 Thank you. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the committee in 2015. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as it affects the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting because we provide meeting papers in digital format. Maen nhw i'r cymdeithasol i'r FFWI. Ysgrifenni agendaeth 1 mae'r consideraeth o'r negatif SSI, a'r rhai sphysgol yn ddynnu'r Rhaid Sglwtland i'r 2015 SSI 2015-47. Mae'r cyfrnwyr i'r cyfrnwyr o'r clarkau a'r hynny'n ddysgu'r instrument. As you will note, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee did not have any comments to make on this instrument. Do members have any comments? Are we agreed not to make any recommendation to the Parliament on this instrument? Agenda item 2 today is our ninth and final oral evidence session on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. Today we are taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, ond rye, rydd ddwy i'r fforddol. A wnaeth i ddylwedd ar ei chwarae anxiwn i'r gweithas o unrhyw ni'n cyfle i'r gweld o'r ddwy yn ddweud? Dwi'n rwy'n credu ddweud o'r sefyllwch chi'n rhan o gweld. Rwy'n rhan o'n gweld o'r sefyllwch i'r gweld o'r sefyllwch i'r gweld o'r wlad dweud o'r gweld o'r gweld o'r wlad o'r gweld o'r gweld o'r gweld o'r gweld o'r gweld ziw Jewsis, Quentin Fisher, leader of the bill, Peter Reid, senior policy officer, Walter Drummond-Murray, policy officer and Keith Mayne, policy manager of the Scottish Government. Before we move on to questions, Cabinet Secretary, can I ask if you'd like to make an opening statement? No, convener, I'm happy just to move straight to your questions. That's great, thank you very much. If we start off with air weapons, Cabinet Secretary, it's been 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 would not apply for a licence. How would you respond to that suggestion? I don't necessarily agree with that, because by creating the licensing provision, we are requiring individuals who wish to or may have an air weapon to have a licence for that. I think it's worth keeping in mind that air weapons are lethal weapons that can kill and maim individuals very seriously. It's important that we have a regime in place that allows us to try and deal with some of those risks that are associated with them. Clearly, there will be those who will choose not to have a licence if they choose not to do so, then they will be committing an offence. What we are doing is providing the police with the powers that are necessary so that, if they deem it appropriate, an individual isn't given a licence for holding an air weapon, and equally, if they do hold a licence, they are using the air weapon inappropriately or in an unsuitable way, then the police have got powers in order to take action on that. I think that that's an appropriate mechanism that can assist us in preventing some of the criminality that's associated with the air weapons. Cabinet Secretary, it's inevitably been some comparisons with the licensing of shotguns in the comparison between what's been proposed here. There's certainly a great expectation from the people like the League of Cruel Sports that that will make a significant difference. However, with the licensing for shotguns, it compelled behavioural change in terms of where weapons would be stored. However, as it stands, the individual air gun won't be identified, and there's no limit on the number of air guns that can be applied to a licence. Do you have any concerns that maybe it won't go far enough that the police will still have problems in identifying who owns a particular air gun if it's used in a criminal situation? There are obviously different provisions for shotguns and also for firearms. All firearms obviously have to have a registration number on them, not all shotguns have as well. As it stands, air weapons don't have a registration number on them either. The approach that we've taken is one that is about licensing the individual and assessing their individual whether it's appropriate to have an air weapon in itself. We've also tried to make sure that the licensing regime that we're introducing for air weapons is broadly similar to that of firearms and shotguns, but we're trying to do it in a proportionate way as well. Overall, it would be fair to say that the bill tries to strike that balance, and I believe that it's got that balance right by focusing on the individual and that the licence is associated with the individual themselves. If we were to get into a situation where each individual air weapon was to be licenced, we would then be in a situation where all air weapons that are manufactured and produced would have to have a serial number on them, which is simply not the case and it's not how they are produced at the present moment. The system that we're introducing is reflective of the situation that we have at the moment. If at some point in the future that change is then clear that that's something that could be revisited at that point. Can we just get clarification on the holders of shotgun licences? My understanding is that it's not the individual shotgun that's licenced, it's the individual shotgun that's registered with the licence holder. Just so that we get clarification that you do not apply for an individual licence for a shotgun, you apply for a licence to be a shotgun holder, but the individual weapons are then registered with the place, is that correct? It's correct, it's my understanding of it, and as I mentioned, the serial numbering of them is different from that of a firearm. We have, as a committee, discussed the issue about how we get individual markers for air weapons and look at the possibility and we would hope that the Scottish Government would look at some way of being able to, when people do register for our air weapons licence, that we can find a way to actually have those individual weapons marked in some way that they can be identified and traced against an individual owner. I know that because of the production of air weapons and most of the production takes place out with the UK, most manufacturers do not have an individual identifier on