Chamber and committees

Thank you.

You have responded to a lot of questions about licences, and I will not go over those issues again. I have one remaining question. A significant number of respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation were in favour of some kind of licensing scheme, and there were a significant number of responses to the consultation. Do you have a view on why that was? Could it have been because people do not feel that the current law is being enforced?

Rona Mackay’s point is also important. This is not just about antisocial behaviour. In most communities, noise after a certain time is a disturbance, but that is outwith the law. That may be what is influencing people. What is your view?

Is that what you are saying?

I just want to be clear. I do not want you to talk around my point, if you do not mind. Are you okay with the notion that, whatever we do here, there will potentially be more use of fireworks, if Norman Donald is correct, and that it is okay to have a framework that says that people can have fireworks all year round, albeit within certain periods, and that relies on people to be kind to their neighbours? Might we not be back where we started, if there was no way of curbing that?

Thank you. On that point, I am trying to get my head around the concept of legal and illegal fireworks. Could you tell the police the difference?

Is that really what you are saying when you talk about law-abiding Scots? Are you saying that law-abiding Scots might not be so law abiding if they had to apply for a licence?

So far, from the evidence that I have heard, we can fully understand why everybody opted for a licensing scheme and not a complete ban. As Chief Inspector Robison and others have said, we do not want to spoil people’s enjoyment. However, there are still pretty serious antisocial behaviour incidents that we want to get under control.

One of my main worries is that, so far, the system seems to be quite complex. There would be certain days and certain times when people could not use fireworks, so the public would need to be clear on that, because they are the ones on whom the police would rely to report that there had been an offence. That is one of my primary concerns.

Like Rona Mackay, as she outlined in her line of questioning, I do not favour a ban. However, I ask myself whether a ban would be easier to police, because the proposed system seems to be pretty complex. My first question is for Chief Inspector Nicola Robison. How confident are you, given the complexity of a licensing scheme, and all that has been said, that the bill would actually tackle the antisocial behaviour element of the misuse of fireworks?

That answer is helpful.

I know that some members have questions about exclusion zones, and I do not want to cross into that. However, given what you have said, it seems obvious that exclusion zones might be the only way in which the system could work, as it would not be easy to use the complex rules in the licensing scheme to control or stop antisocial behaviour.

I represent the city of Glasgow, and Pollokshields is notorious for fireworks misuse. I am not confident that all those cases are being prosecuted—reporting is another issue. Is it your understanding that that is the kind of area in which an exclusion zone might be used? If it is not, then how will we use the legislation to home in on a serious misuse of fireworks in some communities beyond 5 November?

I am interested in how easy it will be to enforce a licensing scheme, with further restrictions on sales and the types of fireworks that people can buy.

I have a question for Chief Inspector Robison. There have been many incidents of fireworks being used at celebrations of football match results and at other events. A view could be taken of whether that amounts to antisocial behaviour. Some people think that there should be a complete ban, so we must be able to make the legislation work. In order to make the scheme work, would we have to have robust reporting of use of fireworks outwith designated periods, regardless of whether that use amounted to antisocial behaviour, or would Police Scotland take the view that it would not be worth pursuing such cases?

Where I am coming from is this: in order to make the scheme work, if people are to be allowed to use fireworks on 37 days of the year, they would, in my view, have to be prosecuted for use of fireworks outwith those days. At the moment, fireworks are probably being let off illegally all the time. We have all heard them when there have been victory celebrations. That is certainly true in my city.

I am going off on a slight tangent, here. There have been responses from the public with people telling pet owners—of whom I am one—that they should just train their animals to deal with times when fireworks are being let off. Such people clearly do not know anything about what it is like to protect an animal that is frightened, or a child with autism—on whose situation we received evidence at last week’s meeting.

I take the view that letting off fireworks outwith specified periods—even if it does not amount to antisocial behaviour—should still be dealt with. Is that Police Scotland’s view?

I have a question for Stuart Murray. You said that we should consider the issue of access to justice in relation to the virtual system, and the need to have accusers and the accused person in the same room. Are there any elements of the process for which virtual proceedings would be appropriate? Would you take the same view with regard to witnesses giving evidence virtually? Would a virtual approach work for any part of the process? The Government has indicated that it wishes to go down that road, so I would welcome your comments on that.