 Good morning and welcome to the 32nd meeting of the committee in 2014. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting, before I move I want the agenda, I'd like to start by welcoming the new members of the committee, Claire Adamson and Willie Coffey. I hope you enjoy your time here. I'd also like to take this opportunity to record our thanks to Mark Macdonald and Stuart McMillan for their work in the committee over the last few years. On behalf of the committee, I wish them well in their new committee roles. Agenda item 1 is declarations of interests for new members. Can I invite Claire and Willie Coffey to make any relevant declarations for the record, please? I'd like to draw people's attention to my register of interests and state that I was a former member of North Lanarkshire Council. Thank you. Willie, please. Thanks, convener. Similarly here, I was a former member of East Ayrshire Council, but beyond that, nothing in addition to declare. Thank you very much. Now we're a committee with only one person who's not an ex-councillor, and that's Mr Buchanan. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, Cameron. Agenda item 2 is to consider whether we take item 5 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Agenda item 3 is our second oral evidence-taking session on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. We have two panels of witnesses this morning, one representing groups who are supportive of a licensing system for air weapons, and the second panel consists of Police Scotland. I'd like to welcome our first panel this morning, Dr Michael North of the Gun Control Network, Jennifer Dunn, Senior Public Affairs Officer with the League Against Cruel Sports, and Chief Superintendent Michael Flynn of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I welcome you all. Good morning. Would you like to make any opening statements at all? Ms Dunn, if you want to go first, please. Thanks very much, convener, and thanks very much to the committee for having me along today. We support licensing because, as well as helping air gun attacks on people, the old licensing will reduce air gun attacks on animals. We believe that the vast majority of air gun attacks on animals are underreported, particularly to the police. Our figures show that, from 2010 to 2012, the different police forces, as it then were, had 68 reported attacks on animals, while the SSPC recorded 178 in a single year alone. I did go back to Police Scotland and ask for an updated figure, but they said that they weren't able to provide that for more recent years. We think that the true figure is higher still. An example of why we believe that is domestic cats. Domestic cats, because of their anatomy, when they are shot with an air gun, it often doesn't become apparent straight away. The cat will make its way home, and then, in some cases, it will develop signs of an illness, and it's only a period of time later when it's taken to the vets, it will become apparent that the illness is due to an air gun injury. By that point, the owner might or the vet might feel that there is a little point in reporting it. We believe that, because there are so many air guns in circulation, the only way to haul air guns attacks on animals is to have some form of licence implemented. I represent Gun Control Network, and ever since GCN was founded in 1996, we have had concerns with air weapons. It's always been a major concern why it's necessary to differentiate between guns on the basis of their mechanism, and we believe that anything that's potentially lethal or could maim and injure should be licensed, so we have welcomed the Scottish Government's moves to licence air weapons in Scotland. Over the 18 years that GCN has been in existence, we've seen a number of fatalities happen as a result of air gun incidents, and some of our members have lost children and had children injured. We feel that one of the problems has been a rather lax casual attitude towards air weapons and feels very strongly that registration sends out the right message and reflects the degree of dangerousness of air weapons and that a licensing system would make anyone who wanted to use them think very seriously about their need to have one, leading to a subsequent reduction in the number of weapons and the number of serious incidents. The Scottish SBC supports the proposal that's been put forward by the Scottish Government, and it's based solely on the work that we do. The 178 reports that were mentioned by Jennifer earlier are reports that are made to us. We've not got people going out trying to feed animals, and that's when vets or owners phone us and let us know what's happening. Surprisingly, since that was first announced back earlier this year, we've actually seen a rise in the amount of reported cases to us, mainly with cats and wildlife. Given that this legislation will allow anyone who's got a lawful purpose to have an air weapon to have one, we don't see any reason why licensing is not a very sensible solution. Some of the submissions that we have had and some of the witnesses have suggested that the introduction of a licensing regime for air weapons will do nothing to reduce criminality or increase public safety, as those who choose to misuse such weapons won't bother getting a licence. How would you respond to those suggestions? As we said in our submission, I think that if you look at the reports of incidents in the media and we've suggested that they underestimate the extent of the problem, these are not hardened criminals who are responsible for these very often. It is through the casual use by people who would otherwise not be undertaking criminal activity. Teenagers messing around with guns. Someone who just happens to have an air gun who decides to use it on the spur of the moment to threaten somebody. I think the idea that you divide society into criminals and non-criminals is simplistic and doesn't help in this way. Our reading of the various incidents is that a lot of them occur simply because people who do not take their ownership of air weapons seriously misbehave with them rather than go out to conduct criminal activity. I agree with that. At the moment, it is very easy to buy an air weapon. Virtually anyone can go into a shop and buy one if they are overage. A licensing scheme won't solve the problem by itself. There would also need to be an amnesty and publicity letting people know that licensing is going to be introduced. At the moment, the situation with attacks on animals and attacks on people is unacceptable and real licensing is the only way to address that. Given the Government's estimates of potentially up to 500,000 air weapons are out there, I firmly believe that a lot of these will be handed in if a licensing scheme is introduced. Therefore, you are taking a lot of the weapons out of circulation. We have no idea how many are actually used by the proper owner or just used by a relative or a youngster that's round the house. Given that a lot of the attacks that happen on specifically cats happen in built-up housing estates, that's where the fit and proper person we come in. We've always had a concern that you should always have landowner's permission if you're going to do pest control and stuff like that. Nobody's got landowner's permission for shooting it like the Union Canal in Edinburgh on anlytychol lock. If you go through the fit and proper person's test, if you're not a fit and proper person, you will be allowed to have one, but that should include provision that you must be able to demonstrate where you will be using the weapon and for what purpose. Cameron Buchanan, please. Thank you very much. Good morning, panel. Good morning. How are the police going to handle this rash of licences coming out and what manpower? You've got so many—if you've got a licence, then you've got a lot of people to licence. How would you handle that? I'm not— It's a difficult question. For this panel, to answer that, maybe best save for the next panel. If anybody does have a view, please indicate it and we'll take it. I'm more confident that we'll be able to answer that question fully for you, sir. I feel the same. I think we'd always suggested that legislation like this should have a raised in process of registration, that new weapons should come under the registration system straight away and that over a period of years current owners should become licenced. Yeah, I mean, I would agree that the police saw the best-list answer. Okay. Sorry. Do you believe that then the people will be handing in the guns at anamnesty? Do you think that will work? That people who don't want to register will be handing a lot of guns in? I think there's a lot of responsible people out there that have guns. It probably has not used them for years, but they could fall into the hands of others. If