the weapons as they are manufactured, but it would be useful, cabinet secretary, if we could get some way or some consideration to being able to individually mark those air weapons so that when they are registered, or the registered holder can register those with the police, so if there is any incidence involving air weapons, then the police will be able to easily identify who the owner of those air weapons would be. I fully understand where Mr Wilson is coming from on this particular issue. The challenge would be in creating a system that would not lend itself to being misused. The benefit that you have with the serial number process for firearms is that it is at the point of manufacture, a system that is much more difficult to tamper with. It would be a much wider issue for us to deal with the whole issue of air weapons having a serial number embedded into them, which would obviously go well beyond Scotland and probably have to be taken forward on a European-wide basis, because there are some European regulations around firearms as well. I do appreciate the purpose and intent of what you would like to achieve with that, but it would bear with the scope of what we have at the present moment to try to achieve that, hence why we have taken what we believe is a pragmatic approach in licensing the individual. In order to try and help to start to improve the way in which air weapons are actually held within the community. Cabinet Secretary, just to move on to the cost of applying for a licence. I know that the Government is keen to go for full-cost recovery in terms of applying for a licence. We know that the UK Government is currently considering the costs of registering firearms and shotguns. The figures that are being presented are talking about a UK figure of £88, but I have just read information, as of last night, that the figures from ACPOS have indicated that the expected cost or the cost to register a firearm or shotgun is expected to cost the place in the region of £196 for the follow-through. That equates to a subsidy of £146 for every licence applied for. The reason why I am asking this question about the full-cost recovery is that if shotgun licences are according to ACPOS costs £196 to process, and the UK Government, because it controls the fees charged for licensing weapons and shotguns, the issue would be that if we go for a full-cost recovery for air weapons, based on the ACPOS costs, would that not mean that effectively you are paying double the price to licence an air weapon than you would be for a rifle or shotgun? Not necessarily. First of all, to be clear, we obviously don't control the fees that are set for both firearms and shotguns, both of which are at £50 at the present moment. The Home Office is looking at the possibility of increasing that. I don't think that it's increased for some time, and I think that there's a general view that it should have increased anyway. However, whether it will go to full-cost recovery is a matter for the Home Office to determine. Although I understand that they are looking at two different types of costs, a different cost for a shotgun and a different cost for firearms at the present moment. It would be fair to say that the checks that will be undertaken for the purposes of an air weapon will not be to the same degree as they would be for a firearm. The nature of the work that will be taken forward by the police will not be as onerous as it would be for someone who was applying for a firearms certificate. For example, a large part of that will be for the police to consider the application, and it may be for them to do a quick check, almost like a disclosure check, on whether they see anything in the individual's background that would suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm and also where they stay and the purpose for which it's intended. It is unlikely to involve, to any great extent, home visits, inspection of the location of the actual device, so the nature of the regime for air weapons licensing is not going to be as onerous as it will be for firearms. Therefore, it will be reasonable to expect the cost of that to be significantly less as a result. However, what we have to do is to wait for the outcome of the Home Office's decision on what that rate should actually be for firearms and shotguns, and once they have determined that level, that will allow us to then look at what we should be setting the fee for an air weapons licence here in Scotland. That will obviously be taken forward through secondary legislation. Cabinet Secretary, are you or any of your department involved in negotiations with the Home Office regarding the setting of the fees for firearms and shotguns? While you are saying that the indication would be that you would await the outcome of the deliberations by the Home Office in terms of the licence fees in terms of firearms and shotguns, that might impact on the fees that might be charged for an air weapon. It is just trying to get clarification in terms of whether or not the intention is to go for full-cost recovery for an air weapon rather than just do a comparison with the licence fees because for a shotgun or other weapons, and it is just trying to get that clear, are we looking to have some kind of comparator with the fees charged for shotguns and other weapons compared to air weapons? We have indicated to the Home Office that we believe that there should be an increase in the fee for firearms and shotguns. It will be ultimately for them to determine what that particular fee should be. We would like to, with regard to air weapons licensing, try to get as close to full-cost recovery as we could, but we will have to wait to see how far we can pursue that, depending on the approach that is taken by the Home Office and the fee setting that it has for both firearms and shotguns. As I am sure that members would appreciate, it would be difficult to have a fee that was significantly higher for an air weapon than it was for a firearms or for a shotgun. However, we should try to get to that point of close to full-cost recovery as we can, but we will have to wait to see