The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13606, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
16:03
I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the Parliament’s disposal for the purposes of the bill.
As members are aware, the bill sets out a new licensing regime for air weapons and amends the existing alcohol licensing and civic licensing regimes. I thank past and present members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill over the past 13 months, and I am also grateful to the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill.
The Local Government and Regeneration Committee invited a wide range of stakeholders to give evidence at stage 1. That evidence, as well as the committee’s stage 1 report—which supported the general principles of the bill—has proven to be extremely valuable in helping the Government to reflect on whether we had the provisions exactly right.
The stage 2 committee meetings helped us to further refine the bill. We have in front of us today a bill that will make a number of significant improvements to the relevant licensing regimes.
We have a long-standing commitment to reducing gun crime, and the licensing of air weapons is central to that aim. It featured in our 2007 and 2011 manifestos, and the power to regulate air weapons was finally devolved to this Parliament in the Scotland Act 2012.
We have acted on that new power and consulted widely with experts and the public. Our proposals have not been universally welcomed, but we believe that they strike the right balance between respecting the interests of people who shoot legitimately—for work, sports, pest control or leisure—and the need to ensure that those who would misuse guns do not have access to them.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary verifying that the principal purpose is to reduce crime involving air weapons, but can he tell me what evidential back-up he has to suggest that the measure will reduce gun crime using air weapons, which is already at an almost record low?
The member is correct to say that gun crime is at an almost record low. However, within the category of gun crime, almost half of all the offences involve air weapons. He may also have noticed from the most recently published statistics that, in the area where there was an increase in gun crime, the increase was due to the use of air weapons. Having a licensing regime will assist us to be more effective in ensuring that people who are not suitable to have such weapons do not have access to them.
The bill does not ban air weapons in Scotland, but those who should not have access to firearms—including those who deliberately and maliciously target property, animals or other people—will no longer be allowed to have air weapons. That will better protect the public from suffering harm at the hands of those who misuse their guns.
When publishing the committee’s stage 1 report, the committee’s convener, Kevin Stewart, said:
“There is no doubt air weapons are dangerous … That is why we welcome plans to introduce a licensing regime … It is a timely and important piece of work.”
I welcome and agree with his remarks and I am sure that the majority of members also agree with them and support the provisions.
Alcohol licensing is of constant interest to the Parliament. That part of the bill is largely focused on quite technical issues. We know that outdoor drinking dens attract vulnerable young people and place them at immediate and long-term risk. That is why the bill creates offences in relation to the supply of alcohol by adults to children and young people in a public place. That will give the police the powers that they require to address the problem of drinking dens.
A fit-and-proper-person test is being introduced for premises licences and personal licences, and licensing boards will also be able to consider spent offences. Those changes were widely called for to ensure that only those who are suitable can hold a licence.
We are clarifying that a licensing board, when considering overprovision, may determine that the whole of its area is a single locality. We have listened to calls for licensing boards to provide greater clarity about how they carry out their business. Therefore, as well as imposing a duty on boards to report annually on their income and expenditure, the bill requires boards to publish an annual report on the exercise of their functions.
Various members expressed concerns about the five-year ban on someone reapplying for a personal licence after they have had their licence revoked for failure to submit a refresher training certificate. We are removing that ban. That will come into effect on the day following royal assent.
The bill improves the effectiveness of civic licensing regimes with a variety of reforms across a wide area. It will deliver an improved regime for the licensing of metal dealers that will raise standards in the industry and make it more difficult for metal thieves to convert the proceeds of crime into cash. The bill ensures that all dealers are licensed, bans the use of cash as payment for scrap, tightens record-keeping arrangements and requires proper identification of customers. It also increases the scope of licensing to capture some important peripheral activities, such as door-to-door collectors. It increases penalties for licensing offences and creates a power that will enable the creation of a register of metal dealers.
I take the opportunity to record my thanks to those who have helped in developing the proposals—particularly the British Metals Recycling Association, which has represented the interests of the many legitimate and reputable scrap metal dealers, and the British Transport Police, which has led the fight against metal theft in recent years.
The bill allows communities a greater say over whether sexual entertainment, such as lap dancing, takes place in their areas by allowing local authorities the power to provide for a licensing regime for such activity and thereby to control the number of licences that are granted for sexual entertainment venues. Central to that is the belief that the voice of communities should be heard and that local authorities should have a clear influence over whether an activity such as sexual entertainment should take place in their areas. Local authorities are best placed to reflect the views of the communities that they serve and to determine whether sexual entertainment establishments should be authorised and under what conditions.
I welcome the amendments to the bill that reinforce the role that imposing proper control over sexual entertainment venues can play in tackling violence against women. I applaud the role that many individuals and organisations have played in getting us to this point, but I particularly acknowledge Sandra White, who has worked tirelessly for many years to highlight the issues and to push for the introduction of such a licensing regime.
The bill also makes a small number of changes in relation to taxi and private hire car licensing regimes. Local authorities are responsible for hire car licensing regimes. They have discretion in applying a local regime that best meets their area’s requirements, and that can take account of the views of customers and the trade. In general, the local process works well.