you know that you've to comply with a law, I believe a lot of guns will be handed in if they do not want to licence it because they've got a fit and proper purpose to do so. Thank you. Best of the panel in agreement with that? I mean, I think there's a lot of your guns out there that maybe get in a drawer and brought out very occasionally and, you know, it would be better generally if they were out of circulation. I think so long as there's a sufficient publicity. So everybody is aware that now is the time to hand them in. There will be a good response and weapons that aren't wanted, have been forgotten about, will be remembered and handed in. Thank you. John Lawson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning. One of the arguments that we've heard against licensing is the argument that if we go to licence air weapons, then some individuals may decide to trade up and go for a firearms licence or a shotgun licence, rather than just relying on an air weapon. What would your view be on the issue if people did decide just to trade up and, of course, the application, the fit and the responsible person, they still may qualify under the criteria that's set out. In some cases, people have said it may eventually be easier to apply for a shotgun licence than it would be for a firearm licence. Doctor North, I would hope that it didn't become easier to get a shotgun licence. I hope the same standards would apply as they do now. I'm not in any position to be able to know what's in the mind of current airgun owners. I suspect this is rather unlikely. I mean, perhaps there are a small number of people who currently shoot with airguns but don't use shotguns or rifles who would change. But I suspect those involved with shooting have probably overestimated the degree of interest in shooting that those who only shoot with airguns or only have airguns actually have. I'm not clear that that problem, if it's seen as a problem, is actually there. I think one of the attractions of airguns and why they are a problem at the moment is that they're fairly cheap to get hold of, fairly easy to get hold of, and that's why people have them. A shotgun is far more expensive, their storage use is far more regulated, and I would think that it would be unlikely that many casual airgun users would trade up to a shotgun in their seat to do so. We totally welcome anybody that wishes to trade up simply because they would be checked by the police, they would be made fully aware of the responsibilities of owning any weapon that can inflict pain, injury and potentially death. Jennifer has just mentioned the security. At the moment I could go out and buy an air rifle and just keep it in my kitchen, keep it anywhere, so if my house is broken into that gun could go, it could be used. So the police are more than capable. I have to declare an interest in the fact that I do own a firearms licence as part of my duties with the Scottish SPCA, and I know the process that you've got to go through and the police are very, very stringent. The other thing I would say is that I think that the committee or the Parliament would have to consider the actual cost of applying for a licence because that should not be borne by the police. If you want to own a weapon and you've got a purpose for doing so, you should be willing to pay the price of a licence and fee. That's the point in terms that I was trying to make in my earlier question. One of the issues that has arisen is the cost of applying for an air weapons licence may be more expensive than applying for a firearms or a shotgun licence because firearms and shotgun licence are controlled by the UK Government and have been set at the same price since 2001. If we go for full-cost recovery of an air weapons licence, then that may be substantially more than the current firearms or shotgun licence. How would you seek to make sure that it didn't become too prohibitive in terms of the cost of our air weapons licence? That's something for politicians to argue, down south, really. I don't feel that the burden of cost should fall on the taxpayer or the police. Simply, we don't have a right to bear arms in this country. If you want something that can potentially kill something, you should be willing to pay for it. Again, when people realise that they don't have a fit and lawful purpose or they do not have permission to shoot at certain places, that will encourage a lot of people just to get rid of their guns. Dr North? We have had a lot of discussion recently with the Home Office and Home Office ministers about the issue of the underfunding of the licensing process for firearms and shotgun licences and understood at one time that there was going to be a significant increase. I think that there will be some kind of increase, but we understand that the current Government has blocked a full increase. I'm rather dismayed that the police have to subsidise the current application process, and it does raise the kind of problems that Mr Wilson has just alluded to, but I don't think that that's a reason why we shouldn't bring in airgun licensing. I agree with everything that Mike and Dr North have said. My colleagues who are lobby Westminster are raising the issue of the cost of shotgun licensing to subsidy with Westminster Government. I should also add the League Against Cruel Sports submission to the Smith. The commission asked for weapons licensing to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so airgun licensing and higher calibre weapons could be considered to listically. Again, I don't think that the position of the Westminster Government should be blocked to progress in Scotland. Thank you. Mr Wilson. Thank you, convener. Just one final question for Dr North. Dr North, you indicated in your opening remarks that there was a number of fatalities due to air weapons. We know that, in terms of the evidence that we've heard before, there is quite clearly a number of serious injuries, but could you quantify the number of serious fatalities that have been caused by air weapons? I can't give you the numbers off the top of my head. It's probably averaging one per year in Great Britain. Over a period of 20 years, there's probably been about 15 young people and teenagers killed in airgun incidents deemed to be accidents, as in the case of Andrew Morton, a criminal act. So there are a number of injuries, but I think it's also important to say that even in those incidents where someone sustains a minor injury, it's still extremely stressful on the victim. You can't just simply dismiss this as a trivial incident just because a person sustains a minor injury. We know from communications we have from people how stressed people are by the fact that they have been, out of the blue, hit by something fired at a distance by somebody else. Thank you, Dr North, for that response. As I said, what we're doing is looking at licensing in Scotland. You gave figures, or you alluded to issues, in terms of UK-wide. We are concentrating on looking at the figures. 500,000 air weapons we suspect are held in hands in Scotland. I don't know whether the figure may be UK-wide, but in relation to the fatalities, I was just trying to get a clear picture. Can you look back at it through the incidents and pick out the Scottish figures? Certainly, they will be available in the far-arm crime statistics over the past few years. That would be extremely useful, Dr North, if you have those figures, it would be helpful. Willie Coffey, please. Good morning to the panel. Dr North, I'm very grateful for the evidence that you submitted to the committee in writing. Some of it is quite harrowing and was introduced there by my colleague John Wilson. You present some statistics in your paper and you show that, in terms of the number of firearms offences in Scotland, that the majority of them are in fact caused by air weapons. Indeed, there was a fatality that you referred to in your report. Could I ask you to tell me, as a new member of the committee, what is it that you think about the licensing scheme that will reduce that type of offending? What is it about the licensing that will bring that down and make the public safer? Dr North, a number of the more serious incidents, particularly those involving young people, have come across an air gun in a house kept as, rather casually, by the owner, perhaps a parent. They have been basically playing around with it. We believe that if the owner had to licence that weapon, they would think seriously about whether it should be there or not. What runs through, and I apologise for repeating this, what runs through so many of the incidents is just the casual nature with which these weapons are treated. If the signal is sent out that these are dangerous and therefore need to be licenced, there will be a large number of people who think, well, we don't want