 Good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting of the committee in 2015. If you wish to use tablet devices or mobile phones during the meeting, please switch them to the flight mode as they may otherwise affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablet devices during the meeting because we provide papers in a digital format. We have apologies today from Alec Rowley. Agenda item 1 is the only item of business that we have today, and it's our first day of stage 2 consideration of the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. I'd like to welcome Michael Matheson, MSP Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who is joining us today as the member in charge of the bill. Today we are considering section 1 to 40 of the bill and all amendments to those sections. These sections from part 1 of the bill establish an Air Weapons Certificate System in Scotland. At our next meeting on Wednesday 20 May, we will consider sections 41 to 59 of the bill on alcohol licensing. Any member wishing to lodge amendments to those sections must do so by 12 noon this coming Friday 15 May. We will consider the remaining sections and schedules of the bill at our meeting on Friday 27 May. That will cover civil licensing provisions such as scrap metal dealers, sexual entertainment venues and taxi and private car hire licensing. I'd like to point out now that, owing to the late spring holiday, the deadline for lodging amendments to the civil licensing sections of the bill is 12 noon on Wednesday 20 May. That's Wednesday of next week. MSP should lodge amendments with the legislation clerks in the usual way. Before we move on to consideration of amendments, it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2 consideration. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill is introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on Monday and the groupings of amendments that set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all of the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech. As with a debate in the chamber, the member who is winding up on a group may take interventions from other members if they wish. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press a head, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point. Today we will go no further than part 1 of the bill. Let's move on to the list of amendments. I call amendment 1 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendments 2, 3, 5, 6, 36 and 37. Cameron Buchanan, can I ask you to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you very much. Good morning, minister. Thank you very much indeed. This first one is really as a probing amendment because I think that air weapon is a loaded term and the air guns are used, intended to be used for harm to kill. I don't think that this is actually—I am aware that in the firearms act of 68 it was an air weapon, but it's rather probing it in. I think that it's worth raising this because I think that it's rather a misleading term, weapon, whereas gun I think is better. I was just going to see if this is what you thought about that. Thank you. Can I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 2 and other amendments in the group, please? I'm grateful for the opportunity to bring a number of government amendments to part 1 of the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill this morning. Since the bill was introduced, we have continued to listen carefully to reviews of stakeholders and we have taken into account the evidence act committee sessions and the recommendations that were set out in the committee's stage 1 report. As a result, we are bringing forward a small number of amendments that I hope the committee will agree to help to clarify and to fine tune the bill's provisions. I also welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues that have been raised in the amendments that have been tabled by Cameron Buchanan, and I am grateful for him in his work in this area. I want to begin by what is probably the most complex grouping of amendments. Mr Buchanan's amendment 1 would remove a key component of the definition of air weapons for the purposes of part 1 of the bill without putting anything in its place. As such, the resulting position appears unworkable and confused. In practical terms, the removal of subsection 2 of section 1 without providing any alternative definition of the meaning of air weapons includes a risk that the bill might be read as attempting to capture air weapons that are either so high-powered that they are controlled by the Firearms Act 1968 or they are so low-powered that they are not considered lethal. In short, amendment 1, if passed, could significantly change the nature of the licensing regime set out in part 1 of the bill and remove the uncertainty over exactly what is covered, which is so important to a licensing regime. Mr Buchanan's amendments 5, 6 and 37 might be thought of as being acting together, as they address an issue around airsoft guns for approved clubs. In practice, those amendments attempt to exempt those using airsoft guns from the need to hold an air weapon certificate. I believe that the bill, as it is drafted, already provides a definition of air weapons, which meets our principles of developing a proportionate, familiar and practical licensing regime. We have consulted widely on that and I believe that it is generally well understood. However, I also believe that we can make the position even more clearer for all users of the legislation and achieve Mr Buchanan's amendments. The issue in terms of the definition of the 1968 act, air weapons and the definition of air weapons has changed dramatically in the use of airsoft weapons and, for example, paintballing as an air weapon, which are powered up the same way as many air rifles and guns are powered up now. Is there not a need at some stage to tighten up the definition so that we are clear about what types of air weapons are covered in the existing 1968 act and what weapons the Scottish Government intends to cover in relation to the legislation? I think that there has been major significant advances in the use of what could be termed air weapons that might not be covered by the act, such as paintballing and airsoft weapons. If the member bears with me, I am coming to that very point in the explanation that I am providing. Can I go back to the point that Mr Buchanan wishes to clarify the position on the use of airsoft guns by amendments 2 and 3 in his name? We have been clear from the outset that it is not our intention to licence very low-powered air weapons such as BB guns or those used for airsoft pursuits. In legal terms, such guns are not generally considered to be firearms, with the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968. They are instead regulated elsewhere. For example, airsoft guns are regulated as realistic imitation firearms under existing GB legislation in the form of the violent crime reduction act 2006. That prohibits manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitations, with