Specific provisions in the bill include the power to refuse, on the ground of overprovision, to grant private hire car licences; the extension of driver testing to allow testing of private hire car drivers; and the removal of the contract exemptions from the licensing and regulation of taxis and private hire cars, which will bring hire cars that are used on contracts into the licensing regime. The bill also simplifies and improves licensing arrangements by, for example, providing for the licensing of theatres within the public entertainment licensing regime.
I have set out the Government’s thinking on some of the key areas of a wide-ranging bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Before I call Cara Hilton, I inform members that, to allow everyone to speak in the debate, I have determined that decision time will take place at 10 past five.
16:14
I echo the cabinet secretary’s comments and thank all who were involved in devoting time and energy to supporting us in our scrutiny of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. I particularly thank the parliamentary staff for the support that they provided to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee during the bill’s progress.
I joined the committee mid-way through the process, so I missed many of the early evidence sessions, but I thank all the witnesses and interest groups that engaged with the committee and provided evidence on the wide range of topics that the bill covers. I thank the cabinet secretary for his willingness to work with committee members and other MSPs to improve the bill and for engaging with and responding constructively to all stakeholders involved.
The bill is certainly a bill of many parts. It introduces a new licensing regime for air weapons, as well as reforming local authority licensing functions in respect of alcohol, taxis and private hire cars, scrap metal dealers and theatres. The bill also introduces a new licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues.
According to the policy memorandum, the bill’s aim is to protect public safety, preserve public order, reduce crime and advance public health. During the stage 2 debate back in April, my colleague Alex Rowley suggested that combining such a diverse range of subjects and objectives into a single bill, which is based on possibly outdated legislation, is perhaps not the best way to legislate. I hope that this Scottish Government and future Governments will reflect on that.
The committee’s report on the bill stated that
“The Bill is what could be described as a ‘pick and mix’”.
That sums up the situation pretty well. Scottish Labour will support the bill today, but we do not think that it is perfect.
Considerable progress has been made on alcohol licensing. I was pleased that our amendments were accepted and to hear the reassurance that was given to Dr Richard Simpson that work on the issue that his amendment raised is under way.
We are concerned that some parts of section 68 of the bill, as amended by the Government today, could put children and young people at risk. I am disappointed that my amendment to totally ban under-18s from sexual entertainment venues was rejected, despite having the backing of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Barnardo’s Scotland, the Zero Tolerance Trust, Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland.
I am disappointed that the Scottish Government believes that it is acceptable for young people to have access to sexual entertainment venues if owners can come up with a reasonable excuse. That directly contradicts a range of key Scottish Government policies that Scottish Labour supports, such as getting it right for every child and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. It is also inconsistent with the Scottish Government’s strategy on violence against women.
Does Cara Hilton understand the point that I made about her amendment and the Government’s amendment in relation to under-18s having access to sexual entertainment venues? Had we gone with the amendment that Cara Hilton proposed, the reasonable excuse defence could have been used at any time when the venue was being used for sexual entertainment or not for sexual entertainment, whereas the Government amendment bans under-18s from being on the premises and closes down the use of the reasonable excuse defence, so that it cannot be used to allow a young person to be on the premises when sexual entertainment is taking place. Those are the provisions that we will now have in law, under the bill.
That is one interpretation, but I am not convinced by those arguments. I lodged the same amendment at stage 2 and I did not hear those arguments then; this is the first time that I have heard those arguments, so I am a bit doubtful as to their validity.
Oh.
Order.
I have lost my place now.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government introduced positive amendments that will improve notification procedures and require local authorities to fully consider the impact of licensing sexual entertainment venues on the local authority’s wider objectives, such as reducing violence against women and protecting children and young people. I hope that that will give local communities a bigger say in whether such venues can operate in their areas.
The cabinet secretary’s amendments in those areas reflect what I hoped to achieve in the amendments that I lodged at stage 2. That is welcome progress. I hope that we can develop more joined-up policy making at local and national levels in building towards the type of Scotland that we all want to see.
The sex industry can never be allowed to operate in a vacuum. Our approach needs to reflect the goals in “Equally Safe” of a Scotland where all individuals are equally safe and respected and where our town and city centres are welcoming to all. Until now, the industry has in effect been unregulated so, although the bill is far from ideal, the new licensing regime that it proposes is certainly better than the current situation.
Regardless of the debates about the legality of the new regime, we have to be vigilant in monitoring that regime. In licensing such venues, the Scottish Government risks normalising a harmful form of sexual exploitation. As the Zero Tolerance Trust pointed out in its initial briefing to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee,
“if we are to move beyond women’s value and worth being located in their bodies and their perceived sexual attractiveness, we need to move beyond seeing sexual entertainment venues as normal and harmless.”
We need to challenge a culture where women and girls are viewed and treated as sexualised objects. To fail to send out a clear message on that is to fail our young people.
There is no doubt that the taxi and private hire car industry is changing rapidly, and it is vital that the legislation reflects the pace of change. During the committee’s evidence sessions, there was concern about whether the bill will be robust enough and future proofed enough to prevent taxi app companies from bypassing local regimes. I hope that it will be, but only time will tell.
I know that the Scottish Taxi Federation was pleased with the assurances that it received from the cabinet secretary. We all agree that it is vital that there is a level playing field and a fairer deal for all in the sector.
