Rydw i godi'rgymraig. Fy hollwch i ymweldig 11 o directorsaidd Cymru. Rydw i dim hollwch-i ddiwethaf, ac nid ym mhannwch i'w ddesgrifennol Abercharell, rydw i'r gyfarref yr ôl y clyd yng Nghymru yn ein sgreaddau ymddangol, i chi na chi'n gweldi y dyfodol i gyrraeddau i gyfasiel yr ardull gwybod ni wedi mwy iser bersiwyr ei wneud. Ie, mae'r unrhyw hwn ymddangos cyfforddiant ditrwydd cawww yn gyfrannu ei fgodiliau a gyfrannu leol gyrraeddau i Grodd Llywodraethau, ac yn camion i hawddau 1-3. Ond, mae'n fwy a chmwy fydd yn clywed i gyrraedd staff yng Nghymru ochr Cymru, Prif Weinidog, Prif Weinidog, Prif Weinidog, Prif Weinidog, Prif Weinidog, Police Scotland, Mr David McKenzie, chair of the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland and Julie Whitelaw, interim head of housing, customer and building services at West Lothian Council. We very much appreciate the time that you have taken to join us this afternoon. I remind members to indicate who your question is for and if you or our witnesses wish to ask or answer a question, if you just please type R in the chat box for request to speak and I will take you in. We will now move directly to questions. We have around about an hour and 30 minutes, so if I may, I would like to just open up with the usual general question and I'll perhaps come to, first of all, to Chief Inspector Robertson and then to David and Julie. It's really just to ask broadly if you would outline your sort of organisational experiences, if you like, to date of dealing with issues around fireworks and pyrotechnic articles and whether you feel from your organisation's perspective that the legislation is the right step at the right time. I'll maybe come to you, Nicola First. Good afternoon, convener and other committee members. My name is Chief Inspector Nicola Robison and I work within the partnerships prevention and community wellbeing division in Police Scotland. I have 22 years police service. Police Scotland has been working to address issues of the illicit use of fireworks and pyrotechnics for several years now and I've been aware of that throughout my career. Therefore, Police Scotland welcomes the introduction of the bill. Police Scotland's primary concern is in relation to pyrotechnics and fireworks is the safety element. Obviously, prevention through education and persuasion of using fireworks and pyrotechnics responsibly is something that we wish a key focus on. However, we do understand that education and prevention efforts obviously may not persuade everybody to act safely within fireworks and pyrotechnics and it's therefore essential that the officers have the necessary powers to intervene as early and safely as possible when these articles are misused. We already have the existence of Operation Moonbeam, which is Police Scotland's response in relation to fireworks and bonfire night. The onset of Halloween and bonfire season obviously has a significant impact on Police Scotland and it's a marked rise in anti-social behaviour and violence. It's obviously highly disruptive and potentially dangerous to the community's member of the public and also our officers and fellow colleagues in the emergency workers environment. That has a significant impact on ourselves and we now have a multi-agency prevention approach in response to that, which was on the back of a number of significant incidents that occurred in 2017 whereby officers in Police Scotland were injured. Primarily, that violent behaviour was occurring in Edinburgh area of Scotland and, of course, that was then preempted on the back of that and it occurs every single year now with early planning and a multi-agency response in respect of bonfire night and fireworks season in general. It's hoped that the policy and proposals around the bill can educate and persuade as many Scottish public to use fireworks and pyrotechnics safely and responsibly. Obviously, we are aware that there are several well-established religious and cultural events in Scotland where fireworks are legitimately used and there are also many legitimate uses for other pyrotechnic articles, so we do accept that. We have noticed in recent years that there has been an increase in what is classed as a pyro culture in relation to pyrotechnics and that is occurring at a number of different types of events, including music events and football-related events. That is a significant concern to ourselves because, again, we want to ensure the safety of all the public attending these events and the stewardship of them and, certainly, my officers and other emergency workers. Those are the key points for ourselves in respect of safety. We absolutely welcome the introduction of the bill, if that is approved. I understand that you have a copy of the illicit use of pyrotechnics at events in Scotland's report, which, hopefully, will assist the committee in understanding some of the issues that we face in respect of pyrotechnics specifically. Obviously, a working group has been compiled within Police Scotland on the back of the issues with pyrotechnics, so a lot of those issues are covered in that report. That would be my summary at the moment, just in respect, if you do welcome the bill. Thank you very much, Chief Inspector. That is very helpful. I will bring in David Nex, but what I might do is come back to you to ask a couple of questions around the potential for widening the offences that you mentioned in your submission to the committee. I will bring in David Nex and then I will bring in Julie Nex. David, over to you. Thank you, convener, and hello to everyone today for inviting me along. My name is David MacKenzie and I work for the Highland Council, but I am here today as chair of the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland, representing trading standards teams that operate in all 32 local authorities across Scotland. Our interest in this area is business supply and storage of fireworks. Among the very wide range of legislation that is enforced locally by trading standards is a number of pieces of legislation that cover fireworks, such as safe storage of fireworks, prohibition on sale to underage buyers and so on and so forth. Those new proposals add to that, and that is the area that we are particularly interested in and that we have a particular involvement in. Generally speaking, retail supply and supply and so on. The sort of nuisance side of it and the sort of community behaviour elements of it are not really something that we are too involved in. I would say specifically in terms of the legislation there are three things that we are looking at in terms of the bill. We are looking at the provisions that trading standards have to enforce. Are they feasible? Are they practical? Will they work in practice? Are the powers that are given to our officers enough to make it work so that it can be enforced and can work in practice? The third thing is that well-traded standards work on this, be financed and be funded. Briefly on those three points, I would say that to us the provisions look feasible. If they look good, we have quite a bit of input into that. We have made a number of suggestions and drafters seem to have made a pretty good job of the business supply of fireworks. We are generally quite happy with that. On the powers as well, we think that that has generally been well handled. There is no point in having laws if you do not have proper enforcement and you cannot have proper enforcement without a suitable range of powers. We think that generally speaking—I am happy to answer specific questions—the fairly extensive powers that are there are enough for our guys to do their jobs properly. At the same time, they are not overly onerous on business and there are protections for business in the event that the powers were used in an unreasonable and unfair way. That is the first two things. The third thing is that well-traded standards work is funded. I appreciate that that is not a matter for the bill as such, but it is dealt with in the financial memorandum. Broadly speaking, we would say that we support a lot of the material that is in there in the financial memorandum in terms of supporting trade and standards authorities to do that work. We are just completing an extensive programme of work for the 2021-22 financial year for the fireworks provision that came in last year. That has been very successful, it has been very widespread and it shows what can happen when our guys are well funded to do their work and to bring home these policy objectives fully. The overall context of that, of course, is that extra funding is excellent and we really welcome it, but it can only be useful in the context of where local services are viable and have officers, have enough officers, have officers with up-to-date skills and so on. The extra funding does not work unless the viable services are there and they continue to be supported. It has been a challenge for a lot of local services in recent times, but it is a challenge for trading standards. Broadly speaking, the three areas that we are looking at are the provision that is feasible, do we have sufficient powers and do we have the funding to do our job properly? That is great. Thank you, David. Nice and succinct, that is really helpful. I will hand straight over to Julie, over to you. Thank you, convener, and I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. I am the interim head of housing, customer and building services in West Lodien and my service has a lead in relation to community safety and that engagement with community safety partners across West Lodien. Our organisational experience of use of fireworks across West Lodien differs. However, we have had significant issues in relation to antisocial behaviour caused by the use of fireworks in pockets across West Lodien. Members of the committee visited Blackburn recently and met members of the Blackburn Bonfire Night Action group. That has been a really successful group. That is a group that has involved all of the partners across West Lodien. However, it is important to point out that it really is community-led, so it was recognised that Blackburn was a hotspot. Periodically, it is a problem area. Police were required to bring in extra resources to deal with it. As a community safety board, it was agreed that some action had to be taken and, while the fire service pulled everything together for the first meeting, it has been community-led thereafter. In terms of the legislation that is being proposed, we support the provisions of the legislation, but, in considering the terms of the legislation, we consider that any action that is taken should be based on analysis of the data that is available, which is very much what happened in West Lodien in creating the Blackburn, the BBNag, as we call it. In relation to firework control zones in particular, what would support the council would be clarity on the criteria and the thresholds to be applied. We also have been quite concerned about the funding that may be required in terms of analysing the data, consultation and publicising any firework control zones that may need to be in place. However, yes, the council welcomes the introduction of the legislation. I am sure that we will come back to that point about firework control zones. Thank you all. I will ask a follow-up question and I will ask Nicola a wee bit about offences, and then I will hand over to Katie Clark and Rhona Mackay. Nicola, I noticed in the Police Scotland submission