Firearms Legislation
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2622, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on firearms legislation.
Nine years on from Dunblane but only a few days on from the funeral of a young boy who was tragically killed in Glasgow by an air weapon, when will we learn that guns are lethal weapons? When will we take action against firearms in our society? That is why we are having today's debate.
We can act responsibly or we can abdicate responsibility. Both the Tory amendment, which denies the extent of the problem, and the Executive amendment, which fails to provide a solution, are unacceptable. The Scottish National Party's position is clear: this Parliament must legislate on firearms and it must do so forthwith.
There can be no greater duty for a Government than to protect its citizens. We struggle to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we find weapons of a lethal nature on open sale in high street shops throughout Scotland.
The Dunblane massacre shook Scotland to its very soul. We thought that such things happened only in movies or in the United States of America, but it happened in a small town in our native land. Scotland vowed collectively that such an event would never happen again and that action would be taken. An inquiry took place and legislation was amended, but that action did not go far enough: a weapon capable of killing a child was on public sale, was lawfully available and was freely used, with fatal consequences.
Firearms remain a major problem in our communities. Air rifles have captured the public attention, but they are not the only weapons that cause problems for police and communities alike. Since 1999, the number of police operations involving firearms has increased by 154 per cent in Scotland and by a staggering 670 per cent in Glasgow. Scotland has a significant problem with the sale, possession and use of real and replica weapons.
The problem is not just the illegal weapons that are traded by underworld figures. Air rifles are openly on display and can be bought freely without a licence. Replica weapons might not kill—although they are capable of being modified to do so—but they certainly frighten and intimidate. Armed response officers can no more tell the difference between a real weapon and a replica one than can the frightened shop assistant or intimidated bank teller, yet such weapons are widely advertised and openly available on the high streets of towns throughout Scotland.
Moreover, the police face difficulties in revoking firearms certificates when they have cause for concern about an individual's behaviour or actions. The law's hands might be tied, but the potential killer's trigger is not. The current law is outdated and flawed. Senior officers are required to go through far too many hoops and hurdles to revoke a licence. The current law is far too complicated and is not easily understood.
Current firearms legislation is made up of a combination of various acts and amendments. The main acts are the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms Act 1982, which have been amended on numerous occasions since they were passed. The pieces of legislation are far too many and far too complicated for the new Scotland in the 21st century.
The difficulty is not just that the First Minister thinks that action might need to be taken while the Prime Minister and Michael Howard disagree, but that the decision lies with Westminster rather than with Holyrood. In the most recent Queen's speech, which set out the Labour Government's priorities in that jurisdiction, firearms were not mentioned. If Westminster will not act, we must. However, although the Scottish Parliament is in charge of criminal justice, firearms are reserved to London. That must change.
The Executive drive for a surrender of air weapons is commendable. However, a system that allows some citizens still to buy new weapons while others hand in their old ones is illogical and inadequate. We need to address supply as well as demand. Only those who have a legitimate reason, such as pest and vermin control or registered gun club use, should be able to buy and hold firearms of whatever sort. The teenager's desire for an air weapon and the adult's desire to have a shotgun for fun are unhealthy obsessions that, in the eyes of the law, it must become unacceptable to act upon.
Scottish society is different from that south of the border. It needs different solutions to deal with a firearms problem that is significantly different. Tragically, in many English communities, the major gun problem is not air weapons or replica weapons but real weapons that are imported from the Balkans and used by yardie gangs or in senseless drive-by shootings.
On the issues of supply and policing, does the member agree that England and Scotland face issues of common concern? How would he address those issues?
From my discussions with major police figures and members of shooting organisations, I understand that a European Union directive will seek to address many of those matters. It is correct that that should be so, because many weapons in Scotland and the United Kingdom are supplied from the Balkans or the Republic of Ireland as well as from Northern Ireland. Of course we have a commonality of interest within the United Kingdom, but we must also clearly accept some uniformity on the matter within the European Union.
As I said, we have a fundamentally different society. That is why Scotland has different legislation on swords and knives. We in Scotland recognised that swords and knives posed a significant problem—the SNP supported the Executive on that issue—but it is now incumbent on us to recognise that Scotland also has a significant and distinct problem with air weapons, replica weapons and real weapons, on which we must legislate. If it was correct for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on knives and swords, it is certainly correct for it to do so on other weapons.
What is needed in Brixton or Handsworth is not necessarily the same as what is needed in Bathgate or Haghill. Air weapons and replica weapons are a major problem in Scotland and action is needed now. That means that the power to legislate must be devolved. As I said, the legislation on knives and swords that applies in Gretna is different from that which applies in Carlisle, because we know that we have a distinct problem and need a unique solution. The same applies to firearms. Devolution was about addressing Scotland's distinct needs. This is a need that is crying out for action.
The issue is not just who should legislate but what the legislation should do. A consolidated firearms act is a prerequisite. Let us start with a clean sheet of paper that specifies what constitutes a firearm, replica weapon or air weapon. We need to define how such weapons are sold and specify who may have them and how they acquire and store them. Just as important, we need to specify how we revoke a licence when our police have fears over a weapon's retention and possible use.
Nine years ago, there was no Scottish Parliament and action was limited. Now we have a Scottish Parliament and it is time to act on the scourge of firearms in our society. Let there be no more tragedies in the days or even years to come. It is time for this Parliament to legislate on firearms.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern recent tragedies involving firearms and the continuing dangers in our communities posed by both real and replica guns; recognises that, notwithstanding action taken after the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, there are ongoing difficulties and gaps in the current legislation; calls, therefore, for powers over firearms to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in view of the distinctive nature of our society, the distinct nature of the gun problem in Scotland and the urgent needs in our communities, and further calls for a new and all-encompassing Firearms Act to clarify what constitutes a firearm, who may possess a firearm, the circumstances under which people may acquire, keep and use firearms and all other aspects relating to firearms, including authorisation, monitoring and revocation.