what the fine outcome is from the Home Office's determination this matter, but we have indicated to them that we would like to see the fees for both firearms and shotguns increasing. I am concerned or we are concerned about group licences. What about for clubs, things like triathlons and people who are having air guns and using them for off-premises? Are we going to licences? Are you intending to licences? It is not very clear here. Are you intending to licences the group as a whole or one holder of the group, because often it is younger people who have these guns at home or in their place for the triathlons or whatever it is, the tetrathlons and things like that? The group thing is not very clear here. Are we going to licences the club or the manager of the club or the person who holds the gun? I will give you some clarification on that. I will also ask officials to give some further detail on the content of the bill in the specific aspects of it. The general approach is obviously for the club to have a licence as a shooting club, but also for individuals who are holding an air weapon to also have their individual licence as well. If they wish to own a licence, to own a purchase, an air weapon, they are going to be required to have a licence for that purpose. There are some provisions, as you are aware, in the bill for those who are under 18 to 14, where they cannot have a licence but it has specific conditions set on the circumstances in which they can use it, for example in shooting clubs. Or in private land. For those who are under 14, it is if they are with an adult, someone who is 21 or above, if they are going to use an air weapon on private land. That broadly mirrors the approach that we have in firearms legislation as well, but if I get officials to give a bit more detail on some of the group aspect and how that would work in practice as well, which might be helpful. If I could say briefly, the bill has a reference in it to the approval of clubs. We are meeting with Scottish target shooting federation next month, and with the Scottish Air Rifles and Pistols Association, we are in discussion with them about how clubs will work in practice. What the bill does, it sets an outline for an approval process so that to mirror existing rifle clubs, for example, it is possible for a club to apply for a licence for a set premises, and the police would look at the premises, for example, and give approval if they consider that public safety is not compromised or whatever. There is also, within the schedule 1 to the bill, a series of exemptions, and there are also permits, for example, for events. You mentioned tetrathlons and events like that. If there is an event such as a Pony Club event or a Highland Games or whatever at which air rifle shooting, air weapon shooting is taking place, the event organiser can apply for a permit and then any individual can shoot within the conditions of that event without having their own individual licence. It is a decision to take, as the cabinet secretary said, if you want to have your own air weapon, you would apply for an individual licence, but clubs have an exemption for people if they are shooting within the boundaries of an approved event or an approved club down the line. It was for things like away matches that, when they go away, the premises are not particularly licenced if they go to Carlisle or somewhere in the south for a match, for a shooting club or tetrathlons. That seems to be clear, as you said, that you are speaking next week to them. We are talking to the clubs about how excited that would work, and our thinking is that we would set out the exact processes in secondary legislation and or guidance as we work through that with the Federation and with other organisations. Part of the reason for doing some of this in secondary legislation is that it allows us to, if there are particular unintended consequences that come up, that we can tweak the system in order to accommodate any particular difficulties that may have arisen that weren't the intention of it as well. It just gives us a bit of flexibility in being able to change some of those things. Just moving back to the resourcing of the bill, it has been suggested that the introduction of the licensing scheme will prove to have a significant impact on resources for Police Scotland. I wonder if you can assure the committee that Police Scotland will have the necessary resources at its disposal to administer the scheme, particularly in light of the possibility that there could be dealing with tens of thousands of applications. One of the things that we have been doing is discussing with Police Scotland the best way in which we can manage what will be a significant increase in the number of licences that will have to be issued as a result of the legislation. What I found interesting is that there are quite significant peaks and troughs in firearms and shotgun registrations. There are periods when they are busy with them and there are periods over a couple of years when they are quiet. They happen to begin into a busy period, the 2015 to 2017 period, when they get to a peak in terms of reregistration of firearms. One of the things that we have been discussing with the Police is to try and shift as much of the air weapons stuff to the period when they are quieter. Part of the work that we are doing with them is looking at how we commence introduction of the bill in order to look at the leading time for when people have to have a certificate so that it moves towards a period when they are at a quieter period in order to try and level that amount of work out for them. We are working with them in order to look at achieving that. Some of the commencement provisions within the bill will be taken forward with a view to looking to achieve that in order to reduce the potential ever-increasing burden that they may face over the next two years by adding air weapons to that at that particular point as well, which might make it difficult for them. We are keen to work with them and we are already engaged with them in looking at how we can achieve that most effectively. Do you