Scottish Labour fully supports the air weapons proposals in the bill. It is estimated that 500,000 airguns are owned by people throughout Scotland. The bill will—rightly—require anyone who owns an airgun to demonstrate a legitimate reason for having such a weapon.
There is no doubt in my mind that air weapons are dangerous. The tragic death of two-year-old Andrew Morton 10 years ago and the heartache that his family continue to endure every day highlight the real and pressing need for us to act to prevent future tragedies.
Half of all firearms offences involve the use of an air weapon, and every single day our police officers and animal welfare groups have to deal with the consequences of those weapons being misused. The proposals in the bill are welcome and will ensure that Scotland has a strong and robust air weapons licensing regime.
The bill’s proposals on metal dealers and metal theft are welcome and will bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK. Metal theft is a big issue in many of our communities, and it is never a victimless crime. We hope that the bill will strengthen the licensing of metal dealing and reduce metal theft and related criminal activity, which not only inconvenience the public but endanger the public and offenders, too.
I notice that I have run out of time. In conclusion, although the bill is not without its flaws, many of the proposals that it contains are welcome, and it is certainly a step in the right direction. Scottish Labour will support the bill, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
16:21
In opening the debate for the Scottish Conservatives, I am sorry to say that I find myself every bit as perplexed about the bill now as I was at stage 1. The vast majority of it is greatly to be welcomed, in particular the provisions on alcohol licensing, metal dealers and public and sexual entertainment venues. In general, although the jury is perhaps still out on some of the provisions relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire cars, parts 2 and 3 of the bill are broadly to be welcomed. In particular, I welcome from a constituency point of view the rescinding of the five-year ban in the event of renewal of a personal licence when that licence has run out, as that is a commonsense and practical measure. The tightening up of existing licensing provisions is largely sensible, and those elements would, if they had been considered on their own, have undoubtedly attracted the unanimous support of members in the chamber.
However, the problem that we on the Conservative side of the chamber have—which will come as no surprise to members—is with part 1. It contains the new licensing provisions—they do not, please note, tighten up existing provisions—that relate to the new air weapons regime that the Government wishes to introduce. For us, that is a red-line issue that also involves an important point of democratic principle. We believe that part 1 should always have been a separate piece of legislation.
During the stage 1 debate, Kevin Stewart intervened on me to ask what might be different in a separate bill that would lead me to support it. The answer to that is quite possibly nothing, but the point is that we could have had a clear debate and decision-making process on a completely new area of licensing provision while almost certainly unanimously agreeing on a separate bill that covered the provisions in parts 2 and 3 of this bill. We on the Conservative side of the chamber are forced into the position of being unable to support the bill despite agreeing very much with a large part of it.
I will spend the brief time that is available to me explaining why we are so opposed to part 1. At stage 1, I raised a concern about the fact that the most recent statistics on air weapon offences, which should have been published in November 2014, would not be published until October this year—almost a year late. Lo and behold, the statistics have now been published, and they show that air weapon offences are at their second lowest level in the past decade. Such offences make up 0.06 per cent of all reported crime in Scotland, which is a drop of 73 per cent from their peak.
Against that background, the possessors of the estimated 500,000 airguns in Scotland are to undergo a process to license them to possess airguns. That process is to be carried out by officers of Police Scotland, but not by the trained civilian specialist firearms officers, whose numbers are being reduced from 34 to 14 as we speak. Instead, it will be carried out by rank-and-file police officers with no previous experience of weaponry at all, whose training—I am reliably informed—consists largely of learning about the legislation involved, rather than any hands-on weaponry training that might help officers to prepare for the task that they will have to undertake.
I am equally reliably informed that Police Scotland has a current backlog of more than 500 shotgun and firearms licence applications, so one can only begin to imagine what additional pressures the airgun licensing regime will place on it. Once a licence or permit has been gained, it will not be required to purchase the ammunition for those weapons. That could mean that those holders of airguns who do not bother or want to get a licence or permit—everybody agrees that there will be many of them—will have no difficulty in obtaining ammunition for their weapons. I suggest that those who are most likely to carry out airgun crimes are probably those least likely to bother to get a permit, especially one that costs around £80. I do not believe or accept that this new regime will have any impact on crime statistics whatsoever.
I suggested earlier that amendments 1 and 2 would reduce bureaucracy, expense and the unnecessary use of human resources. Had they been accepted, I am sure they would have had that effect, but they were not. We are left with a bill that will create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and expense. It will take up countless hours of police officers’ time to introduce a licensing regime that will do nothing to reduce the minute amount of crime that a minuscule number of airgun owners or possessors currently commit.
As I said earlier, the bill seems a perfect example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That the sledgehammer is being wielded by a Scottish Government that preaches the gospel of cutting down on unnecessary red tape, expense and time wasting at every possible opportunity almost defies belief. We do not believe that this sledgehammer will crack the targeted nut; all it will do is place an unnecessary increased burden on thousands of perfectly law-abiding citizens, which is not something that Conservative members can support.