that you touched on the provisions within section 7 of the bill, which are the relevant offences. The comments that have been made within your submission suggest that Police Scotland may find it helpful to have a wider list of offences included in that list. For example, willful fire-raising, culpable and reckless fire-raising, just in order to promote a more positive impact on community safety and wellbeing. I wonder if it would be helpful to hear a wee bit more about the rationale for that widening. Thanks, convener. In respect of that, when we have looked at the problem areas that occur in the incidents that we are having to deal with, we thought that that would be beneficial because there are some circumstances that does not fit the criteria for the legislation that is available at the moment. It was something that we thought would be a consideration if at all possible moving forward, if that would be taken within yourself, as a view of the committee. I am just going to move straight on. We would like to touch on the main themes within the bill this afternoon, so I will hand over now to Katie Clark and then I will bring in Rhona Mackay. Katie, over to you. I would be grateful if the witnesses could perhaps outline their views on the actual extent of the misuse of fireworks in Scotland and whether they think that the legislation is a disproportionate response as we have received a number of submissions guessing that this level of action is not required. Could I perhaps start with Nicola and ask for her response to that point? Yes, absolutely. We certainly think that that would allow us further opportunities for that early and effective intervention to ensure the safety of the public and our sales as a majorancy workers. Although there are existing powers at the moment, those new proposals would obviously allow us to build on that and almost give us another tool within our toolkit from an early prevention point of view. I think that that is imperative that we want to look at the prevention aspect before those incidents occur. I would probably say that that is not just one single recommendation or proposal that will assist in that. It is collectively an element of each that will allow us to improve on our enforcement and build upon what we can existingly already do, but we have established that there are gaps in current legislation and that would allow us to build those gaps. How would you quantify the current extent of misuse of fireworks? How much of a problem is it? I would say that it is a particular issue that will not surprise you round about Halloween and bonfire season. I can give you a rough idea on building upon the stats that are within the illicit use of pyrotechnics at events in Scotland report. We have refreshed those just to give you a more current idea. In respect of the number of incidents that have been classified under the fireworks disposal code, I can tell you that, in 2020 and 2021, there were 1,512 incidents recorded and, obviously, for 2021 and 2022, that has reduced to 872. However, we have to take cognisance of the impact of Covid and, obviously, that a lot of events were not being held, etc. However, that appears to show some sort of reduction in respect of the amount of firework calls that we have had. However, I could also give you data in respect of the actual call volume, which you might find helpful for lights of Edinburgh division, which is the one that is significantly affected during bonfire season and, of course, for the data that we have got here for 2020, which relates to fireworks, fire and antisocial behaviour calls associated with wider bonfire nights, which we are taking into the period there of 30 October to 6 November. The amount of calls in November 2021 for fireworks was 649. That, in comparison to the previous year, was 798. Obviously, the number of fires that were reported in November 2021 was 105. Those are only for Edinburgh specifically, so that has a real significant impact on ourselves. I will probably say back to any other opportunity or legislation or powers that allows us to do more in respect of prevention and the safety of the public. We would absolutely welcome any additional opportunity to do that. The fire brigade unions speak about the number of injuries to their members. To what extent are there injuries associated with some of those incidents? I have that to hand as well. I do not know if it is included in our initial pyrotechnics report, but certainly I can provide. In respect of health and safety reporting for Police Scotland, for the period of 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021, the quarter 4 data is not yet available, so we can only base it on the three quarters there. That has added to the Q1 information that is already provided in the report that you have got sight of there. It now includes accident and near misses for bonfire night 2021. If the projection, including the proposed figures that we expect from quarter 4, is likely to be broadly in line with the totals for 2019 to 2020. To give you an idea of that, in 2019 and 2020, pyrotechnics at events, there were 25 incidents reported, and bonfire night fireworks there were three, and the total was 28. Looking at the projection for 2021 into this year, for quarter 1 to quarter 3, you have got 10 incidents of pyrotechnics at events, and bonfire night fireworks are 11, which is a total of 21, but by the time we take into quarter 4 it will be broadly similar to those figures from 2019. In relation to the specific reports of injury to police officers, we have obviously refreshed those figures as well, including up to December 2021, which bears out the potential for a large increase compared to the previous years, which was highlighted in that original report that you have got sight of with one quarter still to be added to that. The full-year projection for ourselves will be 17 reports involving injuries for police officers as a result of misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics. At the moment, we are sitting for 2021 for those three quarter periods at 13, but we do think that that projection will be 17 in total. That compares to, in 2017 and 2018, we had two reports. In 2018 to 2019, we had five. In 2019 to 2020, we had six. Obviously, the figures drastically reduced in 2020 to 2021 because of the Covid impact, I would suggest, and that has now significantly increased to three times as much for obviously this period from 2021 into 2022, which obviously is very concerning for ourselves. Thank you for that. Can I maybe put the same question to David really just to outline his views on the actual extent of the misuse of fireworks and whether the proposed legislation is proportionate from your perspective, David? Yeah, sure. I mean, from our point of view, we do get some complaints about misuse of fireworks, but we don't get that many because people do tend to go straight to the police or perhaps to other parts of the council with those types of complaints. Our guys will investigate those complaints. Again, it is seldom the case that there is an issue with the things that we deal with. For example, if it is perhaps something about under-18s abusing fireworks in some way and there is maybe a suspicion that a shop sold it to me, we will obviously check that out and do the necessary work that is associated with that. Generally speaking, I would say that compliance is pretty high nowadays. Fireworks are explosive products, which are extremely dangerous. That is why we are sitting here in this conversation, I suppose. It is something that a lot of authority trading standards give a high priority to very strict rules about storage and movement of those things, as well as their sale. Obviously, chief inspector Robison, there is a lot more about the subject than I do, because it is not something that we directly deal with. The complaints that we get, to be honest, once we have checked them out, we are tending to pass them on to the police anyway, because it is usually about an abuse and misuse situation away from the actual purchase or the storage or the sale of the product. I reiterate at the point that those are explosive products and that public safety is for that most important. We would certainly echo that point, but it is probably not really for me to say whether it is proportion or not as to what has been brought in. That is helpful. Julie, can you perhaps respond from your perspective on whether you feel that this legislation is proportionate given the actual extent of misuse of fireworks? Yes. I think that we have seen significant complaints in relation to antisocial behaviour, which are related to the misuse of fireworks. That is what led to the creation of the Blackburn Bonfire Night action group. That group now works to proactively plan for bonfire night as a result of the history of antisocial behaviour, which is related to fireworks in the area, but that is not the only area across West Lillian where there are concerns. Already, there is planning in place for bonfire night this year, looking at intelligence from previous years and planning, for example, diversionary events in those areas. The view of West Lillian Council is that the legislation, particularly in relation to restricting the periods when fireworks can be used, will support the reduction in the incidence of nuisance associated with the misuse of fireworks and enable community safety partners to plan diversionary events and enable members of the community to plan and prepare for the possibilities of fireworks being set off. I thank you very much. I'll just hand straight over to Rona Mackay. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, panel. Yeah, just sort of the same vein as the last line of questioning. I'd like to ask we've heard about the damage and the antisocial behaviour and the concern around fireworks and our previous public engagement. When we consulted with the public, there was a wide support for an outright ban on fireworks, and I'm just wondering what your response to that would be if I could start with Chief Inspector Robison, please. Thank you. I don't think that Police Scotland would welcome an outright ban. I think we have to take cognisance, as I mentioned earlier, that a lot of people do enjoy fireworks obviously safely in a safe environment. For me, it's about encouraging the safe and responsible use of fireworks and obviously through education, persuading people to go and attend organised events that are safe and everybody then will have received on the back of the new proposed licensing system. People will have received training in that regard. For me, I wouldn't support an outright ban on fireworks and again probably making mention of the cultural events and traditional religious festivals, etc, whereby fireworks obviously are enjoyed and by obviously people at those events, so we would want to encourage the safe and responsible use of fireworks. I would probably echo those views that are just expressed. From our point of view, we're very much focused on the fact that consumer protection is what we do, but we're also in the business of allowing businesses to operate fairly safely and make a living. It's really important that the needs of businesses are taken into account here, or, as the chief inspector just said, the legitimate public consumer desire to enjoy fireworks in a fair and reasonable manner. Ultimately, any legal product can be supplied. As long as it's supplied in a