them anymore. We won't just leave them lying around the house. Is it plinking, it's referred to? Plinking, it was a new word for me as well. I understand that we have this casual use of this in people's back gardens, presumably taking shots at objects, people or animals too. Do you think that the licence in Scamble will really address that? I understand that it won't be legal to do plinking any longer. There are current measures that make it illegal to fire pellets outside the confines of your own property anyway. Again, a gun control network is contacted by people who are disturbed by the behaviour of neighbours to find it intimidating and threatening. If they raise it within neighbours, they are challenged. Even when they've complained to the police, they don't actually make any progress because it's sometimes difficult to prove that somebody is firing slightly offline. I know that this is the only form of shooting that some airgun owners undertake. I think that they should consider what they do in a wider context and how their neighbours feel about it. If they are keen on shooting with an airgun, then go to an airgun club and do it. For clarification, the bill, if enacted itself, won't put a halt to plinking necessarily, but it may reduce the amount of it that goes on because of the licensing regime. I hope to ask this of the police when they come up next. The determination of whether a person is deemed fit to own an air weapon and to have good reason to own one day have any views on what that should be. I would intend to ask the police how they propose to make that kind of assessment. Can we start with Ms Dunn? Yes. One specific point that I wanted to bring up was general licensing law. The committee may or may not know much about general licenses, but the mechanism by which it's legal for people like farmers or estate owners or employees to shoot animals that are deemed pests in general licensing law. If somebody has an unspent conviction for wildlife crime, they are deemed unsuitable to kill animals because of their general licensing law. We'd really like to see the provision extended to air gun licences, and we think that it makes a lot of sense. Dr Norris, please. Sorry, can you... Person. About the proper... There are obviously guidelines for other firearms. It's clearly important that anyone who is licensed to shoot a firearm does it for the correct reasons. Now, I know there's been some debate over what those reasons should be, but I'm sure with the police help that appropriate guidelines can be formulated. But what wouldn't be allowed is the kind of casual use that we believe is responsible for so many of the incidents that harm people, property and animals. Thank you. Superintendent Flynn, please. I think I'm going back to a question for the police to answer at the time of the licensing application. If you're a young man staying in a high-rise flat in a house in a state that you've got no access to any land, you've not got a purpose, you're not doing pest control on behalf of somebody else, then the police are going to quite regularly ask, well, why do you want one? If you've not even got a garden that you could plinking, and going back to your plinking question, I firmly believe that a lot of the animals that are injured are not because of plinking, but plinking for a 17-, 18-year-old shooting the same tin can gets a bit boring. I see something flying past that a moving target may be an attractive option. One of the things that our veterinary survey has shown is that air rifles, as such, I can't think of anything that would be injured by a ricochet, so that you'd be aiming at your tin and it's ricocheted off that and then it's ended up embedded in a cat or a swan's head. This is people deliberately aiming at these animals. I think that the licensing will get rid of the people that have got a gun that they've got absolutely nowhere lawful to use it in the first place. That's very grateful for that. Thank you. I admit to our request. Thanks, convener, and good morning, panel. Given the wealth of experience and knowledge that the panel have, convener, could I ask them for their advice on the bill and the regime of the licensing? Do you see any omissions? Is there anything that should be in the bill that's not in the bill? Superintendent Flynn, please. I think that if you are going down this route you would have to include a definition of what a pest species is and include the fact that you must have landowners' permission to shoot on anything because lots of people say they do pest control but somebody going into Holyrood Park to shoot rabbits. They've no permission to do that. They shouldn't be doing that. There's public walking about. Again, that comes back down to the licensing regime by the police that you've got to be able to show that you're fit and proper and you have proper place to use it. Thank you. I'm satisfied with the bill. There's nothing I would change significantly. Ms Dunn. The league objected animals being harmed in the name of sport. We would like the provision of the shooting of live animals for sport to be removed from the bill. In actual fact, only a very small number of species can be clearly dispatched with an air gun and it's very difficult to kill an animal with an air gun also. That would be something that we would change. Thank you. Thanks, convener. Okay. Claire Adamson, please. A wee bit of memory of last name, Claire, sorry. Thank you. From part of the discussion this morning and maybe a little bit but the confusion about what would happen to Plinking, whether or not it would be legal following the current bill, do you think licensing in itself is enough? Or would you like to see it combined with further regulation and usage? Or do you think it can be incorporated into this bill? Superintendent Flynn, first, please. I think a lot of the Plink in that I know of happens in very built up areas. Plinking is just target shooting. It's up to the gun associations to make sure there's sufficient target practice areas. There's a big difference between Plinking in a back garden and having a landowner's permission in an open field where there's no backdrop, there's nothing else that can be harmed and it's actually settled for that purpose. Again, if the police were satisfied that you were going into a 20-acre field that had no public walking through it and people knew that was what the purpose was for, it might be taken into account, but I don't see any reason that somebody sitting in the middle of a house in a state and heavily built up when there's a kid next door and somebody up at that window should be shooting something that's potentially very, very dangerous. Doctor North, please. I agree entirely with that. I agree with the other members of the panel. I think allowing Plinking in an average sized back garden would render the scheme pointless because so many people would be able to apply for a licence and see how I'm shooting in my average sized back garden. It would sort of just sort of render it meaningless. Thank you. Would you consider Scouting Associations or Scouting Groups or Cadet Groups or other groups that are doing target shooting as part of the activities to be Plinking or do you think that's a more controlled environment? Ms Dunne, please. I think that if they were doing it in suitable premises and weren't shooting live animals, perhaps in association with a shooting club, then I don't think that we'd have any objection to that. But, yes, as long as it wasn't being done by somebody's back garden or sort of casually. Doctor North, yes. I assume that the Scouts would be well organised and conducts shooting in an appropriate place and not in somebody's back garden. Superintendent, please. I mean, I would imagine someone like the Scouts Association would be using a properly purpose-built place. Another thing with that is that you would have supervision of the youngsters that are using them. So, obviously, either the gun club or the scout master would be licensed through the police and would know the responsibilities that come with it. OK, Claire. Thank you. Cameron Buchanan, please. Ms Dunne, you said in your submission that you felt that those under the age of 18 should not get a licence to shoot live animals. How would you sort of regulate that? Are you still of that opinion? I mean, do you think that's still valid? Yes, I do think that it is. I mean, obviously, being shot with an ear gun can be very painful to animal. They might not be killed outright and could, you know, suffer quite horribly because of that. I think that you do need to have a certain level of maturity and responsibility before you would seek to, you know, take the life of an animal. And we think that 18s had a suitable cut-off point for that. Are there other people under 18 who are trying to shoot live animals or