Chamber and committees

I am not going to press amendment 1, but I will come back at stage 3 to debate the matter again, because I am looking for some comfort—any comfort—from the Government around running costs. There is an issue: if the consultation showed that the running costs would reach a level that none of us would be happy with, what would we do then? I hope that we would at least agree that it would undermine people’s desire to be part of a licensing scheme, whatever we might think of that scheme.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendment 47 not moved.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Applying for fireworks licence: mandatory requirements

On a point of order, convener. I seek clarification from the clerks. Does the convener not normally have to say how they intend to use their casting vote, so that we know that? I thought that there was a convention on that, so that members know what to expect. In meetings of the Parliament, the Presiding Officer votes for the status quo.

Thank you; that is helpful.

Amendment 46, in the name of Katy Clark, is a substantial amendment and creates a substantial debate. As I have said, I am concerned about whether the public will understand all the complexities that are involved in remaining within the law, as there are so many different offences.

I am concerned about the lack of detail around the nature of the licensing scheme. I welcome the helpful letter that the minister sent to the committee, which runs through how it will work. It is important to point out that, by supporting amendment 46, we would simply be saying that the Government should come back with firm proposals about how the scheme would look and not necessarily that the scheme should be taken out of the bill altogether. As Katy Clark said, it would still leave firework control zones, and it would still be against the law to set off fireworks within the 57 days specified in the bill.

My first concern, which I expressed in the debate on the previous group, is whether the legislation will be used by prosecutors. My second concern is whether it will be well understood. As Katy Clark said, aspects of the offences and the current law deal with the misuse of fireworks, whereas the aim of the licensing scheme is, as the Government says, to create a culture in which people understand that the use of fireworks needs to be regulated.

I have lodged an amendment—to be debated down the line—on the affordability of the licence, which is an issue that the committee raised. It would have made sense for the Government to have given the committee specific proposals on the scheme for our consideration.

I am not convinced that the Government’s assessment of the black market issue is necessarily right. I have to confess that I was concerned when I heard the industry’s presentation to the committee, which is still in my mind. If we get this wrong, I would hate it if ordinary people, who were trying to conform to the provisions on the licensing scheme and the days on which they can buy and set off fireworks, were penalised when they find that it is easier to get fireworks elsewhere. There is no doubt in my mind—and as the slide that we have seen tells us—that there will be an issue with people exploiting the situation if it is difficult to lawfully set off fireworks. For that reason, I am sympathetic to amendments 46 and 61.

Lastly, I tend to agree with Katy Clark on amendment 60. I am still not clear why we would need to use the language

“unless explicitly exempt under schedule 1”.

My only objection is that “without reasonable excuse” is the term that is normally used. Therefore, there is a question mark over amendment 60.

I thank Jamie Greene for lodging amendments 67 and 68, because it is important that we debate the issues.

On amendment 68, as I understand it, the licensing scheme is aimed at individuals. I think that it is aimed at families, social gatherings and people having displays in their back gardens. As the minister said, it is about getting people to realise that, in organising a fireworks display, even at that level, they need to plan. The amendment would widen the scope of the scheme, because an individual could apply for a licence on behalf of a community group.

The first issue that I want to raise is whether that would slightly confuse the purpose of the licensing scheme. That is notwithstanding the fact that I agree with Katy Clark and Jamie Greene that we need to sort out any barriers, financial or otherwise, for community groups in organising displays, where that is desirable. However, I wonder what there is in the bill as it stands that would prevent an individual from applying for a licence and using it for a community purpose. Does the bill already cover that?

Jamie Greene mentioned the issue of liability. As the bill is constructed at the moment, and based on an ordinary understanding, the individual who held the licence would be responsible, even though they held it on behalf of a community group. It would be the same philosophy for anyone. There might be difficulty in sorting that out. If I was to support amendment 68, I would want us to be clear that the licensing scheme is for individuals, but that there is something else for organised displays involving community groups.

It is important and valid to have a debate on the minimum age. I have never subscribed to the view that there should be a minimum age for every purpose. Some people have argued that, because people can do certain things at 16, they should be able to do other things. That is a nonsense argument because, in other parts of the legislation, it is appropriate to have a minimum age of 17 or 18. Of course, we have signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which uses the age of 18. Amendment 67 would take the age beyond that.

If the amendment is intended to highlight how dangerous fireworks are and that there is a concern for those aged under 21, I would be sympathetic to that. I would not support something that is aimed at criminalising people in that age group because we think that they are more likely to cause issues. It depends on the intention behind the amendment. However, as Police Scotland raised the issue, it is perfectly legitimate to have the debate.

I agree with all that, but I have two concerns. The first is that, as I understand it, the scheme—although it is flawed—was designed to deal with individuals and not community groups. Perhaps the minister could confirm whether there is anything in the bill that would prevent an individual from applying on behalf of a community group, which is what Jamie Greene’s amendment is proposing. I do not think that there is anything in the bill to prevent that, but that was not the purpose of the scheme.

