 57 days in the bill in which fireworks are permitted with a licence. Some of the 57 days cover festivals such as the Valley, the Sackie and Chinese New Year, as well as the typical bonfire at night. On deflection of the discussion that I had with Minister at stage 2, one of the things that I did not fully understand about the selection of the 57 days was what you would not maybe expect there to be public displays in some of those festivals rather than specific days where people can let fireworks off. For those who are hearing this for the first time, it is important to note that in the Sackie, for example, which we won in the 57 days, anyone could set a fireworks off. You do not have to celebrate that festival. This section of the bill seems a little odd to me, and I fear that it might unravel a bit. I want to have this exchange again at stage 3. Ministers can obviously add more days to the 57 days under statutory instruments, should they feel that there should be additions for whatever reason. While I support the reduction in the number of days in which fireworks can be used, I did not really feel that it went far enough, and I also did not feel that it was all that logical. It is unclear to me why bonfire period is set as two full weeks given that bonfire night is one evening, and we could have covered it the full seven days with a lesser period, as I will obviously as it puts increased pressure on the fire service and the police for the whole two weeks. Similarly, I do not believe that fireworks celebrations to celebrate new year begin as early as Boxing Day, so I just did this amendment from stage 2 by excluding new year, but I still wanted to have the exchange about those two periods, which are selected as part of the 57 days. I note that one of the briefings that members have had from the Dogs Trust is asking for a reduction on the number of days that fireworks can be used and sold. Pointing out that shortening those windows will significantly reduce the negative impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people. There are also members of society who have heard from who can find fireworks that are stressing those with PTSD or those with autism. To that end of amendment 79, shortening the fireworks that can be sold during the bonfire period from 27 October to 10 November to 27 October until 4 November is the supply of fireworks. I will say to the minister before she says that I am not really sure why it is the 4th of November and not the 5th, so I would concede that point. You should probably still allow for the sale of fireworks on the 5th of November, but amendment 80 shortens the period allowed for use from 27 October to 12 November to a shorter period of the 30th of October to the 6th of November. It is one week around bonfire season, which makes more sense to me, so it does shorten the overall period. It is similar that amendment 81 changes the allowed period from the 26 December to the 31 January to the 2 December, which in my experience is when fireworks tend to be used. I believe that that reduction is supported by animal welfare organisations. I would be helpful if the minister could address the purposes of those members who have not been partied to this debate to say a bit more about why those 50s, 70s have been selected and why such an extensive period over bonfire season and new year. I thank Pauline McNeill for raising his amendments. Those are further to two quite substantial sections that I tried to add at stage, two around changes to the dates, the restrictions around the supply and use of fireworks. I think that he raised a whole can of worms when we debated this. It became quite clear from the beginning that there was a somewhat arbitrary nature to the dates that were selected. The Government clearly does not want to ban fireworks altogether or just restrict it to public displays, as has been suggested by some stakeholders. It is trying to come up with a mechanism that allows private use in one's own back garden, but what it has done in doing so has created a series of dates to find in law when shops can sell and when people can use those fireworks. That does, I am afraid, raise a whole range of issues, which I think that the bill has not addressed and I know have not been fixed as we have gone through the process. Apart from the arbitrary nature, what effectively we are doing is creating 57 days of the year where you are legally allowed to set off fireworks that you have purchased privately. In many people's minds, fireworks only seem to go off at certain times of the year. There are problematic times of the year around bonfire night, around new year's eve. Effectively, we are now saying that there are 57 dates, including religious feasts, which actually move in dates. That in itself makes no sense. By doing so, we have identified specific religious festivals but excluded others. That is the point that I raised at stage 2 when I do not think that any satisfactory response was given to that. By excluding certain religious or secular festivals from those specified dates, the Government is opening itself up to future challenge. I hope that it is not the case, but I raise that warning now that it could very well take place. Just in one second, I want to mention McNeill's amendments. I do not support amendments 79 and 80. I think that the first one, for the reasons that she accepts, is that it seems a bit odd to restrict the sale of fireworks on fireworks day itself. I appreciate that that might be a technical boo-boo to use that word. Amendment 80 is an interesting one because I think that what she is trying to do is to tighten that window of use. There may be reasons why, for example, on 5 November, you cannot let off fireworks whether related or other reasons. I think that flexibility that the Minister is offering is actually quite helpful. What I do support is amendment 81. The reason for that is that we understand the period around Bonfire's night, but I am not convinced that allowing people to let off fireworks as early as 26 December to celebrate New Year's Eve, which is five days later, makes any sense. I would have been much in favour of tightening that window, as Ms McNeill strives to. If she does move amendment 81, I would strongly ask colleagues to support it because I think that it does tighten up that window of opportunity. What this whole section raises is one of the odd bits of the bill where retailers and consumers are given two different periods of time when they can sell and use fireworks. I think that that will result in confusion amongst the wider public. It will result potentially in people taking action that they have been excluded in discriminatory. I do not know what impact assessment on equalities was ever done when these dates were selected. I really hope that there are no other religious organisations out there who are wondering why in earth have we been excluded from the dates and others included. If they come forward, it will be too late by then, because the bill will have passed by next Wednesday. I hope that they will get in touch with us before then, if that will be the case. The issue of confusion will arise. I hope that the Government has some robust plans and public awareness around those dates. The main issue is that what happens when someone calls the police and says that my neighbour is letting off fireworks in the garden? Will they know whether that is part of the in-date or the out-date, whether that is the legal date or the illegal date? After that, what on earth are the police going to do? Realistically, are trading standards officers going to come knock on your neighbour's door? Are the police officers fully resourced to come out and knock on your door, or are they just going to say thanks for telling us that nothing will happen? We already know that prosecution rates are extremely low in other fireworks-related offences, and I have severe concerns that nothing will change as a result of these restrictions and dates. I can see why the stakeholders who are writing to us, and it is right to do so, support the idea of narrowing those dates, but I think that the way that the Government has gone about it in this bill will create some serious problems. I would hate to say I told you so, but I fear I may do. Before I call the minister to respond, I would say that there is quite a lot of conversation going on in the chamber, which makes it a bit more difficult for every member to hear exactly what is going on. First, I would like to emphasise that the permitted periods in the bill are broadly in line with existing traditional fireworks periods. This is when most retailers in Scotland are permitted to sell fireworks