was it just... There's a lot... Going back to the problem that there is little evidence with the police, anecdotally, there are problems with teenagers shooting animals in parks and that sort of problems. I would love to be able to provide more figures but just the nature of the crime scenes that I don't. But you said that the legislation should be amended. I think it's quite a difficult amendment to put in, do you not think? Or to regulate anyway. The prostitution organisations are arguing that this whole scheme is going to be very difficult to regulate. So on that, you know, yes, there are some difficulties with the practical application that I can see that, but then that's no reason to back away from laws that could be very sensible. OK, OK. John Wilson, please. Take this opportunity since we've got Superintendent Flynn with us today and just to try and put this into context, could Superintendent Flynn give us any indication of how many animals that he's aware of have been shot using crossbows or archery bows? We've not had any reports of archery bows for a long, long time. This year we've had two instances with crossbows and both were in Vernes to raid more roundabout area. One was believed that the animal wasn't hit with a crossbow, that it was dumped to her. Before that, there was geese in Lanarkshire, but that is not a huge problem. Not nowhere near the air gun situation. Mr Dun, do you have any incidents using the use of crossbows or archery bows? The only one I'm aware of was, I think, two or three years ago in a park in Glasgow where a swan was targeted. It is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on crossbows, but I think that air guns are, as Mike said, more often used in attacks on animals than crossbows are. Thank you very much indeed. Okay, thank you. Can I ask you if there is any additional information that you would like to give to the committee today? From that point of view, it's not just, obviously, the Scottish SPC that would support this. The survey that we carried out in 2012, 91 per cent of the veterinary practices that were responded were in favour of a change in the legislation. 61 per cent supported licensing, and only 5 per cent supported the status quo. That's the members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The people are actually dealing with this first hand. It's them that see the distraught that the owner goes through, the costs that the owner goes through, the lady just in Paisley a couple of weeks ago, I wouldn't like to think how much it cost her to get her cat's leg amputated, how much pain that animal went through, how much cost it cost the family, and you imagine if your pet comes home and is being shot, that's an attack on you as well. Some people take it as a fear. Now, as I said, 178 incidents we dealt with were reported to us. That's where a live animal has been involved and that people think there's something we can do to help. I have no idea how many people come across shots, starlins and sparrows in that. Well, it's dead, they're not going to report it to us. So no, we would firmly support what's being proposed. In terms of the statistics that you've just given us, I take it that that was a survey that was carried out. Could you tell us by whom and how many folk responded to that survey? It was the Scottish SPC that wrote to the 120 veterinary practices throughout Scotland, 75 per cent of which responded, and of them over 80 per cent had actually, within the practice, over the last couple of years, treated something that had come in with a pellet in it. A lot of the cats that are taking their, somebody their cat going missing for a couple of days, it comes home and it's got a limp. They don't know it's been shot until it gets x-rayed. And then the vet's have to decide whether to remove it or not. I mean a couple of years ago we had a staff share bill terrier that we believe had been tied to a tree and shot because it had 14 pellets in its head. Mr Ian Futter removed about 90 of them. It was quite a heavily built staff share, so it was going to cause more damage trying to take these other five pellets out than leave them where they were. They weren't going to cause anything, but two of the pellets were just luckily had missed its eye, but we've had cats with eyes taken out. We do get the occasional fatality ranging from, swans seem to be a particular target. The one in Livingston two years ago, it was reported by members of the public, and when we got in an x-rayed, it had 14 separate pellets. You're not using like a machine gun thing, it's just one pull of the trigger. That's 14 loads, 14 aims and 14 shots. Sadly, that bird had to be put down, and I could quite easily send to the committee pictures of x-rayed cats, the swans that we've had in. I think the horror of the stories that you have just told tell us enough. I don't think we actually need to see the pictures, but thank you very much for the offer. Doctor North, please. In addition to the figures for fatalities and serious injuries that I'll find for the committee, I don't know whether it will be helpful if I got together a list of some of the incidents to reflect what I've been saying about the casual nature of some of these. This is just a pile of incidents, albeit from the great, great, great Britain. If it will be useful for the committee to see some of the more recent press reports, I'm happy to send them. I think that that would be useful. We are aware of some, and as we met for the first string table on licensing, there had been an incident in Kingtyd Durham that we'd heard about at that point. I think that it would be particularly good for some of our new committee members as well to get a flavour of what's going on. We'd be very grateful for that, Doctor North. Ms Dunn. Thanks, convener. We'd used case studies just because of the difficulty of gathering figures, as well as the injuries to the cats in particular. In the case studies, they were very horrible, as Mike's just said, and also to echo another of Mike's points. It clearly made the people that we spoke to feel less safe in their community when their pet had been targeted, particularly because ear guns are so widely available. In most cases, apart from one that we've got, they had no idea who did this, apart from that it was somebody living in the same community as them. Thank you very much. Your evidence today has been extremely useful. We are very grateful for your attendance. Can I now suspend for a change of witnesses, please? Thank you. I'd now like to welcome our second panel this morning, Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson, Head of Policing, West of Scotland, Superintendent Alec Irvine of the Licensing and Violence Reduction Division, and Chief Inspector Fraser Lam of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Division, all at Police Scotland. Can I welcome you all gentlemen, and can I ask if you have any opening remarks? Yes, I do, convener. On you go, Mr Mawson. Thank you, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to give evidence to you today. Part 1 of the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill is principally about people. Albeit it sets out a licensing regime reflective of the 68 Firearms Act, which deals with firearms and shotgun licensing. It is accepted that the law surrounding access to firearms is about public safety. The bill, as far as Police Scotland is concerned, is about making sure that inappropriate people don't get access to lethal, barrelled weapons, which can, by definition, kill. Andrew Morton, who was just a two-year-old toddler when he was shot in the head by a man with an air gun in 2005, is a tragic example of what can happen when the wrong people have access to lethal, barrelled weapons. Such tragic incidents are thankfully very rare, but most days police and animal welfare groups have to deal with the results of air weapons being misused. Legislation, which allows for responsible ownership of air weapons, is to be welcomed. Air weapons in irresponsible hands are dangerous, and they are used for licensing of firearms. Excuse me. Keeping people safe is the priority for Police Scotland. As you were aware, the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland is responsible for the licensing of firearms and shotguns and explosives in the country. Whilst understanding that there is significant uncertainty in respect of the numbers of air weapons in existence in Scotland and consequently the demand that will be placed upon the police in respect of the proposals within the bill, it is a fact that we have systems in place which copes with over 53,000 certificate holders at this time. Shogun, the ICT system used to manage firearms in Scotland, has recently been linked up, which allows for the eight firearms licensing processing centres to effectively