Hansard

I am not a member of any of the committees that have considered the bill and will focus my contribution on three areas.

The first is air weapons. I have no wish to prevent people with a legitimate reason for owning an airgun from being able to do so—I do not think that anyone in Parliament wants airguns to be banned altogether—but it should be recognised that airguns are weapons. They use pneumatic technology. In fact, air weapons were used in hunting and in war in previous centuries, until firearms technology overtook them.

We know that air weapons can kill—Clare Adamson referred to the horrific case of the murder of two-year-old Andrew Morton—but the extent of the misuse of air weapons was revealed by Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson in evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee when he advised that, between April and July 2014, Police Scotland recorded 84 offences specifically involving air weapons. Of those,

“six involved injuries to animals”

and

“nine involved injuries to humans—one of which was an attempted murder”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 3 December 2014; c 20-21.]

Air weapons are often implicated in criminal activity. Almost half of firearms-related offences involve air weapons. They are frequently used in attacks on domestic and wild animals. Last year in Dumfries and Galloway, there were reports of a 13-year-old pet cat having to be destroyed after an airgun pellet injured its legs. Air weapons are often used against rabbits, rodents and other animals that are considered to be pests, but they are not always used by people who are trained how to use them properly, so there are cruelty and animal welfare considerations that militate against the continuation of unregulated ownership of air weapons.

I am not sure that I really followed Cameron Buchanan’s argument, but it seems to me that the logical extension of that would be to ban the licensing of firearms. We could apply the same argument to that licensing regime, but I do not imagine anybody particularly wants to reverse the situation.

We need to take air weapons seriously. There are an estimated 500,000 of them in Scotland, which presents a challenge. I understand the argument that the law-abiding, responsible airgun owners who use their guns for legitimate purposes will probably be the first to comply, but law-abiding people are the first to comply with most legislation.

I also appreciate that there are resourcing issues for Police Scotland and that ministers are seeking ways of ameliorating those pressures. The committee made a number of recommendations in that regard.

The committee is right to strongly recommend that there needs to be a comprehensive public information campaign that begins well in advance of the commencement of the licensing regime. That should be about informing owners but it is also an opportunity to change attitudes towards air weapons and make the public realise how dangerous they are and the sort of damage that they can do in the wrong hands.

When I was a child, my father had an air rifle and enjoyed what I understand from the report is known as plinking. He even allowed my sister and me to do it on occasion—probably at some danger to our neighbours, I imagine, in my case. In those days, that sort of ownership and use of airguns was totally acceptable, and he kept the airgun safely locked away. However, that was 40-odd years ago and attitudes need to move on. The dangers of the misuse of air weapons to humans and animals outweigh the argument that anyone who wants to enjoy informal target practice at home should have the right to do so.

I also welcome the long-awaited proposals on measures to deter metal theft, although I agree with the committee that they could be further strengthened.

Back in 2014, Ivor Williamson, the owner of Rosefield Salvage in Dumfries, visited one of my advice surgeries to argue for a ban on all cash payments for metal. He believed that that was the only way to combat illicit trade in metals. Genuine metal dealers such as his company have nothing to fear from a national register for metal dealers in Scotland, for example, or the modernisation of the definition of a metal dealer.

Metal theft inconveniences at the very least, and often endangers lives. I live near the A75 and have noticed that a stretch of the fence there is routinely taken away from a field where children play, where dogs are walked and where there could be a danger from people running on to the road.

My final comments on the bill relate to the proposals for licensing the sexual entertainment industry, prompted by the Court of Session’s opinion in Brightcrew Ltd v City of Glasgow Licensing Board.

I agree with the Scottish Government’s violence against women strategy that commercial sexual exploitation constitutes violence against women and that it is harmful not just to the women who are exploited but to all women because of the attitudes towards women and their bodies that it promotes. I would prefer that no such establishments existed.

I cannot accept the argument that the commercial provision of entertainment providing sexual stimulation is necessary to attract business conventions to a city, as one witness appears to have suggested. In my view, establishments that encourage men to objectify and depersonalise women have no place in a modern and progressive country. I have sympathy with the arguments for an outright ban and that regulation might imply acceptance of the attitudes towards women that such establishments promote. However, I also agree with Zero Tolerance that regulation is better than the current situation.

Local authorities in Scotland have taken different views on the sexual entertainment industry—as they have done on prostitution—so it is perhaps appropriate that such decisions be taken at a local authority level. However, I hope that it will be possible for a local authority that does not wish to allow any such activity to set “the appropriate number” of venues in its area at zero. I hope that many authorities will do so.

I will mention a suggestion that is related to the appropriate number of venues but which is not in the bill. Various members of local authorities have told me that they feel powerless to prevent the proliferation of betting shops and gambling establishments in some communities. That is not part of the bill, but I hope that, at some stage, we will give some consideration to whether local authorities need to have more powers to set appropriate limits for the number of gaming and betting establishments in particular communities.