16:26
In April, we debated and agreed the general principles of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and today we debate the bill in the form in which we hope it will be enacted. Although there is no formal role for me in this debate, as convener of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee I would like to share the work of the committee and its effectiveness in realising change.
As I pointed out at stage 1, licensing has an important role. It is integral to preserving public order and safety, reducing crime and advancing public health. A key aim of the bill is to improve the efficiency of the licensing regimes, contributing to the creation of a better regulatory environment for business. The bill is wide ranging and covers the creation of new licensing systems in Scotland for the use of air weapons and the operation of sexual entertainment venues. The bill also amends existing licensing systems on alcohol sales, scrap metal dealers, taxis and private car hires, and public entertainment venues. The importance of those regimes and the objectives that they seek to reinforce should not be underplayed.
Our level of engagement with key stakeholders allowed us to make meaningful changes to the bill that will improve the effectiveness of the provisions. For example, the bill now enables the sale of air weapons to customers in the rest of Great Britain; requires alcohol licensing boards to publish annual reports outlining how they have contributed to the licensing objectives; empowers licensing authorities to deal with issues connected to advertising of sexual entertainment venues; updates the definition of metal dealers so as to include those who do not buy metal but sell it; more clearly defines the forms of payment to metal dealers; and provides the legislative framework for the creation of a national database of metal dealers.
The work of the committee has led to major change in the bill from stage 1, and the vast bulk of that work has been pretty co-operative. We have seen where there has been division and mistake because of misunderstandings. I was disappointed that a committee member was briefing against colleagues in the press, and I will be interested to see how some colleagues have voted on certain amendments, particularly amendment 19.
I thank the cabinet secretary for being extremely co-operative as we have tried to get the bill absolutely right. As I said, we have made great moves towards getting it right. I will give one example: the penalties for metal theft. The committee believed that the original proposals on that were far too lenient, but now we have a fine of up to £20,000 and/or up to six months in prison. We have reached that conclusion because of the work of the committee.
The bill now strikes the right balance. It allows businesses and ordinary folk to go about their lives while seeking to prevent or reduce the harm that is caused by people who seek to avoid regulation or to carry out criminal acts. The bill is proportionate to the issues that it tackles, which is why I will vote in favour of it at decision time.
16:31
The intention of people who support the bill has never been to ban air weapons; it has been to regulate them. Air weapons can and, sadly, do kill. It is wrong that anyone who wants to can keep and use a lethal weapon without any checks on why they have it and whether they can be relied on to use it responsibly and for a legitimate purpose. I am pleased that the bill will rectify that situation.
Like other members, I was lobbied to exclude people who already hold a firearms licence. The bill excludes them from some but not all of the licence tests. That is correct because, although a person who has a firearm might be a suitable person also to have an airgun licence, they might not have a good reason for doing so and it is correct that the chief constable should be required to ascertain that they have a good reason for having an air weapon.
I note the concern that the Law Society of Scotland raises in its stage 3 briefing that there are around 500,000 air weapons in Scotland that cannot be properly traced and that they might be sold off or given away in advance of the bill coming into force rather than being handed in to the police. Does the cabinet secretary have a strategy to try to encourage people to hand in their weapons rather than give them away and have them circulating illegally in Scotland?
In that briefing, the Law Society also makes the point that the purchase of ammunition is not regulated and that there is no requirement in the bill to produce the weapons certificate when purchasing ammunition. I suspect that the purchase of ammunition might still be reserved—I think that it is only the licensing of air weapons that has been handed over to the Scottish Parliament—and therefore it is not possible for that to be addressed here. Perhaps it needs to be addressed at Westminster.
The regulation of air weapons will protect people, domestic pets and wild animals. It is difficult to assess the numbers of wild animals that have been injured or killed by air weapons, as they might die in places where their carcasses will never be discovered.
I was a bit concerned about an amendment that was agreed to at stage 2 that allows young people to use airguns for pest control. Originally, the bill had permitted only young people who were commercial pest controllers or employed by them to shoot pests. I accept that shooting can be a humane method of pest control in the right hands, but I am a bit concerned that, because of that stage 2 amendment, untrained young people—or, indeed, untrained adults—can use airguns to shoot live animals and, potentially, cause them significant suffering if they are not instantly dispatched.
I seek the cabinet secretary’s reassurance on whether other legislation, such as the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, provides sufficient protection for wild animals that might be considered pests but are, after all, still sentient creatures and might suffer badly if untrained individuals take pot shots at them in the name of pest control.
I mentioned scrap metal dealers during the stage 1 debate, having discussed the bill with a local and reputable metal dealer. I was pleased to note that, at stage 2, the Government introduced amendments to prevent a scrap metal dealer from paying in cash by clarifying that only a bank or building society account may be used when undertaking a sale of metal. That is welcome. It will prevent the theft of scrap metal, which has been a serious problem for some time—since metal prices rose—and can have serious consequences for public safety and public convenience. Welcome amendments were made regarding record-keeping requirements and establishing a register of metal dealers, which had both been argued for.
It is correct that local government will take responsibility for regulating sexual entertainment venues, taking into account the views of local communities. I agree that councils are best placed to do that. I pay tribute to Sandra White and others who have campaigned on the issue of sexual entertainment venues for many years. It is easy to be portrayed as a bit of a killjoy and illiberal when taking on such an issue, but people in this chamber rightly recognise that commercial sexual exploitation is a form of violence against women.