and when the use of fireworks by the general public is most prevalent. In relation to the dates, I wonder what the minister would say to our American friends who would find themselves criminalised in Scotland worthy to use fireworks on 4 July. Minister? Not if they were to employ a private company to do that display for them. Amendment 79, as brought forward by Ms McNeill, looks to shorten the permitted days of supply over the bonfire period to nine days as opposed to the 15 days that are currently provided for in the bill. The bill will, for the very first time, set out permitted periods when people in Scotland can be supplied with fireworks. We have set out the bill in a period in which we think reflects that fair balance based on consultation between the desire to celebrate special days in our communities while still curtailing the general supply and use of fireworks. I believe that limiting the supply period further could risk a situation where people have a very limited number of days to purchase fireworks and are inadvertently encouraged to store them in domestic settings. It also risks squeezing the supply chain over the busiest period for fireworks purchases. That could cause retailers to overstock and lead to safety issues around storage as well. If there is evidence that the permitted periods of supply should be reduced further in future, the bill provides an ability to do this via secondary legislation. I do not support amendment 79 and encourage Ms McNeill not to press it. Our intention in introducing restricted days of use is to address the negative impacts of unpredictable fireworks use while retaining periods during which fireworks may be used appropriately by the general public. It was recognised that setting permitted periods for use provides flexibility to allow celebrations to go ahead on or around their date and allows for postponement or delays due to inclement weather, which I believe was mentioned by Mr Greene earlier. Amendment 80 and 81, which was brought forward by Ms McNeill, looked to shorten the permitted days of use over the bonfire period to eight days and the new year period to three days. Those amendments would reduce the permitted days that fireworks can be used as set out in the bill by almost a quarter. There is a fine line between introducing permitted periods to reduce the negative effects on our vulnerable populations while allowing for the enjoyment that members of the public can and do get from using fireworks. This is while also reducing the impact on businesses and ensuring that adequate safety measures remain in place. I believe that limiting the period further could risk a situation where people have a very limited number of days to use fireworks and inadvertently encourage them to use them in unsafe conditions. Are we now in a position where there are nearly two months of the year where it will be legal to use fireworks as a private citizen? On top of that, ministers reserve the right in the legislation to add to that, more so if they have been challenged, for example, legally. Simply adding and adding to it rather than reducing it. Above all that remains the bizarre situation that, if you can afford to employ a private company to let off fireworks in your garden, you can do that at any time of the year. Can you see why some of the organisations that you are writing to as concerns about the proposals think that this completely undermines the whole proposition? Why are we creating a two-tier system that those who cannot afford to pay private companies will not be allowed to let off fireworks, but those who can afford, and are quite expensive to pay companies to let off big fancy displays, can do that at any time of the year? What was the rationale behind that? Surely the minister will admit that it makes absolutely no sense. It was an attempt to balance, as the member will understand, all the different interests that are relevant in this debate. The careful consideration that was given by the review group has presented, for the most part, in the recommendations and now the provisions that we now have in the bill. In the case of the amendments, it would also mean that fireworks are available to purchase for a number of days before they are permitted to be used. I am concerned that that could lead to issues around stockpiling. They are permitted days of use of the bill, so they deliberately extend slightly beyond when fireworks can be supplied. That is to avoid the situation where people buy fireworks perhaps towards the very end of their supply period, and they are not able to use them on that day, for example, due to poor weather. That minimises the likelihood of individuals needing to store fireworks from the last day of one permitted use period and to the beginning of the next permitted use period, which could lead to safety concerns around storage of fireworks in domestic premises. I have all the knowledge that there is a balance to be struck in this. Does the minister accept that the period in the bill at the moment means that, once it is commonly known, you can set fireworks off for two weeks during the bonfire season, and if that was to be encouraged, could you not see that that could potentially give rise to some of the problems that we have both been talking about? That is the pressure on the police and the fire service for two weeks, rather than on a bonfire night. I am concerned that the Government should not encourage a wider period of use. I do not accept that point, because, as a member will recognise, because I know that she represents an area where there is a lot of fireworks misuse, that what we would previously have all understood maybe a few decades ago about bonfire night has now quite routinely turned into a bonfire season, if you like, and it has definitely extended it over that period. Ms McNeill's amendments amount to a 16 per cent decrease in the period in which fireworks can be supplied and a 25 per cent reduction in the days that they can be used. The balance that was struck in here, the work that went on in order to balance all of this with the key stakeholders, I fear that in reducing it that much at this point that would render all of the work that had gone before in order to get to that point meaningless, if you like. I will say to the member that this is a starting point in the culture change journey that we are on. I call on Pauline McNeill to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 7-9. I am not going to seek permission to withdraw amendment 7-9 for the reasons that I already gave. I just want to summarise on this debate. I do think that this is an element of the bill that is going to be very confusing for people. One of the oddities of it is that if you have an event that falls within the 57 days, whether it is a birthday or a gender reveal, you can lawfully set off fireworks, but if you have any of those events out with the 57 days, you cannot take advantage of it. I would have thought that, of the festivals that are concluded in the 57 days, they would have tended to be public displays and not people setting fireworks off in their back garden. I mean to Vesachie and the valley events that have been publicly organised, but I would be happy to stand corrected on that. The reason that I brought this to stage 3 for debate is that members need to be aware, when they are voting for this bill, that there is an awful lot that the public can be confused about. I appreciate the minister saying that a lot of work went into this, and I would not deny that. Many stakeholders can see that so much work has gone into this, but our job is to make sure that the general public sees that this is workable legislation and that, when we pass it, they understand exactly what it does. I have real concerns about that. I hear what the member is saying, and I understand that she wants to raise those concerns. Would the member accept the licensing scheme and asking the public, when they are applying for a licence to undertake the training course, which will teach them about where and when they can use fireworks, how to store them and use them safely and lawfully, will go some way to addressing the member's concerns? I acknowledge that, after the training course, the 57 days of the valley, the sake, the Chinese New Year and so on have been remembered. In mind, it is an offence to set off a firework off with the 57 days, but what I was drawing attention to is the odd element of that, which is that anyone can take advantage of setting off a firework off lawfully in their back garden on any of the 57 days. You do not have to be celebrating any of those events, and that seems an odd thing, because you can do other parts. That would be an offence to do out with the 57 days. It is one of the things in the bill that could unravel. In conclusion, I seek withdrawal of amendment 79. I seek not to move amendment 80, but I will move amendment 81. Pauline McNeill seeks to withdraw amendment 79. Does any member object? No member objects. Amendment 79 is therefore withdrawn. I will call amendment 80 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 79, and Pauline McNeill has indicated that she is not moving. Is that correct? I then call amendment 81 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 79. