Committee
Criminal Justice Committee 01 June 2022
01 Jun 2022 · S6 · Criminal Justice Committee
Item of business
Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Amendment 104 is connected to 14 other amendments in my name, but I will resist the temptation to be a bingo caller and rhyme them all off. Other than licensing provisions and the sale and use dates, what pretty much defines the bill is the proposal for firework control zones. A lot has been said about the confusion around licensing and the dates, but a lot can and should also be said about the confusion around the proposed firework control zones. There was significant support for “no-fireworks areas/zones”, as they were described in the public consultation, and which seem to be what people want and indeed expect. As recently as December 2020—just 18 months ago—the minister referred to those areas as “no-fireworks areas/zones” in documents on the Government website. However, members of the public, who are probably in the main still not aware of what they actually mean, might be surprised to discover that those “no-fireworks areas/zones” are now firework control zones, and that, contrary to what people seem to want and expect, the use of fireworks is not prohibited within them. The firework control zones will allow for the use of fireworks on 57 days per year, not by anyone with a licence but by private companies that can be brought in to hold displays on behalf of members of the public. Jamie Greene has talked about what he called the Pandora’s box of those 57 days, which could increase. That remains a live issue going forward. The greatest support for firework control zones came from pet owners, farmers, animal charities and those with sensory issues or conditions such as some autistic people and people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. When Rob Holland of the National Autistic Society Scotland gave evidence to the committee, I asked him whether firework control zones should actually be no-fireworks zones, as initially proposed. He said: “People might assume that there would be no fireworks in a firework control zone, but it is my understanding that there still might be fireworks within those zones.” That understanding is correct. He went on: “That could create confusion, which could in turn lead to families having to deal with added unpredictability about when fireworks would be used.”—Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 March 2022; c 38. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that firework control zones are welcome. However, I do not appreciate how they will do anything to mitigate the distress caused to animals at its facilities, given that firework use will still be permitted around those areas, albeit limited to professional displays. It is not as if there will be any predictability, other than in the designated dates. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for those who are hosting displays in such zones to notify neighbours or the likes of SSPCA facilities. 11:30 The industry has also called for the scrapping of the proposed firework control zones, but for other reasons. It has said that the minister cited overseas examples to justify their effectiveness, but in fact, those examples were about preventing the use of fireworks in public places. There has been a ban on the public use of fireworks in public places in the United Kingdom since 1876—it is the law just now. Although the minister clarified that in evidence that she gave and agreed that that was the case, that seemed to be at odds with earlier claims that we should look at places such as Munich, Berlin and Amsterdam, where zones were deemed to be a success. I will make a couple of other points. The proposed firework control zones risk creating a two-tier system of haves and have-nots. If Person A is not in a firework control zone, they can get a licence and use fireworks at home, but there will be no point in person B, who happens to live in a zone, getting a licence, as they will have no ability to legally purchase or, indeed, let off fireworks in their private garden. Such people will be penalised by virtue of having to meet the much greater cost of hiring a private company. Moreover, we know little about where the firework control zones will be and how large an area they might cover—I think that we heard evidence that they could be as big as an entire local authority area. The approach will not only create a two-tier system and penalise some people by virtue of their postcode, but risks fuelling the black market that we have already heard about. Legislation often requires compromise but, for all the reasons that I have touched on, firework control zones are a real muddle and will cause public confusion and, indeed, disappointment. On the other hand, no-firework zones give clarity. Of course, there is the issue of how such zones would be enforced, but the same issue relates to firework control zones, too. I do not expect members to agree with all of that but the fact is that, if my amendments are not agreed to, these issues will absolutely remain. I look forward to hearing the views of other members and the minister’s response. I move amendment 104.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Audrey Nicoll)
SNP
I wish you a very good morning. Welcome to the 18th meeting in 2022 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies. We have two main items...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 81, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 82 and 83.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
Good morning. We have a lot to get through today. The amendments in this small group are technical ones that seek to improve the licensing scheme, should it...
The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)
SNP
The amendments in group 11 make provisions relating to the format of a fireworks licence. In particular, they set out entitlement to a paper licence and spec...
Jamie Greene
Con
I thank the minister for that response. The reassurance that has been given, with her accepting the point, is helpful and appreciated. For that reason, I wil...
The Convener
SNP
I call Jamie Greene to move amendment 82, which has already been debated with amendment 81.
Jamie Greene
Con
Can I have clarification of the difference between withdrawing and not moving an amendment?
Seán Wixted (Clerk)
If a member is content not to move an amendment, they do not have to—it will not be debated. If an amendment is moved, it must be debated by the committee, a...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 84, in the name of Jamie Greene, is in a group on its own.
Jamie Greene
Con
Amendment 84 is quite self-explanatory—unusually for an amendment—and is based on the premise of an appeals process. It says: “The Scottish Ministers must p...
Ash Regan
Amendment 84 would require the Scottish ministers to provide information about how to appeal a decision to refuse a licence application, attach a condition t...
The Convener
SNP
Jamie, do you want to wind up or press or withdraw amendment 84?
Jamie Greene
Con
I thank the minister for the offer. I am happy to kick off the morning on a consensual note and agree to work with the minister and her team ahead of stage 3...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Against Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) MacG...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 0. Amendment 86 disagreed to. Section 15 agreed to. Section 16—False or altered licences and ...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 0. Amendment 20 agreed to. Amendment 21 moved—Ash Regan—and agreed to. Section 18, as amended...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) McNeill, Paul...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. There is an equality of votes. Therefore, as convener, I shall use my casting vote to vote a...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 90, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 56, 129 and 57.
Jamie Greene
Con
I have two amendments in this group and Colette Stevenson has the other two, which I will come on to. My two amendments are on post-legislative scrutiny, w...
Collette Stevenson (East Kilbride) (SNP)
SNP
I am pleased to propose amendments 56 and 57, having raised the issue of post-legislative scrutiny of the bill alongside my colleagues on the Criminal Justic...
Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
SNP
I support Collette Stevenson’s amendments 56 and 57 for the reasons that she has just outlined, which I will not repeat. I do not think that Jamie Greene’s ...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lab
I thank Jamie Greene and Collette Stevenson for their amendments, which are critical. They all align with the committee’s stage 1 report, in which we all exp...
Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
SNP
I speak in support of amendments 56 and 57, in the name of Collette Stevenson, which are a fair reflection of where the committee got to in its discussion of...
Ash Regan
SNP
I thank Ms Stevenson for meeting me to discuss her amendments. I welcome the detail that she has given in highlighting the importance of post-legislative scr...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
I talked about the licensing scheme, which Jamie Greene’s amendment 90 refers to.