16:35
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
The bill is an important one that deals with metal theft, air weapon licensing, alcohol licensing and, of course, sexual entertainment venues. I will limit my comments to the part of the bill that deals with sexual entertainment venues.
I am grateful to the many members who have mentioned that I have been pursuing the licensing of sexual entertainment venues for more years than I care to remember. I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for all the work that it did on this part of the bill. I also thank the clerks—I see that they are in the chamber—for the advice that they have given me and their help in lodging various amendments. I also thank the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for introducing the bill. Special thanks must go to the previous justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, who worked with me when I brought my member’s bill to the chamber a number of years ago—unfortunately, the Opposition parties voted it down, but we did not give in; we brought it back again. I thank everyone who has helped with the current bill, but if it were not for the previous justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, I do not know whether it would have got this far.
A number of members have talked about the granting of sexual entertainment licences for lap-dancing clubs. I represent Glasgow city centre, and such clubs are a part of that. In fact, many people have come to me about the proliferation of lap-dancing clubs in Glasgow city centre. It has been decided that local authorities will be responsible for their licensing, and that is absolutely right—there cannot be mandatory licensing; it must be for local authorities to represent the people in their areas. I thank Councillor Coleman, of Glasgow City Council, who gave me enormous amounts of advice and support while I was pushing through this part of the bill. It is fantastic that, as a result of all the work of everyone concerned, from 10 past 5 tonight, if a local authority wishes no lap-dancing and sexual entertainment licences to be granted in its area, none will be granted. I call that empowering local people—not just local authorities but local communities—who wish not to have this type of entertainment in their areas.
As others have said—I have long said it myself—sexual entertainment is a form of violence against women. I have already mentioned some of the examples that I have encountered of people being in such establishments. The bill is therefore a really good piece of legislation to come out of the Scottish Parliament. Lots of people on community councils and not just women’s groups but groups throughout Scotland very much welcome the bill. The idea that women can be objectified through lap dancing and people paying for that type of thing will be long gone when the legislation is implemented. Others besides me have worked on it for many years, and I thank everyone who has helped me to bring it forward. I look forward to 10 past 5 tonight, when we will finally be able to say yes to this legislation.
16:43
I welcome many of the changes that the bill will bring about, although I think that there will, in due course, need to be a more fundamental revision of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
On airguns, I accept—as Alex Fergusson said—that the bill is not going to eliminate the problem totally. However, I believe that, as with firearms legislation, it will make a significant difference. It is right that it parallels firearms legislation, because the reality is that airguns cause a great deal of harm to people, pets and wild animals. It is therefore absolutely right to have a fit-and-proper-person test. People should have a reasonable and proper use for such weapons.
The issue of alcohol comes up frequently at community councils, and the bill makes some good progress. The fit-and-proper-person test for licensed premises and personal licence applications is a good measure, as is the renewed and reinforced focus on overprovision, which relates the measure to the whole licensing board area. In speaking to his amendment 14, Richard Simpson made the important point that communities must have all the information in order to be able to object to overprovision meaningfully and realistically. That is why he wanted a national register. He withdrew amendment 14 because some defect in it was pointed out, but he referred to subsection (6) of the new section that will be introduced by amendment 12, which is the amendment on the annual functions reports that was agreed to. I think that it is possible, through that subsection, to provide the information that Richard Simpson was seeking. I think that the cabinet secretary accepted that, and I hope that he will keep Parliament informed on that.
Everybody welcomes the provisions on scrap metal. We know that there is a problem with metal theft, so anything that makes it more difficult to dispose of stolen metal has to be a good thing.
Last, but by no means least, is the issue of sexual entertainment venues. The provisions in the bill about empowering local authorities and enabling them to say no are correct and widely welcomed. We should pay tribute to Cara Hilton and Zero Tolerance for the way in which they have developed the policy, in partnership with the minister to a large extent, over the past few weeks. That has resulted in the agreement today to an amendment on a statement of policy by local authorities, and the requirement for that statement to take into account the wider policy context. That is welcome progress.
Also welcome is the requirement for local bodies to be notified. Again, that includes community councils, violence against women partnerships and others, following the statutory guidance that was announced by the cabinet secretary today.
The main problem in this area today was the debate around amendment 19 and amendment 22. We all had strong briefings on the issue from Barnardo’s and the children’s commissioner, and we had previous influential briefings from Zero Tolerance that emphasised the position that sexual entertainment is an example of the objectification and sexual exploitation of women and is, therefore, intrinsically undesirable. People will therefore understand why we supported Cara Hilton’s amendment on the issue of people under 18. We had a problem when the cabinet secretary introduced a whole lot of new arguments that had not been presented at stage 2.
Will Malcolm Chisholm give way?
The member is in his last minute.
If Cara Hilton’s amendment had dealt with a new issue, we would not be able to complain. However, it dealt with an issue on which she had lodged an amendment at stage 2, when we heard not one word of the explanation that we heard today. It was absolutely impossible for us to assess what the cabinet secretary was saying, which is why we supported amendment 22, along with Zero Tolerance and the children’s commissioner.