fair and safe and reasonable way, everyone can be a winner if you like from that situation. I think that every different products have to be treated in different ways, and, as I said already, fireworks are potentially dangerous, so it needs more attention and probably needs more regulation. We certainly think that it can be done fairly and safely in such a way that legitimate businesses can continue and consumers can enjoy it in a reasonable way. I would also echo the chief inspector's points about the cultural importance in various different communities in Scotland and the role that fireworks play. We tend to push our public towards organised displays and things. We don't say, don't buy without your own fireworks. As long as they're allowed to buy them, that's fine, as long as it's done fairly and safely. However, as long as there are appropriate and proportionate restrictions on those retail sales, that, along with various properly organised public displays and things, it seems to me that we can enjoy fireworks safely. I would say that across West Lothian, many of our communities have galadies or Christmas parades, and they use fireworks to celebrate those occasions. Rather than support a ban, what we would support is legislation that would support sensible use of fireworks. I would like us to move on to some questions about the licensing scheme. I think that Rona will come back to you and then I'll bring in Pauline with a supplementary question on that. Rona, go back to you. It's proposed that the licensing scheme will involve a fee. I wonder what your views are on whether that imposing a fee might lead to some sort of black market or online scams where the quality and safety of fireworks is less assured. Is there a scope for fraud with the licence? Could the system be worked so that people who want to misuse fireworks could get it? I think that I said in my opening remarks that we are generally happy with the way some of the provisions have been drafted and we think that they are broadly feasible. There is a caveat there, and it's how some of the detail that's going to come out in terms of regulations or whatever in terms of how the licensing system will actually operate and practice. Those need to be done properly as well, and we certainly would welcome being involved in that discussion and contributing and assisting to that discussion. You talk about fraud, that is definitely a possibility, isn't it? What we need to do here is we need to design a system that is as good as it can be and avoids that, so that businesses who have to check that someone's got a licence, we have to have robust systems in place to ensure that there's a mechanism by which that can happen. For example, we have at the moment, it's not an exact parallel, but for tobacco and vaping products and so on in Scotland, we've got a clear system there for people proving that they're 18 and over. There's certain specific passport and driving license, there's certain specific documents that are produced, they've got photos on them. That sort of approach is probably what we need here. Obviously, those details are for another day, but that has to be done robustly and properly. You'll never completely stop fraud, I suppose, but I think that we can go a long way to doing that. I think that it's perfectly possible to set up a system that does all those things. In terms of the fees, it's always a difficult one. Will it create a black market probably, but we don't really know until it happens in practice. Clearly, some people are going to be dissuaded, I would have thought, via fee. They may just not buy fireworks at all and just not look for fireworks, or they may look for illicit sources. Those illicit sources are a further danger, not just on the illicit source, but on the illicit product, which might be an even more dangerous fireworks, as it's not going through the normal quality control and so on. On the other hand, licensing systems have to be paid for. They have to be funded in some way, and certainly raising some money through a licensing fee seems like a reasonable approach to them. I think that this is one area where, certainly from our point of view, in terms of the retail supply and so on, quite a bit more work is necessary on this to get those things right and to create a system that is as good as it can be. I think that that can be done. Thank you. Can I come to Julie Please with a slightly different question on licensing? Do you feel that, at this stage, you have enough detail about how this is going to work in practice? I'm keen to know whether you think that, for example, I can imagine in my neighbourhood that there could be hundreds of people applying for a licence to use on or around fireworks day. That would seem to me to be quite labour intensive. I'm just wondering whether you have staff resources to do it and whether you have the kind of detail on how this is going to work practically being negotiated with your sales and other local authorities? I think that the answer to that is no at this stage. We are not clear exactly how the licensing administration would operate and therefore we haven't had the opportunity to consider the resources that we would require to take that forward. Obviously, we would need to know what the application process is and how that is to be administered. We just don't have enough information at the moment to properly identify what the administration of the licensing process would be. When that is agreed, there would need to be a lead-in timetel to review the systems that would be used, the processes, any appeal processes or anything like that that would be required to allow us to identify appropriate resources. Chief Inspector Robison, I don't know if you want to comment on those questions. Feel free to comment if you want. Thank you very much. I would probably just say that I can't really make much comment in respect of the fee aspect, but in respect of the proposed licensing system, absolutely, we are working collaboratively with Scottish Government in respect of that proposal and how that would look and how that would be worked through in respect of processes and any risks that were identified. Clearly, as has already been mentioned, absolutely taking cognisance of risks, potentially like fraud, absolutely need to be worked through to ensure that that system is robust and obviously delivers on what we require it to deliver to. At the moment, obviously, those considerations are still at the stage of whether that's going to involve a manual input of data or whether it's going to be automated, but certainly we will continue that collaborative work with Scottish Government and other partners to ensure that that system is fully robust and obviously serves everything that we require it to do. I have a few supplementaries and a few questions just around this subject. Pauline, you would like to come in with a follow-up on those questions. I know that Russell and Jamie would like to come in and then David, so I will come to you all and start off with Pauline. Thank you very much, convener. So far from the evidence that I have heard, I am making fully understand why everybody opted for a licensing scheme and not a complete ban for the reasons that I think chief inspector said and others have said. You don't want to squall people's enjoyment, but there are still pretty serious social, anti-social behaviour incidents that we are really trying to get under control here. One of my main worries is that so far it seems quite complex. You have got certain days that you can't use fireworks, certain times you can't use fireworks, so the public would need to be clear because they are the ones that you're allying to report to you that there's been an offence, so that's one of my first concerns. Like Rona Mackay has been saying in her lines of questioning, I'm not favouring a ban, but I do ask myself, would a ban not be easier to police because this seems pretty complex to me. My first question is to chief inspector Nicolle Robson. I'm confident that, given the complexity of a licensing scheme with all that's been said, that that will tackle the anti-social behaviour element of misuse of fireworks? Thank you for that question. Obviously, I would say that this is where, from a Police Scotland perspective, the communication and the raising awareness of obviously this bill, if it is approved, is absolutely vital and crucial. We need to make sure that the public are left in no doubt as to what this new legislation means to them. I think that that would require a multiagency response and ensure that that is completely robust, that people are left in no doubt as to the clarity of what dates they're allowed and what times, etc. For me, that is one of the most important things. How confident am I, in respect of the tackling anti-social behaviour element? Again, I would draw back to something that I mentioned earlier, that this isn't about each component of the proposed bill in isolation. It is collectively using the implementation of no-firework control zones and the licensing system of the new stop-and-search powers collectively to respond to that. I think that that will have an impact on reduced anti-social behaviour, but absolutely we do recognise that that isn't going to stop everybody. That's where, again, I would go back to the education perspective of the raising awareness, making sure that that's put out in the right manner, the right prevention opportunities from ourselves, whether that be through processes that we do, like the pitching in programme, which we do with young people, which addresses a number of issues. We can build that into this to raise awareness of the actual impact and the dangers of using fireworks and pyrotechnics. It provides us a lot more opportunity, and that would ultimately reduce anti-social behaviour, but absolutely that is not going to be the complete cure, but it certainly is going to assist us in communication, and the multi-agency approach is vital. That's a really helpful answer. Not to cross over into the—I know that some members have questions around the exclusion zones, but it seems obvious to me that, given what you have said, the only way that that can work is to use quite as complex rules in the licensing scheme and to try and use it to control or stop anti-social behaviour. When I represent the Glasgow, Pollock Shields is notorious every year, and I am not confident that I have to say that all those cases are being prosecuted. There is another issue here about reporting. Do you understand that that is a kind of area where the exclusion zone might be used? If it is not, how are we going to use the legislation to home in on what in some communities is a serious misuse of fireworks beyond the 5th of November? Well, obviously, in respect of the implementation of the firework control zones of the local authorities, through engagement with our local communities, we will identify where those zones will be.  