want to come back? Just as a waste supplementary and the cabinet secretary has already hinted at the response here, Police Scotland has suggested a number of steps that would smooth the application process and avoid peak pressure points. You have already talked about that a bit. I wonder if you would be amenable to bring in some appropriate amendments at stage 2 to give effect to the smoothen proposals that Police Scotland are suggesting. If there is a reasonable way in which we can achieve that and also some of the provisions around the commencement of different aspects of the bill that can assist us in achieving that as well. The lead-in time, before they are commenced, can assist in achieving that. I am very open to working with them in order to do that. The database system that they use is Shogun for the registration of those types of things, which they have said is more than capable, which is a recently developed piece of software, because with the legacy forces, there are different systems operating, so we are now down to a single system for the whole of Scotland for the registration of firearms. The system is fit for purpose, which they have confirmed as the case in order to take forward the registration. Cabinet Secretary, can I turn briefly to the other side of this, perhaps towards failure to licence, people who fail to licence and perhaps go on to commit further offences with ear guns? I know that the expectation is that prosecutions for licences and offences are likely to be picked up in terms of an investigation of other crimes and so on and so forth, but is there a penalty in your mind at the moment that will apply to a person who fails to register an ear gun when they are apprehended or investigated for perhaps some other crime? Obviously, in terms of prosecution, it would be a matter for the procreator Fisco in the Crown Office and how they take that forward. Also, the sanction that is applied would be a matter for the courts, so I am reluctant to say what it should actually be, because it is a matter for the courts to determine independently of ourselves. What I could say is that one of the things that we are looking at is in the commencement of the bill is how we can manage some of those things in that reasonable period of time for someone to have an ear weapon to get it registered and the public information campaign, which will surround that in making sure that those who presently own an ear weapon are aware that they will have to get a licence for it as well, and how we can manage some of those things. Obviously, there is an element for the procreator Fisco's office and the Crown Office to work with us on how we can take that forward. In terms of the determination of the actual sanction, it would be a matter for the courts, and prosecution would obviously be for the PAF and Crown Office. I believe that it is important that we have a good information campaign to make sure that the potentially half a million ear weapons that are out there, that their owners are aware that they have a responsibility to have it licensed. If they do not, they could potentially commit an offence and find themselves prosecuted, and it would be for the courts to determine what is the most appropriate sanction, depending on the individual circumstances. I suspect that you might say the same thing, but could I just take the question further? Should a person, as you indicated in some of your opening remarks, go on to commit an offence and that they can be particularly serious and they can lead to death, the anticipator, would you imagine that there would be a different outcome imposed on a person who commits such an offence and who does not have a licence to weapon? Is that something that you would rather not speculate on? If they do not have a licence, there is the offence that they have committed in itself, and if they have injured someone with an ear weapon, but there is also the offence that they have committed if they do not have a licence for it. I would expect courts to take that into account at the time when any case is brought before them, so there is potentially more than one offence being committed there. It is not just a case of not having a licence, it is also that if they have injured someone or killed someone, there is another offence that they can be prosecuted on. If they do not have a licence, that could be one of the factors that they could find themselves getting prosecuted for. Clare Adamson, you are supplementary on my original question and Mr Coffees, what will be the criminal element of the minister? We did take evidence from the police who said that misuse of, I think it is pinking or plinking that they use at the moment can be dealt with under current legislation and obviously any animal cruelty elements are also criminal activities at the moment, but it is the idea of how to determine ownership of a weapon that has been used in that situation when there is no link between the licence holder and a particular ear weapon. What would be the criminality for someone not having a licence and how would that be identified? As I said, there is no compulsion on the licencee to store the weapons at a particular address, so could someone not just say or border it, basically? It will be an offence to have an ear weapon that does not have a licence, so if they do not have a licence for it, they are committing an offence from the outset. For example, say that the police turn up at a property on a domestic dispute and they find, and while they are there they see an ear weapon, an air rifle sitting in the hall. Just now, they are powerless to do anything about that and I have no knowledge about what it might be getting used for, so they will now be in a position where they will be able to say, have you got a licence for that? If the person does not have a licence for it, they will be committing an offence. Equally, at the time when they apply for their licence, they have to explain to the police the purpose for which they want the licence for the air weapon. How do they intend to use it? For example, is it for therming control? Is it for sporting