a small number of exemptions. Those exemptions include film and theatre production, historic re-enactments and airsoft skirmishing in clubs affiliated to the UK Airsoft Retail Association. However, a number of stakeholders have written to ministers since the bill was introduced seeking clarification over the types of guns to be included in the regime. Amendment 2 therefore aims to clarify the meaning of air weapons for the purposes of the licensing regime. It should help to put the position beyond doubt by excluding such guns if they are not firearms, with the meaning of section 57, 1 of the 1968 act. That excludes air guns such as airsoft and paintball guns. Amendment 3 is simply a consequential change arising from that to make it clear that the component parts of such guns would also fall out with the licensing regime. I believe that amendments 2 and 3 provide a clearer and simpler approach, addressing the matters that have been raised by Mr Buchanan's amendments, and the commentary that I have offered will also help to clarify for Mr Wilson the present arrangements for the regulation of imitation firearms. Therefore, I ask that Mr Buchanan does not press amendment 156 and 37 and invite members to support amendments 2 and 3 in my name. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? No, in which case can I call Cameron Buchanan to wind up and to press or withdraw, please? Does the minister not think that we should be specifying paintball and softball rather than just giving a general definition of them? I think that it would be helpful, because the 1968 act in those days probably did not exist in 1968. I do not know if certainly paintball did not exist. I wonder whether we should not be specifying it a bit, which is a whole point of my amendment. As long as it takes place in an approved club, it should be all right, I would have thought. However, I think that we should be a bit more specific on the definition. I think that the cabinet secretary was pretty specific in what he said. Do you want to repeat what you said, cabinet secretary? The amendments that we have put forward 2 and 3 are to be clearer around that matter, but it is also tied into the fire arms 1968 act, and that is why we are providing further clarification on that around air weapons. Okay, Mr Buchanan. Okay, I think that you would not specify any more. You would not say, I just think that it is okay. You are not trying to ban it from a hobby, that is the point, but you are not trying to ban it or anything. I am just concerned that it was not mentioned. That is an unusual way of dealing with this, cabinet secretary, if you want to come back. We are not trying to ban anything. We are actually trying to make sure that there is provision to offer the clarification that someone in the sector has asked for. It is very clear about the regime that will operate and apply to the particular weapons that they use. Okay, Mr Buchanan. Yeah, fine. Thank you very much. I would then withdraw my amendments. Okay, so the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to and you are saying that you are wishing to withdraw amendment 1. Are the committee content that amendment 1 be withdrawn? Thank you. I call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 4 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, group with amendments 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 20. I point out that if amendment 12 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 13 or 14 respectively. Cameron Buchanan can ask you to move amendment 4 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much. Amendment 4 would exempt holders of firearm or shotgun certificate from the requirement for an air weapon certificate. The point of this is that a possessor of a firearm or shotgun certificate can confidently be assumed to be fit to possess an air weapon, having already obtained a certificate. To force them and the police to go through administrative obstacles to obtain an air weapons license, I think that it is therefore unnecessary and a bureaucratic burden on both the applicant and the police, as we heard from the police. That is section 4. There was another amendment tonight. No, that is all that I was going to say. So that she finished with amendment 4 and all amendments in that group, Mr Buchanan? I think so, yes. Section 4 and 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. And 20. 20, because they are consequential. Okay. Does any other member wish to enter the debate here? No, can I call the cabinet secretary, please? Can I just clarify that you are dealing with amendments 4 to 20? It is 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 20. Thanks, convener. Mr Buchanan's amendment in this group would fundamentally change the way in which we and the police approach the licensing of air weapons under the new legislation. They reflect many of the objections that we have heard to the principle of air weapons licensing. Those objections were expressed by some of the shooting representatives on our expert consultive panel and by other organisations and individuals who responded to our public consultation in early 2013. The committee heard similar views during the first evidence session on the bill in November last year. However, we believe that part 1 achieves our aim of setting out a familiar, proportionate and practical licensing regime for air weapons. The committee and the Parliament have approved the principles underpinning the bill at stage 1 of the process. Amendment 4 and the consequential amendment 12 would provide an automatic exemption for the need for an air weapon certificate to anyone who holds a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate issued by the police under the Firearms Act 1968. I have heard what Mr Buchanan has to say on this matter and I appreciate that providing such a blanket exemption could appear to ease the burden on both the police and those who shoot. In fact, we looked at this as a potential exemption from the licence requirements at the early stages of development in this legislation. However, we rejected it for a number of reasons. Among other things, the granting of firearms and shotgun certificates is subject to different tests under the Firearms Act 1968. For instance, the test for granting shotgun certificates is less stringent. There is no fit and proper person test and the onus is on the police to demonstrate the absence of a good reason. We have been clear throughout the development of the bill that we do not think that this is the right approach in the licensing of firearms in a modern Scotland. In addition, firearms, shotguns and air weapons are used for different purposes in different environments and circumstances, depending on their technical specification and power level. It does not necessarily follow that someone who has a legitimate reason for requiring a more powerful firearm will also have a good reason for requiring an air weapon. For air weapons, we believe that it is right and proper that applicants should be able to demonstrate that they have a reasonable