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not all agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Rachel Hamilton for a point of order. I would have voted yes. Ms Hamilton, could you explain if there was a problem with your app or what the reason was that you are making the point of order? Yes. I couldn't connect at the time. It didn't come up as an option for me to vote. Ms Hamilton, we will ensure that your vote is recorded. The result of the vote in amendment 81 in the name of Pauline McNeill is yes, 45, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I will now suspend proceedings for five minutes to allow for comfort breaks. We will now return to stage 3. We are now at group 9, entitled Firework Control Zones. I call amendment 35 in the name of Katie Clark, group with amendments 36, 82, 1 and 83. I call on Katie Clark to move amendment 35 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendments 35 and 36, which would enable local authorities to designate an area as a firework control zone in which fireworks could not be used by any person as no person or organisation would be exempt. That means that fireworks would be banned. Nobody, whether they were a professional organisation or an individual, would be able to use them. I believe that this is what many who have been campaigning for fireworks reform are actually looking for. I appreciate that the Scottish Government has taken heed of the arguments, made at stages 1 and 2, and I did the provision that private operators will not be exempt within the proposed firework control zone, which is stronger than what was in the bill previously. However, it still means that public displays will be permitted within those areas. I would ask the minister to elaborate on that and to give clarity as to what the definition of a public display will be. My amendments stipulate that fireworks would effectively be banned in any area that a local authority designates as a control zone. That could be a small area, a matter of a number of streets or the vicinity of a particular facility. The use of fireworks is likely to cause concern. Organisations such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the National Autistic Society and the Scottish Community Safety Network support the amendments. That speaks to the fireworks' harmful impact, whether that is a public display or whether it is set off by a private or an individual. I would ask that the cabinet secretary perhaps come back and give an explanation as to why there has not been provision in the bill for local authorities to take such action, given the extensive concerns that have been raised by communities. Of course, I completely understand the reasons why public displays may be something that people want. The minister said at stage 2 that public displays foster community spirit and bring people together. I agree with that. What is proposed in this amendment is not an outright ban. Displays would still be possible outside of the areas where local authorities have designated they should not be used and are therefore move amendment 35 and 36. I now call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 82 and other amendments in the group. My amendment 82 tries to seek a similar objective to Katie Clark's amendments. It does it in a slightly different way. Mine states that when designating a firework control zone or amending a zone, a local authority must specify whether exemptions apply or do not. It gives them a little bit extra flexibility to the proposals from Katie Clark. Effectively, what we are doing here, and what Labour and its banks are doing now and what we also try to do at stage 2, is to ensure that the concept of a firework control zone is a genuine no-firework zone. I think for the reasons that have been outlined already is that the expectation out there, we heard it right at the beginning of the debate from Mr Cole Hamilton, was that people want something to be done. This bill does not do it in the way that people think will do it and I think that that is a risk that we must flag with people because as I said we have read some of the letters that we have had already from people saying please support the legislation and I can see why they would want us to. What they maybe do not understand is that if you read the bill and its technical detail, cover to cover, as it is currently drafted before those amendments are considered, there is the real risk that there may not be genuine firework-free zones in Scotland. In fact, what we have tried to do is give that power back to local authorities to make localised decisions on the size of the zone, the length of the zone, the reasons for it and that people could make applications for a zone. We have tried in so many different ways to amend the bill through stages 2 and 3. For that reason, I would ask members to support either of the options presented before them in group 9 to create these genuine firework control zones. That would appeal directly to those watching this, whether it is those in the farming community, animal welfare charities, those who have premises and venues, whether it is the Scottish autism who wrote to us and said thanks for your efforts. However, they are disappointed that there is no technical ability in the bill to create what I would call a firework-free zone or a no-firework zone, as it should have been. It is a real missed opportunity here. Those firework control zones, we have no idea what they are going to look like. We have no idea what the criteria will be or who can apply for them and how and what the appeals process will look like. We do not know how many of them there will be and they do not know if there will be a network or a patchwork. We also do not know what the effect that will have if one local authority decides to have lots of them in the neighbouring local authority does not. What will happen to the displacement issue of people letting off fireworks? Too many unanswered questions from my liking to get to the stage in this bill. For that reason, we have put in a small but important amendment, as has Ms Clark. I would ask members to look favourably upon them if they are moved. I call Polly McNeill to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. I believe that this is a really important part of the bill that gives a mechanism to create a control zone where there should be no fireworks set off as far as the licensing regime is concerned and the question is whether or not the Government want to go further. I begin by thanking the minister and her team for working with me on amendment 1, which is about publicising firework control zones. It is really important that it is known where fire control zones are, the date in which they apply, what the boundaries of the zone are and what is permissible and what is not permissible. That is a really constructive part of the process and I am pleased to bring amendment 4 to the Parliament today. The Government rightly so in this amendment, as I do, wants to make it clear that the general public needs to know exactly what a fire control zone is and where it is. It sets it out on the face of the bill in a very useful way. It is one of the issues that I have felt pretty strongly about, so I am pleased to be able to speak to amendment 1 in my name. On amendment 83, again this is an exchange that we had at stage 2, which is about who can apply for a firework control zone for it to be designated. I still have concerns that local authorities decide not to proceed with a fire control zone. There is a serious assertions made in this debate. To some extent, none of us really know how this bill will be applied. However, I would like individuals and community groups to be able to put before a local authority, should they not act, in communities such as Pollot Shields, which has been discussed by the minister and during the process of stage 2 and other communities, who may feel that it has been overlooked. I feel actually quite strongly about this amendment, and I appreciate that it was a point made by Philip McGregor at stage 2 that members of the public could