Chamber
Plenary, 17 Jan 2008
17 Jan 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Firearms
I rise in support of my colleague Pauline McNeill's amendment.
Obviously, the safety of communities throughout Scotland is the most important subject that Parliament can debate. There is little doubt that there is understandable public concern about the unacceptable incidence of gun crime and, in particular, about illegal misuse of air weapons. I do not believe that any member will contest that statement.
Certainly there cannot be any member in the chamber who does not recall the impact on Scottish public opinion of the Dunblane tragedy or the horror of the death of young Andrew Morton, who, one week short of his third birthday, was shot in the head with an air-gun pellet in the east end of Glasgow. Such acts of violence against innocents rightly provoke grief and revulsion across society, but they also provoke the commitment to do everything practicable to combat such criminal excesses.
Unfortunately, as members know, such tragedies are not aberrations. The most up-to-date statistics demonstrate clearly that offences involving firearms continue to be a major problem. For example, the number of offences in which a firearm was fired and killed or caused injury to a person increased by a quarter, from 197 in 2005-06 to 247 in 2006-07. Of the 247 victims who were injured in recorded offences, almost a quarter were aged between 11 and 15, and 30—about 12 per cent—were aged 10 or under.
I truly believe that the previous Labour-led Executive's approach to this worrying issue was correct. Its move to secure stricter laws on air weapons through discussions with the Home Office led to legislation in the UK Parliament. In March 2005, the then Minister for Justice stated that we need to
"work in partnership with the UK Government"
because
"Having different systems across the UK could create loopholes that would be exploited by those with criminal intent."—[Official Report, 24 March 2005; c 15676.]
That analysis was correct then and remains so today.
In collaboration with the Home Office, the previous coalition pressed the need for more action and welcomed the enactment of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which, among other measures, effectively banned the sale of air weapons at car-boot sales, corner shops and outlets not approved by the police. It ended anonymous internet and mail-order sales of air weapons, it increased from 17 to 18 the minimum age for ownership of air weapons and rightly toughened the law on indiscriminate and reckless firing of air weapons from private property.
Those welcome reforms have been progressed in a spirit of co-operation across the various UK Administrations. In that respect, I am genuinely pleased by the terms of the Scottish Government's motion, which recognises that working together is essential if further progress is to be made. I note that Mr MacAskill's motion refers to
"re-energising the United Kingdom debate started in 2004".
The language is slightly hyperbolic, but I have no real difficulty with it. After all, as the motion goes on to say, we all want
"a system that is simpler to understand, administer and enforce and"—
as we would all agree—
"places prime importance on public safety."
Given the gravity of the issue, I am encouraged by the fact that we are, as Nigel Don's speech showed, focusing not on constitutional matters but on practical ways and means by which, given the present political dispensation, we can move forward sensibly. I know that my constituents want Parliament to take that approach. They are right to do so.
Public safety—the preservation of life itself—is too profound a matter to become enmeshed in the niceties of constitutional dialogue, as Mr MacAskill recognised when he said in his opening speech:
"we will not be precious or stand on ceremony."
The debate, he said,
"is not about the status of Parliaments or politicians but about the safety of our communities."
That is quite right, and it represents a welcome development from Mr MacAskill's position as an SNP back bencher on 24 March 2005, when he declared:
"this Parliament must legislate on firearms and it must do so forthwith."—[Official Report, 24 March 2005; c 15673.]
We all feel that legislation is necessary, but ministerial responsibility has shown Mr MacAskill the correct way to do things co-operatively.
Obviously, the safety of communities throughout Scotland is the most important subject that Parliament can debate. There is little doubt that there is understandable public concern about the unacceptable incidence of gun crime and, in particular, about illegal misuse of air weapons. I do not believe that any member will contest that statement.
Certainly there cannot be any member in the chamber who does not recall the impact on Scottish public opinion of the Dunblane tragedy or the horror of the death of young Andrew Morton, who, one week short of his third birthday, was shot in the head with an air-gun pellet in the east end of Glasgow. Such acts of violence against innocents rightly provoke grief and revulsion across society, but they also provoke the commitment to do everything practicable to combat such criminal excesses.
Unfortunately, as members know, such tragedies are not aberrations. The most up-to-date statistics demonstrate clearly that offences involving firearms continue to be a major problem. For example, the number of offences in which a firearm was fired and killed or caused injury to a person increased by a quarter, from 197 in 2005-06 to 247 in 2006-07. Of the 247 victims who were injured in recorded offences, almost a quarter were aged between 11 and 15, and 30—about 12 per cent—were aged 10 or under.
I truly believe that the previous Labour-led Executive's approach to this worrying issue was correct. Its move to secure stricter laws on air weapons through discussions with the Home Office led to legislation in the UK Parliament. In March 2005, the then Minister for Justice stated that we need to
"work in partnership with the UK Government"
because
"Having different systems across the UK could create loopholes that would be exploited by those with criminal intent."—[Official Report, 24 March 2005; c 15676.]
That analysis was correct then and remains so today.
In collaboration with the Home Office, the previous coalition pressed the need for more action and welcomed the enactment of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which, among other measures, effectively banned the sale of air weapons at car-boot sales, corner shops and outlets not approved by the police. It ended anonymous internet and mail-order sales of air weapons, it increased from 17 to 18 the minimum age for ownership of air weapons and rightly toughened the law on indiscriminate and reckless firing of air weapons from private property.