However, that is to do with engagement with communities, and those zones will be implemented if the community raises significant concerns, and that will be in response to those concerns. Obviously, for Police Scotland, we will support the implementation of those zones, but the local authorities, through engagement with their own local communities, will be the key as to where those zones are implemented and how many are implemented in each area. Thank you, convener. This is a question for David, and it is two parts. The first one is that fireworks are obviously inherently dangerous, but in one of your answers earlier you spoke about black market fireworks, the kind of stuff that presumably does not go through the same safety checks as what you would buy in a supermarket, for example. Can you, in any way, quantify how much of those types of fireworks typically you might seize? Secondly, given that a licence seems likely and that it will cost money and will presumably become a barrier for some people to purchase fireworks, is there not a risk that it leads to criminals exploiting that barrier and making the prevalence of those types of black market fireworks more common, whether those enemies work on that or any view on that? To be honest with you, we do not come across much in the way of… I talked about illicit and illegal fireworks. Illegal being a firework that is not constructed safely or we do not know what it is because it has not been through the proper quality control. An illicit one might be a perfectly proper firework, but it has just been supplied in a way that is not permitted. We see more of that than we do of the dangerous stuff and the fully black market stuff. It really is hard to predict how that is going to be. We do not see a lot of that. We have done some preliminary work this year for the Scottish Government on looking at social media sites and so on. That is very much in its early stages, but we do not think that there is enough of supply that goes through that route because a lot of social media sites will have a complete ban on the supply of that type of products through their trading groups on social media. It is obvious that people can get around that and get around it from time to time, but generally that has that effect. What is probably more likely is illicit supply, supply that is not permitted at times of years not permitted. As soon as you get out with the parameters of control, more and more things could potentially go wrong. What we have at the moment is that we have a largely compliant industry with that in this field, partly because the work that ourselves and others have done over the years and keeping that tight lid on it, if you like. There are not many suppliers of fireworks now and not many shops sell them. I started in this job 30 years ago and every corner shop sold fireworks, so that is not really the case now. I think that there is certainly a risk and work for us to do here in terms of where that goes and both the situation of the illicit and the illegal. It is very hard to predict particularly in terms of the illegal, but it is definitely a danger. The short answer to your question is that not very much research has been done on this and more needs to be done, and that is certainly something that we will be looking at. I suppose that that leads on from that, even though I think that in our agenda, running order, perhaps jumping ahead slightly, you as a public service within 32 local authorities will be at cost attached to policing this. You have specified about the particular time of year around Christmas and New Year when you might involve public holidays, but do you envisage that creating a significantly greater workload for your trading standards people across Scotland in this? How can that be addressed? It will result in significant extra costs. There is no doubt about it, but we were funded in 2021-22 to carry out a fairly extensive programme of work on the stuff that came in last year, in terms of the times of day that fireworks should be sold and the maximum explosive content. There is a lot of good work on that. It shows what can happen if we get some decent specific funding, but that needs to continue for that work to be done and for that return of that enforcement to be done, which is the only way to ensure that provisions are being complied with and that the intentions of the legislation are being achieved. It has to be paid for. There are 31 services across Scotland, one joint service across the 32 authorities, all fairly small and a very wide range of varying obligations. They basically have to prioritise. It is a challenge to do that. As I said at the start, if specific funding can come in for something like that, it is in a context where our services continue to be viable. At the stage now, some of them argue whether they are viable or not. They are certainly at risk of not being viable. If they are viable and funding comes in, it can work. The other point that I would make about that is that, with the type of legislation that we often see, a real splurge of activity in the first two or three years can sort something out. It can mean that the longer-term enforcement obligations are significantly less, because there has been positive engagement with the trade and the advice and so on. They come to terms with what they need to do and so on. Generally speaking, there is less need for a specific new thing in the future. The costings that are in the financial memorandum reflect that point as well. Thank you. Just out of curiosity, do you have any big bit of evidence about which of the two local authorities currently work together on that? I would say that Stirling and Clackmannanshire work together. There is a joint team there, but that is a relatively small arrangement. I think that it was only one or two officers from Clackmannans when they joined up. All the other authorities have their own trade and standard services. That is me, convener, or somebody else. Thank you very much. I will hand straight over to Jamie. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon to our guest panel today. I had two questions. One is probably directed towards the local authority. I am sorry to pick on you, but I think that you are the only local authority that we are taking evidence from specifically, just due to the nature of trying to squeeze in the evidence sessions. The first one is how realistic it will be to get a scheme like this, specifically the licensing scheme, up and running this year. The Government has quite an ambitious timescale to get those restrictions into place by this year's bonfire night. We have expressed a little bit of disquiet and discomfort about that. We want to get the legislation right, but we do not even think that the licensing scheme will feature in the primary bill and will probably be subject to subsequent regulations that we will have to look at as a committee. Given that there are so many known unknowns and we do not really know the detail, how quickly do you think that local councils will be able to get the schemes set up if they are the ones that are required to administer them in time for this year's bonfire night? How realistic is that? Will that come at any cost, either financial or resource to you? Do you think that you have enough ability to meet the demands that may be placed upon you in the coming months? I think that it will be really challenging to have a licensing scheme up and running in time for this year's bonfire night. There would need to be some agreement on timescale for application, which community safety partners are going to be involved in advising on the application, the systems to be used, the criteria and the processes. Until all that is known, I cannot even answer the question whether we have sufficient resources and whether we would be able to divert resources from other licensing schemes to support that particular licensing scheme. I think that lots of the detail is still required before I would be able to confidently say that we could have a system up and running. I suppose that the thing to bear in mind is that, with most licensing schemes, there is a sufficient lead-in period in terms of the date by which the application must be made to allow it to be processed. With a new scheme, there is always a little bit of chewing and throwing with an applicant to make sure that we have all sufficient information and that we are able to consult with advisers and advisers need to have plenty of time to review that as well, so at least 28 days before the application was to be granted. If we are looking at restricted periods for fireworks to be used, I could expect that there would be a bit of a flurry of applications coming in at a particular time, which would be challenging again to be managed. There will also need to be sufficient publicity to members of the public to ensure that they are aware of the requirements applied for licences, the timescales for applying for licences and the processes for applying for licences. From a local authority point of view, it is very challenging to have all of that in place for this year. That is really interesting and very helpful. I suspect that they want to put words in their mouth, but I am sure that other local authorities and COSLA might have some similar comments to make. We will hopefully get that feedback in due course so that we can help to inform our stage 1 report. The other question that I had related to that is that we are looking at nationwide legislation around restrictions of the sale and purchase, but if you look at other schemes that we have devolved to local councils such as low-emission zones or the workplace parking levies and other types of schemes that you would be responsible for versus the Government legislation being the enabler of you being able to do that, how much flexibility would you like to see as a council within things like timescales, around the period of usage, around things like exemptions and exceptions? You could maybe offer enhanced flexibility in your own local area that meets the needs of your communities, whether it is specific religious groups or local events. Is it better that we build a national scheme that you administer locally or do you think that this would work better as 32 separate schemes that had enough flexibility within themselves? West Lothian Council would support a national scheme where there was an ability to have a consistency of application across all local authorities. The reason for that is that we are likely to have or there is a likelihood that there may be individuals who would wish to use fireworks across many different local authorities. Our experience is that with different licensing schemes in place for other processes, there is a lot of confusion among members of the community in terms of when they have to apply what they apply for and what the process is. Having said that we would support a national scheme, we would also support a degree of flexibility within some very clearly defined criteria to allow exemptions to be applied, for example, for galadies or for other social events. All right. Okay, that's great. Thank you for that. That's all for now, convener. Thanks very much, Jamie. Just to come in on those questions and answers, just for the record, to clarify, it's just to say that the Government plans around licensing are for that to be in place by November next year. The plan for this year is that it's only proxy purchase for under-18s that they're looking to have in place by November 2022, so just for clarification around that point. David, I think that you were looking to come back in, but I don't know if you still want to come in with a comment or another point.  