Although I cannot disagree with some of Kenny MacAskill's comments this morning, I am concerned that the SNP, once again, wants to focus more on the constitutional aspects of where legislation is introduced rather than on the need to consider tighter controls and how we can work in partnership with the UK Government. If we followed the apparent logic of the SNP by having different systems across the UK, that would arguably create potential loopholes—
Will the minister give way?
No, I want to make this point.
Having different systems across the UK could create loopholes that would be exploited by those with criminal intent. I take that issue seriously.
We have some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. We will continue to ensure that those laws remain effective and up to date in controlling firearms and in reducing firearms crimes. We worked with the UK Government to address the concerns of communities about air weapons and imitation weapons. I remind the SNP that new measures were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. That legislation created new offences and restricted the sale of such weapons, raising the age at which a person can own air weapons from 14 to 17 and creating a new offence of possessing an air weapon or an imitation weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse.
Will the minister give way?
I will not give way; I am very short of time.
We also banned the import and sale of a certain group of air weapons that use self-contained air cartridge systems and we introduced licensing for such weapons. However, we have said that those measures might not go far enough—the First Minister has said that, I have said that, and the Prime Minister has recognised that we need to continue to work with the UK Government to examine what more needs to be done. We are actively engaged with the UK Government in the current review of firearms law and I shall certainly ensure that specific Scottish interests and concerns inform any decisions that are taken. I reiterate the words of the First Minister, who stressed that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out at this stage. However, decisions must be taken in a measured and informed way, and I do not think that, at this point in time, there is a good case to be made for focusing on the constitutional issue rather than on the issue at hand and on ensuring that we have appropriate legislation that meets the needs of our communities.
Is not it the case that swords are a distinctive problem in English society? Within the past few days, a young man—apparently a charity worker—has been shot dead by police officers in Humberside for carrying a sword. Why is it that we have legislated separately north of the border on knives and swords but have not done so on other weapons? Is there a different problem? If so, what is it? Why are ministers prepared to act on knives and swords but unprepared to act on real and replica firearms?
Let me make it clear that I take the issue of knife crime and gun crime in communities extremely seriously. To suggest that the Executive is not prepared to act is simply wrong. We will act.
Well, do so.
We are acting—we are acting in partnership with our colleagues in the Home Office. That has already led to a tightening up of the legislation.
It is important that we remember the context in which we are talking. We know that gun crime has declined over the past 10 years. Part of that is due to the tightening up of the legislation, but we also know that we cannot be complacent. Guns still cause far too much damage and suffering, and one tragic shooting remains one too many. Recent tragic events have shown just how lethal any gun—even if it is not illegal—can be if it is in the wrong hands. We must do all that we can to act so that no other parent has to endure the loss experienced by the family in Glasgow. We must act to make our communities safer.
Although we are examining the legislation and considering whether and where we need to tighten it up, we should not simply sit back and do nothing. That is why, yesterday, I followed up the First Minister's plea to people to hand in weapons with a campaign to urge those—particularly parents—who have, without good reason, such air weapons in their homes to hand them in. I know that people may be concerned that that campaign has not gone far enough, but 55 weapons have already been handed in—
Out of half a million.
That is 55 weapons off the street since yesterday, without any real publicity. I think that that, on the back of the First Minister's comments, will give some comfort to communities, because it shows that people are taking responsibility and are tackling the problems of air-guns, which are linked to antisocial behaviour in our communities. That is where I intend to focus our work with the police over the next few weeks.
I end with a plea. I urge parents and others to think again and to think really carefully about whether they need an air weapon in their home. I urge people to ask themselves three questions: "Do I need an air-gun? Can I be sure it won't fall into the wrong hands? Do I know enough about the law to be able to keep within the law?" If the answer to even one of those questions is no, I urge people to consider very seriously getting rid of their air weapon. If people do not need air weapons, they should hand them in.
That campaign is not the only thing that we will do. The right approach is to consider the 4,000 responses that came in to the Home Office consultation and to look in a measured and informed way at tightening up the legislation. I intend to work with my Home Office colleagues on protecting communities, not picking at the constitution.
I move amendment S2M-2622.2, to leave out from "notes with concern" to end and insert:
"extends its sympathies to those affected by recent tragedies involving firearms; acknowledges that following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996 UK governments have considerably tightened firearms legislation so that the UK now has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world; welcomes additional action taken by the Scottish Executive to encourage people to hand in air weapons to the police; reaffirms the benefits of a UK-wide legal framework and system of gun control, and supports the Executive in its continuing engagement with the UK Government on the current wide-ranging and comprehensive review of firearms provisions."
It is inevitable that, in a debate of this nature, attention is focused on the recent tragedy of the death of two-year-old Andrew Morton. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family. Any loss of life is a terrible waste, but it is particularly poignant when the victim is so young, as that little boy was.
Unlike the Scottish nationalists, I firmly believe that it is important that firearms legislation remains the responsibility of Westminster, and the minister has eloquently articulated the reasons why there is much to commend in that approach. Gun control is a serious issue and I believe that it is best served by there being a uniform approach throughout the United Kingdom, although I concede that there are practical differences to be found between Scotland and England.
Thankfully, we have not seen the surge in gun crime and gang warfare that has been witnessed in England. In the past week alone, we have seen four men convicted of the shootings of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis, which occurred last new year, as well as the conviction of Peter Williams for the murder of the jeweller Marian Bates. Gun crime, involving both banned and legal guns, has doubled in England since 1997. I am pleased to note that that trend has not been replicated in Scotland, and I think that we should be prepared to speak about that, as it highlights the fact that firearms legislation, which applies equally north and south of the border, cannot guarantee a consistent response. Although Scotland has not seen the surge in gun crime that has taken place south of the border, that is not to say that there is room for complacency. On the contrary, despite the introduction of the handgun legislation at Westminster, there continues to be handgun-related crime in Scotland. I draw members' attention to the fact that, tragically, since 1998 there have been 259 murders, attempted murders and robberies involving pistols and revolvers, the vast majority of that category of weaponry being banned. Sadly, banning those guns did not prevent those crimes from occurring. Indeed, there have been more crimes of that type involving pistols and revolvers, which are largely banned, than crimes of that type involving air-guns.