Those welcome reforms have been progressed in a spirit of co-operation across the various UK Administrations. In that respect, I am genuinely pleased by the terms of the Scottish Government's motion, which recognises that working together is essential if further progress is to be made. I note that Mr MacAskill's motion refers to
"re-energising the United Kingdom debate started in 2004".
The language is slightly hyperbolic, but I have no real difficulty with it. After all, as the motion goes on to say, we all want
"a system that is simpler to understand, administer and enforce and"—
as we would all agree—
"places prime importance on public safety."
Given the gravity of the issue, I am encouraged by the fact that we are, as Nigel Don's speech showed, focusing not on constitutional matters but on practical ways and means by which, given the present political dispensation, we can move forward sensibly. I know that my constituents want Parliament to take that approach. They are right to do so.
Public safety—the preservation of life itself—is too profound a matter to become enmeshed in the niceties of constitutional dialogue, as Mr MacAskill recognised when he said in his opening speech:
"we will not be precious or stand on ceremony."
The debate, he said,
"is not about the status of Parliaments or politicians but about the safety of our communities."
That is quite right, and it represents a welcome development from Mr MacAskill's position as an SNP back bencher on 24 March 2005, when he declared:
"this Parliament must legislate on firearms and it must do so forthwith."—[Official Report, 24 March 2005; c 15673.]
We all feel that legislation is necessary, but ministerial responsibility has shown Mr MacAskill the correct way to do things co-operatively.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1153, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on firearms.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):
SNP
This debate is long overdue. The misuse of firearms, particularly air weapons, remains a major problem in our communities. There is a distinct problem in Sco...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
I presume that the suggestion of hosting a summit has been well thought out and is not just a political stunt. If that is the case, will the minister explain...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
We all know that various matters relating to the Post Office are reserved to Westminster, and they may be involved. I assure Mr Henry that we are dealing wit...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
I am sure that members are glad that we are dealing with the issue seriously and looking to tackle the problems. My question extends the debate from air-guns...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
Off the top of my head, I do not know. I presume that we might be able to do something through a licensing regime. I took a call on the point from the Greeno...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
Does the cabinet secretary suggest that the current differentiation between the system for regulating firearms and that for shotguns is likely to end and tha...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
We are having a summit to involve all those who have an interest—whether through sport or farming, or as police. We must have a system that is fit for purpos...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
The strict control of firearms is essential if the public are to be kept safe from violence that involves guns. This afternoon, we will debate how to win the...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
Labour's amendment refers to"retaining consistency across all parts of the United Kingdom".There seems to be inconsistency in that Northern Ireland has a sep...
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
The cabinet secretary is being a wee bit mischievous, as the character of the problem in Northern Ireland is clearly different. There has been generous suppo...
The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):
SNP
A central question is whether all members agree that air-guns should be licensed. Does the Labour Party in Scotland support that position?
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
I will talk about the Labour Party's position and enlighten the member on that matter.We need to look in greater detail at the workability of any further res...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
The cabinet secretary was correct in stating that this is a serious issue that we must treat with the utmost seriousness. Much of what he said today was perf...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
We accept the point that the law in itself is never a total solution to any problem. That applies in this case. However, does Bill Aitken accept—given that t...
Bill Aitken:
Con
All such ideas have varying degrees of merit. Once the appropriate inquiries have been carried out and consultations taken place, there could be a case for l...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I agree with the minister that there is increasing public concern about gun crime. In 2006-07, the Scottish police recorded 1,245 offences in which it was al...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
Mike Pringle argues that legislation in Scotland that did not exist throughout the UK would be unenforceable. We would prefer UK-wide legislation, but if tha...
Mike Pringle:
LD
That is probably right, but I will come on to the considerable number of measures that have been introduced recently—we should give them time to bed in. If t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
We move to the open debate on the motion.
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I suggest that we should distinguish clearly between three kinds of weapons: the first are air-guns, the second I will call handguns, and an adequate descrip...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
I rise in support of my colleague Pauline McNeill's amendment.Obviously, the safety of communities throughout Scotland is the most important subject that Par...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
Pauline McNeill said that anyone who wants an air-gun should be able to demonstrate the purpose for which it is required. Does Bill Butler agree with us that...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
You are in your final minute, Mr Butler.
Bill Butler:
Lab
We should have a system that operates across the UK and which militates against—Interruption. As Duncan McNeil said from a sedentary position, criminals do n...
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
No one can deny that we have a problem with gun crime in Scotland. I will give two examples from the west of Scotland to follow the many cases that have alre...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
Will the member attempt to deal with the irony—some people might call it an enigma—that in respect of the pools of illegally held firearms and legally held f...
Bill Wilson:
SNP
I do not accept the member's point and I will explain why. He was confused about the fundamental difference that exists between air-guns and firearms.It is o...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
At a stroke, Bill Wilson has managed to destroy the efforts of Kenny MacAskill to develop a constructive argument about dealing with something on the basis o...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
I made it quite clear that, as a member of the SNP, I think that this Parliament should legislate. The member is talking about 2005, when I was referring to ...