Yes, thanks, convener. Just briefly on the licensing issue, certainly my understanding is that it is a national scheme for the license for a buyer, to buy fireworks. That's going to be a national scheme and that's certainly something that we would strongly support for consistency and for it to all be in one place and so on and so forth. Obviously, the whole issue of fireworks zones is separate, isn't it? That's the one that's more challenging and needs to be done locally, as colleagues have said. It's just to make that point. Sorry that that's obvious since it's maybe being covered already, but certainly from our point of view, we would need, in order for the sale only by licence, apart from exemptions, for that whole thing to work in practice. The licensing system has to be set up well and we would strongly recommend that to be a national scheme that is clearly uniform across Scotland. Thanks, David. No, it's helpful just to get that clarification on that point. I think we'll move on now to looking at the restrictions around the use and supply of fireworks. I'll bring in Fulton MacGregor first of all and then I think that Russell Finlay maybe has some other questions. Fulton, over to you. Thanks, convener. I'm just waiting for my camera to go on there. Good afternoon to the panel. Thanks very much for your thoughts and contributions so far. My question is about the restrictions on use and supply of fireworks. The bill, as you'll know, introduces various restrictions on the days and times when fireworks can be sold and used. The committee's had some concerns about that and we're looking for a wee bit more information that might alleviate those concerns. I'm happy to take any order. If, as a witness, your content with those proposed restrictions, do you think that they strike an appropriate balance between allowing people to enjoy fireworks and obviously reducing the mishes? Can I bring in Nicola Cymru to kick that off? Yes, absolutely. Thanks, convener. From a Police Scotland perspective, we would welcome the clearly defined dates and times for the purposes of applying the proposed legislation. In that, we're encouraging that public obviously plan early and respect of those people who do intend to legitimately use fireworks and prior techniques, that they consider the application nice and early, and it's a case of the encouragement of the planning for those proposed events. Thanks. Is anyone else wanting to come in on this question just now? I can perhaps move on and then maybe bring in yourself, Julie, if you want. I know that my colleague to Visted Blackburn has heard some support for local flexibility within the bill that could encompass some of the stuff that we've been talking about on committee, which might be local galadies or local sporting events. That might be important to people in a certain area. Is that something that you would support? Having that flexibility, what are your thoughts on that? Maybe if I could start with you, Julie? Thank you. As I said, although we would support a national scheme, we would also support some degree of flexibility for local authorities to manage exemptions, for example, for galadies or for local events. Our view is that the criteria to apply those exemptions should, however, be very clearly set out to avoid any confusion for members of the public, but to avoid a flurry of applications coming in that would have no prospect of success. While we would support a national scheme, we would also support a degree of flexibility for local authorities. David Scott is looking to come in as well on the chart. Partly on your last point and partly on this point, our role is to do with sale and so on. We are very aware of the need to balance the legitimate interests of business with legitimate interests of consumers, particularly safety in terms of this topic. However, the banning of sale with particular days will have a significant effect on businesses who sell fireworks all year round, and that needs to be taken into account. It has been in the bill documentation, and we would certainly urge the legitimate interests of those businesses to be taken into account. We would seek clarity in terms of legislation, and if, in order for it to be feasible and enforced in a way that can be done well, those particular days do that. They take account of the cultural significance of bonfire night and of the other celebrations that are recognised in there. We think that that can work in practice. I am glad to hear that, but perhaps by Government or Parliament, if you are picking the dates and suggesting that the dates open up the bill to criticism of other religious festival dates or dates that might become important in the future, at some point. I suppose that what the committee is grappling with is—there are more panellists that I have spoken to on this issue than more content—that I am becoming with the provisions in the bill because it seems to have a widespread support from stakeholders. However, as a committee that we are also grappling with, it is best not to have any dates at all. Therefore, you are not going into that minefield of picking the most important dates, because that will be different for different people. Or do we need, as my previous question asked, more flexibility for local authorities for them to be able to judge the local need? I know that I have already asked that question, but I guess I just wanted to set out where I am certainly coming from with those questions just now, and I think that other committee members are the same. That was more a point than a question. I am well aware of that and I am well aware of the time, so I am happy to pass back to you. Thanks very much, Fulton. Russell, you might want to come in at this point. Yes, thank you. I suppose that that leads into the area that is mixed in the running order of the firework control zones. I suppose that that is a question primarily for Chief Inspector Robinson. Earlier in the consultation process, it was proposed that there would be no firework zones, which has evolved into firework control zones. I wonder whether, from a policing perspective, no firework zones would be a lot easier for people to understand and a lot easier for you to please? From our perspective, that will go back to the communication and awareness raising that would be put out to the public so that they have a clear understanding. I understand that that decision was made to reword that, and we would have no objection with the fact that it has been reworded to firework control zones as long as the communication is providing full clarity to the public so that they appreciate exactly what that actually means. Perhaps the same question to either of the other two witnesses if they get a particular view on it. David Ordully, would you like to come in on that? I am not sure that I can get anything strong to add on that or a question about one of mine. That is no problem at all, do not worry. Russell? No, that is fine, thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Katie Clark, I will bring you in now. I am aware that you have a question around imports. Over to you. That is right. It is really a question for Police Scotland to ask them to outline the approach that they would take in relation to the importation of fireworks. I suppose that the most obvious example would be people buying fireworks in England and bringing them over the border. Yes, absolutely. That is something that we are considering while we are working through this set of new proposed legislation and the supply of fireworks to businesses in Scotland to address outwith Scotland about residents that they might purchase fireworks from outwith Scotland. Is also an area of concern that we are working through. Obviously, if there were issues moving forward, that would all be intelligence-based as to our reaction to that and our response. Obviously, it is something that we are considering. Would you be able to share any information with the committee once you are further ahead with your thinking, perhaps in writing, to be able to share more at the moment? Yes, absolutely. It is something that we have consideration for at the moment. I would probably imagine that it will be similar to the response of that during the Covid impact of the coronavirus pandemic when, obviously, there was a suggestion that people might cross the border when the restrictions were in place, so I would imagine that it would be something very similar to that, but absolutely I will keep the committee cited on any developments in that. I have got Rona Mackay and then David Mackenzie wanting to come back in. Over to you, Rona. Thank you, convener. It was just a question that I meant to ask earlier. It is on licensing again. It was about the initial proposal that the licence would be valid for 12 months, but it is now intended that it could be for five years unless revoked. Can I ask what your views are on that, given that five years is a long time and lots of things can happen? Someone might have a criminal record during that time, etc. Can I ask Chief Inspector Robison first, please, and then David Mackenzie and Julie Mackenzie? Again, that is where we would want to discuss and work through collaboratively how the licensing system is going to work and, obviously, for anybody having relevant convictions within that period, how that is going to be reviewed and, obviously, to ensure that there is nothing that is missed through that, so that would be through that continued collaborative working with the Scottish Government. David Mackenzie, do you have a view on that? I will echo what the chief inspector said, to be honest. Five years seems like quite a long time on the face of a one-year seems quite short. I appreciate that if there is a longer spell, there could be robust provisions in there to take account appropriately of things that happen. People gather convictions or whatever in the meantime, but a fair bit more work needs to be done in the detail of that, I would have thought. As I said earlier, everything surrounding the mechanics of the licensing system—I saw quite a good bit of work to do on that, but I think that it can be done properly. I think that, as has been mentioned, the mechanics of the licensing process would need to be clarified. With all licensing processes, there is a requirement to notify the local authority or the licensing authority where there is a relevant conviction, and that would need to be part of the process, so there would need to be some confidence in that being sufficient to manage any circumstances that occurred during the five years. I would like to pick up quickly and go back to the questions that Katie Clark asked around importing fireworks from south of the border. I wonder if any of the panel have views on the risk that that might link with stockpiling ahead of, say, Bonfire night, for example. It is something that we have had a little bit of evidence on around that potential risk. I wonder if we could come to Chief Inspector Robertson first and then come back to David Robertson on that. Chief Inspector, just to ask any comments on that. Thanks, convener. Obviously, that was something that we had identified under schedule, one of the paragraphs 25 and 26, which covers the supply of fireworks from businesses within Scotland that addresses outwith Scotland. Of course, it is appreciated. I think that there may be reference to it in the policy memorandum about existing enforcement already in place for the importation of goods, but that is obviously a point that is worthy of note. We would work in collaboration with our colleagues at trading standards in that regard. Thanks very much. David Robertson, if you want to come back in on that. Well, yes, certainly echo