purposes? Is it for plinking? If it is for plinking, there is then an issue about the circumstances and the environment that the person may live in, where that may be taking place. That is part of the check at the time when they apply for it, what is the purpose of the air weapon for. For example, if it is someone who is applying for an air weapon to do plinking and they stay in a tenement and they have a shared-back garden with the rest of the folk in that particular tenement, the police will let them to say, well, we do not think that it is appropriate for you to have an air weapon to undertake that within a shared-back garden in a tenement. That is the approach that the police will be able to take with the legislation, but linking a particular incident to a particular weapon will always be a challenge. It can be a challenge for firearms and for shotguns as well. Just earlier this week, the British Transport Police were putting out a call for evidence for a railway worker who was shot with an air gun in my constituency in High Bond Abridge. That is the type of thing that people continue to experience. However, we do provide powers for police where they see an air weapon to check if it has got a licence and if it has not got a licence in a position where they can have that person's commitment and offence and it can be seized. Thank you very much. We will now move on to alcohol licensing. Cabinet Secretary, we have heard quite a lot about the Bright Crew Court decision. What effect has the Bright Crew Court decision had on licensing decision-making generally and what, if any, steps the Government plans to take to address that? I think that our general view about the Bright Crew Court decision was that it confirmed the purpose for which alcohol licences are for in premises. There was clearly an issue about the way in which this particular case was taken forward and the way in which the licensing board in Glasgow City Council sought to use that for other elements of entertainment that were taking place within the particular establishment. The Bright Crew case probably gives reason as to why we have chosen to take a licensing position around the provision of other types of entertainment that can take place in those premises. That is why we have made this additional provision within the legislation for a further licensing measure that can be taken forward by local authority for, for example, sexual entertainment that has been offered within our premises and the licensing authority amount in a position where they can have a stated policy in this area. We will come to the sexual entertainment aspects later, but obviously you are making provision to close those loopholes. However, in correspondence from the police around members' clubs, we have taken a fair bit of evidence. We know that members' clubs are not included in an assessment of over-provision and cannot be refused a premises licence or variation on those grounds. They have no requirement to have a DPM and there is no requirement to have the sale and supply of alcohol authorised by a personal licence holder. Also, we have heard that there is a fair amount of use of occasional licences in members' clubs. Do you think that those legislative loopholes should be closed and that the same rules should apply to members' clubs as to other licence premises? I am aware that there are some issues at the time when the 2005 act was being taken forward in Parliament. Parliament made the decision that members' clubs should have some extra provisions. Lads are reflective of, very often, the nature that they have within some of our communities, whether they be associated with particular companies or businesses or factories that used to be based there, such as social clubs or sports clubs in some ways that had a member's club attached to them. Parliament took the view that it had a particular value within the community and that the licensing regime should reflect that and that it should be given certain exemptions or provisions within the licensing act. I am still of the view that it has an important part to play. Any changes would have to be very carefully considered about the potential negative consequences that it could have on members' clubs, many of which do not necessarily operate on a commercial basis. They are not in the same way of full profit making businesses. We would have to be very careful about any changes that were being proposed. I am open to the committee's views on the matter. If there are particular aspects that you believe could be addressed or should be addressed, I am open to considering them, but I would wish to be very careful about any changes that could have or introduce any changes that could have unintended consequences. The other thing is about occasional licences. The first thing to say is that occasional licences should not be abused. It is important that local licensing boards are ensuring that that is the case. Where there is evidence that they are being misused, whether it be my members' clubs or others, I would expect local licensing board to take appropriate action in order to ensure that that is not happening. There is absolutely no reason why local licensing boards cannot take forward measures if they believe that they are being misused by particular members' clubs or any other party. It has been suggested by a number of witnesses that occasional licences become almost permanent licences because it is the norm for a club or another body to apply for the same thing again and again. Do you feel that that is an abuse of the occasional licences system? How do we ensure that licencing boards do not continue to sign off occasional licences that become the norm? The purpose of the occasional licence was to provide some flexibility in there for local licensing boards where there were circumstances that may arise that they would be able to provide that occasional licence. There are some provisions within the legislation of, for example, voluntary organisations. In any period of 12 months, the total number of days in which an occasional licence is issued may not exceed 56. If there is clear evidence