Chamber and committees

I thank Ms McNeill for the time that she spent discussing amendment 9 with me a few weeks ago, in advance of stage 2. Her commitment to empowering local communities is to be admired. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind her amendment, I think that there are issues with it.

Amendment 9 seeks to provide a formal process for community groups to instigate consideration of a firework control zone, and to impose a duty on local authorities to respond to such groups. Sections 30 and 31 of the bill enable the Scottish ministers to make further regulations about firework control zones and to issue guidance that local authorities must have regard to. I believe that that guidance, which will be co-designed with local authorities, is a more appropriate route than amendment 9 is for setting out further detail on the procedures for control zones, including procedures for involving local communities.

Amendment 9 could result in a considerable resource burden being put on local authorities. It makes no provision for a limit on the number of times that the same group of relevant people could make a request and it does not say whether a local authority could decline a representation if it had carried out a consultation recently.

With firework control zones, it is intended that more than antisocial behaviour will be taken into account. For example, it will be possible for the impact of noise—even noise that results from responsible use—and the proximity of vulnerable populations to a designated zone, which Katy Clark addressed in the debate on a previous group, to be taken into account.

For those reasons, unfortunately, I cannot support amendment 9.

I thank the member for that question. She raises some important points, and I am very sympathetic to the intention behind the question.

On the recent incidents at the Sandyford clinic, I can confirm that Police Scotland was called on both occasions on which protests took place. The police asked the protesters to stop using voice amplification devices and took formal statements from members of staff.

Of course, Police Scotland has available to it existing powers to deal with any disorder or criminality that arises from such protests. The Scottish Government has made it clear that the intimidation and harassment of women as they access healthcare is completely unacceptable. Scottish Government officials have already made Police Scotland aware of concerns that have been raised with them and, in particular, the concerning reports about the protests at the Sandyford clinic. I know that Police Scotland has taken statements with regard to what went on there.

The Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport, Maree Todd, has convened a working group, with partners such as COSLA, Police Scotland and affected councils and health boards, to look at how to address vigils and protests that take place outside abortion clinics. I commit to keeping the member updated on progress.

Commercial sexual exploitation is recognised as a form of gendered violence within “Equally Safe: Scotland’s strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls”. As part of the delivery of the strategy, the Scottish Government supports a range of measures, including the provision of more than £400,000 through the delivering equally safe fund to address commercial sexual exploitation and support people who are affected. In addition, our victim-centred approach fund provides the TARA—trafficking awareness-raising alliance—project with £622,000 to support women who are trafficked for that purpose.

We are also progressing the programme for government commitment

“to develop a model for Scotland which effectively tackles and challenges men’s demand for prostitution.”

The cabinet secretary and I are kept up to date on the discussions held in the buffer zones working group, which is chaired by the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport. We will make the chief constable aware of issues that have been raised when that group next meets.

The rights to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression are rights that we are committed to uphold, but they should never be used to promote hatred or justify intimidating or otherwise criminal behaviour.

Operational policing decisions are a matter for Police Scotland, as is decision-making on appropriate action to safeguard public safety.

I thank the member for raising a very important issue. The Scottish Government has a multi-agency group that is continuing to make as much progress as possible on the topic of commercial sexual exploitation because, as the member has outlined, there are some such activities going on at the moment.

I say to the member that I am committed to progressing work on this agenda. As she will know, much work is being done behind the scenes here. Unfortunately, I am not able to tell her today what the timeframe is on the issue that she has raised, but I commit to keeping her updated on that work.

My ministerial colleagues and I are always prepared to keep the law under review. Indeed, that willingness to review the law led us to introduce the bill.

The bill reflects a period of significant consultation and engagement with the public and stakeholders, alongside careful consideration of the evidence available, a key component of which was examining the existing legislation. The conclusions of the firework review group and the misuse of pyrotechnics stakeholder discussions identified gaps and a need for primary legislation.

Just to be clear, the firework review group reviewed the existing legislation, and the bill that you have in front of you is based on its programme of work and its evidence gathering. Further, amendment 59 would require a review of gaps in existing legislation or unnecessary legislation, not enforcement. Therefore, I consider that further review before commencement is not necessary and that, in fact, by delaying the commencement of these necessary provisions, the amendment would do a disservice to those stakeholders and members of the general public who have made their views on the need for legislative change clear. I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 59, and, should he do so, I ask the committee not to support it.

The member is partly right, in that we cannot regulate behaviour outside of Scotland. That is why we used the term “supply” in drafting the legislation, so that it covers all parts of the process that are not at the point of purchase. Only specialist couriers can deliver fireworks, and the fireworks will be marked as explosives so that they cannot be delivered by normal couriers.

Yes. Obviously, there are a number of ways in which you could approach that. As we know, the firework review group came up with a set of recommendations. The licensing scheme is a key part of the bill, but it is a key part of a wider set of provisions. As Pauline McNeill mentioned, there are other provisions in the bill to deal with certain types of behaviour.

The idea behind the licensing scheme is to make the purchase of fireworks a planned event and to move away from the situation where people can buy fireworks spontaneously without having to understand how to use them, where to use them, how to use them safely and so on. If the bill is passed and people have to apply for a licence, they will have to learn about the safe and lawful use of fireworks before they are able to use them. Therefore, I consider the licensing scheme to be a key part of the set of provisions.

It is both. There is a requirement on suppliers to take reasonable steps to establish whether the purchaser has a licence or is exempt. There is also a duty on the person purchasing to have a licence in order to comply with the law. That will also apply to delivery drivers, which covers the point that Russell Findlay and others made about online sales.

No. Training is just a part of the whole policy intent, as I think I have outlined in my responses. I take the member’s point, but if you said that you would just like people to be trained before they use a firework, without a licence and mandatory training, you would be reducing it to some sort of voluntary system—[Interruption.] Is that what you were implying?