Chamber and committees

You are right to say that—we have covered this already—industry representatives were members of the firework review group. They were full members, like all the other members. The review group decided on its remit and what evidence it would look at, and it came up with an action plan at the end of that process. The recommendations that were made form part of the bill—not all the recommendations are in it—that is in front of you. As a Government, we are working through all the recommendations.

The industry was fully involved in the process. It gave very helpful information that has been worked into the draft legislation. As I said, I met the industry a couple of weeks ago, and we had a long, full and frank discussion. Obviously, its views are different, and the conclusion that it draws is that it would have liked things to have gone differently. However, the industry was fully involved from the start of the process. Some of its views have been taken on board; others have not.

There were probably members of the review group who—this happens in a lot of similar situations—would have liked the measures to go even further. In this case, that would be further measures on public safety, animal welfare and so on. The industry was perhaps more on the side of wanting to maintain the status quo.

I suggest to the committee that we have ended up somewhere in the middle, with a view to creating a bill that responds to what the public want. At the beginning of the meeting, I set out clearly that there is a strong desire from the public to change the way in which we sell and use fireworks, and that the measures in the bill have a lot of support, of which we must be cognisant.

We looked very carefully at the issue of unintended consequences through three different lenses, which we have spoken about. There is not a lot of data, but we used the data that we could find to inform the issue. That comes back to our exchanges with other members of the committee about ensuring that the licence system is easy to use and is not too expensive, so that we do not create barriers to people buying fireworks.

We have accepted that a very small number of firework suppliers might be adversely impacted by the provisions of the bill. We have said that, if that is the case, we will set up a compensation scheme for them.

There were about five questions there, convener.

I am quite confident, because it works with other controlled goods. People do apply for licences. I will ask Elinor Findlay to give us more data about Northern Ireland in a moment.

The key thing is to make the scheme as simple as possible and not too expensive, so that people can apply for and get a licence quickly and easily. We need to ensure a level of awareness, so that people know that they must have a licence. We have to do really good work on our public campaigns so that we get that message out and people know what they have to do when the law changes.

There is often a question whether people will change their behaviour when we change the law. It can feel strange. I am old enough to remember when kids sat in the back of cars with no car seats and nobody wore seat belts. When I was small, it would not have occurred to someone to get into a car and put a seatbelt on. No one would have asked them to do that. It was not normal. The law changed and there were some really good public awareness-raising campaigns. I can think of some of the lines in the adverts. We do not think twice now. We get in the car and just put our seatbelt on. People get used to it. I am confident.

We all accept that legislation in itself will not fix all the problems. Through the work of the review group and the work that the Government has done, we have tried to find something that will go some way towards addressing all the concerns. That includes concerns about misuse and the concerns that a lot of people have told the committee about regarding the distress that is caused to animals or is felt by neurodivergent people. That distress is caused by legitimate firework use that happens sporadically in their neighbourhoods. The scheme also addresses safety concerns about people being injured. We have tried to do that in a balanced and proportionate way.

I have explained that some parts of the scheme are slightly more complicated than they might have been if we had a different set-up, but I am confident that we can make it as simple as possible for people to apply for a licence and I hope that they will do so. I do not want it to be a barrier for people who are using fireworks legitimately and safely. I want them still to be able to buy fireworks from a local shop and enjoy them with their families.

I think that we have that.

The financial memorandum, which has been provided to the committee, notes that we did a financial modelling exercise on that. We modelled fees of £20, £30 and £50 for a five-year licence. We looked at those amounts because we took into account similar licensing schemes that are already operating in Scotland, particularly the air weapons licensing scheme. We will undertake a further consultation on that, if Parliament agrees to the legislation, and go on to seek views on an appropriate level of fee.

The fees for licences in Northern Ireland are significantly higher. You make an important point—the cost must not act as a barrier to people. Nevertheless, if a community group wanted to put on a firework display, I would imagine that that would involve fairly significant costs, and in that context, potentially paying £30 for a five-year licence might not seem disproportionate.

I am sure that the committee will have heard this point being made really strongly in evidence, too, but in the consultations in 2019 and 2021, we heard repeated evidence about the disturbance caused to people by what we would characterise as more unpredictable use of fireworks, which led to the perception that periods of firework use had become a lot more prolonged than they used to be.

When I visited the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals a couple of weeks ago, it suggested that knowing when fireworks are going to be used allows pet owners in particular, but anyone who has issues in this area, including neurodivergent people, to undertake whatever mitigation might be needed. Those with neurodivergent conditions could plan to be somewhere else, for example, and people with pets that get seriously disturbed by fireworks could seek veterinary advice ahead of their use. I strongly feel that more predictability of use will benefit everybody.

The review group commissioned analytical work on the issue and looked at the international evidence that I have already mentioned. Something similar has been introduced in parts of Australia and New Zealand, but Elinor Findlay can say more about that and the effects that those measures have had.

I think I mentioned earlier that we consulted all the faith groups, and we feel that we captured all the dates that have religious significance and on which fireworks are traditionally used as part of the celebrations.

The days that we have set out broadly align with the existing dates. We are quite confident that that does not fall foul of any legislation.

Natalie Stewart might want to add to that.

The way that I look at it is that we are responding to a public safety issue. Over the past few years, we have worked with stakeholders to develop the right provision. We need a provision that is workable, and we think that the provision in the bill is workable. As a minister, it is my job to use the least intrusive legislation that is possible to achieve the public safety objective. As we have said, Police Scotland was aware that the provision was to be included in the bill. I think that it is workable. However, the fact that Police Scotland has raised concerns means that we can continue to work with it to make sure that we get the provision right.

My view is that the approach that we are taking is a proportionate response. I hope that Parliament will agree, but it is for the committee to decide whether what is in the bill treads the line of responding to the issue and meeting the objective in the least intrusive way.

Yes. We greatly value the input from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation on these matters. They have played an important role in developing the bill. The evidence that we have received from Police Scotland is that the provision as drafted is workable but, as we have said, we are happy to listen to the committee’s views on whether it strikes the appropriate balance.

We did a review of the evidence and published a lot of the information that Russell Findlay is talking about. I will ask Elinor Findlay to give the committee a bit more detail on that in a moment.

A lot of enforcement activity goes on, specifically in the run-up to bonfire night. As we know, that is the busiest time of year for the emergency services, which do an immense amount of preventative work, as do our partners. We all recognise that there is an issue once fireworks get into the wrong hands, and we potentially need to look at that. However, I am quite clear that a lot of enforcement activity is already being undertaken.

I ask Elinor Findlay, who has, no doubt, now had time to find that information, to give us a bit more detail.