What it is vital to remember, and what those statistics demonstrate, is that bans and legislation do not on their own prevent tragedies and crimes from occurring. In Scotland today, drink-driving is banned, but in 2003 more than 11,000 drink-driving offences were recorded. Drugs are outlawed, yet we have a growing drugs problem. Last year, almost 1 million crimes and offences were committed in Scotland—all incidents in which the perpetrator broke the law. Legislation alone will not prevent individuals who are intent on breaking the law from breaking the law.
In tandem with the law, we also need a robust enforcement regime. That means that we must have police out and about in our communities deterring and detecting crime. I know that the minister is now persuaded of the wisdom of what has been happening in New York, where crime fell dramatically when a zero-tolerance approach to crime was adopted, along with an increase in the police presence on the streets. Low-level crime and antisocial behaviour cannot be tolerated. Whether they involve broken windows or attacks on firemen carrying out their lawful duty, such offences are simply not acceptable. However, if they go unchecked, they create a breeding ground for more serious crime. What we need at the moment is not so much more law as more police officers on our streets. I know that the Executive disputes the statistics, but how can the 140 police officers who are on our streets at any one time possibly achieve the required community coverage? Mr Henry disputed those statistics, but I refer ministers to their own document, "Narrowing the Gap".
Will Annabel Goldie give way?
I am very short of time. Do I have enough time, Presiding Officer?
It is your call, Miss Goldie. You have about a minute and a half.
I think that I would rather expand on my point than take an intervention from Mr McFee.
It is important that we also have a wider justice system to back up our police and communities. I have taken issue with the Executive on the recent announcement about potential criminals being allowed to pay fiscal penalties. I think that that is wiping the slate clean, so that the offenders have no record and no conviction, and even if they are prosecuted and sent to jail they may be released after as little as a quarter of their sentence. Such policies do not assist in deterring crime; they merely reinforce the fear of crime among the law abiding and they strike at the credibility of the criminal justice system. That is why my party is pledged to ending automatic early release and to ensuring that we have the necessary prison capacity to protect our communities from continual law breakers.
However, Presiding Officer, I have listened to the minister's speech and have had the opportunity to study the text of her amendment, which, in the circumstances, I am prepared to support. Therefore, I will not move the amendment in my name.
I have to say that my heart sank when I read the motion, which effectively seeks to make a constitutional issue out of a tragedy.
I cannot honestly state how I would react to a son of mine being killed, nor could I offer any words of consolation to any family that loses a loved one who is killed following shots from an air-gun—such words would be wholly insufficient. However, I understand that the family wants to ensure that no one else goes through such a horror. Therefore, the issue for this Parliament as well as for the UK Parliament is how we react.
It might be of little consolation to victims of crime, although I hope that it is a consolation to society, that the number of crimes involving firearms fell by almost 10 per cent in 2003. However, air-guns accounted for 43 per cent of all offences involving a firearm. That is a rise of 25 per cent since 2002, from 331 incidents to 415. However, that figure should be seen against a decline over the period since 1989, from 1006 offences with an air-gun in 1989 to 415 in 2003. The fall in the number of air-gun offences is more marked than that for all firearms offences.
Is it the prevalence of the air-gun or the behaviour of the owner that should concern us most? In the UK in 2003, there were 1.3 million shotguns and 671 recorded crimes that involved a shotgun. Air-gun offences in 2003 were nearly 20 times that of shotgun offences: there were four shotgun offences in 2003, in comparison with more than 100 that related to air-guns.
Why are air-guns so prevalent in urban areas in Scotland and why has it been so acceptable for people to have air-guns when they have little need to control vermin? Air-guns are not toys, although I would be hypocritical if I said that I had not used one almost as a toy when I was younger. My dad had two air-guns, which we used for target practice out in the country. He looked after them and never gave any thought to the possibility that they could be used to attack other people. The use of air-guns routinely to fire at the emergency services, at people walking down the street or at people's animals or pets is disgusting and is rightly illegal.
The increase in the use of air-guns in that way is matched by the increase in the number of people who carry knives or use glass bottles as weapons. Why some sections of our society are more inclined to violence or conflict is a serious issue that the Parliament needs to address urgently because the age profile of such offenders is getting younger. In 2003, 195 air-weapon offences were cleared up by the police. Of those 195, the age of the main accused in 76 cases was 15 or under. In a further 74 cases, the main accused were aged 16 to 20, and in only 45 cases were the main accused aged 21 or over.
Does the member accept that when someone applies for a shotgun or firearm licence they are required to demonstrate that they can securely store their rifle? If that same certification was required for air rifles they would not fall into the hands of 10, 12 and 15-year olds in the way that he alluded to.
I am sure that the member has read the consultation paper by the Home Office, which asks that exact question. The issue is being considered by a Parliament—just not the Scottish Parliament. That does not negate the fact that the Scottish Parliament is being consulted with regard to changing the law.
The consultation also considers the definitions, ownership, certification and potential banning of some other types of guns and addresses codifying in law lethal weapons, which are not currently defined. As has been said, any death that relates to air-guns is unacceptable and is one too many. Thankfully, there have been only two such incidents since 1989 in Scotland.
Liberal Democrats have supported moves to set up a national firearms register and have also supported the UK Government's moves last year to create the new offence of carrying a replica firearm or an air-gun in public and to ban gas cartridge weapons.
Although we are concerned about the use of replica weapons by criminals, we share the Government's view that a total ban of some of those would be unworkable. Nevertheless, we would support steps to restrict availability by licensing outlets and banning internet sales. We support the recommendations by the all-party parliamentary group at Westminster, which found a strong case for more restrictions on replica weapons.