use of those guns and that they can be permitted to use, possess and otherwise interact with them in a reasonable, responsible and safe manner. However, we make provision in section 5.2 to allow the chief constable to take as satisfied the test that a person has fit to be entrusted with an air weapon and that they are not prohibited from possessing firearms under the Firearms Act 1968 if they already hold a firearms or shotgun certificate. I believe that that goes a significant way towards Mr Buchanan's aim, but it remains our overall intent in the test for granting and or renew of a fire and air weapons certificate. On that basis, I urge members to reject amendment 4 and 12, as tabled by Mr Buchanan. The remaining amendments in this group seek to modify the requirement for grant or renew of an air weapons certificate in two ways. Amendment 13 and 14 appear to offer an alternative to amendment 4 and 12. They would require the chief constable to consider any applicant who holds a firearms or shotgun certificate to automatically meet the requirement to be granted an air weapons certificate without proper inquiry. Amendment 10 and 11 and 20 seek to reduce the number of requirements for granting an air weapon certificate to make it more consistent with the less stringent test that applies to shotgun certificates. If agreed to, amendment 10 and 11 would remove the need for the chief constable to be satisfied of the fit person and good reason requirement. Amendment 20 would consequentially amend section 7 of the bill to remove reference to the good reason test in relation to the granting of young person certificates. However, Mr Buchanan has not followed us through to visitor permits or revocation and leaves what is potentially a complicated set of different tests for different circumstances, which I suspect is not his intention. As I have already said, we do not believe that this is the correct approach to firearms licensing. Again, I urge members to reject amendments 10 and 11. I will ask the cabinet secretary to take an intervention. The language that the cabinet secretary is using is referring to firearms. We are talking about air weapons in this bill. Firearms comes under different legislation, UK legislation under the 68 act. Just to try and get clarification, when the cabinet secretary is talking about firearms, does he mean air weapons or firearms? We need to be clear that firearms come under the 68 act. Air weapons come under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government in relation to the bill that is going through Parliament at the present moment. It is just that use of language about firearms versus air weapons, which we are dealing with air weapons, not firearms. I am not entirely clear what the member's point is. Clarification is that firearms are defined under the 68 act. The bill refers to air weapons and not firearms. It is just that confusion that may be caused amongst the general public when we talk about firearms and air weapons. As I said, no firearms are defined under the 68 act, and air weapons we are trying to define under this bill because we refer to air weapons in the bill and not firearms. It is just that everybody is clear that when we talk about a firearm, if you apply for a licence for a firearm, you are applying for a licence under the 68 act. If you are in future, once the bill is passed, you will be applying for an air weapon licence, not a firearms licence. In short, that is correct, yes. When I make reference to an air weapon, it is to do with this licence and regime in this bill. I refer to firearms under the 1968 act. Cabinet secretary, can I call Cameron Buchanan to wind up and press or withdraw please? Thank you very much. I was not quite clear if you are saying that— Mr Buchanan, press or withdraw now and wind up. It is not questioning the cabinet secretary any more. If you wanted to question him, then you should have done that by intervention during the point that he was speaking about. I will press, thank you. Your press. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case, we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 4, please show. And those against amendment 4, please show. Thank you. On amendment 4, those in favour, 1. Those against, 5. The question is disagreed to. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 5 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1? Mr Buchanan, to move or not to move, please? I have not moved. Are the committee content that that is withdrawn? Thank you. Can I call amendment 6 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1? Mr Buchanan, to move or not to move? I have not moved. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. Can I call amendment 7 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 31, 32 and 33? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 7 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Can we now move amendment 7 in my name? Section 24 of the bill governs commercial transactions involving air weapons and broadly matches existing arrangements for firearms in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. One of the provisions under section 24 to C allows a registered firearms dealer to sell or transfer an air weapon to a person who does not have an air weapon certificate, if the gun is not handed to them but is sent for delivery to a place out with the UK. This has caused concern to stakeholders that the bill would prevent sale of firearms to people from England and Wales. The committee reflected the concerns in paragraph 139 of its stage 1 report and recommended that we take steps to ensure that remote sale to other parts of the UK is not prevented in this way. I am very happy to accept those recommendations in my reply to the stage 1 report, and the amendments in my name will ensure that we achieve that. Amendment 32 extends the existing provision for sales for delivery out with the UK to ensure that it also applies to sales for delivery in England and Wales. That will be permitted where the gun is sent directly to a registered firearms dealer in England and Wales, where the buyer can collect it. Amendment 7 is consequential to amendment 32 and amends the exemption at paragraph 15 of stage 1 to allow a person to purchase an air weapon in those circumstances without holding an air weapon certificate. Again, that extends the provision as drafted, which applies to people who wish to purchase an air weapon for delivery to a place out with the UK. It is also important that we maintain the principle that a person must have an air weapon certificate or hold a permit, or be otherwise exempt from the general requirement to hold an air weapon certificate if they are to purchase an air weapon in Scotland. It is also an important principle of existing firearms legislation that commercial sales and transfer of firearms, including air weapons, should be completed face to face, where the buyer is not also a registered firearms dealer. I believe that the two amendments uphold those principles while ensuring that we are not preventing legitimate trade