make representation to councillors to bring it before the local authority. I accept that that is one route, but if we also believe in community empowerment, I think that there should be another route. After all, it is only a request for the local authority to look at it, and after that it is for the local authority to decide whether it is appropriate. If we want the bill to work, I really think that it is a really important aspect of it. We must make the fire control zones essential element of the legislation, it must be workable, others must be able to ask for it and communities must know that it is a major tool, if you like, in the way of controlling fireworks. For that reason, I conclude on that and hope that the Government will consider at stage 3 supporting this amendment. I recognise the strength of feeling that fire work control zone provision has raised. I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place on this point. For some members, the provision on fire work control zones does not go far enough, but I have considered the options in great detail here, at great length prior to the introduction of the bill and again when I was reflecting on the recommendations of the criminal justice committee report at stage 1. With many aspects of the bill, there is that delicate balance to be achieved. On the one hand, there is a need for further reducing unpredictable, although possibly legitimate, firework use, while on the other hand ensuring that there are limited but necessary exemptions where appropriate. As a result of those considerations, I brought forward an amendment at stage 2 to remove the exemption for professional operators to deliver private displays in a designated control zone. That means that fireworks might only be used by a professional operator in a designated control zone where that is for the purpose of a public firework display. That amendment was agreed unanimously by the committee and it recognises, as I think we all do, the value of local organised public displays and what they can bring to communities. Turning to the amendments 35, 36 and 82, together seek to remove the firework control zone exemptions that will apply consistently across Scotland. Amendment 35 would mean that there can be no use of fireworks at all in any designated control zone. The current exemptions ensure that enforcement bodies are able to continue to carry out their necessary duties in a designated zone. They also allow for businesses engaged in the manufacture or supply of fireworks to carry out vital safety checks as part of due diligence so that they can continue to do so. It is vital that those exemptions are retained. The intention of amendments 36 and 82, while approaching it in slightly different ways, is that each individual local authority on a case-by-case basis could determine different exemptions for different control zones. Amendment 36 would allow local authorities to designate areas where no exemptions would apply, meaning that fireworks could not be set off at all or where only certain groups of individuals are permitted to set fireworks off. It will be a criminal offence to use fireworks in a control zone unless exempt. Given that, it is vital that the exemptions are consistently applied in all areas, so that those involved in public firework displays and others can understand the law, which is a point that we have been talking about a little bit already today, and how it applies to their activities. Enabling small variations, as well as very large differences between the position in different areas, would add unnecessary complexity to those zones, and that is something that I am really keen that we avoid. I am not sure whether Ms Clark is going to mention the same point, but I think that what we are concerned about here is that all the stakeholders who are looking at this as the great panacea of solving localised problems. We all know where those hotspots are, where there is unsocial behaviour. They think that these firework control zones are going to solve that problem. I do not have a problem with local authorities making different decisions based on the needs of the local area in this scenario, in this instance. I cannot, to life me, see why we say, yes, you can create a firework control zone, but the Government has a set of national exemptions that apply to all the people that we think should still be able to let off fireworks. What is wrong with giving local authorities that decision making to say, no, this is a genuine no-firework zone, this is addressed as a very specific localised need in my community, and we will not allow fireworks at all in that zone. I do not think that that is a fine balance. I think that that is quite clear, and I cannot, to life me, work out why the Government would not support that. Well, I think that it is part of this balance in trying to achieve the objectives of the bill and balance the interests involved. I think that in terms of certainly the public event, so if that is what we are specifically talking about, in terms of them still being allowed in a firework control zone, I thought about this very carefully and long. So when I came to the chamber at stage 1, I said to the members that were here that there were a couple of areas where I genuinely wanted to hear what members thought. So that was on the exemptions for private companies and also for public displays. I listened very carefully to what members said to me on that point and what stakeholders have said. I did think about it very carefully and I think that it is a fine balance and it is obviously up to the members to decide whether I did in the end get this to the right point. But I genuinely felt that public displays are not where the issue lies and so I think that by preventing them, we are not achieving the right balance. And that was why I came to that decision. I'll give away. Minister, for giving way, but the intention of my amendment is to enable local authorities to use their discretion. So for example the types of situation where such a ban might be appropriate would for example be perhaps a facility run by combat stress where there are veterans who might be distressed by fireworks near a post-traumatic stress disorder care facility or near an animal rescue centre or stables. Surely there is a case for a complete ban where the council feels that's appropriate in the particular circumstances. Minister. So that's where I don't agree and I think I've just covered that. But in terms of public displays and we did have an exchange on this at stage 2, local authorities do have discretion in order to allow or to not allow certain public displays. It's not in this piece of legislation but they do have that and I wonder if that will give the member some comfort on that point. So on amendment 82 would give discretion about whether or not a public firework display were allowed in a particular area. And I am very reluctant I would say to deprive communities of the benefits of organised public displays and the benefits that they can bring to communities. And in many cases local authorities are already able to determine the suitability of these displays in a particular place. So that's through their public entertainment licence processes. So I can't support those amendments. Amendment 1 sets out that a local authority must take reasonable steps to inform those consulted about what it means in practice when a zone is created, amended or removed. This was in line with the policy intent for the firework control zones and how it's expected that the publication of a decision on and information about firework control zones will work in practice. I'm grateful to Ms McNeill for her engagement on this issue and I'm pleased to be able to support that amendment. Amendment 83 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. I do sympathise with this amendment. I share the member's views on the importance of community empowerment and we did have quite a long exchange on this point at stage 2. Section 38 and 31 of the bill enable Scottish ministers to make further regulations about firework control zones and require that local authorities must have regard to any guidance that is issued about the zone. I believe that such guidance co-designed with the local authorities and communities is a more appropriate route than this amendment for setting out that further detail on the local procedures for control zones, including procedures for involving local communities. Should that prove to be insufficient, it will be possible to make regulations to strengthen those requirements in the future. I think that to include it in the bill at this stage would remove flexibility before there's been