Hansard

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, which is a theme that often crops up at stage 2 and is often notably absent in the first draft of legislation. Nevertheless, it is a common feature, and the wording that I am proposing is based on wording that has been not only debated already but agreed and included in legislation. Amendment 90 seeks to introduce a review of the licensing scheme. It is further to the debate that we had last week about the concept and nature of the scheme and to the long conversation that we had about the fee structure and the effect that it might have on applications. Although there is consensus—or, at least, acceptance—among the committee that there will be a licensing scheme of sorts, members have sought to improve it. Because much of the scheme will be subject to future legislation, although not primary legislation, with limited opportunity—and I say that respectfully—for the committee to review the nature of the Government’s proposals, I felt it important to introduce a review that would ask ministers to “carry out a review of the operation and”— more important—the “effectiveness of the ... scheme.” Subsection (2) of the proposed new section to be inserted by amendment 90 makes three asks of the review that the Government must undertake, the first of which is that there be a review of the “fee ... and its appropriateness”. I am stipulating that the Government review not the nature of the fee—we have had the debate about rises and whether there should be a fee at all—but simply the “fee ... and its appropriateness”, which is the key word in that paragraph. Secondly, the review should consider “whether there is any evidence that a fee is a deterrent to a person or persons applying for a fireworks” licence. The Government will not know that until after the scheme has been launched and it has quantitative data on whether the scheme is putting people off, as members have suggested and as the committee discussed robustly at stage 1. Lastly, the review should include consideration of “whether there is any evidence that the ... scheme is contributing to illegal activity including the illegal supply and purchase of fireworks.” It is clear that, by “illegal activity”, I mean the black market in any form. I am also asking that, on completion of the review, ministers “(a) prepare and publish a report of the review’s findings, (b) lay a copy of the report before ... Parliament,” and, thereafter, “(c) make such proposals ... as they consider appropriate” to change the licensing scheme where it is clear that there is a need to do so. It might transpire that the review of those three points concludes that the licence scheme is working well, effectively and appropriately, in which case no further changes need to be made. However, without putting a requirement on the face of the bill for such a review to take place, there is, first of all, no guarantee that it will take place, other than the minister promising, “Of course we will do that.” Secondly, and more important, such a requirement might give comfort to members who have genuine concerns. Of course, this concerns not just members. Yesterday, the committee received a letter from the British Fireworks Association, which stated that “this Bill will NOT reduce the misuse of Fireworks. It will have precisely the opposite effect and will create a blackmarket ... in Scotland, the likes of which has never been seen before.” I do not have a particular view on that theory, but that is the view of the people who are at the coalface of the industry. As it is clear that people do have reservations about the proposals, a review is a sensible way of allowing the Government to proceed with its plans while making good on its promise to be open-minded and transparent about their efficacy. Amendment 129 is slightly different, because it seeks a review of the legislation itself, and its requirements are not as specific as the asks with regard to the licensing scheme. Again, the wording is fairly straightforward; I am asking the Government to prepare and publish a review on the legislation itself. In doing so, ministers would again be required to prepare and publish a report and lay it before Parliament for discussion. More important, in carrying out the review, ministers should “consult such persons as they consider appropriate.” In previous amendments, I have tried to outline the people whom I think should be consulted, but they were rejected by the Government, which is fine. I hope that this amendment is more helpful in that respect. In my view, the timescales are reasonable; the review period is “no later than 3 years after the commencement” of the act and “at least once ... every ... 3 years thereafter.” That will ensure a cross-parliamentary session review of the legislation. If the Government has a problem with the timescales, I am very happy to work with it on changing them. Post-legislative scrutiny and review is an important concept and accepted practice. I therefore welcome and support amendments 56 and 57, lodged by Collette Stevenson, which also impose a requirement on ministers to report on how effective the legislation has been. However, amendment 90 itself goes further by seeking a review of the licensing scheme, which would be additional to post-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that members will carefully consider, debate and support it. I move amendment 90.