in air weapons to people from England and Wales and therefore invite members to support amendment 7 and 32 in my name. I believe that Mr Buchanan's amendment 31 is intended to address the very same concern that I have just spoken about. However, I do not believe that the approach that it takes is the right one. In fact, the wording proposed in Mr Buchanan's amendment 31 was considered when drafting the bill but decided again for the following reasons. Section 32 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 requires commercial sales of air weapons to individuals in the UK to be concluded face to face. That prevents potentially lethal firearms being delivered directly to people's homes. Instead, they must collect the item from a registered firearms dealer. The bill repeals section 32 of the VCRA in Scotland but creates at section 25 to preserve this policy aim. If Mr Buchanan's amendments were pressed, there is a risk that companies could set themselves up as registered firearms dealers in Scotland for the purposes of selling air weapons by mail order to the rest of the UK. That would undermine the policy underpinning section 32 of the VCRA and section 25 of the bill and enable such dealers to bypass the face to face requirement. We have therefore agreed the wording proposed in amendment 32 with the Gun Trade Association and the Home Office, which achieves the same aim but preserves the face to face policy of the VCRA and section 25 of the bill. Given that amendments 7 and 32 meet the aims that I have outlined and fully addressed the committee's concerns at stage 1, I would ask Mr Buchanan not to move amendment 31. Amendment 33 is slightly different. Section 26 of the bill was intended to replicate section 18 of the firearms amendment act 1988. That provision allows the Government to notify fellow EU countries when high-powered firearms or shotguns are sold for export to any such country. However, because air weapons are not covered by EU firearms law, there is no requirement to share such information. Police Scotland have therefore questioned what they would be expected to do with information gathered under the provisions in section 26 notification. We have examined the position again and have concluded that such notification requirement would place an unnecessary burden on both registered firearms dealers and the police for no practical purpose. To be clear, for members' details on any sale of air weapons, we will still have to be recorded in the dealers' register of transactions and could therefore be checked by the police if necessary. I am therefore bringing forward amendment 33 to remove section 26 in its entirety, and I would invite members to support it. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendments 31 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much indeed. I would suggest that this is going to allow registered firearms dealers in Scotland, I thought, to deliver air weapons to another place. In view of what the minister said about the way in which it was handled, we would have to be a dealer, registered dealer, and face-to-face I accept, so I would therefore withdraw. We will be done at the appropriate time to any other member's wish to enter the debate. Cabinet secretary, do you wish to wind up? Nothing further. Thank you. The question is, then, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I agree with amendment 9. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 8 and speak to both amendments, please. Can I move amendment 8 in my name? Schedule 1 of the bill sets out a range of exemptions for the general requirement for air weapons certificates under section 2 of the bill. It details the circumstances in which a person may use, possess, purchase or acquire an air weapon without the need for holding an air weapon certificate. East cover a wide range of situations, including use at an approved club, use at a fun fair or other authorised event, and possession may and possession by registered firearms dealers or auctioneers, etc. It also sets out certain exemptions from the restrictions on transactions involving air weapons under section 24. Amendments 8 and 9 are minor technical amendments to the exemption list in schedule 1. Amendment 8 will make it explicit in paragraph 16 of schedule 1 that it will not be an offence under section 24 of the bill for a person to lend or let on hire an air weapon to non-certificate holders provided it is for the purposes exempt elsewhere in the schedule. For example, that might include people hiring air weapons for a miniature rifle range at a fun fair or an actor borrowing an air weapon for use on a film production. Amendment 8 is a technical amendment that brings the wording of the provision more closely into line with the line that was used in other firearms legislation and is therefore more familiar to the police, shooters and other stakeholders. It also makes it explicit that the exemption allows for commercial hiring out of air weapons for exempt purposes without the need to be a registered firearms dealer. On that basis, I move amendment 8 and invite members to agree to it. There are a range of duties undertaken by public servants, which may require them to use, possess or otherwise deal with air weapons. Such activities are listed in paragraph 17, 2 of schedule 1. Paragraph 17.3 lists those public servants who may not require to hold air weapons certificates for such purposes. It includes police officers, members of the armed forces and others such as those involved in forensic examination, etc. For those unfamiliar with the role of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembranser, which we are often referred to as QLTR, is the Crowns representative in Scotland who deals with ornallus property, for example, the assets of devolved companies or the estate of individuals who die with no-will or traceable air. That may potentially include air weapons. The exemption allows the QLTR to take possession without requiring a certificate. The amendment extends the exemption as originally drafted to ensure that others, properly authorised by the QLTR, may take possession of air weapons on the QLTR's behalf without requiring a certificate. That essentially provides the necessary legal cover for the QLTR's staff or other agents who act on their behalf. That approach has been discussed and agreed with the QLTR's office, and I move the amendment and invite members to agree to it. Cw cabinet secretary, does any member wish to enter the debate? No, I take it that you won't wish to wind up, cabinet secretary. Can I ask if amendment 8 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I am already debated with amendment 8. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 3 and 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 10 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 4. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Are the committee content that that is withdrawn? Can I call amendment 11 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 4? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Committee content with that, thank you. Can I call amendment 12 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 4? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Committee content with that, thank you. Can I call amendment 13 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 4? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Are the committee content? Thank you. Can I call amendment 14 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 4? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. those are the committee content. Does section 5 agree to it? Are we all agreed? Does section 6 agree to it? Are we all agreed? Amendment 15, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, grouped with amendments 16, 17, 18, 19, 26 and 27. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to move amendment 15 Why don't we speak to all other amendments in the grave please? I move amendment 15. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that the use of air weapons by young people is properly and closely regulated. Accordingly, in the most recent published statistics, more than 40.5 per cent of recorded crimes and offences involving air weapons are committed by persons aged 20 and under. Felly, 50% of victims who have been injured in which they have firearms have been allegedly used, and come from individuals who were aged under 20. A bill sets out practical requirements and conditions regarding Mae'r eu bod yn cael ei mwynhysig yn cyntaf i gyda'r ystod o'i arweithio ar gyfer hynny, a yn cael ei hynny yn cael ei ffair ar gyfer hynny. Mae'r ystod o'i arweithio yn cael ei ffair ar gyfer hynny yn cael ei ffair ar gyfer hynny. Felly, mae'r hynny'n gweithio o'i arweithio ar gyfer hynny, byddwn yn gallu gweithio cerdidol yn ysgrifoedd. Felly, nid ydym yn gweithio cerdidol, neu ydym yn gweithio ysgrifoedd, ond rydyn nhw'n anghyfffr Connect. Ar y dyfodol rŵr ydgrifoedd o gyd, dyfodd rwy'n methu i ddelw i ddweud, oherwydd mae roedd eich rai â phaith hyn. Ieith o wneud rydyn nhw'n cael ei ddelw i ddweud ar eu lech, gyda ffyrddolol ac rydyn nhw'n yn ymgylchedd ar y 1968 act yw ffaith amdd. That is right, cabinet secretary, but what we are dealing with is the issue of air weapons. If you are saying that the fire arm, the incidents that you reported to the committee involved fire arms, it is just the definition. They are recorded as fire arms incidents. They are recorded as fire arms incidents. An air weapon is a fire arm under the 68 act. That is the confusing part for some of the members, cabinet secretary, because it would be much easier, let's face facts, if we had control over all of those powers. There is a lot of confusion about the fact that we are allowed to deal with air weapons here, yet the scenario of air weapons previously was dealt with under the fire arms act of 1968 2, in terms of definition. I appreciate the challenge that that may have for some of the members, but the terminology is correct in relation to the legislation that applies at the present moment. I do appreciate for some members in trying to make that distinction. There are some challenges around that matter. Very briefly, Mr Wilson. It is not for the members around the table, it is for the general public that are listening into this debate. They have to be clear about what we are referring to in terms of air weapons and fire arms. Sorry about that, cabinet secretary. For the record, to be clear for the public is that an air weapon is a fire arm. Legally, it is defined as a fire arm under the 1968 act. That is the challenge around that. Whether the 1968 act is amended and changed in order to reflect changes in that is a matter for the UK Government. That is the factual basis in which we operate at the present moment. For the public, it is important that they are aware of that. The bill sets out particular requirements and conditions around the purchase, acquisition, ownership and possession of air weapons by young people. The types of shooting that may be undertaken by certificate holders of 14 to 17 years of age. Amendment 15 is a minor drafting change, which simply highlights the fact that any certificate granted to a young person must include a condition prohibiting the purchase and ownership of an air weapon as well as one or more conditions restricting the process and the use of any air weapon in certain defined purposes. Moving to amendment 17, while we fully accept that there are a number of legitimate reasons why a young person might possess and use an air weapon and that this is properly recognised in terms of section 75, we do not believe that it is appropriate for a young person to own such a gun in their own right. Section 74 therefore states that, while someone who has aged four to 17 years old may apply for a young person's certificate to use and possess an air weapon, they will not be allowed to purchase or own such a weapon until they are 18. Amendment 16 extends the condition and draft as drafted at section 74 to make it clear that 14 to 17-year-olds will not be permitted to hire an air weapon or accept one as a gift. They will, however, be allowed to borrow an air weapon, for example, from an air weapon's certificate holder or at an approved club. That amendment ensures that the conditions for young persons are brought more closely into line with the provisions for the Firearms Act 1968, which makes it an offence for a person under 18 years of age to purchase or hire an air weapon or for anyone to sell, let on hire or make a gift of an air weapon to a person under 18 years of age. It will therefore provide greater consistency for shooters. Following representations made to us by a number of main shooting organisations and the evidence given to the committee in November, we have looked again at the list of purposes for which a 14 to 17-year-old may be granted a young person's air weapon certificate. On amendment 17, I am very conscious of the fact that some organisations, including the league against cruel sports in their evidence to the committee, stated that they oppose all shooting of live quarry. I fully understand this view and certainly the abuse and harm caused to domestic animals and wildlife by the inappropriate and illegal use of air weapons is completely unacceptable. The committee heard from the Scottish SPCA and others about the problems and upsets that this can create and the police will investigate any such crimes reported to them. It is one of the things which the licensing regime is intended to address. However, we have considered carefully all the representations made and have come to the conclusion that the initial drafting of the bill was too restrictive and did not reflect the reality of shooting for many young people, especially those who live in rural areas or those who are engaged in sport shooting. Such shooting can be appropriate in properly controlled circumstances. I therefore bring forward amendment 17 to allow 14 to 17-year-olds to take part in shooting for sporting purposes, including shooting live quarry on private land. Suitable quarry might include, for