I have difficulty in accepting that there would not be very considerable problems with having separate firearms regulations and penalties in England and Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No. The member is in his last minute.
The member will forgive me.
SNP members sincerely argue for independence, but I hope that they can see the argument that, until their dream is realised, there are strong arguments for a common approach to be taken to some issues within the United Kingdom—as, indeed, Mr MacAskill indicated. Better co-ordination within the UK among police forces, local authorities and others is needed.
We are not complacent. When a schoolchild in the USA murders his grandparents, goes to school and murders his classmates and then turns the gun on himself, the impact is felt not only in the USA but around the world; that is also the case when a young child is killed in Scotland. We have serious questions to ask, not of the constitution but of the law, our society and, increasingly, ourselves.
I add my own words of condolence and concern for the family of the victim, Andrew Morton, in Craigend.
As Jeremy Purvis alluded to, we must consider the global context of the use of weapons. The tragic incident in Minnesota involving Jeff Weise has reminded us of the even more disturbing Columbine incident a few years ago. In Scotland, it puts us in mind of the massacre that took place in Dunblane. Time after time we express our grief and our shock after such incidents, yet guns remain on display and on sale across Scotland.
As the Executive has announced in respect of sporting knives, guns are not all used for legitimate purposes. Even those that are used for innocent target practice—as Jeremy Purvis told us—can end up falling into the wrong hands or their use can result in tragic accidents.
I share some of Cathy Jamieson's reaction to the SNP motion. It is sad that a clearer motion has not been lodged. The motion does not call for tighter regulation; it calls for devolved regulation. Members know very well that I support the bringing of those powers to Scotland, but I wish that we were debating a call for tighter regulation rather than one for devolved regulation.
I am also unclear about what the motion means when it refers to
"the distinct nature of the gun problem in Scotland".
We should look at not only the types of weapons but the number of recorded offences. The proportion of incidents in which different types of weapons are used may vary between Scotland and England, but the number of recorded firearms offences in Scotland has been coming down, while in England and Wales the figure for many of those offences has been going up. Air weapons are not a new phenomenon and they are not distinctively Scottish. Figures from the Gun Control Network show that in the past four months alone, 47 incidents involving the use of air weapons have been recorded. Four of those were in Scotland; the rest were all in England or Wales.
There is a case for saying that the problem in Scotland is not distinct, but I would not move on from that to say that we should therefore leave the powers to deal with it at Westminster. I want those powers to be brought to Scotland, but I am not sure that the motion clearly states what we would do with them once we got them.
There is much to support in the Executive amendment, but I hope that what I perceive to be a contradiction at the end of the amendment can be explained. The amendment mentions the benefits of having tighter regulation than neighbouring countries have, but states that shared arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the UK are an advantage. If loopholes can be exploited, why would differences in regulation between Scotland and England be more open to exploitation or abuse than differences in regulation between the UK and France or France and Germany? I say to the Executive that I am open to persuasion on its argument, which I will listen to in the minister's closing speech, but the issue should be addressed.
As for the Conservative amendment, I have to say that words fail me when I consider the behaviour of the Conservative party since the events at Craigend. There seems to have been a calculated insult from Michael Howard to the Morton family, to their community and to the people who were touched by the Dunblane massacre. To tell a grieving family that the problem is one of too much gun control beggars belief.
The Justice Department is not the only department that should do something about the matter. We need young people to grow up in a society that gives them hope and a sense of purpose and which fosters their ability to resolve conflicts without violence. It may be that the Education Department and the Development Department, which has responsibility for communities, have more to say on the subject that does the Justice Department alone.
I declare an interest, as my husband is a partner in a pest control firm and as such is subject to legislation on the control of firearms.
I extend my sympathies to the parents and relatives of Andrew Morton and to all who have suffered from the indiscriminate use of firearms. I agree that there must not be a knee-jerk reaction to this tragic case, but it is difficult not to be emotional when the life of a two-year-old child has been lost. I completely understand the anger and frustration of Andrew Morton's family.
I welcome the amnesty that has been introduced by the Minister for Justice, which has already seen a number of air-guns handed in. However, 55 out of an estimated 0.5 million is only 0.1 per cent. We must do much more to prevent another tragedy from happening. That is why we need to consider introducing an all-encompassing registration system, which would deal with what some see as an unfortunate macho culture in Scotland.
On the Tory and Labour amendments, I recognise that there has been a tightening of legislation at Westminster, but one-size-fits-all legislation cannot possibly work for the type of firearms that can be obtained in Scotland. Recent legislation has raised the age at which people can acquire firearms, but let us not forget that the age of the alleged perpetrator of the crime against Andrew Morton was well above any limit that has been set. The minister and Jeremy Purvis mentioned the dangers of Scotland having different legislation from England but if Scotland needs separate and different legislation, surely it is our duty as a Parliament to realise that and introduce it.
We must realise that as air-guns get older, they become much more dangerous. Their springs become worn and the guns become more dangerous and powerful. In fact, some are as powerful as 0.22 rifles. We must get it across to people that air-guns are not toys but lethal weapons. Perhaps an educational campaign would make people aware of that.
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland believes that there are 500,000 air-guns in Scotland, but we need to know exactly how many are in circulation. We also need to know about the weapons that are involved in incidents. At the moment, we are working on 2003 figures, but that is not good enough. We need updated figures.
Other issues have to be examined. We have to look at current legislation and stop the indiscriminate sale of air-guns, as Kenny MacAskill said. Members have only to walk through the streets of Glasgow and up to the Barras, as I do most Sundays, and they will see big, powerful air-guns—huge things that look like rifles—for sale in shop windows. Legislation must be introduced to ensure that such weapons cannot be bought over the counter. Firearms should be kept under lock and key and be open to inspection by officers at any time, so the legislation should also ensure that the main key holders are registered with the police, as Bruce McFee said.
