Meeting of the Parliament 25 June 2015
I join others in thanking Kevin Stewart’s committee and committee witnesses for their work on what is, by common consent, a wide-ranging and complex bill. Cara Hilton was right to remind us of the committee’s observation that the bill was a bit of a pick and mix. I have sympathy for the view that it is two bills masquerading as one, and Alex Fergusson quite rightly pointed to the implications of that for the vote on the bill at decision time. The cabinet secretary was his characteristically reasonable and measured self as he sought to deal with the amendments at stage 3 today. However, I am disappointed that there was not a willingness to accept some of the amendments in relation to airguns, and I will turn to that issue in a minute.
There is much in the bill that we welcome. Part 2, on alcohol licensing, and part 3, on civic licensing, set out reforms with which we strongly agree. Kevin Stewart articulated those reforms very fairly in his observations. A couple of examples are the closing of the loophole that means that, although it is illegal to buy alcohol for a child, it is legal to buy alcohol to share with a child in a public place; and creating additional record-keeping requirements for scrap metal dealers, including recording the identity of those who sell metal. Those are both eminently sensible moves.
The fact remains, however, that a great deal of the bill relates to the licensing of air weapons, an issue on which we have consistently voiced concerns—my colleague Tavish Scott did so during the stage 1 debate. Unfortunately, those concerns have not been adequately addressed. There have been opportunities to do so, most recently this afternoon, when we welcomed Alex Fergusson’s amendments at stage 3. I felt that they sought a practical way ahead on some of the issues while lifting the burden on those already struggling to manage requirements for existing gun licensing, for which there is a backlog, as Alex Fergusson indicated.
The Government is rightly concerned about public safety, but crime statistics suggest that the number of incidents involving air weapons is small and falling—evidence to the committee was very clear about that. I do not dispute that problems exist. In justifying the proposals on air weapons, the current justice secretary and previous ones have cited well-publicised incidents when young children have been hurt because of the inappropriate use of an airgun. Those incidents are appalling and have been roundly and rightly condemned, but those involved were prosecuted under laws that we already have. I cannot see any evidence of how the bill will reduce the risk of such incidents happening.
At stage 1, Tavish Scott called for a proportionate response to the problem, but the bill before us at this stage does not strike the right balance. The introduction of blanket restrictions will have a significant impact on individuals and practices that currently present no risk to public safety, without necessarily providing any deterrent for those intent on acting irresponsibly. Indeed, there is even an argument that the restrictions could encourage more people to trade up to more powerful weapons. I would be interested to know whether the bill has been either island proofed or rural proofed in any way, as the Government has committed to doing.
Steps might need to be taken to address the inappropriate ownership and use of airguns, but I fear that the proposals in the bill are more a way of allowing ministers to claim that they are taking action than an effective response to any problem that exists. On that basis and despite our welcome of many other aspects of the bill, we will not be able to support it at decision time.
16:39