Chamber and committees

The point of the licence might be to require people to go through some hoops, whether that is training or an online course, as is the case with other things. However, no online course is required in order to be allowed to buy kitchen knives, yet they are hugely dangerous, and no online course is required in order to be allowed to buy alcohol, yet it is a problem in society and causes antisocial behaviour. Why is the licence on its own not enough? Why do we have to go to the point of, in effect, closing down the industry in order to tackle the problem?

My only point is the obvious one, which is that I am concerned that the instrument is subject to the negative procedure. The issue was raised previously. The only way to deal with instruments under that procedure is to annul them in the chamber rather than to agree to them proactively as a committee, as is the case with the affirmative procedure. I want to feed back to the Government that, in the future, such sweeping regulations, on which we have taken a bit of evidence—not all positive—should be dealt with via other forms of legislation or the affirmative procedure. That should be the case at the end of this extension period.

It is worth noting that many members, and the people to whom we spoke during evidence sessions, raised a number of valid concerns about some of the provisions. Although we understand the reason for the extension to September 2022—all of us are willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, given the circumstances that we are in—we do so with those reservations, specifically around the elongation of the timescale and the very restrictive nature of the regulations.

We, as a party, are happy to support the regulations, but we do so reluctantly, and we are reluctant about the method by which we are asked to do it.

Good morning. Do not worry, Mr Hay: we have all had to deal with that crossing over the years, whether on the old bridge or the new one.

I want to get a feel for the firework review group, because it played an integral part in the formation of the bill that we are analysing as a committee. Essentially, I want to get a feel from you as to how we have ended up where we are with the proposals.

First, could you talk a little about the volume of recommendations that you came up with? Specifically, were the decisions on them that were reached by the review group unanimous? If not, which recommendations were perhaps more controversial, or were decided on by majority rather than unanimously? If they were decided by majority, by how much did they pass, and who dissented from those specific recommendations?

I will maybe come back in later. Thank you, convener.

I have a final question. I am absolutely playing devil’s advocate, because we have heard evidence about attacks on emergency services and the effect that they have on a community. Everyone acknowledges and accepts that those attacks are abhorrent, but people will question whether we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Is there a reason why we are introducing laws to restrict the purchase, sale and use of fireworks across the whole of the population when it is a minority of people who misuse and abuse them, in the same way that a minority of people misuse kitchen knives or alcohol, and third party objects are used to fuel antisocial behaviour? Are we punishing the majority because of the minority? That is a valid question that we will have to answer as the bill progresses.

Perhaps the problem here arises in the move from simple possession of a pyrotechnic to possession while

“travelling to, in the immediate vicinity of ... a designated venue ... or ... a public procession, or ... a public assembly.”

Public processions and assemblies happen in public places such as George Square or Princes Street. The fact that the term “travelling to” is so vague is perhaps part of the problem. After all, anyone could reasonably say that they were not “travelling to” a venue or procession. That would be the immediate defence; it would be argued that what was illegal was not possession of the item itself, but possessing it while “travelling to” an event. Is that the sort of vagueness that you are trying to avoid?

To be honest, I think that these questions are probably for the minister, but I get the impression that the problem that we are trying to fix is people chucking flares at football games or certain religious processions.

As no one else has a view on that, I will move on to the issue of giving flexibility to local authorities, which you mentioned.

Do you think that it would be beneficial if, outwith the sale and use periods that are defined in the bill, individuals, groups and organisations, religious or otherwise, could apply, on a local authority by local authority basis, for exceptions for specific events under the other measures in the scheme? I am thinking, for example, of the Edinburgh festival, jubilee celebrations or other events at other dates and times that may be outwith the defined periods. That might make it easier to cover the issue of people who may feel excluded because of the very specific and narrow periods that have been included in the bill. Would there be any benefit to that?

I hope that I am not taking your question, Fulton, although I have no idea what you are going to ask. I will try not to do that again.

This is a similar line of questioning to the one that I took with the previous panel of witnesses. The majority of people use fireworks safely, enjoy their use and do not purchase or use them with the intent of causing violence or harm to others or engaging in antisocial behaviour. It could be argued that we are restricting the sale, purchase and use of something because of the actions of a minority in society who do not respect the rules of normal social behaviour or the law. What would you say to that argument?

We have had evidence from people who sell fireworks—normally, they are sold in traditional family-run small businesses—who say that the best place to sell fireworks is in a controlled place such as that, because they know who their customers are. They see the customers and could check for licences, if such a scheme is put in place. They could check people’s age, identity and so on and make individual decisions whereas, if they go bust because the bill shuts down their business or restricts it to the point of making it commercially unviable, that will fuel the black market, which none of us wants. Does anyone have a view on that?

I can vouch for the fact that your dog running on to the road is the most terrifying moment of your life—it is horrific.

Rob, do you have any comments on the points that I was making?