16:47
I want to take this opportunity to welcome the discussion and debate on what are clearly important issues for Scotland. The health and security of everyone in Scotland are of the utmost concern, and this bill has created important discussion around those issues.
I put on record my welcome of the cabinet secretary’s willingness to listen to and act on the discussions that took place in the committee and elsewhere, particularly at stage 2, and to accept the issues that were being raised by external organisations.
I put on record my thanks to the many organisations that came and gave evidence to the committee, and to the individuals who responded to the call for evidence. Without that evidence, some of the issues that have been discussed today might not have been discussed, as they might have been lost in the debate.
The bill covers a number of areas, as members have said: air weapons; alcohol licensing; taxis and private hire cars; metal dealers; the licensing of public entertainment venues; and the licensing of sexual entertainment venues. Some of the issues that were debated at stage 1 and stage 2 have been lost today, because they were dealt with in a consensual manner. For example, issues around the licensing of public entertainment venues were accepted and adopted by all concerned, because there was confusion about how sexual entertainment venues licensing might impact on public entertainment venues.
With regard to metal dealers, we heard evidence in committee about the cost of metal theft in Scotland. One witness indicated in written evidence that the cost of metal theft in Scotland could be up to £40 million. I am glad that the fines have been increased to take account of the issues that have been raised because, clearly, we have not been targeting those who are seriously involved in metal theft. It is hoped that the fines will help to deter some of those characters, and to safeguard the infrastructure of communities in Scotland.
There are issues about the interpretation of air weapons licensing. I have had a number of representations from members of the airsoft community who are concerned with how the changes in the legislation may affect them. It will be incumbent on the cabinet secretary in guidance and in regulation in the future to ensure that airsoft and related communities are clear about what is covered in the licensing regime. There are issues related to the strength of the weapon being used: technological advances that are taking place, particularly in the airsoft area, mean that some of those weapons may soon become covered by the air weapons licensing that we are proposing today.
I welcome the discussions that are taking place, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has been so consensual.
Access to sexual entertainment venues, dealt with in amendments 22 and 19, is an area that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee discussed at stage 2 in terms of the relevant issues and the impact that provisions in the bill may have on employment in, and access to, those venues. I am glad that the cabinet secretary lodged an amendment on that; although the majority in the chamber accepted it, it is quite clear that there is still much debate to be held outwith the chamber.
I will support the bill as amended at stage 3, and I look forward to its implementation. If it needs to be worked on in the future, I look forward to the opportunity to do that.
We will now have closing speeches.
16:51
The Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill has drawn out areas of both consensus and contention, as today’s debate has shown. As I have commented before, legislation should be passed only when it is targeted and when it acts effectively in the public’s best interests. Where that has been the case, such as with metal dealers, it seems to me that the bill would improve matters, and we have heard how the bill has the support of most metal dealers as well as our committee.
However, it is apparent that the aim of protecting people from unnecessary or unhelpful government intervention has not been applied throughout the bill. As a result, the Scottish Conservatives do not believe that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
A guiding principle throughout our consideration of the bill has been that law-abiding people should not find themselves unnecessarily caught under a legislative net just because it is easier or politically expedient for the Government to impose wide-reaching obligations. The provisions on air weapons are a case in point.
Will the member give way?
Certainly.
I thank Mr Buchanan for giving way. We recognise that there is a small minority of abusers of air weapons. However, the use of those weapons by abusers has led to the deaths of people in this country, including, as mentioned previously, Andrew Morton. Surely it is right to act to ensure that we do not have any more deaths or injuries by making sure that we have the right licensing regime in place.
What evidence do we have that a licensing regime will prevent deaths? I cannot see it. I do not think it will make any difference; I think that those people will go under cover. [Interruption.]
Mr Buchanan, carry on.
The misuse of air weapons is confined to a tiny minority of users, as recently published statistics on recorded crimes in Scotland involving firearms for 2013-14 have confirmed. On a side note, it is welcome that the Scottish Government finally changed its initial decision to withhold publication of this data until well after today’s debate.
A targeted response to the small number of crimes involving air weapons would be to focus on better enforcement of existing laws, but the bill instead imposes an extensive and costly licensing process upon users.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see how those provisions could be in the public’s best interests in terms of security, when Police Scotland’s already pressured resources could be invested instead in tackling crimes more prevalent than the 0.06 per cent of crimes that involve air weapons. The administration of air weapon licensing would involve a disproportionately large commitment of the police’s resources, as we heard from Alex Fergusson, which may threaten the public security achieved through police operations in other areas.
Those major concerns suggest that the bill does not adhere to the principles of targeted and effective government, a position that is reinforced by the provisions relating to the licensing of the taxi and private hire vehicle market. There are legitimate concerns that, in order to protect consumers, drivers of private hire vehicles should be required to have background checks and to understand the various needs of passengers. An appropriate solution would be to allow tests of only those things, yet the bill will also permit the knowledge test to be required of all private hire drivers, despite the availability of perfectly adequate satellite navigation.
