Hansard

I thank the minister for her opening comments. I also thank all members of the Criminal Justice Committee, our clerks, and all the third sector organisations, community groups, businesses and others who have engaged in the process from the beginning up to this end point.

It has been a difficult journey, not least because of the truncated scrutiny process that we were required to go through. That cannot and should not become the norm. That is no way to make good law, and, in my view, it was unnecessary to have such a process on this occasion.

The Government has a problem on its hands that it is trying to fix. Specifically, it is trying to fix the issue of the proxy purchasing of fireworks and people giving them to minors. That could have been addressed in a different way, with more time given to scrutinise the rest of the bill’s provisions.

That brings me to the bill itself. The more I learned about fireworks and their misuse, the more confused the landscape became and, indeed, the more confusing the Government’s approach to the bill became.

As a dog owner, I know from first-hand experience the distress that fireworks cause. My little rescue dog, Astro, would testify to that were he here today. I also know that many communities have been absolutely blighted by antisocial behaviour year after year. We heard powerful testimony about that. Farmers, dog homes, accident and emergency departments, plastic surgeons, community bodies and community councils all want something to be done. The question that is posed to us, as lawmakers, is not whether we should do something, but what we should do and how we should do it.

Conservative members worked constructively and tirelessly—often late at night—in considering the bill. At stage 2, we lodged 77 amendments. I know that because I moved and spoke to practically all of them. Throughout the process, we tried to strengthen the bill by making it meaningful. We tried to force the Government to review the legislation that already exists. It is already open to the police and to prosecutors to use that legislation to combat the misuse of fireworks. We tried to increase the fines and the sentencing for the misuse of fireworks. We also tried to increase the penalties and sentencing for those who use fireworks as a weapon specifically against our emergency service workers, and I am pleased that the Government conceded on that point.

We tried to give our local councillors more autonomy in decision making on the so-called firework control zones. We tried to create genuine no-firework zones—as did other members—that would actually deliver on the promise that there would be no fireworks in communities. People told us that they wanted that, but that is not what they are getting. We tried to force the Government to come back to the Parliament with concrete proposals on what the licensing scheme might look like. The problem is that we just do not know.

What about the compensation scheme for the businesses that we will be shutting down overnight if we pass the bill? What about the firework safety plan that the Government should produce? Unusually, such a plan has buy-in from the industry; it wants further regulation in this space. All those sensible Opposition amendments were shot down by ministers at stages 2 and 3.

At stage 1, the committee’s cross-party report was one of the most critical that I have ever written or read. There was no dissent or disagreement; it was a cross-party effort. At stage 2, the votes on nearly every amendment were split 50:50, but the amendments were all voted down through the use of the convener’s casting vote. That is quite telling and important. At stage 3, the Government lodged few amendments, despite widespread concerns about the bill.

Of course, the bill contains some sensible proposals, but the question is whether it will meet its primary objectives of improving firework safety and reducing the harm that fireworks cause to society. I am not convinced that it will.

On the face of it, I can see why some people think that restricting the sale of fireworks to 37 days per year and their use to 57 days per year is a great idea. However, here is the problem: there are genuine and vocal concerns about stockpiling, the black market and the white van man scenario, and the situation could get worse, not better. The bill randomly selects certain religious festivals, but it excludes others. I have concerns that that will be challenged in the courts. Let us not forget the bizarre situation in which the law will say that, outwith a defined period, people cannot let fireworks off in their backyard to celebrate something, but if people can afford to pay a company to do that, that is fine for 365 days a year. National exemptions mean that, even in the so-called firework control zones, people might still hear fireworks going off, and there is nothing that they can do about it. It is bonkers and nonsensical.

What about the licensing scheme? Someone can be refused a licence if they have committed arson but not if they have committed an act of terror. The bill does not regulate online sales, and nor does it prevent people from crossing over the border to England for their stash. What about the fact that courier companies, not retailers, will apparently now be responsible for the checking of licences?

What about enforcement? That is what it really comes down to. Last year, there were nearly 1,000 reports of the misuse of fireworks in Scotland, but there was not one criminal conviction. I have stated that fact previously, but it is an important one. Over five years, there have been only 16 criminal convictions for firework-related offences.

As they stand, the laws are simply not being enforced, and we should remember that before we start passing new laws further restricting the use of fireworks. Are the police seriously going to respond to every call from a member of the public and turn up with blue lights flashing to see who has let off fireworks? I think that we all know the real answer to that question.

I do not have time to outline all the reasons for my grave concerns, because I have many—more than I had at stage 1. It is with sincere regret that I say to those people who are watching this and who think that the bill will be the great panacea needed to tackle problematic firework use, that it will not. It is for those reasons that Conservative members will abstain on the bill in the knowledge that it is likely to pass.

I hope that I never have to come back to the chamber and say to the minister or anyone else who voted for the bill, “I told you so,” but if I do, it will be too late. One injury or one lost life is too much for our consciences to bear as we wave through the bill. I urge members to vote on the basis of what the bill actually does, not what people think it does or wish it might have done. There is a marked difference between the two.