In conclusion, our motion calls for powers over firearms to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in view of tragic happenings, not just recently, but in the past. The Parliament should agree on that. We have to get the police, community groups, the Parliament and other interested parties round the table to discuss the way forward on regulating the use of these lethal and dangerous weapons, which, in the wrong hands, can have grave consequences.
The tragedy in the east end of Glasgow happened in Margaret Curran's constituency, and in an area that I served as a councillor for many years, as I stated in a parliamentary question to the First Minister. The shock and concern of that community is testimony to how horrified its members are by the events of a few weeks ago. That horror is felt by many other people in Scotland and across the UK. This tragedy follows on from the events in Dunblane nine years ago, and the need to respond to concerns about access to firearms and their misuse by individuals.
The key issue is not the location or the nature of firearms; it is the capacity of individuals to use them, and the fact that we cannot track how people access them. This morning's debate should not be about the constitution. Ultimately, it should be about what we as informed representatives in Scotland can do to minimise the occurrence of events such as those that have taken place in the past few weeks.
Precisely.
I hear the word "precisely", and I agree with it, because our debate should be precisely about those issues, not about whether we have full powers or the fact that only certain aspects of the law on the misuse of weapons are devolved to Scotland. The fact that right across the chamber concerns have been raised about the motion will, I hope, lead the SNP to reflect upon it after the debate.
Only two or three months ago I encountered a terrible situation of the potential use of a firearm within the Bridgeton and Gorbals areas, which resulted in the individual concerned being convicted last week. That incident caused substantial fear and alarm in the community. We need to address what it is about our culture that leads to the misuse of firearms, particularly air-guns. For the life of me, I do not know why people need to have air-gun rifles, particularly in urban Scotland. My experience of air-gun rifles is fairly negative. It is argued that the use of such weapons is a harmless bit of fun that perhaps leads to an exhilarating buzz with no consequences, but in some cases their use can be extremely dangerous, or even lethal. That is the reality. Until that reality is acknowledged, we cannot have the debate that we need to have.
The member is correct to point out that there is a problem with the culture. Does he acknowledge that all parties accepted that there is a knife culture in Scotland, that we needed to legislate and that we correctly did so? Why is it correct to legislate against a knife culture, but not against the prevalent gun culture and the use of air weapons, replica weapons and real weapons?
No one is arguing that there is no need for legislation. The SNP's claim is that only the Scottish Parliament can legislate, but I disagree profoundly. We can exercise powers here on some aspects of weapon use, but we can also exercise powers through consultation, discussion and agreement with the Home Office. That is the debate that we need to have. I hope that the debate is about encouraging changes to legislation to address the issues. The Gun Control Network has produced a series of publications on the misuse of air-guns. The funny thing is that they cover Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, and show that events have occurred throughout the country. It is reasonable to think about ways to address those events.
I am not interested in the country of origin of legislation. That is not the central point. At issue is the legislative framework. What is the legal definition? What is the regulatory framework? Can we move forward? The minister has identified that she wishes to do that. I hope that we can do so, for the sake of future generations. If we do, we will be responding not just to the recent tragedy, but to other events, and hopefully we will put in place a much stronger framework.
I will speak on behalf of my constituents in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which comprises urban and rural areas. Not long after I was elected, one of the first things that I was involved with was the problem that a farmer was having with people going through his fields when his horses were in foal. I was horrified to find that a foal had been shot and that its terrible injury had become infected. A great deal of care and attention and £1,000 of vet bills later the foal was able to walk, but with a limp.
Recently, we had a tragic accident—if it can be called an accident. The person who shot the little boy, Andrew Morton, happened to be shooting at firemen, who are well protected. Depending on where high velocity projectiles land, they can kill.
When I worked in Springburn, our health centre windows had pellets shot through them, but we never caught the people responsible. Following the incident with the farmer in my constituency, the police were involved and the people responsible were caught. I encouraged the police to do something in schools to help children understand that animals hurt like human beings hurt. Wildlife officers are going a long way towards achieving that.
Windows in a hall in Bishopbriggs are constantly being put in by air-rifle pellets. One of my constituents has installed toughened glass in their windows because they have been put in so many times. However, nobody is caught. My constituents want tight rules and regulations and they want the people who are involved to be caught. We all understand that, no matter what the legislation is and how tight the rules are, people will get guns. People who shoot guns illegally must be put in custody and taught a lesson. We should consider why people find it funny to pop shots at firemen. This may be cynical, but I wonder whether, in the recent exceedingly tragic incident, the chap would have been caught if he had shot just at firemen and the little boy had not been killed.
We need to catch the wrongdoers. If we do not have enough police to catch them, we are in serious trouble. I have listened to the debate—the most serious point is that we need to tighten up the legislation and make people in our communities feel that it is worth reporting crime, rather than that they have to install toughened glass. People are constantly worried about such incidents, which may not be the most common type of crime, but they happened when I was a child and they still happen, so we are not getting on top of the situation. Windows are being put in and, one day, somebody's eye may be put out—a young child has already been killed.
When I was a child, a young man had an accident when playing with a bow and arrow—one of those canes that people used to play with. He was shooting the cane into the sky for fun to see how far it would go, but it came down and landed in his eye. I have never forgotten that tragedy. That accident affected the person who caused it, but we are talking about people who use guns for some kind of fun. I do not care where it is done, but we must tighten up the legislation and do something about the matter.
I remind members of an important point: people outside the Parliament will judge us not by our actions today, nor by what we say, but by what we achieve in delivering a safer Scotland. We should put aside what are, frankly, semantic debates about the SNP motion and the amendments and focus on the core issue of how to deliver improvements in public safety.
A paradox that has intrigued me for a considerable time is that, 30 years ago, the two countries in which I felt safest were the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union—two countries in which the police were not armed. Of course, in one country, the situation was an indication of a submissive, highly controlled population that lived in fear of a draconian Government; in the other, it was the result of a society that had many common purposes and goals.