example, pigeons or rabbits. This change will bring the licensing of air weapons in Scotland into line with the restrictions on use that apply to young persons under UK and EU firearms legislation in relation to more powerful firearms. It should therefore make a more consistent approach for shooters. However, it is worth emphasising that it remains the responsibility of a chief constable to consider each application on its merits. If the chief constable decides that such shooting is not appropriate for a particular applicant, then the certificate would not allow for sport shooting. I can also reassure committee members that extensive guidance is already widely available for shooting organisations and others about the type of live quarry that might properly be shot with air weapons. We will work closely with those organisations and the police to ensure that Scottish guidance reflects such advice in ensuring that animals must take into account the power of the gun involved. On amendment 19 from Mr Buchanan, we accept that restricting shooting for pest control to a young person who is a commercial pest controller or is employed by a pest controller is too restrictive and does not reflect the reality of shooting in many parts of Scotland. Such concerns were raised in evidence given to the committee by Police Scotland in particular, and I accept that the bill, as introduced, goes too far in this regard. The amendment will allow young people to be able to, for example, volunteer to shoot rats at a church hall or rabbits at an archaeological site. I am therefore happy to accept the proposed amendment 19. Given what I have said on this issue, I would invite members to support those amendments in my name as well as amendment 19 in Mr Buchanan's name. I am not so convinced, however, by Mr Buchanan's other amendment in this group. While shooting at competitions and events is already one of the potential purposes for which a young person may use or possess an air weapon, amendment 18 broadens the conditions to add connected activities. This term is not defined in the amendment and, while I am interested in hearing what Mr Buchanan has to say on this issue, I believe that the connected activities is too broad a concept to stand on its own in this context. It might, for example, lead to a position where a person believes that they can shoot in circumstances or at a location which would otherwise be deemed inappropriate. The conditions at section 75B is already sufficiently broad to cover activities such as travelling to and from an event or competition. That would be a possession for the purposes of participating in the event. Furthermore, the menu of conditions at section 75 is not mutually exclusive and the police can attach any and all as they consider appropriate. For example, if a young person wanted to practice between events and had a suitable place to do so, the target shooting condition at section 75A could be added to the certificate. Therefore, ask that members reject Mr Buchanan's amendment. Finally, amendments 26 and 7, in my name, are consequential to amendment 17. It will allow young people visiting Scotland on a group permit to shoot for shooting purposes or at targets on private land or to shoot in competitions or other events and to do so under the same terms as young people in Scotland with their own certificate. As with my earlier amendment, I would invite members to support amendments 26 and 27. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 18 and other amendments in the group. What section 18 was to clarify the activities that were connected to competitions that I do not know was done? It was training and also for young people to train for these competitions. It is only sensible that young people should be clear that they can practice or train for these events as well as compete in them. That is what I meant by section 7, page 4, line 12, taking out competitions and inserting any connected activities. I thought the word competitions was a bit narrow. That is why the practice should be allowed. That is what I was going to do. That is fine, thank you. Thank you. Any other members wish to enter the debate at this point? No. Cabinet secretary, would you like to wind up, please? Can we reduce in response to Mr Buchanan's point as I outlined in my earlier contribution? There is scope for the chief constable on the certificate to make provision for a young person who may wish to practice at an identifiable location to be able to have that included on the certificate. There is sufficient scope for that to be added to the certificate as and when required and when the chief constable deems that has been appropriate. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 16 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 15. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please? Moved. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yeah. Thank you. Can I call amendment 17 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 15. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please? Moved. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We can? Thank you. yn y name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 15. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content that that's not moved? Thank you. Can I call amendment 19 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 15? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content that that's not moved? I do. Just to clarify, Mr Buchanan has said that he does not want to move amendment 19. Is that correct? Do you want to move or not move in amendment 19? Move it, sorry. You're moving it. Thank you, sorry. Okay. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Can I call amendment 20 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 4? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? That is the consequential. Not moved. Sorry. Not moved. Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? Thank you very much. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 21 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendment 22? Mr Buchanan, to move amendment 21 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. This was quite clear to me that we shouldn't be restricting the length of the young people's certificates. If somebody is 17, should they have to apply for another certificate when they're 18 or 15 or 16? That's why we wanted it to last for five years, irrespective of whether it was at their age, so that it would be only fair to allow the same length of time, so they don't pay more than others on this certificate, and therefore it wouldn't be discouraged from applying for a certificate. I reckon that if somebody was 16 or 17, they would be discouraged from applying because of the cost, so I wonder if we couldn't make young persons certificates at last five years, whether they turned or not whether or not they turned 18. Could you move amendment 21, please? Moved. Okay. