Chamber and committees

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

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

I will take Mr MacGregor first and then the minister.

Indiscriminate use will still happen. It is inevitable that there will still be people who let off fireworks outwith permitted periods. The big point is the enforcement of that.

Let us say that somebody hears fireworks going off on a day that is clearly not a religious festival or permitted day and that the fireworks last a maximum of one minute or usually much less. If they phone the police, it takes about 33 seconds to get through to 999 but, if they phone 101, it is probably a couple of minutes. By that point, it is done and dusted. Would the police get into their car, drive to the street and work out who on earth set off the fireworks? The reality is that we do not know and I very much doubt it. The indiscriminate use will still continue. With regard to whether we agree that a licensing scheme could be a helpful solution to the problem, people who are going to misuse fireworks will do so, whether or not they have a licence. They are more likely not to have a licence, but that is not going to stop them sourcing and using fireworks.

Fulton MacGregor makes a fair point. However, I still note that our inboxes are flooded in the periods around those dates on which firework use will still be permitted. The bill does not solve the fundamental problem of the misuse and antisocial behaviour that are blighting communities, which we all want to resolve.

The minister wanted to intervene on me, so I am happy to give way.

I am pleased that the minister is confident of such, but I think that that itself adds another layer to the confusion that the public will face.

We have been working on the bill for a number of months and scrutinising it line by line. This year, Diwali is on 24 October. In a community where there is problematic behaviour with fireworks, if someone hears a firework going off on 24 October, are they going to say to themselves, “Oh well, it’s Diwali—it’s okay; there’s not a problem there”? Alternatively, are they going to call the police? If so, are the police going to dispatch someone or not, given that it is a permitted day? Will the police think, “Oh no—this is probably problematic behaviour”?

Whether or not the person using the fireworks has a licence, and whether they bought the fireworks from a retailer or illicitly from white van man, is irrelevant. The problematic behaviour is what lies at the root cause of many of the complaints around usage.

My other point is a concern that, by having permitted days, we will simply be creating firework days. If someone wants to let off fireworks on 24 October, whether or not they are celebrating Diwali, the law says that they can do so on that day, and if they have stockpiled fireworks, they will do it.

There is also a valid point around adverse weather conditions that we have not discussed. It is dangerous to let off fireworks in adverse weather. If someone gets to the last permitted date in the range of permitted dates, so it is the last day on which they are able to use their fireworks, on which they may have spent quite a lot of money, are they going to put them back in the garage or let them off anyway? That could create a safety issue.

I am not querying—

Arguably, the safest way to dispose of fireworks is to let them off. However, if the law does not permit people to do so, we are creating a problem which, currently, does not exist.

I am happy to leave it there.

I want to withdraw amendment 98 but it is a technical, consequential amendment of the substantive amendment, which comes later, so although I am withdrawing amendment 98, I may move a future substantive amendment, if that makes sense.

Let us ask them. This is stage 2; the bill has not yet been passed. If retailers with a vested interest who sell only fireworks and do so all year round want to talk to the committee, I encourage them to do so. The question is simple: what effect will the bill have on your business? If the answer is, “Yes, you’re right, we can move online”, “We can reduce operating costs by shutting a store”, or “We might need less compensation because we are able to operate on a different model”, that is fine, and I am sure that the Government will take heed of that and compensate appropriately. If the answer is, “No, there is no way we can operate and we will shut down”, the Government will need to react to that. We will not know until we ask them, which is precisely what I am trying to do by lodging amendments 132 and 133.

I welcome the minister’s comments that the intention is that much of what the amendment provides will form part of everyday Government policy. However, the problem is that Governments change, so having those measures in the bill would be helpful because it would ensure that, for as long as the bill remained law, any future Government would have a requirement to produce a firework safety plan, rather than it being taken for granted that that would be front and centre of future Governments’ plans. That is the point of putting it in the bill and not just leaving it to policy and manifestos. That was the intention behind amendment 127, which I will press.

Members will be very pleased to know that this is the last group. It is a single amendment but an important one. I am pleased that it is the last amendment that we are debating because some of the most shocking evidence that we took was from our blue-light services and front-line emergency service workers who, for many years, have been repeatedly and openly the targets of assaults, violence and abuse in which fireworks are used as weapons.

I appreciate that there is existing legislation to deal with that, but our stage 1 report asked the Government to go a little bit further. Although we acknowledged that there is legislation to deal with such behaviour, we included wording that is not reflected in any of the Government’s amendments. We said:

“In order to deal with the impact that dangerous firework use has on emergency workers, the Committee asks the Scottish Government to consider tougher punishments for those who use fireworks to assault emergency workers.”

That was the committee’s collective view and my amendment seeks to implement that.

The approach that I have taken is to amend the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, to introduce an aggravator for those who assault emergency workers specifically using fireworks or pyrotechnic articles. The effect would be to allow judges the opportunity to impose harsher punishments on those who attack emergency services workers specifically using fireworks or pyrotechnics.

I am pretty sure that we all agree that we do not condone attacks on emergency services workers. We understand that those can be dealt with in the eyes of the law but, if we are going to stay true to our word, in relation to the Government considering the imposition of tougher punishments on those who assault emergency services workers, this would be one way to do it.

Last year, on bonfire night, eight fire crews—that means multiple individuals—and several police officers were attacked and injured. Three firefighters were also injured. Such attacks happen every year—last year, one of the firefighters required hospital treatment. The missiles included not just fireworks but golf clubs and other items. However, this legislation is about the misuse of fireworks.

When the committee reached that conclusion at stage 1, we considered a number of submissions with detailed and alarming anecdotes about fireworks specifically having been used as weapons, particularly around football matches, where it affects not just the individuals but, for example, police officers on horseback as well. It is particularly intimidating in those instances.

I think that our emergency services workers deserve nothing less than what I have suggested. I worked with the legislation team on the best way to approach this and we felt that amending the 2005 act to include an aggravation in relation to the use of fireworks was the best way to go about it.

The minister has the benefit of solicitors who may disagree. I am hoping that the minister will agree to the principle of adding the aggravation. However, if my proposal does not meet the objective and the minister could suggest a better way of doing it in relation to amending the statute books, I would be very open to that, because I think that we all want the same result. I am keen to hear what other members and the minister have to say.

I move amendment 128.