That overreaching of the testing provisions, combined with licensing authorities’ power to refuse to grant a licence for a private hire vehicle solely on the grounds of overprovision, has the effect that the bill does not act in the public’s best interests. Experience elsewhere has indicated that an expanded supply of private hire vehicles would lower prices and, in doing so, allow more people to afford regular use of private transport. Such a development would clearly be in the public’s interest, yet the unnecessary testing provisions and anti-competitive ability to refuse licences on the grounds of overprovision would stand as barriers against that progress.
Will the member give way?
The member is closing.
Those things are plainly not in Scottish consumers’ best interests.
There are some aspects of the bill that we agree with and that could be beneficial. The problem is that they are embedded within a bill of many parts that includes aspects that we cannot agree with. The welcome provisions include those relating to metal dealerships as well as some sensible reforms to theatre and sexual entertainment venue licensing. However, our principles are not a loose commitment that we wish to see fulfilled only some of the time. For us to be able to support the bill it would have to be focused throughout on genuine improvements on behalf of the Scottish public, and it certainly should not violate the principles of targeted and effective government. Accordingly, the Scottish Conservatives will regrettably vote against the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
16:56
Not only do I thank all members present for their contribution to the debate but I extend our appreciation to all those outwith the Parliament who have taken the time to give evidence to help us shape the bill. I give particular thanks to members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and their clerks for their work—and indeed to the cabinet secretary and the bill team for taking a constructive approach to the bill. The bill itself encompasses an odd mix of policy objectives and is not without criticism, but overall it is stronger as a result of parliamentary scrutiny and amendment.
Before I talk about some of the issues covered by the bill, it is worth putting it on record that we—that is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament—may need to return to civic licensing sooner rather than later. The cabinet secretary said at stage 1 that he had no wish to review the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but evidence to the committee suggested that the 1982 act is nearing the end of its shelf life. Witnesses from both Edinburgh and Glasgow city councils suggested that it was no longer fit for purpose and others from the business community commented on the piecemeal nature of the 1982 act following three decades of amendments. Even today we had amendments that arguably open up a whole new set of criteria that could be applied in shaping our town and city centre activities, so I urge the cabinet secretary to revisit the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s recommendations on that point and instigate a review.
If passed today, the bill will create a new offence relating to possessing, purchasing or acquiring an air weapon without holding a valid air weapons certificate. For those of us who remember the death of two-year-old Andrew Morton—some 10 years ago now—that law has been a long time in the waiting and it is all the more welcome for that wait. I recognise that gun licensing generally remains a divisive issue, and I am conscious that we should not subject the law-abiding air weapon owners of Scotland to what is sometimes regarded as the tyranny of the majority. However, in this case the bill is proportionate to the problem that we still face as a society. The casual cruelty often inflicted on domestic pets—cats and dogs—and even passing birds by irresponsible airgun users would be reason enough to introduce a more regulated form of ownership. The fact that last year half of all offences involving a firearm involved an air weapon is even more persuasive for me and my colleagues. Scottish Labour is very pleased to support the air weapons proposal.
The whole area of licensing sexual entertainment venues is fraught with difficulty. There is an argument that suggests that if you license an activity you are implicitly or even explicitly endorsing it. I came across that argument when I was proposing action on sunbeds and skin cancer through an amendment to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. There is an interpretation that by licensing such venues we are almost approving of them. I am sure that many of us in the chamber would object to any such interpretation being made of our actions this afternoon.
Women suffer—in fact, all of Scotland suffers—from the objectification of women and discrimination and violence against women. That is recognised in the Scottish Government’s policy.
Equality groups have mostly taken the view that they support sexual entertainment licensing on the basis that that is better than having unlicensed venues, but concerns remain—those concerns were raised by my colleague Cara Hilton—that the bill does not quite do enough to align with Scottish Government policy on gender equality. I regret, for example, the fact that the proposals to restrict the display of sexualised images in public places that are accessible by children were not included in the bill, if even for discussion. I am grateful to Child’s Eye Line UK and my colleague Cara Hilton for raising that issue during stages 1 and 2.
It is worth noting the support for such a proposal from Girlguiding through its girls matter campaign, which highlights the desire of young people to be subject to less objectifying and to stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content in mainstream media. It is worth pointing out that the Parliament has already acted to prevent the display of tobacco products because we deemed them to be harmful. Therefore, I hope that the Parliament has the opportunity to return to that issue at some point in the near future if we are to improve the environment in which we bring up not just our young girls, but all our children.
The bill will help to empower licensing authorities to limit the number of private hire cars where there is overprovision, and is welcome for that reason. However, many stakeholders have expressed concern that the current legislation does not deal with the technological challenges that face the industry—for example, remote booking through mobile apps and new operators whose business models are not based on traditional divisions between taxis and private hire cars. I believe that the cabinet secretary has stated that the Government is taking separate steps to address that issue. I look forward to seeing the fruits of that work in due course.
We are happy to welcome the measures in the bill that take a firmer stance on scrap metal theft. The disruption that is caused by such crime causes great strain on our communities and vital public services. From the stealing of train cables from the railways to the stealing of aluminium cables from pylons, the cost of those crimes to the Scottish economy is estimated to be £700 million each year.