that last point. We were very close with the police on these things and customs authorities and so on. We do have quite a significant role in the commercial import of products, and products that have a high safety element to them are our top priority. The other point that I wanted to make about that is in relation to import as well. As we see it at the moment, we have done some work on the provisions that have already come in on fireworks in terms of them being supplied to Scottish consumers from businesses elsewhere in the UK. Given that a lot of the wording around defences in the existing legislation and in the bill talks about supply, it seems fairly clear to us that there is a locus in Scotland for a sale that has come from somewhere else in the UK. It is being supplied to a consumer that says that it is bought online and is supplied to their house or wherever. We think that that is probably covered by the legislation. We have been discussing this with colleagues in England and Wales in relation to them engaging with businesses local to them that sell fireworks. There are a variety of points to that. We want the legislation to work for consumers in Scotland, but we also do not want Scottish businesses to be disadvantaged by businesses from elsewhere in the UK being able to sell to Scottish consumers in an advantageous way. We are keen on that. It works probably for consumers as it is intended in the bill, but Scottish businesses are not disadvantaged. There is quite a bit of work going on that, but we see potential there. Thanks, David. Important points to bear in mind there. Thank you very much for that. Pauline, do you want to come in at this point? It is further thoughts on how easy it is to enforce a licensing scheme with further restrictions on sale and so on and the types of fireworks that you can buy. There have been many incidents of celebration of football matches or football results on other events in which fireworks have been used. Perhaps that might take a view of the antisocial behaviour or not, but I wonder if you thought in order to make the scheme work. This is up against the view that some people have on a complete ban, and that is where the context is when it comes from. We need to make the legislation work, but would that mean in your view that we need to have some robust reporting around fireworks, whether they are for antisocial behaviour or not, which are used with those periods? Or would the Police Scotland take a view that it is not worth pursuing if you see where I am coming from? To make the scheme work, people are allowed on 37 days of the year, etc. The days where people use fireworks with those days seem to have to be prosecuted, then. I wonder if you wonder if that happens to go off illegally all the time. We have all heard them when there has been various victories. My city is true. I know that I am going off on a tangent here in a sense, but some of the responses from the public, particularly around telling pay owners of what I am when, those times when fireworks are going off that they should just train your animals, it is obvious that they do not know anything about what it is like to try to protect an animal who is frightened or a child with autism, which we heard in the past. I take the view that fireworks going off outwith, even if they are not antisocial, should still be dealt with. I wonder if that is Police Scotland's view or not. Absolutely. I would encourage communities to make us aware of the incidents of people obviously not adhering to the legislation. Again, I would go back to the fact that we would hope that we can, through this legislation, support a culture change with people recognising the impacts and dangers that fireworks and pyrotechnics can pose, thereby encouraging the responsible use of fireworks through organised events or through the licensing system. We would hope, through that good communication strategy, that there will be in place a multi-agency approach that the public will be fully aware of the legislation and thereby encourage to adhere to it, but absolutely, from a circumstance basis, if there are issues still within communities, we need to know about it. Then we can target an appropriate response to that individual or persons involved. I think that Rona Mackay wants to come in on that. Rona Mackay, you have some questions about fireworks, control zone and so on. Thank you, convener. It just occurred to me that, in my area, there is a firework pop-up shop, which appears every year round about October. It disappears again after the fifth of November. I am just wondering how that would be affected. I am thinking to ask David on that. Is that still viable for that to happen in terms of when people can buy fireworks and things? Has that been just temporary units that pop-up and then disappear? David, do you want to come in on that? Sorry, I might not read it. David, do you like to come in on that? Yes, sorry, yes. Presumably, that kind of business could still operate. It could sell during the proposed limited period, which probably is all that they sell at the moment anyway. The way that it works at the moment is that there are two types of licences. Most businesses, most supermarkets, most small shops and so on that sell fireworks only do so during certain limited periods. There are a relatively small number of businesses that specialise in fireworks and sell them all year round and need a different authorisation and a different licence for that. Those kind of pop-up shops presumably could continue. They would need to get the licences to store and to supply during that period. The local authority trading standards would look carefully at business like that of it appearing out of the blue or whatever. It is a new licence application, and that would be given quite a lot of attention. Obviously, as we said, all along, safe storage and supply of fireworks is a Parliament for public safety and so on. I do not see why that could not continue to operate. I am going to move on to control zones. We have a wee bit to get through. We would also like to cover some questions around pyrotechnics and the financial implications. I am going to bring in Collette Stevenson first, so I will collect over to you. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon to our panel. You have sat alludied to Nicola wee bit on the control zones. I will pose to Julie because it is more relevant in terms of local authority. During the committee's recent visit to Blackburn, some of the community representatives raised some concerns about how the fire works control zones would be managed and safely managed at that. Obviously, there were some concerns over unintended consequences such as acting as a potential attraction for those who want to use fireworks to generate confrontation, which they have experienced in the past there, with the police and the fire services. Again, concerns about a focus on the zones, to the detriment of other areas and the potential displacement of the misuse of fireworks. It was really just to gather your views on that and how you envisage that they actually work those zones in practice. I think that, as has been mentioned already, I think that the firework control zones would work only as part of a suite of measures. In terms of looking at the requirement for a licence, the requirement to pay a fee, the restrictions on when fireworks can be purchased and used, then firework control zones would come in as part of the suite of measures. The council in principle is supportive of the firework control zones, providing that there is robust evidence and clear systems in place to enable key partners and, importantly, the communities to be able to have the say. One of our concerns is that, if there is the ability to apply firework control zones, we can foresee that there will be many members of the community who will apply to have a firework control zone applied in their particular community. Our view is that there needs to be very clear criteria and it needs to be based on evidence. The view of the council is that that approach would allow the communication that was mentioned earlier on the awareness raising and the planning for the likes of bonfire night by community safety partners. That is not just in terms of planning to deal with antisocial behaviour in those events, but it is also about planning diversionary events. Potentially during the visit to Blackburn, it was the park and the skate park that were mentioned. Potentially there is the opportunity to put on diversionary events there to avoid those areas being used. Obviously, there is the danger of diverting activity to other areas, but if the firework control zones are well publicised, community planning partners or community safety partners again have the opportunity to plan for the particular times when fireworks can be used and to look at how any diversionary activity can support fireworks in different areas. In principle, we support it, but part of the larger suite of measures that would be in place. For instance, if you look at East Kilbride, which is the constituency that I cover, if you look at the demographics here, for instance, 60 per cent of our population here in East Kilbride are over 50, in terms of control zones, would that be a permanent control zone, or would you look at areas in your data gathering in terms of changing it per year? There could be a new housing estate area. How do you envisage that that is going to be in terms of—I know that you are obviously commenting on behalf of West Lothian—but it would be interesting to see just exactly how you envisage that forward as well. I think that there would be members of the community who would wish to see that as a permanent arrangement. However, on the basis that our view is that it should rely on robust evidence and intelligence and data gathering, I would suggest that there would need to be a review of any firework control zones that were implemented and that that should be for a period of time with a requirement to review and to reassess the intelligence and the evidence around that, which would obviously need to take into account any other areas in the community of which were being used or where the misuse of fireworks were applying. I would say that one of the things that we have found most important in the Blackburn area is the community support for the Blackburn group and the approach that the community has to raising awareness of issues in relation to antisocial behaviour around fireworks. Again, as part of the suite of measures, the awareness raising on the communication would be very, very important to make sure that there was community support for firework control zones. I suppose that the bill's intention is that the introduction of firework control zones will help to prevent high levels of unprotectable firework use. Do you see that those zones contributing towards that, the misuse of them? I suppose that that question is to Nicolaire Lee in terms of how policing that as well. That would have an impact on Police Scotland in respect of resources, depending on the size, location and duration of those zones. However, we are supportive in respect of that and it does empower the local communities. Obviously, the engagement with the local authorities would be on the back of the community's concerns. Obviously, from our own point of view, as long as those concerns were proportionate to the size and location and duration of that zone. However, that