When my father died some years ago, it came as a great surprise to me to find that he had a blunderbuss in the house. My father was a GP and a patient had apparently given it to him as a present for a service that he had rendered. The weapon was likely to be more lethal to the user than to anyone at the other end of it, but, as many people who are faced with that circumstance do, I took it to the police at once and told them that I wanted nothing whatever to do with it. That illustrates and builds on Jeremy Purvis's point that the issue is not only the prevalence of air-guns, but the behaviour of those who have weapons of one sort or another.
I welcome the increased attention that is being given to the subject in the Parliament, at Westminster and in Europe. I do not entirely agree with what is going on at Westminster. For example, in the "Control on Firearms" consultation paper, David Blunkett stated:
"We do not believe that licensing of low-powered air guns and imitations, or restrictions on their sale, is proportionate or enforceable."
I disagree—we must do something about that. I say that as someone who used to have the 10-bob licence that people bought at the post office if they wanted to carry an air-gun in public places.
Sorry, I do not have time, because the debate is short.
The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has stated:
"We recommend that the purchase or sale of any imitation firearm by or to persons under eighteen via telephone, mail order or Internet should be prohibited".
Maybe, but the real issue is that when people buy a weapon, a face-to-face transaction should take place that is predicated on the requirement that the person who receives the weapon must show that they are authorised to have it. We need a debate about how we can achieve that. There is room for further debate on the recommended age limit of 18, given that we give kids access to the lethal weapon with four wheels and a steering wheel at age 17. Similarly, the committee suggested that the
appropriate minimum age for the legal possession of a lethal firearm … is eighteen".
We need to find a solution that is consistent and immediately understandable.
I welcome the fact that high-energy air-guns are now treated differently from other air-guns. However, with some air-guns it is possible to create a high-energy charge without the projectile containing the charge. Although there are other substantial loopholes in the legislation, the danger comes not from the energy that propels the bullet—be it explosive or compressed air—but from the person who holds the gun. Therefore, we must license people, register weapons and inspect their storage. Like other members, SNP members will welcome legislation and enforcement wherever it comes from, be that the EU, Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or through the actions of local authorities and police forces. However, we will stand condemned if we stand aside and do not take every opportunity to improve safety in Scotland.
As members have said, the motion is not entirely without merit. In fact, in places, it approaches a measured attempt at a contribution to what is an important debate. That image is only slightly tarnished by the fact that the SNP chose to publish the motion via the press rather than the Business Bulletin.
If, as the motion alleges, the existing legislation is fragmented and unclear, a proper consolidation and clarification exercise must be undertaken. Whether the law needs to be revisited and, if so, how it should be improved are important topics that merit examination. The need for the effective control of firearms is plain. To look ahead to the next debate, it could be argued that, given the global death toll from firearms, they are the real weapon of mass destruction in the world. The issue is too serious to be used as a political football. I find it slightly distasteful that the SNP has chosen the subject as an excuse for its latest synthetic constitutional crisis. I will not say too much about that, because the subject is not fit for party-political knockabout. I merely invite the SNP to reflect on whether citing recent tragedies and implying that one constitutional arrangement rather than another could prevent them might be seen as crass.
The nationalists have not made a case for the claim in the motion that we have a
"distinct … gun problem in Scotland",
or even that we have a distinct problem in the UK. Given the SNP's fondness for league tables and referring to other countries, I am surprised that it did not come across the fact in the Home Office consultation that firearm homicide rates are worse in Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden—the list goes on. Firearms regulation is not like other devolved issues such as health, in relation to which our geography and public health profile mean that we need specific Scottish solutions to particular Scottish problems. The issue is not like education or justice, in which Scotland has distinct systems—guns are just as deadly in Glasgow as they are in Gateshead.
In any event, the important question is not who makes the laws, but their substantive content. Much has been said about tightening the regulations on air-guns. The Executive is right to work with the Home Office to make them harder to acquire. I also welcome the First Minister's determination to close any loopholes and get air-guns out of circulation. In the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, Westminster rightly increased the minimum age for the possession of an air weapon from 14 to 17 and introduced a new offence of having an unloaded air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse.
Of course, we might conclude that we need to go further, but I am sure that any reforms will be something on which the Home Office and the Scottish Executive will work closely in the interests of nothing other than public safety.
We now come to the closing speeches. John Farquhar Munro, you have four minutes to close for the Liberal Democrats.
As we have heard, people who own and use any type or calibre of firearm have a duty and a personal responsibility to ensure the secure custody and safe use of that weapon. Current firearms legislation has incorporated adequate regulations and control in relation to all legally registered weapons. That legislation is further enhanced by a thoroughly strict vetting of the licence holder's personal character and suitability to hold firearms. I suggest that we already have the appropriate regulations and the appropriate police powers to ensure that those regulations are rigorously enforced by the justice system.
Of course, the problem concerns not legal but illegal weapons and their indiscriminate use. Many of those weapons, as we have heard, seem to have been easily acquired on the internet or through catalogue sales that circumvent the best efforts of the law enforcement agencies in their attempts to curb and control this escalating malaise in our modern society.
Like many others, I was disgusted and shocked to hear of the callous shooting of Andrew Morton and of his death. I am sure that the heart of the Scottish nation was saddened by that cruel event and that our sympathies still rest with the bereaved family.
That particular incident, I understand, was due to the reckless use of an air-gun in a public place. Under existing legislation, that is clearly an unlawful act. Like many others, I am not aware of any information that would indicate whether the incident was the result of a deliberate attempt to harm or of a misdirected pellet. Whatever the intention, however, the result has been devastating for us all.
Air-guns in the wrong hands and in the wrong location are dangerous. There is no doubt that we must review the existing controls on their ownership and, if the law requires, introduce more rigid controls. However, I suggest that we must do that in a way that is fair and is easily enforced and acceptable to all law-abiding firearm users.