an opportunity for local approaches to be developed and also tested by those who know their communities best. I thank the minister for that comprehensive reply. Surely it's quite a simple matter if a request was to be put before a local authority. I did reflect on what he said, read the official report and adjusted it to see if you might accept that form of formulation. The local authority can still say no. It's just a request. It doesn't deny the local authority any powers that they don't already have. I really don't understand why ministers have got such a difficult view. In terms of determining a process to give life to the intention that the member has, I think that guidance is a more appropriate place to set that out because I fear that it would not be as simple as the member is describing for local authorities. I think that we do have to take that into account. If I can carry on just to answer a point that Katie Clark asked me about in her contribution earlier, she was asking me about the definition of public displays and community groups. We have taken quite a general approach on the definition. We have chosen a widely understood definition, one that is in use by local authorities at the moment. It has a two-part test as part of that. In order to be considered to be a public event, the organisation would have to be established and it would have to have an identity and the event would have to be open to the public. I hope that sets the member's mind at rest. I am grateful to the minister for her further clarification. However, it is clear that the current legislative framework has not been effective, which is why the various campaigns have been campaigning for there to be the ability to have a complete ban of fireworks. In terms of public events, I think that a wide definition, as she described, that the events be established and open to the public reinforces the argument that we need to have the ability for local councils to intervene, to use their discretion, to use their knowledge of local communities and have the ability to say that there should be no fireworks use by any organisation in specific areas. Therefore, I will be moving amendment 35 to the vote. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 35, in the name of Katie Clark, is yes, 42. No, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 36, in the name of Katie Clark, is yes, 43. No, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. A call amendment 82 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 35. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. And the question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. Can I just confirm we are all agreed? Thank you, I call amendment 83 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 35. Pauline McNeill to move or not moved? The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division, a member should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Alexander Burnett for a point of order. pam lleolioedd Gorparunga Unededol, ac wrth adiliau fel dydy. Thank you, Mr Scorpion, for ensuring that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 83, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is, yes, 17, no, 64. There were 26 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 37 in the name of Katie Clark. Already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark to move or not move. I am not moved. Thank you. We move therefore to group 10, which is Aggravation of Offences relating to emergency workers. I call amendment 38 in the name of the minister in a group of its own. Minister, to move and speak to amendment 38. Amendment 38 makes provision for a statutory aggravation in cases where fireworks and pyrotechnics are used against emergency workers. Where an offence is found to be aggravated, certain requirements will fall on the court and this amendment does not require the court to impose a higher sentence but discretion will continue to sit with the court in line with the general policy approach on sentencing. However, following the general approach on statutory aggravations that we have seen in other legislation, the court is required to consider whether an enhanced sentence is needed and if the court decides it is not, it must explain the reasons why. In addition, it will require courts to record when offences using fireworks and pyrotechnics against emergency workers have been found to be aggravated. That will help us to build the data and evidence over time as the extent of use being made of fireworks and pyrotechnics in offences against those who are risking life and limb in order to keep our communities safe. I have welcomed the opportunity at each stage of the bill to hear from members on a number of very important issues or shared concern. One of those issues has been how best to ensure that the law has the necessary powers to allow the courts to deal with offending using fireworks and pyrotechnics against those workers who deal with personal risk to tackle emergency situations in the service of others. I was therefore grateful to Jamie Greene for bringing forward an amendment on the issue at stage 2 and for his willingness to engage with me in advance of stage 3 to ensure as a Parliament that we got the detail of this amendment right. As I said on previous occasions when this issue has been debated, the courts of course already have the ability to determine the most appropriate sentence for those convicted of such offences by considering all the facts and the circumstances of each case. On balance, however, I believe that this amendment is the right thing to do. A statutory aggravation reflects the serious nature of this particular offending and ensures that the nature of this offending will be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. It will also ensure that appropriate recording of aggravated offences will take place. I would be very happy if the Parliament would support amendment 38, and I move the amendment. I would be very happy if members supported it as well. This is arguably one of the more important amendments that we talk about in the short remaining time that we have. No one in this chamber can condone the use of fireworks and pyrotechnics as a weapon against our emergency service workers. We heard from stage 1 straight away, direct from those affected by this last year on Bonfire night. Just one night, never mind the other 56 that will happen, eight fire crews, several police officers were attacked and injured by members of the public, three firefighters were injured, not just fireworks, people were chucking all sorts of things, golf clubs, bottles, but this happens every year and we are told that it happens every year. I brought forward an amendment at stage 2. It was not on the face of the bill when it was presented to us, but I felt strongly about this. I am really pleased that the minister has given way on this. I would not say that this is a win personally or even a win for these benches. This is a win for emergency service workers, those who are defined in the Emergency Workers Act, those in the Police and Fire Reform Act and also our friends in British Transport Police as well. I think that supporting the Government amendment today, which I put my name to and support, sends a really strong message that this Parliament will not accept any form of abuse or attack on our hard-working emergency service workers, not just with fireworks, but with anything else. We have not outlawed golf balls as part of the bill, but it is completely unacceptable. We will send a strong message that the courts must take those factors into account when sentencing and the full weight of the law will come down on them. I hope that that sends a really strong and powerful message, particularly to the police officers and the fire service workers that we heard from and ambulance crews who are being attacked, doing their job, trying to help people who are in difficult situations, people who have been injured, people who need help, people who have had accidents on nights when fireworks are used. That sends a really strong message that that is unacceptable. Those who do that should be warned that they will face the full weight of the law and I hope that amendment does that. What I hope more is that we will actually see some proper prosecutions. There is no point passing legislation in words alone. I want to see people who commit these sorts of offences successfully prosecuted. I hope that all stakeholders in the justice system will take up niceness of that as we pass this. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 39, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 40, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 41, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 42, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 43, in the name of Katie Clark, a defnyddiat diwrnod dangos yn ei wg? Murdofyn leadersrydediad yng Nghymru yn thy력u Fadau ipwyswyr yn amgylchedd ei wg? Nagw factory br treaties dyp sy'n halfgwrdd yn gwneud yn cwrw dfeldwyl arrived golljdair yapellai surferwyr o fuddon oms もor llyggra Western Phry gustado RWF co llawer drwyd an dumped nyrmwys cluster yng nero yn ez ei wg? yng nghymru bar 있습니다 A le Sebastian nochchu tynnu pwyswyr mm escalag a ddeddiad arni new beth i ddwe effort a d Refnyddi inqui, I call amendment 47 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. We move on to group 11, which is review of existing legislation, and I call amendment 84 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group of its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 84. Thank you. I'll try and keep this brief. I think this amendment is quite self-explanatory. It's similar in nature, but I've changed the wording of it to an amendment stage 2 that requires the Government to do one fundamental thing, and that's a review of existing legislation insofar as they relate to the supply and use, or as the case is, misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics articles. What I'm asking ministers to do is if, as a result of that review, whether any legislation is being adequately implemented and enforced, and if not, what action will be taken to ensure that legislation is adequately implemented and enforced? That goes back to the previous amendment, which I'm pleased that the Parliament passed. There are nine other pieces of legislation going as far back as 1875, right through to the fireworks Michelinus Amendments Regulations Act 2021. There's a whole bunch of pieces of legislation out there that already govern the misuse of fireworks. So when we hear the frustrations from people that this bill is going to solve the problems of anti-social and problematic firework use, I should say to them, there already is a lot of legislation out there that's not being used. The numbers speak for themselves. Over the last five years, there have been over 6,000 incidents involving fireworks recorded by Police Scotland. Of those, 518 were recorded under the Explosive Substances Act and a number of others under the keeping of supplying of explosive legislation. Of those, only 16 resulted in a criminal conviction from 6,000, just 16. Last year alone, there were 974, so nearly 1,000 fireworks related complaints to the Police. There were 29 charges led and zero criminal convictions, zero. The conversion rate from incidents being reported to charges being led to successful prosecutions to people being punished for it is abominable, as it is. What I'm asking ministers to do is to review all the pieces of legislation, not this act, but all the existing pieces of legislation that already exist in so far as it relates fireworks and pyrotechnics and their misuse and tell us whether or not they are comfortable and confident that that legislation has been used to its full extent. That's the very least that we can do. My previous version of this said that this new bill that we're adding to the nine couldn't properly come into effect until that piece of work had taken place. I accept that that held back the bill. I accept that that was deemed to be incompetent. I've taken that out. All I'm asking ministers to simply do that piece of work after this bill passes. I cannot understand why they would not want to do a full and proper review of all legislation that relates fireworks and pyrotechnics, because clearly all the laws that exist to protect people are not being used to their full extent. That must be the source of frustration that so many in our communities are feeling. That must be the source of frustration as to why they think that this bill is going to solve those problems. Let's tell them that there are many other pieces of legislation that the police could use that the Crown Office could use. There are so many other tools available to them that they should be using to their full extent. I hope that this piece of work will raise awareness of that and hopefully lead to more prosecutions. In fact, we tried to amend the bill in many ways at the last stage about the nature of the punishments and so on, but this amendment alone and this standalone group, I hope, will be positive one, will be well received and a useful exercise that actually puts this issue back on the table. I look forward to hearing what others in the minister ask to say. As I stated during the stage 2 proceedings, when a very similar amendment was proposed by the member, my ministerial colleagues and I are always prepared to keep the law under review and indeed it is this willingness to review the law that has led us to introduce this bill. The bill already reflects a period of significant consultation and engagement with the public and stakeholders alongside careful consideration of all the evidence available and of which a key component was examining the existing legislation. Indeed, I would point the member to the publicly available reports from the fireworks review group and this includes a detailed section on existing legislation, regulation and enforcement, alongside a comprehensive annex setting out each piece of legislation, what it does and practical considerations and it is the conclusion of this independent review group as well as from the misuse of pyrotechnics stakeholder discussions that there are clear gaps and therefore a need for further legislation and the measures in the bill will give effect to that work. As I said, we're always prepared to keep the law under review but I think it's unnecessary and inappropriate to place a statutory duty on ministers to conduct a further review and to lay it before Parliament within 12 months when the previous work is the reason that we have brought forward this bill that's in front of Parliament today. So I'd ask Mr Greene not to press his amendments and if he does, I hope that members will not support it. Does he agree to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 84? The minister has just stated that it was a review of existing legislation and laws that led to this bill and one sentence, then in another sentence said that this legislation fills in gaps in existing legislation. So clearly what hasn't happened is that that review of existing legislation has not led to any improvements at all in existing legislation being used to its full extent. It's okay plugging gaps, it's okay adding to legislation but that review in no way actually solved the problem of existing legislation not being used to its full capabilities and is that what I'm seeking ministers to do? Is that which I think it should be on the face of the bill and it is that which I ask members to support and I move amendment 84. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division, members would cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 84. In the name of Jamie Greene is yes 43, no 63, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 12, improvement of firework safety and I call amendment 85 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group of its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 85. Thank you very much and thank members for their forbearance this afternoon. I think we've covered quite a lot of ground and raised some really important issues. My last amendment is in a group of its own that's about improvement of firework safety. We're told that that is what lies at the heart of this bill so what a perfect opportunity to use a new piece of legislation that seeks to improve firework safety and putting in a part that seeks to do just that. The difference here though is of course I'm putting the onus back on ministers, ministers and their policies and their proposals to improve firework safety. I have a number of very specific asks of the Government in this amendment. I would like them to develop an annual national safety campaign for fireworks, sensible ask, not just coming from me, coming from even the fireworks industry itself, who you'd think would be completely against any such proposals, they want to see a firework annual safety plan. I also want ministers to publish their policy around the detection and apprehension of illegal fireworks. The reason for that is if, and it is a big if, there is a black market which does arise as a result of this legislation. We don't know, we've heard evidence that say there might be. I hope there isn't, but if there is then what will the Government do around the detection