would give us another enforcement tool, as well as working alongside the licensing system to reduce antisocial behaviour that is affected by the misuse of fireworks. We would welcome that as well, because that engagement is going to be with the local authorities and local communities. We would also welcome the consultation involving ourselves and other colleagues—perhaps the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—in respect of that consultation as to the size and duration and location of those firework control zones. Nicolaire Lee, do you not see that as more a kind of reactive response to control zones rather than being proactive? No, absolutely. We would welcome any opportunity where we can get extra prevention opportunities with the public office to ensure public safety. Again, that would not just be looking at the firework control zones on their own entity. It would complement alongside the licensing system and the other elements of the bill. I think that that is really important from a Police Scotland perspective. It is not just one aspect that we would focus on. It is about that collective response. I do not know if David Scott wants to add anything to that in terms of the control zones. We are on the periphery of the issue, to be honest. A couple of observations I would make is that there is a lot to think about with us. A lot of the antisocial behaviours are thought to be in urban areas, and I think that it is. However, there are rural issues too in terms of fireworks, and that leads on to my other issue in terms of whatever happens, it needs to be very clearly defined. What is the geographical area? That might be a few streets in a city, or it might be several square miles up my way in the islands. There is quite a lot of more work, and good needs to go into that. As our interests would be in how the fireworks are supplied and how that interacts, so there is quite a bit more work to be done on some of the details. Okay, thanks very much. I have got no further questions. Thank you very much. I would like to keep things moving. We are just about half past three, but if I may, I would like to carry on for another 10 minutes or so. It is important that we look at some more questions around in particular pyrotechnics, and I will bring in Russell Finlay on that. Before I do that, I wonder if I can maybe just ask—and this is probably one for Chief Inspector Robertson—that is in relation to our visit to Blackburn just last week. One of the things that that members of the group raised with us was their experience of promoting use of the crime stoppers line as an option for community members reporting issues in particular with illegal fireworks reporting that in anonymously, if they were worried perhaps about being identified and so on. I am just interested in your thoughts on that, community messaging, if you like, as an option where people want to report, but they are a bit anxious about doing it. I will maybe bring you in, Chief Inspector Robertson. Yes, absolutely. I think that that is something that could be potentially flexible depending on each local area, as to the communities within that area. Obviously, there are the options for issues to be raised through the likes of community councils and through pop-up events with community policing officers, which we would always encourage. However, if there was an aspect in relation to anonymity, then absolutely crime stoppers would be an option. However, I think that that would be something that would be looked at with a flexible approach as to each local community and how it would be best to serve their concerns and issues. However, certainly platforms such as community councils would encourage for those to be put through. That is really helpful. I thank you very much for that. I will bring in Russell Finlay to pick up some questions on pyrotechnics. Thank you. That is a question for Chief Inspector Robertson. Pyrotechnics, as we know, have become increasingly common in the likes of football grounds in recent years. According to the Scottish Police Federation, the way in which the legislation is currently drafted describes that it has been convoluted. Specifically, it says that, rather than the law allowing for pyrotechnics in certain circumstances, there should be a blanket ban without reasonable excuse. The way in which it puts it is that it is not running about the countryside arresting people at mountains or going to marinas and arresting people in possession of flares, because they have a reasonable excuse. Do you agree with the Federation that the legislation that is drafted is flawed, and are you, like them, also speaking to the Scottish Government about that? With the legislation that is proposed, certainly we would welcome that additional toolkit in respect of the enforcement and prevention opportunities, particularly around pyrotechnic use of going to football events and other events. At the moment, although we have existing legislation that can be used to enforce pyrotechnics, that is generally at the attendance or within the event grounds. We have identified that issue and trained the use of pyrotechnics outside the grounds, which I do have a few stats that I could give you today. We would support the additional powers that are being proposed so that we can get earlier intervention and prevention opportunities prior to people getting to an event, but that would be completely proportionate and intelligence and evidence led. Just to clarify, you favour the legislation that is currently drafted, so the provision of stopping people if they are going to a particular event. What the Federation is saying is that the legislation creates a problem and opens the door to a defence lawyer's dream. It would be more sensible and more workable to have a blanket ban anywhere in possession of pyrotechnics without the defence of a reasonable excuse. Do you think that the Federation is correct? Do you think that our Police Scotland is seeking clarification or that similar change with the Scottish Government? Absolutely. We would be working with the Police Federation and obviously not digressing from their opinion but working together in respect of looking at all aspects of the pyrotechnics legislation that is proposed. We have a number of comments in respect of the general pyrotechnics aspect of it and a lot of the evidence is coming from that report that you have got sight of in respect of that generally we would favour any additional tools that would help us to deal with the possession of pyrotechnics, particularly going to events. Just to be clear, you clearly back what is proposed as in the provision relating to going to events, but to extend it potentially that is something that you would presumably talk to the Scottish Government and indeed the Federation about? Absolutely. Even in respect of that priority of travelling to an event, obviously what the interpretation would be of that and in relation to the likes of the approach of assemblies and what happens if the 20th person, if you have a group of persons we need to work through as to how that would differ. We are in the process of having engagement with the Scottish Government and other partners as to how we would work through that. Thank you, chief inspector. That is me, convener, when we are short of time. Okay, thanks very much.  I do not know if you have some questions around finance and funding. I am aware that you covered that to a certain extent earlier on just to check if there is anything further that you would like to make up on that. I know, David, to touch on it, but I wonder whether our other witnesses could perhaps give any indication as to what the financial implications would be for local authorities. Has that been calculated across the board by COSLA or is it a work in progress? I think that it is fair to say that that is a work in progress. There has been some consideration given to what resources would be required. We would require resources around analysis of the data, the consultation that would be required with the communities and the publicity and awareness of any processes and resources to manage any licence scheme or process that would be in place. Again, the cost around that is still a work in progress. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, thanks very much. David, do you think that you would like to come in on this? Yes, just very quickly. I talked about some of this earlier. I think that it is different to calculate what the trading standards costs are. It is easier to do, I think. And because we did this work in 2021-22, we will obviously be analysing that very carefully with the Scottish Government in terms of our other calculations. We should be able to come up with clear figures, which we have already done. However, they will also be finessed a bit on the basis of the experience of this year. That is a separate thing. I think that it is much more difficult—what Julie talked about is much more difficult to calculate. I think that that is very much a work in progress. To make that point, our calculations are a bit easier to make. Within the overall context that I talked about, earlier, it has been gone. Thanks very much, David. I think that that has been brought out in your written submission, so that is helpful to reiterate that point. Thank you very much. Maybe, Chief Inspector Robertson, you would like to come in. Yes, thank you. It was just obviously a recap of the question. I was just asked there to provide some information additionally to that. For Scotland's own short-life working group that was pulled together in respect to pyrotechnics identified the potential benefits of a simple possession offence in relation to pyrotechnics with a lawful authority and reasonable excuse clause to permit legitimate users to conduct their activities. That is a legislative format that is well established in other contexts in the future. Officers obviously at the moment are currently familiar, so it is appreciated that the bill is intended to provide a proportionate response to those issues, including the evidence that is available from ourselves. However, the lower limited offence under section 33 in relation to pyrotechnics at specific types of events does present a practical and evidential challenge for ourselves. From a Police Scotland perspective, if the bill is not amended to introduce a broader, simpler possession offence, it is essential that the provisions are passed, including those for any subordinate regulations or orders are capable of being amended to address issues that may be occurred in the future. If that could be considered, that would obviously be appreciated. Just a final point in relation to the evidence that an article is indeed a pyrotechnic article in terms of this offence, it would be helpful to have a presumption of contents clause in the bill. The pyrotechnics article safety regulations 2015 require legitimate pyrotechnics to be categorised by manufacturers and collectively labelled, among other things, the name, type and category of article, but presumption of contents clause would offer a simple mechanism for evidencing the nature of the articles. It is appreciated that, obviously, homemade or illegally imported articles may not be correctly labelled, and they will require full scientific examination to determine their nature. However, the process involves articles being transported in person by officers to a specialist laboratory in England and is costly