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? No, cabinet secretary, please. Convener, it may be helpful if I set out the way in which the licensor regime for young people will operate, which I believe addresses the concern that has been raised by Mr Buchanan. We've developed the provisions in part 1 to allow a responsible 14 to 17-year-old to hold a certificate in their own right, allowing them to shoot for specific purposes, as we've set out in section 7 of the bill. Once those shooters become 18 years of age, we think that it's right that they should be able to apply for and hopefully obtain full air weapons certificate. In addition, they should be able to purchase, acquire and own an air weapon in their own right. For that reason, we introduced section 8, 1A, to make it clear that a young person certificate should expire on their 18th birthday. That does not stop them, though, from applying for a full certificate to come into effect from that birthday. That will be made clear in the guidance, which will be published in due course with the bill. In practice, we also envisage that the scale of fees which we will bring forward in secondary legislation will include a sliding scale of fees for young people. That will mean that a smaller fee than normal is charged in such cases to reflect the shorter duration for their certificate. What you're saying realistically is that, from the age of 14 to 18, there will be a sliding scale, but will it reflect the fact that if it's only going to last the duration of the certificate, i.e. two or three years? That's the intention behind the sliding scale that we'll bring forward. For example, a 16-year-old would effectively pay for the two years equivalent of their certificate at the time of application. Section 36 relates to fees, and section 36.2, in particular, allows different fees to be specified for different circumstances. I believe that the bill achieves the objective that Mr Buchanan is trying to obtain through those amendments, and I therefore ask the members to reject those amendments. Mr Buchanan, to wind up and press her with straw, please. Thank you very much, minister. I understand what you're saying and therefore I will withdraw my amendment. The question is that amendment 21 be withdrawn. Are members content with that? Can I call amendment 22 in the name of Cameron Buchanan? I've already debated with amendment 21. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to—oh, sorry, I beg your pardon. You've already dealt with that. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That the question is that sections 9 and 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I agree with amendments 24 and 25. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 23 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 23 in my name. Any decision to revoke an air weapon certificate is a serious one. The initial grant or subsequent renewal is a matter for the chief constable and must be taken in light of the evidence available at that time. The matter to be taken into account by the chief constable when granting or renewing a certificate are clearly set out in section 5 of the bill. In the majority of cases, we would not expect the position to change radically for most certificate holders during the period of the certificate. That is for the five-year period. However, a person's situation or circumstances might change or new evidence may come to light which casts doubt on the person's suitability to hold a certificate. In such circumstances, the chief constable may reconsider the position and decide to revoke the certificate if the person no longer meets the requirement to hold one. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 make it clearer that any such revocation of an air weapon certificate should be as a result of new or further evidence coming to light about the suitability of a person to hold a certificate since it was granted or renewed. Those amendments were suggested by the Law Society of Scotland in their submission to the committee and I am therefore moving amendment 23 to invite the committee to support those amendments. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? Cabinet Secretary, I take it that you forgo your right to wind up. In which case, the question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 24. The name of the cabinet secretary I've already debated with amendment 23. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 25, in the name of the cabinet secretary? I've already debated with amendment 23. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That means that sections 12 and 13 are agreed to. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed to? Thank you. Can I call amendment 27 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, I already debated with amendment 15. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to, are we all agreed to? The question is that section 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that sections 15 to 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 28 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendments 29 and 30. Mr Buchanan, could you move amendment 28 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. This amendment was seeking to clarify that instructors and an approved club can repair or test the weapons. They should be able to do that because it is highly impractical to expect participants to go to registered firearms dealer every time they have to repair or test a gun, even if it is just a minor fault. This is really a clarification point if it is permitted or do we need amendments to correct this. In section 31—oh, no, sorry—wasn't it just in 30, so that was all? Okay, any other member who wishes to enter the debate here? No, cabinet secretary, please. Thank you, convener. On our understanding tension behind Mr Buchanan's amendment, we are clear that the sale and transfer of air weapons for trade or business purposes should only be undertaken, as now by firearms dealers registered under the provisions of the firearms act 1968. Mr Buchanan's amendments do not alter that principle. However, the amendment recognises that repair and testing, particularly in clubs, may be carried out on an informal basis in many cases. I am aware that a number of stakeholders have asked questions about how section 24 of the bill will come into effect. In principle, it appears sensible to allow club officials to undertake such repairs or tests. That may be part of the service, which members pay an annual subscription or other fee for. We have always been clear that we see air weapons clubs as the ideal environment for shooters to participate in their sport, and Mr Buchanan's amendment is consistent with that particular approach. However, in the way in which Mr Buchanan has approached this particular issue, it leaves some questions over the detail of this, with particular doubt about who could undertake such work and under what circumstances. It would not be appropriate, for example, for this inadvertently to undermine the existing RFD structures and the protection that they provide. As such, I would ask Mr Buchanan not to press his amendment at this stage, but in doing so I am happy to assure him and the committee that we will examine this issue in more detail alongside stakeholders and consider bringing forward an appropriate amendment at stage 3 to address this issue. I listen to what you say. I suppose that I cannot ask a question, but why can't you put it in and amend it as we have suggested now, rather than adding it in later? I think that that would be impossible for the cabinet secretary to amend on the hoof. I think that he has just given you the assurance that he is willing to look at that at stage 3, Mr Buchanan. Can I ask you if you wish to press or withdraw? In this case, I will withdraw. Are the committee content that amendment 28 is withdrawn? Can I call amendment 29 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 28? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content that amendment 29 is not moved? Thank you. Can I call amendment 30 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 28? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Not moved. Thank you. Can I call amendment 31 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 7? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. 4. A Madame amendment 33, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 7. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. Moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 26 be agreed to. Sorry, the question is that section 27 to 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 34, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group in its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 34, please. One of the aims of the licensing regime that we are introducing is to identify who holds air weapons and where in Scotland they are. A person will need to make proper arrangements for keeping their air weapons securely and we will work with Police Scotland ensuring interests to develop guidance on safekeeping and other arrangements. We will not require people with their weapons to purchase and install full-scale gun cabinets in every case, but there are already secure systems available for keeping air weapons safe. Section 31 of the bill makes an offence for a person to fail to take such security precautions. In addition, it will be an offence to fail to notify the police if an air weapon is lost or stolen. The loss of theft of a firearm could leave it open to unauthorised or criminal use and is therefore a serious matter. However, following evidence given to the committee by the Scottish Police Federation and in further discussion that we have had with Police Scotland, we agree that the original drafting of the provision was overly strict in stating that someone must inform the police immediately of any theft or loss. That amendment changes that timeframe to allow for individuals to report such loss as soon as reasonably practical. That means that a person would not be penalised, for example, for not being able to report those details due to circumstances out with their control, such as being on holiday or being unwell. Ultimately, any judgment as to the reasonableness of any delay will be a matter for the police, prosecutors and the courts on a case-by-case basis. I believe that that is a practical approach to the need to ensure that proper care is taken over the security and handling of air weapons, and therefore I move amendment 34 in my name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate on this one? No. I take it that you do not wish to wind up, cabinet secretary, so I will ask the question, is amendment 34 agreed to? Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The question is that section 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that sections 32 to 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 35 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group in its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to the amendment, please. Amendment 35 inserts a new section to the bill on crown application. Under arrangements at Westminster, the existing firearms legislation did not automatically apply to the crown and the Firearms Act 1968 contains complicated provisions dealing with crown servants and their use and possession of air weapons. Members will be aware, however, that in Scotland legislation automatically applies to the crown unless expressly provides otherwise. It has been the policy of the Scottish Government that legislation should apply to the crown as it applies to everyone else, unless specific exemptions are made, which is a view that members of this Parliament have endorsed. In line with the general policy, the air weapons licensing requirements will apply to the crown, subject to the limited exemptions set out in paragraph 17 of schedule 1 regarding public servants carrying out official duties. However, it is also general policy to regulate how the provisions will relate to the crown on the face of the bill, where there are potential questions about criminal responsibility. The new provision will therefore exempt the crown, excluding persons in the public service of the crown, from being criminally liable for any contravention of a provision made by or under part 1 of the bill. However, by way of enforcement, it will provide for Scottish ministers, chief constable or other public body or office holders having responsibility for enforcement of those provisions to apply to record of session for a declarator of unlawfulness in relation to any act or omission of the crown, which constitutes such a contravention. That is the standard approach to this type of situation. I invite the committee to agree to the insertion of the new provision by way of amendment 35, which I now move. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate on this one? Forgo your right to wind up, cabinet secretary. In which case, the question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that sections 38 and 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 36 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move please. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case, we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 36, please show. And those against amendment 36, please show. Thank you. Those in favour of amendment 36 1, those against 5, the question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 37 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move. Are we all agreed? Sorry, I'll start again. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Okay, we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 37, please show. And those against, please show. Thank you. Those in favour 1, those against 5, the question is disagreed to. The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That ends consideration of amendments for today. I thank members for their participation. Our next meeting is on Wednesday 20 May, when we will consider part 2 of the bill on alcohol licensing. I remind members again the deadline for lodging amendments in part 2 is this coming Friday 15 March at 12 noon. I now close today's meeting. Thank you.