Chamber and committees

Can you give me a moment? I do not have that information in front of me, so I will have to look it up.

Will the member take an intervention?

The licensing scheme is designed to be used by individuals. The member is therefore correct: the individual would apply for a licence, not the community group, and in that case they would be responsible only for use of fireworks. Some wider issues about organised displays have been raised, but they do not fall within the scope of the bill; instead, such displays are covered by a public entertainment licence and would potentially include public liability insurance. Just to clarify, I point out that an individual would be responsible for only the fireworks element of a display, not the wider display itself.

It is unclear how amendment 68 would work in practice. It does not enable a licence to be applied for or used differently than is currently drafted; the licence is still held solely on an individual basis. I am concerned that if the amendment were accepted, it could be perceived that, because a licence had been granted to a person on behalf of a community group or charity, everyone connected to that group or charity would be permitted to use it. I wonder whether the member will take that point on board, because it would be at odds with the system’s aims of ensuring that everyone who is permitted to purchase and use fireworks in Scotland knows how to do so safely and lawfully, having completed the mandatory training course. I am concerned that the amendment could create a situation in which members of such groups inadvertently commit an offence by using a licence that has been granted on behalf of a community group to a person.

Again, I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendment 68, but for the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support it and ask committee members not to support it, either.

I do not consider that the amendments that Mr Greene has lodged would make necessary changes. As an example, amendment 75 would have no practical effect, because the 2014 act already applies and will already have to be complied with. For the reasons that I have given, I do not support Mr Greene’s amendments and I ask him not to move them.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Amendments 48 and 72 to 74 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Fireworks training course

Amendments 75 and 49 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9—Grant of fireworks licence

We have heard Mr Greene speak about raising the minimum age to apply for a licence and about seeking to add a provision to enable a fireworks licence to be granted to an individual on behalf of a community group or charity.

With regard to the minimum age, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 make it an offence to make fireworks available on the market to anyone under 18 years old. If the amendment were accepted, the legal age to purchase fireworks would remain at 18 while the age that someone could apply for a licence to be able to lawfully possess and use fireworks in Scotland would be 21.

I disagree with Mr Findlay—I think that there are comparable age-restricted products in licensing schemes in Scotland, such as the scheme for air weapons, which align the permitted age to purchase the product with the minimum age for licensing.

The Scottish Government is of the view that 18 is an age at which most persons are able to assume the full rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Denying persons aged 18 to 21 the right to apply for a licence to possess and use fireworks, when it is deemed to be appropriate for them to possess and use other goods that require similar levels of maturity, could undermine—and possibly discredit—the fireworks licensing system.

That could also discourage compliance with the law—a point that was made, I think, by Rona Mackay. It could also remove the opportunity for better training and education in safe, lawful and appropriate possession and use of fireworks, as per the mandatory training course, which is the point that Fulton MacGregor made. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind it, I cannot support amendment 67.

Amendment 68 seeks to include a specific provision enabling a person to apply for a licence on behalf of a community group or charity. There were no calls during stage 1 from community groups, or similar organisations, to include additional provisions within the licensing system to enable a licence to be applied for on behalf of that type of group.

In fact, the bill has been drafted to include exemptions to enable community displays to continue to take place. There is nothing to stop a member of any such group applying for a fireworks licence, should they wish to do so. That provision in relation to community groups is set out in section 4(3), which states that a person with a fireworks licence can “purchase ... possess or use” fireworks on behalf of their own group or, indeed, another group.

The Scottish Government takes extremely seriously any concerns that are raised about Police Scotland, whether they are raised by the public or by officers. When things go wrong and mistakes are made, the police must be held to account, lessons must be learned and improvements must be made.

The findings of the employment tribunal clearly demonstrate that Ms Malone’s experiences were wholly unacceptable, which has been fully recognised by the chief constable. He has apologised to the claimant, making it clear that misogyny, sexism and discrimination of any kind are deplorable and have no place in society or policing, and emphasising his personal commitment to leading change in policing in Scotland.

I thank Daniel Johnson for raising his personal experience with Police Scotland in reporting an incident such as this. I would expect the chief constable to reflect carefully on what Daniel Johnson has said in the chamber today.

On the substance of the question, in the days after the judgment was issued, the chief constable made the commitment to commission an external police service to carry out an independent review of this particular employment tribunal decision and to make recommendations on performance, culture or conduct that will require action by Police Scotland. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is finalising that work.

Police Scotland has recognised that improvements are needed, and it has established a strategic oversight board to push forward the progress that is needed on equality and diversity in policing.

Many of the things that Daniel Johnson has just mentioned are under consideration by the Government. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans to respond in detail to the points that Daniel Johnson has raised.

The Angiolini review was an action that the Scottish Government took—in 2018, admittedly—to review police complaints handling, investigations and misconduct in Scotland, recognising that there was a potential issue in that regard. The Scottish Government accepted the majority of the recommendations, and we will shortly consult on legislative proposals with a view to delivering new laws to improve transparency and further strengthen public confidence in the police. We will consult on areas such as the duty of candour and co-operation, gross misconduct proceedings and adopting barred and advisory lists to strengthen Police Scotland’s vetting processes. Those measures would aim to ensure that anyone who did not meet the required high standards would not be able to continue working in policing.

I note Daniel Johnson’s comments about the implementation of the Angiolini review recommendations, although I gently note that it has been less than six months since the latest thematic report. A significant amount of work has been under way on implementation, with 34 of the recommendations having been implemented to date.

In 2018, we commissioned Dame Elish Angiolini to review police complaints handling investigations and misconduct in Scotland. Her recommendations provide a strong platform from which to drive forward meaningful improvement in collaboration with our partners across the policing sector in Scotland.

We will soon consult on further legislative proposals, with a view to delivering new laws that will improve transparency and further strengthen confidence in the police. Those measures will aim to ensure that anyone who does not meet the high standards that are required will not be able to continue working in policing.

It is my understanding that no NDA was used in the final settlement of the case that we are discussing. I would also say that the use of NDAs is part of United Kingdom employment law and that there are some legitimate uses for NDAs, but they should not be used to cover up discriminatory behaviour, misconduct or anything of that nature.

The chief constable has responded to this particular case by apologising to the claimant, making it clear that sexism and discrimination have no place in policing and making a personal commitment to lead change in policing in Scotland.

I think we would all agree that the majority of police officers work hard to protect our communities. However, the member is right that, when things go wrong, as they have done in this case, we must have robust and transparent mechanisms in place to investigate complaints. A great deal of work has already been done—I have responded to Daniel Johnson regarding the Angiolini review—but more must be done. The service has accepted that. We will keep Parliament informed of the work done and progress made.