in terms of officer time and places an additional burden on specialist scientists and could slow the progress of potential criminal cases. In the absence of a presumptive of contents clause, there could be a requirement to submit all pyrotechnics articles for such examination in order to prove an offence under section 33. If that could be avoided for a significant proportion of such articles, that would obviously be welcomed by ourselves as well, convener. Thank you very much, chief inspector. That is a helpful overview. I do not know if you would like to come back in on that update from Nicola Sturgeon. Indeed, thank you. I think that this is where I was going with the questioning earlier, and it sounds like a lawyer has perhaps written quite a lengthy answer that boils down to the preference for an absolute ban on possession, if indeed that is workable with the defence of reasonable grounds to have them. Is my understanding of what you just read out there correct? Yes, obviously. We had sought advice through our legal representation as well on aspects of the bill. We recognised that currently there is no possession offence or police search power in respect of the type of pyrotechnics that are generally seen at events in Scotland, except probably provided by the Criminal Law Consolidation in Scotland act. We have looked at that and identified that there are potential issues that we would need to work through in respect of the bill. If that is all the questions that members have, we have overrun, so I will just bring the session to a close. Obviously, if our panel members today feel that there are any outstanding points that they would like to follow up with us, please feel free to do that in writing and we will be happy to take your evidence into account. Again, my thanks to our witnesses for attending this afternoon. That concludes the public part of the meeting. We will now move into private session to review the evidence that we have heard today. Thank you very much.


Hello, welcome to another video in the understanding thermodynamics video series where today we are going to look at the two-phase region of water and quality. In this video we will look at specific volume, temperature and pressure in the two-phase region. We will define quality, we will look at how we can calculate quality and we will look at an example where we calculate the specific volume of two-phase vapor liquid mixtures. The saturation or equilibrium temperature of water at 100 kilopascals is 99.61 degrees Celsius and lies on the boundary line between the liquid and vapor phases which is shown by the square. However, the state at 100 kilopascals and 99.61 degrees Celsius can vary from a saturated liquid to a two-phase mixture to a saturated vapor. In order to quantify the quantity saturated liquid and the quantity saturated vapor, we make use of the concept of quality. For a saturated liquid vapor mixture, the quality which is denoted by x is the mass of vapor in a 1 kilogram liquid vapor mixture. The specific volume of the two-phase mixture is equal to the volume of the steam fraction plus the volume of the liquid fraction. The volume of the steam fraction is equal to the mass of the steam x multiplied by the specific volume of the saturated steam. The volume of the liquid fraction is equal to the mass of liquid 1 minus x multiplied by the specific volume of the saturated liquid. This gives us the equation as specific volume is equal to the quality x times the specific volume of a saturated vapor plus 1 minus x times the specific volume of a saturated liquid. Do take note that quality varies between zero and one and is only defined for two-phase mixtures. On the graph, the little square is saturated liquid water at 100 kilopascals and 99.61 degrees Celsius. Its quality is zero. Every state inside the dome is a two-phase mixture consisting of a saturated liquid and a saturated vapor. The quality in this region ranges between zero and one. The little circle denotes saturated vapor. Its quality is one. Outside the dome, the quality is not defined. Now let's do an example. The question asks that we calculate the volume of 2 kilograms of water at 100 kilopascals with a quality of 0.3. Now we know the total volume is equal to mass multiplied by the specific volume. And as the quality lies between zero and one, we know that for this question, the water is a two-phase saturated mixture. We therefore need to calculate the specific volume of a two-phase mixture, which is given by the equation shown. We find the values of the saturated liquid and the saturated vapor in the saturated water pressure table. And you can see at 100 kilopascals, we have the value for specific volume for saturated liquid and the specific volume for saturated vapor. And we get an answer of 0.5089 cubic meters per kilogram. Note the small contribution of the saturated liquid to the specific volume. As this is a two-phase saturated mixture, we know the temperature is equal to the saturation temperature at 100 kilopascals, which is 99.61 degrees Celsius. And that also shown in the table here. We can look at the two-phase saturated mixture on a temperature specific volume diagram as well. Now again, the small square shows a saturated liquid where the quality is zero. We have a two-phase state inside the dome where the quality is between zero and one. And then we have saturated vapors shown by the little circle where the quality is equal to one. And outside the dome, the quality is undefined. The next question asks us to calculate the quality of a two-phase saturated water at 80 degrees Celsius with a specific volume of 0.1 cubic meters per kilogram. We know we can calculate specific volume using this equation. And as we are told that this is a two-phase mixture, we can read the values of the saturated liquid water and the saturated vapor from the saturated water temperature table. So at 80 degrees, we have the two values that we need here. And we get an answer of 0.02907, which is between zero and one, which confirms that this is a two-phase mixture. And the pressure is therefore the saturation pressure of 47.416 kilopascal. And this can also be found in the table. So in summary, the quality is the mass fraction vapor in a two-phase liquid vapor mixture. Quality is always between zero and one. And at zero, it shows it's a saturated liquid. And at one, it shows it is a saturated vapor. Quality is only defined for the saturated state. We can also use this equation to calculate the specific volume of a two-phase liquid vapor mixture using quality. I hope you've enjoyed this video. The course notes, which these videos are based on, is on my website, rdransblog.com. I'm also on Twitter. My Twitter handle is at ASVA90, where you can ask me any question, and I will answer it gladly. Thank you very much for watching, and I will see you in the next video. Bye.


So, yes, I'm Jason McGregor. I'm a senior programme manager at NERC in their digital environment team. And I'm talking about the twine demonstrators funding opportunity that we've currently got live at the moment. Twine stands for Twining Capability for the Natural Environment and it is part of a package of activity that was awarded to the Met Office and in partnership with NERC. We're delivering the programme. It's part of the Government's Earth Observation Investment Package. So, it was £200 million spent across 17 different projects and programmes to support and boost the UK's Earth Observation Sciences and Technology. So, this is an overview of the funding opportunity details. The funding is available for up to £700,000 and will fund up to 80%. And the actual scope of the call is to deliver a pilot project that demonstrates how Earth Observation data can be used to address one of the following priority areas. So, we've got climate change, mitigations and adaptation, biodiversity and ecosystems, natural hazards including weather and their mitigations. So, we have kept the priority areas and scope quite broad because there are some limitations to this call. The projects have to start by the 2nd of January and they are up to 15 months. And so, the purpose of this call is to deliver the demonstrator project and then also align with the wider programme objectives which I'll go into in a moment. So, the aims of the broad-atwine programme are to harness the UK's leading position in environmental observation and computational sciences. And here we have again the multi-disciplinarity mentioned and we'd like multi-disciplinary teams to come together to realise the value of digital twinning technology to address environmental challenges. The second is to improve our understanding, modelling and prediction of events, informing future decision-making and testing impacts and building the foundations of a coherent and lasting landscape of digital twins for the environmental sciences. So, the twine programme is very much built on the information management framework for environmental digital twins. IMFE for short because it's quite mouthful. And so, this report was commissioned by NERC and the Met Office and developed in consortium with a lot of experts from our centres but it was led by NOC. So, thank you, recognition to them. And it outlines the key recommendations that we have for the future of digital twins in this space. And what we've asked any potential applicants to do is make sure that they have a thorough read of the IMFE report because the twine programme and any funded projects through this initiative will be required to kind of consider the recommendations from this report. As I mentioned, twine is part of a wider programme of investments. So, this is just a slide to demonstrate how this fits within the wider Earth observation investment package. We've got the Met Office, we've got the European Space Agency, UK Space Agency and other councils. And one of the key requirements of any of the funded projects will be to kind of engage with and collaborate with all of the other activities and investments in this space. So, twine at the Met Office. So, I don't know if you can see super clearly but we've got three work packages under the twine programme. The first work package is maximising the potential opportunities of digital twins through engaging with our community and bringing stakeholders together to get a common shared vision of what digital twins should look like, or the digital twin landscapes should look like for environmental sciences going forward. The third work package, sorry, is demonstrating the value through use cases. And the second work package, which relates to this slide here, is one that is led by the Met Office and Paul, thank you very much for giving me a lovely intro for this. So, the Met Office have been undergoing some activity to build underpinning capability in this space. So, this involves scoping and developing and testing standards and technologies for environmental-aware digital twins, understanding the barriers to federation and interoperability and also quite a lot of horizon scanning. So, any of the funded projects through this call will be part of this wider programme of activity and we will be holding an initiation meeting to bring together stakeholders from the twine programme and beyond. The programme, the call does finish on, or closes, sorry, on the 3rd of October, but expressions of interest are due this Friday, so it has been out for a little while. But if you do have any questions, don't get in touch. Thank you.