In simple terms, I suggest that we attempt to establish a record of all air-gun and air-pistol owners. Those details could be held on a national database and a simple certificate of approval could be given to each approved, registered owner. Like many others, I have no wish to restrict the pleasure of the many legitimate and sensible owners of air-guns and air-pistols because of the mindless actions of a few irresponsible people. Stricter controls would prove difficult, if not impossible, to enforce effectively.
The current firearms legislation contains sufficient powers to ensure that we can control the ownership and use of firearms. I suggest that we should ensure that those controls are effectively applied so that we can rid our streets and communities of the illegally owned firearms.
The spirit of this debate has been one of sympathy for the parents of Andrew Morton, the child who was unfortunately killed as the result of the use of an air-gun. It is important that we also put on record the sympathy of the Conservative party for those parents. It is, perhaps, slightly concerning that that spirit was broken by Patrick Harvie, who I believe tried to make some political capital out of the events of last week.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
Within almost every party in this chamber, there are members who have experience of the legal culture of firearms that exists in Scotland today, involving people who legitimately hold firearm and shotgun certificates and go about their business properly and responsibly.
The mistake that too many people make—and which, to an extent, the SNP has made today—is to confuse those legally held firearms with the illegally held firearms that are too often used to commit acts of violence or armed robbery. Those are the weapons that we ought to concentrate on primarily. The motion before us is confused and somewhat naive in how it lumps all firearms together.
Earlier, Cathy Jamieson made clear a point that the Conservatives can agree with. She said that legislation is robust, should be dealt with on a UK basis and that actions taken in this Parliament and recently in the Westminster Parliament cover many of the issues that have spurred the SNP to lodge this motion. Specifically, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which has been mentioned by a number of people, created a new offence of possessing an air weapon or imitation weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse. In itself, that should be enough to manage the problem of air-guns and replica weapons. However, we need to ensure that the police are able to implement that law. I believe that the legislation is already suitably robust to enable us to regulate what we describe as legally held firearms and to enable us to begin to take action on the type of weapon that inspired the SNP to lodge the motion that we are debating.
We have heard a number of people, not least Annabel Goldie, talk about the importance of recognising that the situation in Scotland is different from and better than that south of the border. There is no argument that says that legislation based on UK-wide or English experience is likely to be unhelpful or inappropriate in Scotland. In fact, the evidence is that such legislation is likely to be valuable in Scotland and that Scotland's legislative requirements in that regard are no different from those south of the border.
It is my conclusion, therefore, that firearms legislation should continue to be set and administered on a UK-wide basis. That will ensure that we have a consistent understanding of how legally held firearms can be regulated. In the early part of last year, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 delivered regulations that allow us to pursue the issue of air-guns and replica weapons. That means that we can now proceed against those weapons in such a way as to make those tragedies less common and, hopefully, end them altogether.
As Annabel Goldie said, the points in the Conservative party's amendment are covered adequately by the Executive's amendment, which we will support in the vote later today.
If one thing has been clearly shown by this morning's debate it is that the Home Office was right to consult on what is an extremely serious issue. This morning, we have heard a range of opinions and suggestions, which is exactly why the Home Office embarked on a consultation exercise that asked some extremely specific questions. Indeed, the fact that there is such a range of opinions explains why more than 4,000 responses to that consultation have been received. I am not aware that any MSP has sent me a copy of their response to that consultation exercise, but I would be grateful to receive them and will ensure that, when I am in discussion with my Home Office colleagues, I highlight the particularly Scottish responses and the views of members.
We have heard some thoughtful contributions this morning. Although I criticised the SNP, and Kenny MacAskill in particular, for what I took to be an attempt to deal with the constitution rather than with communities, I have to say that some of the speeches from other members, particularly Stewart Stevenson and Sandra White, highlighted some of the issues that we need to discuss in response to the Home Office consultation.
Annabel Goldie also made a thoughtful contribution. As always, she could not resist the temptation to discuss police numbers, and again I cannot resist the temptation to remind her that we currently have about 1,000 more police officers throughout Scotland. She also mentioned early release, and I remind her again that we are dealing with that and with prison places. However, I welcome some of the comments that she and Alex Johnstone made this morning, which were perhaps, if I may say so, in contrast to those of some of the other members of their political party.
A number of members identified the link between the illegal actions of people who own legal weapons and antisocial behaviour, particularly in urban areas, and several members discussed the need to consider the matter not just from a legislative point of view but in relation to enforcement and education. Jeremy Purvis, Frank McAveety, John Farquhar Munro, Stewart Stevenson, Patrick Harvie and Jean Turner all spoke of the difficulties that communities face and the need to tackle the problem from a number of angles.
I understood the nuance of Patrick Harvie's contribution differently from Alex Johnstone . I may have missed something as I was scribbling my notes, but I thought that his contribution was constructive. He asked a particular question about why we need legislation across the UK, and I thought that Duncan McNeil dealt with that effectively in his contribution. I could not agree more with Patrick Harvie's comment that the education ministers and the communities ministers also need to be involved in the process. It is important for them to be involved as we develop our work.
As I indicated in my opening speech, I will continue to work with the UK Government in the best interests of the Scottish people. We heard a number of comments this morning about the fact that our work has borne fruit when we have been involved in efforts to toughen the law. When we look at the statistics, we can perhaps take no comfort for those who have been involved in serious incidents involving air weapons, but we have to ensure that we continue the trend of reducing the level of gun crime.
I will comment briefly on the range of options that we heard this morning. Members in all parts of the chamber talked about whether we should ban weapons, whether we should license them, whether we should introduce tougher enforcement measures and how we should deal with the problem. The debate has shown that it would be wrong to take an immediate decision on legislation so soon after a particular tragedy without fully considering all the implications. We owe it to anyone who has lost a loved one or been injured in such circumstances to consider all the circumstances and get the legislation right, as we did after the events in Dunblane. It is my responsibility as Minister for Justice to ensure that I continue to work with the Home Office on that. As I said earlier, if the outcome of the review shows that tighter controls are necessary, I have every confidence that action will be taken in a measured and reasonable way. All options will be looked at; nothing will be ruled in and nothing will be ruled out.