and apprehension of illegal fireworks. The third point is around the centralised approach to the reporting of the misuse of fireworks incidents. The problem that we have at the moment and the committee found that at stage 1 is that it was almost impossible to identify the scale of the problem because it was either being under-reported or reported to different stakeholders in different ways, whether that was the police, local authorities calling 101. People didn't understand whether what they were hearing or seeing around them was illegal or antisocial. I think that that problem is going to exacerbate once this bill is passed, if it passes. Given the confusion around when you can and cannot let off fireworks or who can and cannot let off fireworks, it's only going to add to that. So a centralised reporting mechanism will help. The other issue that we've rightly raised throughout the debate today is the issue of illegal fireworks entering Scotland and people who will buy them from elsewhere. Whether that's coming from other parts of the UK, Europe or even elsewhere, what will be done to prevent that if that were to occur? Finally, is co-operation with retailers about their continued supply of fireworks? What we do know is that if the bill passes, it will immediately close down a number of businesses overnight, and we have to be quite honest with ourselves about that. Those dedicated to the sale of fireworks, of which it may only be up to about a dozen, but still you're putting businesses out of business overnight. That has to give some consideration to that. But the other retailers who will continue to exist and survive, I want to know if they will continue to sell fireworks, what times of year, what happens to stockpiling and so on and so forth. All of that, I think, in the roundabout point towards improving firework safety. All of those measures have the buy-in of the industry, of retailers, and I'm sure of those who are blighted and affected by the misuse of fireworks. I'm simply asking the Government to consult on that, draft a plan and have regards to any responses, publish it and come to Parliament with it. It's not holding the rest of the bill back, it's not wrecking the rest of the bill, but it's an important addition to the bill. If it's really about firework safety, then let's put it on the bill, and let's put that on the ministers of this Government and future Governments to make sure that they are on top of this. I share Mr Greene's views on the importance of firework safety, and, as was debated during stage 2 when Mr Greene lodged a similar amendment, much of what is included in the amendment reflects what was proposed by the British Fireworks Association's 10-point plan. I've said on a number of occasions I welcome much of the plan and the good progress being made in a number of areas highlighted within it. Mr Greene stated in his remarks during stage 2 that he didn't want this work to be left to policy in future Governments, preferring to have it committed into law within the bill. However, I believe that I've already made very clear through my actions, my strong commitment to firework safety, so I don't believe that it's necessary or appropriate to use this bill to write into legislation what are already stated policy commitments and commitments that I've followed on from the already published Fireworks Action Plan from 2019. Thank you, Jamie Greene, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 85. I'm going to accept that face value and it's on the records matter for the official report that the Minister has lots of positive things to say about the industry's 10-point plan and herself has personally committed to maintaining a watchful eye. However, like the review of the entire act, which is sadly just a one-off piece of work in our endeavours to make that a continuous piece of work, it didn't succeed. That's all well and good now, but if we're creating law, we're creating law for decades, or indeed hundreds of years, we don't know what future Governments will look like, we don't know what their priorities will be, we don't know what their interests will be with regards to the fireworks industry or indeed fireworks at all. It is for that reason that it's better to be on the face of the bill. It's future proofing it, it's sensible, it's what people want to see, this is after all a bill that's meant to improve firework safety. The only reason I can think of it that the minister doesn't want is that it simply adds to the ministerial workload. That's not a reason to vote it down, that's not a reason to say that we can't do this, because everything that I've just said when I move the amendment is achievable and doable and reasonable. I give way. I have to disagree with what the member said there in the strongest possible terms. The reason I don't support this amendment is because it's repeating work that I've already done. I published the fireworks action plan in 2019, which details all the non-legislative actions that the Government and all of our partners are taking forward year after year after year. I would encourage the member to read that document. I can't wait. It might repeat work that this minister has done, but it doesn't repeat work that hasn't been done yet, and that's my point. If it's on the face of the bill, it requires the Government of the day to perform that piece of work in five years, in 10 years, in 15 years, in 20 years, in one second. It ensures that future ministers may not be as enthusiastic about fireworks safety as the current one clearly, and it's for that reason that it has to be on the face of the bill. I'm happy to give way. Thank you. The minister makes great play of work that's been done in the past, but some of the specific provisions in the amendment relate to issues that might arise, such as the illegal input of fireworks coming into Scotland as a result of the legislation. Therefore, it's obviously something that should be considered. It's the unintended consequences that we flagged all the way through this process, and I think that I've been given a good errand today. It's the unintended consequences of the bill that we don't know. We don't know about the black market. We don't know about the potential for people buying online. We know that the bill can't even regulate that market. We don't know about illegal or dangerous fireworks, which are mislabeled or come in from other markets. It's because of those don't knows that I think the annual fireworks safety plan and all the other measures in my plan are so important to be done on an on-going basis. Even if it's been done already and all that work is up today, I want to make sure that the Government in the future continue to do that work. It's because of the so many unknowns that this is a good way of future proofing the bill, and it's a good way of ensuring that whatever happens as a result of the legislation—I'm sorry to interrupt—it's a good way to ensure that whatever happens after this bill—I think that we're probably just a bit out of time, so I will finish there if Ms McNeill is okay, but I would please ask— I'm sorry to persist, but just because I'm listening to what you're saying and I'm realising that actually some evidence that the committee gave is really relevant to what you're seeing now. That is the warnings that were given by the industry, where they say that the fireworks store the unexpected locations, the licensing, the impact of the loss of trade that you referred to earlier. Whatever you think of that can certainly lead to a black market, which is more than one thing, and it's one of the unattended coincidences that does lead me to the view that it's much more important for the Government to give out big safety messages if you subscribe to that view. I don't disagree, and I think that it's because of that unknown of the black market that it's been raised so many times throughout this process that we should take cognisance of it. That's why sections B and D in my amendment relate to the Government's duty to develop and maintain a watching eye over the detection and apprehension of illegal fireworks and those coming into Scotland. It's for those reasons that I strongly will press this amendment and hope that members will support it. Thank you. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 85 in the name of Jamie Greene is, yes, 44, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 13, increasing penalties for existing firework offences. I call amendment 86 in the name of Russell Finlay, grouped with amendment 98. Russell Finlay to move amendment 86 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, now for the grand finale. I warn you all to stand well back. At stage 2, I made numerous attempts to increase the criminal penalties contained within this bill. Put simply, we sought to increase maximum prison sentences from six months to 12 months and fines from £5,000 to £10,000. We lost the argument and will not reheat them here, but what those amendments do, amendment 86 and 90, is look at the sentences contained in two pieces of existing legislation, being the two most commonly used of the nine pieces of legislation referred to by Jamie Greene in amendment 84. Amendment 89 relates to the Fireworks Act of 2003, which relates to the supply or use of fireworks. What the amendment seeks to do is raise the maximum available sentence from six months to 12 months imprisonment, while amendment 90 relates to the explosives act of 1875, specifically the throwing of fireworks in public places. Despite how old it is, the act is the most commonly used fireworks legislation today, according to what we heard from the Crown Office. For what it is worth, it is worth putting on the record, one of the recurring themes of stage 1 and stage 2 has been the difficulty the committee members have had in establishing the number and nature of cases reported to police, prosecutions, convictions and how they were disposed of. What was clear was that much of the existing legislation was not being used to its full extent, which we have already heard from Jamie Greene, and I will not rehearse that here again, but I do think that amendments 89 and 90 are helpful as they take the existing laws and amend them so that it achieves the same thing, which is to give independent sheriffs a wide and reasonable array of sentencing options. The reason those amendments make the maximum prison sentence 12 months is partly due to the Scottish Government's decision in 2009 for a presumption against short sentences of less than 12 months. So, by leaving those two other acts unamended, sheriffs will be very unlikely to pass a prison sentence, even where that might be the preferred disposal. This is a good opportunity to put that right, and I move amendments 89 and 90 in my name. Amendments 86 and 90 aim to increase the maximum penalties available for two firework-related offences, namely those committed under the Fireworks Act of 2003 and the Explosives Act of 1875. Amendment 86 would increase the maximum sentence available from 6 to 12 months for those found guilty of an offence under the Fireworks Act when related to the supply or use of fireworks in Scotland. Amendment 90 relates to the offence of throwing fireworks in public, and that is under the Explosives Act of 1875, but this is a UK-wide offence, so it would make the penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment available for those found guilty of the offence in Scotland, and that would be available as an alternative to the existing penalty of a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or as additional penalty. It would create inconsistency in the penalties available to the courts throughout the UK for what is the same offence. Consistency, transparency and proportionality across the bill and the law on fireworks is important. The maximum penalties set out in the bill were included following careful consideration of the types of offences in the bill and the levels of penalty applicable for other fireworks legislation. I will give way to the member. I find it a bit rich that you are talking about consistency with the UK. When the entire bill will do the exact opposite, it will create all sorts of potential unforeseen consequences, so it seems to be a selective application of consistency. I do not agree with the member. The member's amendment is related to existing legislation, and much of the provisions in the bill are, of course, new legislation, so I do not agree with the member on that point. Not only do I believe that the maximum penalties that are set out in this bill are proportionate and appropriate, I believe that the levels of penalty applicable within other fireworks legislation are also proportionate and appropriate. We are not aware of any specific compelling evidence that higher maximum penalties are necessary to deal with the offending behaviour in question. In fact, during the stage 1 evidence session, representatives from the fireworks industry highlighted that, in their view, maximum sentences are not routinely handed down. Mr Finlay may point to the lack of a custodial sentence option. I may be pre-empting the member's intervention there under the Explosives Act. However, the offences under this act are applicable throughout all the jurisdictions in the UK, and if a penalty of imprisonment was to be made available in Scotland only, this would make the penalties across the UK very inconsistent. I will give way if the member wishes to come back in. No, I think that you have covered the point. So there are already sufficient custodial sentences available under the common law for a more serious incidence, and we discussed that at length at stage 2. Those that are likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment would be offences like culpable and reckless conduct, breach of the peace or common law assault. Those carry custodial sentences of up to and over 12 months in prison. I do not believe that the current penalty under the Explosives Act should not be changed for Scotland only. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. Russell Finlay to wind up a presser withdrawal amendment 86. Thank you. As I have stated in my intervention, the Government's concern about possible inconsistencies seems to be at odds with the entirety of the bill, which is going to do just that, with all sorts of potential unforeseen consequences. That is an important amendment. Both of those are important amendments. It gives the independent judiciary scope to sentence as in how they see fit. We are not imposing sentencing, we are just giving people, giving the judges and the courts that option. One thing that I would return to in respect of the minister's response is the firework industry and others scrabbled about, frankly, trying to get data on how sentencing has been applied in the disposals. It was hard to come by, short of raking through Google and local newspapers and so on, because, as the committee experienced the scarcity of data that has been a hallmark of this whole process, frankly. So I would like to move amendments in my name. Thank you. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 86 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 43, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 86. Russell Finlay, to move or not move. I call amendment 87 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 78. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. I call amendment 88 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 78. I remind members that if amendment 88 is agreed to, I can't call amendment 89 due to a preemption. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 88 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 43, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 78. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. I call amendment 48 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 8. Russell Finlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I can confirm that we are all agreed. I call amendment 49 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 2. Katie Clark, to move or not move. In the interests of time, may I ask Ms Clark if it is her intention not to move amendments 49 to 67? That's correct. Katie Clark has indicated that she will not be moving amendments 49 to 67. It would be helpful if any member who wishes to move any of the amendments from 49 to 67 could indicate now. No member has indicated that they wish to do so. I therefore intend to read out the amendment numbers and confirm that they are not moved. I will do so at a pace that would allow any member to call out at the relevant point that they wish to move the amendment. I confirm for the record that the following amendments in the name of Katie Clark are not moved. Amendments 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. That ends consideration of amendments. At this point, as members will be aware, I am required under standing orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter, that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the fireworks and pyrotechnic article Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. I am extremely happy to move, Presiding Officer. Thank you, and the question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business, and that concludes decision time, and I close this meeting.