manage workloads throughout Scotland. I am aware that it can be relatively easily adapted to manage air weapons too. In other words, we have the expertise and the experience to process applications and manage the risks. What we do not have is the budget to fund the resources to satisfy the additional demand. Costs will be incurred in upgrading Shogun in resourcing the departments who will administer the licensing regime and in the subsequent criminal justice processes such as ballistics examinations. This is set against an unknown demand. We welcome the provisions of the bill, which will allow for current certificate holders to possess air weapons under the terms of their existing firearm or shotgun certificates. This will reduce the demand on police resources. You may be aware that, with revisions to the Firearms Act in 97, certificates were increased in term from three years to five years. This caused peaks and troughs in demand. There are three extremely busy years and two years where there is a reduction in demand. With this experience, it is essential that we legislatively build into the process a system whereby the demand is smoothed or phased, as the panel earlier said. This can be done by allowing the chief constable to determine the length of the first air weapons certificate issue. By doing this and by setting up a pro-rata fee for the length of the first certificate, we can assess the demand and allocate resources as required. I understand that this is the first stage of the bill and revisions will likely follow after the considerations of the committee in the Parliament. That said, I would like to reiterate that we commend the intention of the bill. We are of the opinion that it will reduce the ability of those intent, either by design or by recklessness, to criminally injure people, animals or damage property in Scotland. The vast majority of people who legally hold firearms in Scotland conduct their lives in a manner which reflects their acceptance of the responsibility for the safe use of their guns. Crimes involving legally held firearms in Scotland are proportionately small compared to the number of guns held. It is not those people who will be detrimentally affected by this proposed legislation. It is the people who should not have guns, who will be affected and in a way which will only benefit the safety of the people in Scotland. Thank you, Assistant Chief Constable. Let's look at some of the budgetary implications that you have talked about. You have spoken about shogun and that being easily adaptable to deal with air rifle, air weapon licensing. Will shogun be a system that matches interlinks into I6 when it comes into the air? Yes, it will. In that regard, in terms of dealing with criminality from air weapons, that interlink would be helpful in terms of investigation. Absolutely. All the eight legacy forces are now joined up. It's working really well. It's only been in place since October, but there have been no issues so far. It is significantly helping us in firearms licensing in Scotland. We see that an adaption to that is a relatively easy fix at a relatively small cost. We do have a provisional figure, but I would stress its provisional, around about £20,000. We heard from the previous panel that, in terms of firearms and shogun licenses, the regime that is controlled by Westminster rather than here, the fees have not gone up for a long while, static for a fair bit of time, and there was the insinuation that basically the public are subsidising these licenses. In terms of that public subsidy, here in Scotland, is it Police Scotland that are picking up the tab for that subsidy? In short, yes it is at the moment. We do a lot of work to make sure that only fit and proper people receive firearms or shotguns licenses. There's a huge amount of work involved in that, including visits, follow-up visits, checking gun cabinets, etc. That is not covered, quite frankly, by the existing costs. You're quite right, convener. I believe that those costs have not changed since 2001. I don't want to ask you a particularly political question, Mr Mawson, and feel free to say that you don't want to answer it. Do you think that the costs of the licensing regime for firearms and shotguns should be borne by the owners rather than by Police Scotland in the taxpayer at large? That's a fair question, and I think that the answer is quite frankly yes. If people want to own a firearm of any kind, whether it's a shotgun, a rifle or an air weapon, then they should pay the cost associated with that. We're not out to make any kind of profit from it, we just want costs recovered. Before I move off the budgetary aspects, the cost of dealing with airgun incidents must be fairly high. In my constituency, a few years back, there was a spate of airgun incidents in the seating area of my constituency. Is there any way of quantifying the cost to Police Scotland of dealing with crime involving air weapons? Yes, we've done some in-depth research into that. I'll let my colleague Fraser answer that one. Is that the cost of the investigation in relation to any crimes that should be brought back? Obviously, you can only answer in terms of the investigations. We know that there are other costs in terms of the health service, and we know that there are huge costs to the lives of animals, too. If you could give us an indication of what you have, it would be useful, Chief Inspector. I think that the Assistant Chief Constable might be talking about the processing costs here. In relation to actual investigation, those will vary in relation to how much inquiry needs to be done, time-taking statements, in relation to the compilation of a police report, the recording of that. One of the core aspects of those instances is that we have to prove that there is a firearms offence occurred, the basics is that it is an actual gun. Therefore, there is a ballistics cost in relation to that. Each ballistics cost is £180 in relation to the time you get the expertise from the ballistics experts provision of the subsequent report to Procurator Fiscal. Can we specify how much it actually is per investigation? It would be very difficult, but there are significant costs within that process. Of course, the costs for certain things, if somebody is killed by an air weapon, the cost of that investigation would be immense, would it not? The cost around that, convener, you are not talking thousands in singles, you are talking tens of thousands of pounds of homicide inquiry of that nature, many tens of thousands. A serious injury inquiry? Again, that can be several thousand pounds. We are not talking a significant amount of money to investigate cases where air weapons have been involved. Absolutely not, convener. I know that it is sometimes difficult to talk about costs, monetary costs in those regards, but there is, as I said previously, that human cost and the cost in terms of animals as well. Clare Adamson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning. My apologies, as it is my first day in the committee, and I am perhaps not up to speed as much with the bill as I would have liked to have been before the evidence session this morning. A few questions in the background. Bearing in mind that I appreciate the showgun regulation and how you do that, that there is not a storage issue with air guns, it is purely licensing, will the vetting of who is a fit and proper opinion in your opinion, will the vetting of a fit and proper person be as stringent as it is under the shotgun legislation? We have to reflect probably the Government's intention in relation to that insofar as a lighter touch. It is all about the absolute lethality of these weapons. The arm, I think it is accepted that, at close range, they are lethal without a shadow of a doubt. However, when we licence someone for a firearms licence, we have something that is capable and for sporting purposes, which will kill a deer at several hundred yards. An air weapon will not do that. Again, with shotguns extremely lethal at very short range, devastating. However, more devastating and more lethal than what an air weapon would be. I think that what we have to do is accept that the air lethal weapon is different standards of range in relation to lethality. It will be a lighter touch than what we do or it is proposed and what our thoughts are is that it will be a lighter touch and proportionate to that lethality. Therefore, when we go down the lines of the checks and we have very much looked at the checks we do for the PVG, the protection of vulnerable groups legislation, we do not go and visit everybody in relation to that. However, if we trust people to work with children and vulnerable people, we should therefore trust them to have an air weapon. I think that that is a relatively good gauge for that. If, during those tests in