within a particular local authority area that there is a misuse of the provisions within the act in the way in which they are taking forward occasional licences, that is something that we can consider in terms of our engagement with the clerks of licensing boards. If necessary, we can consider whether there is any further guidance that needs to be issued to them and how they should be used and when they should not be used. If there is clear evidence of that, I am more than happy for our officials to look at providing further guidance to licenced board clerks in order to give them some further direction on that issue. Does the Government currently analyse the amount of occasional licences that are issued by each board? I am not aware of that, but Peter Reid is probably better placed to advise you on that. We collect figures on premises licences and personal licences. Unfortunately, at the moment, we do not collect figures on the number of occasional licences. We do believe that there is quite a considerable number that is applied for. There is an order making part already in the existence that would allow us to impose a limit on the number of occasional licences that can be applied for related to a premises licences or personal licences. That power has not been used yet, but something equivalent to the 56 days in relation to voluntary clubs could be applied, if necessary. It would seem to me that, in terms of the evidence that we have taken, that this is a major problem for some. I think that it may be wise if those figures were collected and analysed Cabinet Secretary so that, in future, you could see if there is a real problem in certain places or not. It may well be that some folk are over-egging the pudding, but that does not seem to be the case. Let us take that issue away. We can consider what further work we have done in trying to get a better handle on the figures in different licences in bold areas and what further measures could assist in addressing some of the concerns that the committee has heard on that issue. I noticed that the word voluntary organisations has not really been defined. People can say that. Are you intended to define it a bit more clearly the word voluntary organisations with the occasional licences? I am not sure whether, within the existing actors, but I would presume that it would be tied in with the statutory provision that we have for voluntary organisations. The voluntary organisations, correctly, are not currently defined. My understanding is that that expression has been in the legislation since it was introduced. I was looking at a paralegal handbook the other day, and the author was suggesting that, although, as you point out, there is no definition, he was not aware of any particular abuse of the lack of definition, but if we were aware of concerns, we could certainly look at that. Some people have said that it should be a bit more closely defined. That was one of the submissions that was said. I think that it was pretty Scott. As Peter Reid has said, if there is an identifiable problem, we can look at addressing that. The most obvious way to do that is to tie it into registration as a voluntary organisation, which, if voluntary organisations have got a legal responsibility to do it. I would be keen to see whether there is any evidence of whether there is a problem or not. Cabinet Secretary, we have heard from health organisations and other organisations that have indicated that one of the things that we should be trying to do with this piece of legislation is to look at the over-provision in the effects that alcohol has in very many communities throughout Scotland. The suggestion is that the licensing board should be more proactive in trying to make sure that there is a clear statement made by the local authority or the licensing board in terms of over-provision and that they should be monitored very carefully. However, we have heard from some licensing clerks that said that, at the present moment, the legislation in place does not allow them to be as proactive as some organisations would like them to be. Do you see this legislation and the advice or guidance that is given to the licensing boards and to the clerks that we can see a real shift in the over-provision of licensed premises in communities throughout Scotland? I am always interested when some say that the legislation does not go far enough in giving them guidance in this because you can go to one licensing board area and they will take a very proactive approach in this particular issue and then you can go into a neighbouring licensing board and they take a less proactive approach. I am not entirely convinced that it is all to do with the legislation itself. Part of that is also about making sure that public health is one of the five key principles on which licensing policy is founded and should be taken forward. A big part of it is about making sure that the local licensing policy is properly reflective of that and there is good engagement between the different stakeholders, particularly with their colleagues in health around their role in making comment on it. The legislation already makes some provision for that. One of the things that we are doing with this particular bill is giving greater scope for licensing boards to consider the area where over-provision may take place, not just within a small locality but within that wider licensing boards area. That gives them more scope to look at issues such as the hours that are provided for for different licensed premises within the area. It gives them more flexibility to consider a wider range of issues on over-provision. I should say that, as a former Minister for Public Health, where we can make more progress, I would like to see more progress being taken forward. As I said, there are some licensing boards that have been enlightened and have been much more proactive, and I would like to see more of them being so as well. An important part of that is to make sure that the local licensing policies that they are taking forward are more reflective of that. I am keen for us to look at whether there are any