I do not have time to focus on all the contributions that members made to the debate, there was recognition that most people who use weapons, particularly for sporting purposes, do so responsibly. I argue that those people would also back our campaign to ensure that no air weapons fall into the wrong hands. I hope that those people—and indeed everyone in the chamber—will lend their weight to our efforts to stop those who use air weapons to terrorise communities and cause unnecessary fear, damage and injury. We want to ensure that people know and obey the law and that those who do not obey it are caught and punished.
This is a particularly pertinent debate as it comes in the aftermath of the tragic death of Andrew Morton and in a week in which we have seen in the United States of America the harm that guns can do in a society. I begin by expressing my personal condolences to Andrew Morton's family and the families of the victims of the gun culture that has a grip on the USA.
Unfortunately, the victims in northern Minnesota are not alone, as such incidents seem to be a regular occurrence in America and deaths from guns there run at a rate of more than 30,000 per year. The National Rifle Association and the pro-gun lunatics there have truly taken over the asylum. Fortunately for us, that is not the kind of culture that we have here in Scotland. Indeed, we do not have the gun problems that the south and midlands of England have. However, we do have gun crime. In addition, we have an increasing problem with the use of replica weapons in crime and, tragically, we have witnessed the fact that air weapons are out there and can kill.
Replica weapons and air weapons can be bought with ease and their use is spreading. The question that we must answer is what we intend to do about the twin problems of replica weapons and air-guns, because having fewer guns means having less gun crime and I believe that that should be our goal. On replica weapons, we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. What is the purpose of owning such an item? What would it be used for? To what innocent purpose could a replica weapon be put? The answer to those questions is that replica weapons serve no purpose and are used more and more often in the committing of crime. Criminals choose them because they are easy to get and when they are pointed at people they have the same effect as real weapons. The problem is that it is impossible for people—even highly trained police officers—to determine whether a gun is real or a replica, except on close inspection. Even if there was an innocent use for replica guns, it makes more sense for our society to stop them being so freely available.
There are indeed legitimate reasons why certain people should have access to certain guns, and a number of speakers mentioned them. Such people include certain highly trained police officers in the course of their duties, farmers for the control of vermin, gamekeepers and stalkers for use in their employment and members of properly licensed clubs. Any guns that are used legitimately need to be tightly controlled, properly secured and used by people who are licensed by the police to do so.
However, there is no reason on earth why members of the public should have access to automatic weapons or handguns and I can see no reason for us to continue to allow unlicensed access to air weapons and replica weapons.
There was a question on that in the Home Office consultation paper. Did the SNP submit a comment to the consultation, which ran from May until the end of August last year? If so, will it make that available in the Scottish Parliament information centre?
I have to say to Jeremy Purvis—
The answer is no.
If Karen Gillon waits a minute, I will give her an answer.
We are debating the issue in the Scottish Parliament. We lodged the motion so that Scotland's representatives could discuss the matter and agree what action we should take—not to discuss what discussion documents or consultations with the Home Office we get involved in, or what pleading to London we do.
We have heard arguments that we should neither ban nor license air weapons as that is simply too difficult to achieve. If we are to take that defeatist attitude, we might as well pack up and go home. If we are determined as a society to do something, it can be achieved. I believe that the vast majority of the population of Scotland is convinced that we must keep a tight rein on guns and ensure that we have the toughest gun control laws that it is possible to have.
We are lucky in Scotland in that we do not have the madness of the gun lobby, which claims that it is a civil or even a human right to own or even to carry weapons. It is not an infringement of someone's human rights that we deny them the right to own an Uzi submachine-gun, nor is it someone's civil right to carry a handgun. Some people claim that guns do not kill people and that it is people who kill people. Of course, that is true as far as it goes, but the reality is that it is people with guns who kill people. People with guns kill more people per incident and they kill more efficiently, effectively and quickly.
The owning and carrying of weapons must be strictly controlled irrespective of the type of weapon, and of course we must stop the carrying of knives—as discussed by a number of members, including the Minister for Justice—but equally we must deal with the twin problems of replica weapons and air weapons. The difficulty is that we do not have the power to deal with firearms. Instead of dealing with the problem, we must plead with London and hope that it will do us the favour of legislating for us.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. While we wait, the problem grows and nothing is done to stop it. I say for Duncan McNeil's benefit that it is not us who are hiding behind the constitution or using the constitution; it is the Labour-led Executive that is hiding behind the constitution in order to do nothing.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, sorry. I do not have time.
The USA, the south of England and Scotland all have their own differing problems, each of which needs its own solution. However, Scotland's Parliament cannot act in defence of Scotland's people. If we had the powers to do so, we would not hesitate to consolidate legislation on firearms and, at the same time, deal with the problems of replica and air weapons, but our hands are tied and we are at the mercy of the UK Government.
I have no doubt that if this Parliament had power over all offensive weapons, not just knives and swords, the overwhelming majority of people would welcome the introduction of an all-encompassing firearms bill. I do not remember members of the Executive parties or the Tory party arguing that we should not legislate on knives because doing so would create differences, loopholes or problems. What is wrong with strengthening the law in Scotland on firearms, as we did with the law on knives and other blades? It is perfectly correct that we should do so, because our primary duty is to protect the people of Scotland. If we introduced an all-encompassing firearms bill, it would bring together in one piece of legislation the plethora of laws and regulations that relate to firearms and would allow us simultaneously to tackle the problems of replica and air weapons.
We should unite in stating clearly that we want to tackle the issue. The only way that we can ensure that it is tackled is for the Parliament to have the necessary powers to do it and for us to act. We cannot ensure that London will do so; we wait and hope. I urge members to support the motion in Kenny MacAskill's name.