relation to the checking of the systems, there is information that flags up to say that there is a challenge here, then what we would resort back into our tried and tested processes in relation to making sure that someone is suitable to have a firearm or a shotgun, which are quite intrusive, understandably so. In itself, given that there is no additional regulation about storage, is there anything that, in gaining a licence, will make behavioural change? Is there anything at all, guideline, or anything at all other than just you have a licence to have the air gun? I think that the people who will apply for a licence will be responsible in their nature. People have three options in relation to this legislation. The either hand to gun in or the air weapon in, the apply for a certificate or the risk becoming a criminal, because it will then become an offence. I think that the people who apply for these will be responsible in their very nature because they are willing to put themselves forward for the test of should I be suitable or otherwise. There will be guidance, or we will work up guidance in relation to security, in relation to how these weapons should be secured, what our recommendations would be, and that would obviously be in conjunction with the Government. In terms of, we heard a kind of difference of opinion there between Dr North and the convener about plinking and what the bill will do in terms of the legal situation about plinking at the moment. I'm a bit concerned that maybe there's an expectation that the bill will deliver much more than what is actually on the face of it as a licence at the moment. Can you just give me your opinion on that? Superintendent Irvin, I think that you wanted to come in there. Thanks, convener. I think in answer to your question, I think what we've got in terms of plinking and in terms of the reckless conduct about discharge or fire, and there are sufficient powers here. I think in terms of this bill, I think what it is from my view is it's a preventative bill and the fact that we are going to stop people who are likely to carry out that conduct, get access to an air weapon. On the other side of that, if they should commit an offence, then there's a licensing regime in place that prevents them gaining an air weapon again. Where, at this moment in time, if they commit that offence, there's nothing to stop us allowing them of going and then buying or purchasing and acquiring an air weapon. The intention of this bill will stop that happening. So just a final opinion, if possible, convener, just to say that, given everything that we just talked about, do you believe that this will result in significant reduction on misuse of air guns in Scotland? I think for me, convener. Sorry, it's about accessibility. What we've got is we've unfettered access to air weapons across Scotland. There is no control around that. By introducing the bill, we will have, we will have undoubtedly have those individuals in society who will want to surrender the weapons. That will reduce accessibility through that route and it is about controlling those that then access weapons. So I think, in answer to the question, yes, we will prevent that. Thank you very much. Thank you, convener. John Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I'm going to take you to the submission that Police Scotland made to the committee and in answer to the first question in the third paragraph, you referred to levels of misuse of air weapons as in recent years to have fallen to a very low level, define very low level. What are you measuring that against? Who's going to go first? I'll start, convener. What we've identified is that recorded offences involving all firearms fell in Scotland by 32% from 535 in 2011-12 to 365 in 2012-13. Of these 365, almost half 171 offences involved air weapons. Now, that is the lowest recorded in Scotland since comparable records began in 1980, but I'd just like to bring you right up to date with some research we've completed for today, which is from April this year to July this year. The last six or seven months is what we looked at in April to July. There were 84 offences involving air weapons specifically in Scotland. 75 of those offences were in a public place. Six of those offences involved injuries to animals. Nine offences involved injuries to humans, one of which was an attempted murder where a male was shot to the head. Nine offences were in a private dwelling or a garden, et cetera, et cetera. So it is a real threat. People are getting seriously hurt. We get calls all the time to air weapon misuse. For me, I've been a firearms commander for 14 years now in three different police forces. I can tell you that when you're busy and there's an awful lot of fast-time risk assessment to do, and you've got cops on the ground and people are pointing guns, it's very difficult in certain circumstances to be able to distinguish between an air weapon and a real firearm or shotgun. It's really, really difficult and challenging. Another positive impact of the proposed legislation is that it will further reduce the risk of harm to people, including my own officers, I have to say, and it will significantly reduce the drain on my resources as well. Because there we are, about half of the firearms incidents in the last complete year down to air weapons. So there's an awful lot to be considered in the mix here, and we really are supportive of what we're trying to do here. That keeps you on. Assistant Chief Constable, I welcome that updated figure, because the updated figures have just given us for a four-month period. It is effectively 50 per cent of the last accountable year figures. Based on that trajectory, then you'd expect a 50 per cent increase across the year in relation to the number of reported incidents previously. In terms of the issues that you're dealing with, you did give a list and appreciate if the committee could get a copy of that list of incidents that have been reported as activities that fought, become part of the criminal activity, and the police taking appropriate action on that. The submission also made reference to, and you referred to it there, that you'd expect a reduction in the number of incidents. I know that it's very difficult for you to do this, to speculate, of those 84 incidents that you mentioned in the last four months between April and July, how many of those do you think would have fallen into the category as not being fit and proper to be licensed to have an air weapon? It's almost impossible to speculate on something like that. Perhaps more generically, what I can say is, with the benefit of legislation that prevents people who are not fit and proper or don't have a good reason for holding air weapons, a huge number will be, we expect, handed into the police for destruction. That means that there are less air guns, air pistols lying around in wardrobes, on bedside tables, in garages, in attics, where, frankly, anybody could pick them up, including young people. So it's got to be a good thing. Well, it's difficult to say which of those wouldn't have happened, had the legislation been in place. Generically, we can say, this is definitely the right direction of travel. In terms of the submission made, there's also part of the submission there. You make comment on a 17-year-old student shooting rats with an air weapon and a factory for a friend with the friend's permission would be contravening the proposed legislation. Do you think that, if the person in the 17-year-old had permission to deal with a vermin problem by the owner of a property, would seriously warrant taking action against that individual? Mr Mawson, Mr Lyle. That example is used in relation to proposed legislation where the conditions which are set out for someone under 18 identifies an employment for pest control. Therefore, someone who is legally shooting on an area where they are allowed to shoot, if they weren't employed, they wouldn't be allowed to be engaged in pest control. That was the example that was brought out from in relation to legislation. Do you think that legislation might be in contradiction to the current demands by the Scottish Government to lower the voting age? I'm just using the lowering of the voting age to 16-17 as being a responsible adult at 18 for the purposes of this legislation. At the same time, we are saying that individuals over the age of 16 should be entitled to vote. Do you think that the age bar is set too high in terms of legislation? I think that the 18-year-old was set out to reflect other legislation in the Firearms Act 1968 and other European legislation, and I think that it is set roughly at that bar. I must admit that I had absolutely noted that thought. It didn't cross my mind in relation to a 16-year-old at that particular time. I was just highlighting the fact that perhaps