In particular, we welcome the proposal to establish a national register of metal dealers. That will help to inform both buyers and sellers on the legitimacy of those whom they are dealing with and further protect them from unintentional law breaking. We are pleased that the minister has agreed to amendments that will avoid causing disruption to daily business practice.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the rather animated discussion earlier about whether we should legislate to make reasonable excuse for a young person to be in a sexual entertainment venue, we have reached broad agreement on the bill. I thank all my colleagues across the chamber for the contribution that they have made and look forward to seeing the benefits that I hope the legislation will bring to our communities.
17:02
I have listened with interest to all the members who have contributed to our stage 3 debate. I think that Cara Hilton described the bill as a “pick and mix” because it covers a variety of areas in which licensing provision needs to be made. Changes were made to the bill as a result of the stage 1 and stage 2 processes and the parliamentary scrutiny that it has been subject to, but it continues to fully deliver on its original intentions. The parliamentary scrutiny process has strengthened it.
In my opening speech, I said that I believe that the provisions go a long way towards protecting the public, pets and wildlife from the painful and pointless tragedies that they are often subjected to, which are caused by the irresponsible use of things such as air weapons. Earlier this afternoon, before the debate, I met Sharon McMillan and her family and friends. She is the mother of Andrew Morton, who was tragically killed by an air weapon some 10 years ago. She and her husband Andy have campaigned tirelessly over the years for something to be done about the dangers of air weapons. I sincerely hope that the passage of the bill with Parliament’s support will reassure them that, through the bill, we are delivering progress and helping to ensure that nobody has to go through the same pain that they have had to go through as a family. [Applause.]
During consideration of the bill, I have listened closely to concerns and issues that a range of stakeholders have raised. Issues were raised about the implementation and timing of the introduction of the provisions on licensing air weapons. Elaine Murray suggested having an information campaign so that individuals are aware of the regime’s implications for them. I assure her that work is already being done to ensure that we have a sufficiently robust and widespread information campaign.
We intend to introduce some of the bill’s provisions in a way that allows the public and others who might hold an air weapon some time to decide whether to surrender that weapon or apply for a certificate for it. That will take a bit of time, but work is being taken forward to progress that. I know that Police Scotland, shooting organisations and other stakeholders will all be keen to look at how that is progressed and at how the guidance on the bill is developed.
On a number of occasions, in interventions on me and in his speech, Alex Fergusson raised the issue of the evidence base for the bill. He also asked whether the bill is disproportionate to the risks that are out there. He referred to the most recent statistics on incidents involving firearms in Scotland.
I welcome the fact that gun crime is at a lower level than it was in 2007, but that headline figure ignores the fact that the figures that were published just last week also show a rise in recorded offences involving firearms for the first time in seven years. Within that, offences involving air weapons are up by 6 per cent, which goes against the trend of shotguns and other forms of firearms.
I do not believe that we can be complacent. As almost 50 per cent of all firearms incidents involve an air weapon, that gives us a good signal on the need to take proactive action to address the issue.
If Alex Fergusson and his colleagues, including Liam McArthur, are not persuaded by me that the bill, in bringing in a licence for the provision of air weapons, will prevent crime, they have only to look at the evidence that was put to the committee at stage 1 by Police Scotland. It was clear in that that a licensing regime for the provision of air weapons will help to reduce crime that is associated with them and at the same time improve public safety. We cannot ignore that message. That is why we introduced the bill. [Interruption.]
While I do not wish to dispel the end-of-term spirit, I ask members to curtail their vital conversations for just another two minutes, please.
I deeply regret the fact that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats cannot bring themselves to support the bill tonight. I think that they will come to regret that as well.
Members have raised the issue of resourcing in Police Scotland. Police Scotland told the committee that it is taking forward a range of work to prepare for the introduction of the licensing regime. It is reviewing its licensing of firearms to make sure that that is integrated in a single force rather than being done in different component parts, as happened with the different forces in the past.
Alex Fergusson raised issues about delays. There are periods when there are delays because of a spike in applications but, in general, there is no overall delay in dealing with firearms certificates in Scotland. In individual cases, inquiries might need to be made, which result in delays.
I do not believe that a small number of incidents—more than 180 last year—is insignificant. It is not insignificant when they harm or maim an individual or an animal. We should not dismiss that as insignificant in the way that I think Alex Fergusson did this afternoon.
The bill improves how we deal with alcohol licensing. The provisions will support our licensing boards in making sure that we continue to make progress in tackling Scotland’s unhealthy relationship with alcohol, which costs this country £3.6 billion a year in associated social and health costs.
I have no doubt that we have all experienced the impact of metal theft in our constituencies. The bill’s provisions will make significant improvements in that area, too.
It has been clear that the lack of sufficient legislation to license sexual entertainment venues has not been acceptable. The bill will strengthen local authorities’ ability to make decisions about what they consider to be appropriate in their areas based on local circumstances and their ability to do so consultatively and collaboratively.
The bill covers a number of licensing areas. After it is passed today, it will deliver significant improvements to public safety in relation to air weapons and to public health through how we deal with alcohol licensing. It will also deliver significant improvements in dealing with the scourge of metal theft and, equally, in tackling violence against women in sexual entertainment venues. That will ensure that Scotland continues to be seen as a progressive place in dealing with those issues.