Although I agree that it is all a bit of a mess, I am not sure that I would be happy to legislate to allow community groups to nominate an individual under the proposed scheme, because they are likely to buy more fireworks because they are for a public display.

I agree that the issue has not been addressed, but do you think that amendment 68 might negate the main purpose of the scheme, albeit that the scheme is flawed?

The cost of the licence was the subject of considerable questioning and debate at stage 1. A number of members were concerned about what the licence fee would be, and I acknowledge that the Government is alive to the issue.

Some people cannot afford to pay even £20 for a licence, but there is agreement that there is a big difference between £20 and £50. I want to probe that issue, as I think that there should be an upper limit in the bill. I have suggested that it should be £25. I admit that the amount is arbitrary, but I thought that going above £25 would make the licence unaffordable for a lot of people.

It concerns me that the scheme is designed to pay for itself yet the committee has no indication of what that looks like, as we do not know how onerous the scheme is. Will it be a tick-box or a video training exercise? That means we cannot imagine what the cost to the Government of running the scheme will be, and we cannot see how it will pay for itself.

For many families who can just about afford to buy fireworks, the additional cost of a licence could be prohibitive. It gives me serious cause for concern that there is nothing in the bill about that. If the principle is to make people think and plan, why should there be a fee at all?

The whole idea is going to fail if we do not get this right, so I want to probe the issue. I will not vote to pass the bill at stage 3 without some serious commitment from the Government to addressing that question.

Amendment 69 seems to be worded better than my amendment in referring to the rate of inflation, so I will be happy to support it if it is moved.

I move amendment 1.

I saw amendment 1 as a probing amendment, and I imagined all the arguments against it. I acknowledge that we would not necessarily want to put it in the bill, and I can see the problems with doing that.

However, I have to confess that the term “running costs” alarms me. The minister is still asking the committee and the Parliament to vote for a bill when we do not know what those running costs will be. The minister does not know what the consultation will bring up. I wonder what ministers would do if the running costs turned out to mean that the fee would be set at £30 or £35, which would be between £20 and the upper limit of £50. Have you thought about that, minister? Where would that leave us?

I would not want to stand in the way of the Government running a consultation, but it concerns me that I would have to act in good faith, because we will not know the result until after we have passed the bill and the Government has run the consultation. What if the running costs of the scheme meant that the fee would be higher than £25? I cannot imagine that ministers would be happy with that. Would you then take the view that you might have to run the scheme at a loss? I would be grateful if you would answer that question, minister.

I endorse what you have said. The visit was fascinating, and I learned a great deal from it. I wrote to the convener, Audrey Nicoll, with three points that came out of the group discussion, which I think the committee should consider further. I can remember two of them. One was about prescriptions not being available on a prisoner’s release. For people who need drugs immediately, that almost puts them back in jail, because they cannot get the drugs on time.

The second point related to Friday release, which has always been an issue. Why can we not do something to ensure that people have the services that they need? We could explore whether there is another way round that issue.

I might need someone to remind me what the third issue was. Oh, I remember what it was. It related to eligibility for work.

It seems that there are commonsense things that we could do to address those issues. We should write to the minister about them to see whether there is a way forward.

Are there any gaps that need to be plugged that will not be addressed by the Online Safety Bill? Some social media companies such as TikTok, which is a big one for younger kids, are meant to have age restrictions, but I am fully aware that it is much harder to catch that when there is live streaming and ways that people can be ingenious around that. As a layperson, it strikes me that those companies are not doing enough, so do we need more laws? I appreciate that TikTok is not a UK-based company, so there would need to be international collaboration.

I have two questions. I want to explore what I have just heard about police officers being the first responders and, in effect, the last resort. What is the answer to that? I also want to ask about the resource impact.

The testimony that the federation has submitted to the committee is very useful but very difficult to read. It amplifies what we have perhaps always known, which is that the police service is the only service that cannot walk away. As a politician, I do not think that that is recognised enough and, however we have arrived at holding this round-table session, it is a crucial issue.

On the part of Professor Heyman’s submission about section 297 of the 2003 act, I do not understand why the police would even be involved when there has been no self-harm and no offence has been committed. Of course, I understand that police officers need to step in if there is harm involved. We have heard from David Hamilton about the long wait times for people to be seen by healthcare staff. It seems as though every other service can say, “We can’t take you,” but the police cannot. It is fundamental that we resolve that.

ACC Hawkins has suggested that multi-agency discussion seems likely, but we have heard that 101 services are now almost exclusively operated by the police. Is such discussion going to lead anywhere? From what I have heard, we need to make specific provision for the police not to always be the service of last resort. I do not know enough about mental health services to know what duties need to be imposed on them. Why should mental health services be able to walk away from a person who is at risk, yet the police cannot?

My question is for ACC Hawkins in the first instance. Do you not feel that, even if there is multi-agency discussion, the police will still be left as the last resort and we will get no further forward?