a legislation is slightly restrictive in relation to the opportunity to be involved in a lawful purpose. However, by saying that it has to be linked into employment, I thought that it made it personal, I thought that it made it too restrictive. Thank you very much. Finally, in relation to the submission made, the Police Scotland submission raises questions in relation to section 26 of the bill about the notification to the chief officer of police and the time limit that is set for that notification. Could you give your explanation as to why you think that that may be a particular problem in relation to the legislation? I think that that was basically what's the purpose of it. If an air weapon is sold to, for instance, a French national, it has no serial number on it or whatever, then what are we realistically expected to do with that piece of information to suggest that someone who's said in France was sold an air weapon which is tall and tense unidentifiable, what would we record and what purpose would we record it for? We couldn't see the point of it. What would we do with that information? I thought I'd better get this one in. How quickly do you think the police will be able to introduce this licensing regime following Royal Senate? We have plenty of time between now and the likely introduction date to get our ICT in place, our guidance out to staff, our training systems in place. We will be ready for any likely introduction in 2016. Willie Coffey, please. Thank you very much. Good morning to the panel. In terms of the fitting, proper test and the good reason to have an air weapon, as I was asking in the previous panel, what is the guidance for you to enable you to assess that and is it Scotland-wide assessment so that if a person receives a licence in one part of Scotland and then moves to another part to reapply or is it a Scottish-wide licence? With the introduction of Police Scotland, we had the ability to standardise and move towards the standardisation of process. For instance, if you apply for a certificate in WIC or in Dumfries, then the test is the same. The test in relation to revocation and refusal and so on is consistent and we are moving towards greater consistency with aim of absolute consistency in relation to firearms licensing. In relation to the fitting, proper test, the test is really roundabout responsibility. It is about does this person, is this person a responsible person and in relation to the reason for accessing the firearm, which is what it is under the air weapon legislation, the reason to have that would be extremely important and it would be consistent in relation to guidance which we would run up and would say, this is what we do, this is what we accept is a good reason to have a firearm and that's already reflected. We're used to dealing with good reason tests in relation to shotguns and firearms at the moment so therefore we would be able to very quickly adapt our thinking and adapt the test that we would require for the actual bill. Is the assessment mainly subjective though or is it based on any evidence about the person's history, record and so on and so forth? I'm thinking, convener, that if a person's refused a licence in Ayrshire but then moves up to Aberdeen and tries again, will there be a record of that attempt to have a licence? Does your IT system cope with that so you would know? In terms of the test itself, is there a subjective element to it that a person could try and be lucky to be assessed in Aberdeen compared to Ayrshire? If a person was to move, the actual nominal details would be recorded on shotgun, the person's details would be recorded on shotgun which is accessible if you're working in Dumfries or in Aberdeen, it's the same, so therefore someone in Aberdeen can bring up a record of someone who previously stayed in Dumfries, they would see what the decision making process was in relation to that. The guidance would set out, we would have to run up or bring together guidance which would say, this is what a reason to believe, sorry, a reason to have that firearm or what the good reason is. So we would have a set criteria for good reason, we have that already for shotguns and firearms, especially in relation to firearms which is slightly different legislation under the 1968 act. It's got to be really, really specific what are you going to use this gun for? And it's specific guns. So if you've got a calibre of 0.178hmr which is used for small vermin, well you're going to be using that for small vermin, if you've got a much bigger calibre of 0.270, you're going to be using that for deer, you can't use them, they're just different tools and that's what I see. Air weapons are, they are different tools used for different jobs, they are used for for instance pest control, shooting pigeons in a bair which are devocating over cattle feeding and so on, farmer wants to get rid of them. If you use a much, much more powerful weapon it starts to drill holes in the roof and it's inappropriate, so therefore it's a tool for the job and what would your good reason be for that? And if they said it's for vermin control, it's the place, shooting pigeons or whatever, then that would be exactly the good reason. And forgive my ignorance, convener, but is there an appeal process associated with this so that a person who's rejected can appeal and who does appeal to if it's a Scottish-wide assessment process? There is an appeal process within the bill which I think would go to Sheriff Court, again that's replicated within the 1968 act for someone who has refused or revoked in relation to a Farama shotgun certificate. My last question, convener, we heard previously from Jennifer Dunn and Dr North that there's probably a likely to be much many more incidents than actually are ever reported because of the nature of some of these offences. Are you, therefore, permitted to, when an incident does occur, to consult the register and pay a visit to those who are licensed owners for air gun weapons? And can you also use the information that you have about unsuccessful applications for air gun weapons to visit those persons in relation to any incidents that might occur? I think that if we were, in fact, I know that if we were in receipt of information which suggests that someone is using a gun inappropriately, we're all over it immediately because the prime reason of legislation and our prime reason is to keep people safe and if we have the information to suggest that someone is inappropriately using a gun, well, we want to find out all about it and find out what circumstances are and remove that gun probably with the earliest opportunity and put our foot in the ball and actually think about what we're going to do with this. That will be recorded on Shogarn. It's already recorded on the system. So the information never goes away and would we be able to use information from a previous application? Absolutely, because that information is there. It's evidenced in relation to what the inquiry officer found out, what the witnesses were speaking to, etc. We're dealing with this on a daily basis with the 53,000 people who are certificated to have firearms on Scotland. A lot of what the legislation, the bill proposes as reflected by the 1968 act and we would try and not reinvent the wheel in relation to that. We'd be using very much the same process. Just to clarify that fairly, so those who might be unsuccessful in applying for a licence will still be known to you should incidents occur, they can possibly be amongst those people that you might wish to visit in relation to an incident. Yes. Thank you, that's very helpful. Thank you. Before I take in Cameron Buchanan in relation to Mr Coffey's question round about the Dumfries Aberdeen situation, was Shogun in place before Police Scotland and how did co-ordination, or was there co-ordination in the eight forces round about applications before the inception of Police Scotland? Before the inception of Police Scotland, you date chief constables who were each responsible for firearms licensing within the area in which the certificate resides. With one chief officer of Police now for the whole of Scotland, we've got to have consistency. So it would have been easier in yesteryear to move from Aberdeen to Dumfries, having been refused firearms licence in Aberdeen to get one in Dumfries? There were certain markers that were put on the Police National Computer in relation to a refusal or a revocation. So licence and staff in Aberdeen would be able to identify that very quickly and say there's a marker on the PNC that this person's been refused or revoked in the legacy Strathclyde, and then they'd be picking up the phone and speaking to their colleagues. That's not as consistent as what you've got in place now. It's much, much more consistent now. Superintendent Irving, you were... Thanks, convener. I was just going to say that there was really no formal mechanism for notification when certificate holders moved from or were refused certificates in one chief constables area and then applying for another. While it was linked to residents in terms of the 68 acts, fundamentally practically they would have to get in a different address under the chief constable just making the decision. In practical terms, there was no way of us mapping across Scotland who was applying to different chief constables across the country who have the new system and new processes in place that allow us to manage it as a nation. Mr Mawson, are you going to... I was just going to add to that, convener, that it is now much more joined up. The point that you made there, Mr Cofie, around subjectivity is a point well made, I think. What I can say is that as lead for firearms licensing for Scotland, we now started a process of inviting all firearms licensing staff, whether they are police officers or members of support staff, into training events at Tulley Allen for whole days at a time. They get the same training to the same standard, along with the same guidance. We share experiences, we share difficulties and the challenges and that is all going a long way to reducing the element of subjectivity significantly. Of course, everything is now recorded on the national database that everyone has got access to. Thank you. Cameron Buchanan, please. Thank you very much. As I understand it, not every air gun or air pistol has an identification, a unique identification of it. How are you going to get round that when you are trying to licence them? Mr Lam. The bill proposes that it is about people rather than guns. Therefore, if you will be allowed to have a certificate to possess air weapons, within, for instance, the shotgun legislation, you are allowed to hold as many shotguns as you wish under your shotgun certificate. It is different from the firearm certificate. However, they are identified under shotgun certificates. They are identified. There would not be a mechanism, as far as our understanding of the bill is, to identify, for instance, that is a point 2 to air rifle. As you say, a lot of them do not have identification numbers on them, so how would we be able to identify them? It would be a case of that you, as an individual, are allowed to possess your weapons. Would the quantity then be specified, like it is in the shotgun certificate? I've got two shotguns and it's specified what make they are, what number they are. Air guns, would you say you can have two, three or four? Is that proposed or is that the idea? There's no proposal for that as far as I'm aware of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Ann McTagger, please. Thanks. Like I'd asked, the earlier panel, so you've had loads of time for me to sit and make up a wish list as the season to be jolly. Can you inform us, is there anything in the bill that would make it a better bill? Is there anything that's omitted from the bill just now, as it stands? I'll let Alec and Fraser add some more value to this, but for me, the big strategic issue of smoothing, what we can't have is, you know, thousands of applications coming in on one day, really struggling to cope with that and then five years later, exactly the same happening again. That just doesn't make for a pragmatic common sense process. We need some kind of phasing or a smoothing in approach. Okay, Superintendent Irvine. I think that's a critical issue for us as an organisation. In terms of the contents of the bill to manage the creation of offences in the licensing regime, I think that I'm pretty confident that it actually covers all the things that support us as an organisation, keeps our community safe and allows a proportionate licensing regime to come in place. Chief Inspector Lam. To reiterate Mr Morrison's point, it's hugely important that we get smoothing right because we're going to have five years. Come to legislation there will be one number, but probably quite a significant number of people will apply for the rear-weapon certificate. If by the reading of the legislation we get now, there will be an on-going small demand and then in five years times we have a huge bulk of, again, renewals. So every five years we're going to be faced with a huge workload for a very short time and then for the next four years, eleven months, it diminishes. That's very difficult to plan for staff, resources, commitment, checks, et cetera, et cetera. The proposal to smooth is that for the first certificate only, for the first certificate only, the chief constable can decide how long the certificate is, which will then let us be able to have the same number of applications per month when it comes to renewal. So certificate number one would last for a year, certificate number two, 13 months, et cetera, until you get to certificate number 60, which is five years and 11 months, and then what we've got is the same number of people every month applying for a certificate and we can plan for that, resource for that. Alan? It has been previous weapon amnestys. How do you manage that? And what lessons were learnt from that? Mr Lam? There's recently been an amnesty down in England and Wales in relation to other firearms and for instance, the Metropolitan Police Recurrent, there was 350 firearms handed in, of which I think it worked out round about a quarter of them were air weapons. We are probably looking at a much, I think they'll be our figures will outstrip that in relation to air weapons. A scrap metal you're telling us basically? I think there'll be a lot of handling of air weapons getting handed in and getting destroyed. I think the numbers will dwarf the amnesty figures in England and Wales in relation to the volumes. As people, their grandfather had an air weapon that's lying up in the loft we've not used it for decades upon decades and we've got no good reason for it so, therefore, we're going to take it down and hand it into the police. No, that's fine. Thank you. It was just in a supplementary to Cameron Buchanan's questions. Obviously, if people have criminal intent it's a difficulty for us all in society and we can't get over the fact that some people will, but can I run a scenario by you that if you do find someone who's not in possession of a licence but in possession of a gun under what's just been said can they not just claim that a licence owner owns that gun? If there's no record of how many guns each person has in terms of their air gun licence so, I'm assuming that maybe there's someone slipped through and has an air gun licence who's not upstanding what would happen in that situation? I think that there's a healthy dose of cynicism within police officers and I think that we would be going and asking the other person if they've got a certificate and all the sorts of investigative questions which we would really expect officers to ask of these individuals. I just think that we'd be able to deal with that in relation to being able to appropriately investigate it and then ascertain if that's the fact or not. Within the power of the bill if you suspected that somebody was basically at it in that scenario that it wasn't the air gun and it did belong to the other person and they were in collusion with him do you have the power to remove their licence at that point? It's unfitted to being trusted test and unfitted to being trusted is quite a low bar and it's been accepted to be quite a low bar in relation to firearms legislation so I think that if someone was telling his lies and they were proving to be telling his lies I think that it's unfitted to being trusted with the firearm. It has been said by some that this legislation will only affect law abiding citizens and will not do anything to stop or decrease criminality what would you have to say about that gentlemen? I think that, convener, I've kind of covered that already in that we know that there are a lot of air weapons out there the exact number isn't known the gun trade say half a million I think this legislation people will either register and they'll be the people for the most part that are fit and proper we know that I think a huge number will be sent to the police for scrap to be disposed of and then there's that third group of guns that will still lie around but it'll be a significantly smaller number than the thousands that are currently in circulation that somebody just for circumstance something spontaneous could pick up on a day and do something very very silly we've spoken about the 84 offences in the last four or five months including an attempted murder a shot to the head this will definitely have a positive impact on keeping people safe thank you very much for your evidence today gentlemen it's appreciated I now suspend the meeting and we move on to private session