further measures that we can take forward at a national level, whether it be through guidance or through work with licensing board members to make sure that the whole issue of over-provision and how that ties into public health is seen as being an important part of their responsibility and how they take forward their policy. Cabinet Secretary, I welcome that statement. The difficulty is, as you outlined in your opening comment there, is the discrepancy that seems to exist between the interpretation of the current legislation and the powers that the boards have. What assurances can you give us that the discrepancies between the interpretation from one board to another is such that we can actually see greater clarity in terms of the application of the legislation that is going to be applied? Unfortunately, when you mentioned yourself in your previous role as Public Health Minister, you saw for yourself examples of where over-provision, particularly in terms of off sales, was having a dramatic effect on the health and wellbeing of many communities throughout Scotland. What assurances can we have that health impact in communities will be addressed as part of the legislation? Part of the additional scope that we are giving to licensing boards and the range of things that they can consider when it comes to the issue of over-provision extends the scope of that. That is mentioned around others of operation of a particular establishment and being able to look at the wider area, not just that locality or that immediate locality in itself. It allows them wider scope to take in those factors. The other part is about some aspects around the alignment of the local licensing policies and how boards arrive at that. There has been some difficulty, for example, around the way in which they have been taken forward and how they align with local government elections. We are obviously taking forward some measures to assist in helping to achieve that. One of the things that struck me in the past in my previous role was that good practice is not always as widely disseminated as it should be. There are certain things that we do at a national level through different stakeholder groups and events that take place about trying to spread and embed some of that good practice. I accept that there is still a significant way to go. I do not think that it is just about legislation, but it is about policy approaches. It is about making sure that it is seen as being a much higher priority for those bold areas that do not consider it as higher priority as it should be. Part of that is about the type of guidance and direction and some of what we do with licensing boards and other stakeholders to make sure that it is seen as being a priority. The other part is to make sure that local territorial health boards are very proactive on the local licensing forum and in responding to whether there are new applications or to major variations that they have to be consulted on. They are very clear about what their position is and that they respond to those in an inappropriate way to inform licence and boards. I would be trying to get everybody to move in the same direction at the same time is never an easy thing, but in terms of making sure that it is seen as being a major priority and it has to be something that they need to be more proactive on, there is a range of things in the bill and also what we are doing that can assist us in helping to achieve that. A couple of questions, cabinet secretary, in relation to personal licence holders. The bill seeks to remove the automatic five-year ban for those who have not retrained for personal licences, but there will be quite a number of people caught up before the bill's introduction and, obviously, that is a detrimental effect on their employment prospects. If they have that ban, is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to alleviate that situation before the new bill becomes a flaw? We require primary legislation in order to alter that. There is no quick fix in terms of some other way in which we can deal with the issue. The provisions in this bill that we will address will help to restate it. There has been a tremendous amount of work taken forward in order to make sure that there are refresher courses available within the trade and through licensing boards. Clearly, some people have missed out on that for whatever reason that might be. I think that the five-year period that they are then prevented from having a personal licence is too long. Once we have the bill through Parliament, we can then look at, and I have asked officials to look at how quickly we can commence that particular provision within the bill to try to address it as quickly as possible. Once we have the bill with the consent of Parliament through its parliamentary process, we will look to trying to commence that provision as early as we can in order to try to address the issue. I know that some MSPs have written to me with various options that they think might be available to try to address it. We have looked at those issues legally and we cannot do that. It requires primary legislation, so this is the quickest way for us to deal with the matter. Obviously, when the personal licence holders were introduced, there was some quite definite intentions there with regard to the selling of alcohol to people. We took some evidence from one of the legal representatives from the council who was concerned at the lack of prosecutions for people selling to people who are drunk. Obviously, the big consideration for a lot of people is the anti-social aspect of people being drunk in the community. When I asked Police Scotland about that, they were giving evidence that they said that it was really a very difficult thing to establish, so they did not use that part of the legislation. Does that concern you that there might be a gap there where there was an intention that it would be more difficult for people who would have to have more responsibility for their licence holders, but that that has not been enforced at the moment? In terms of the review, was there an issue about whether there was a lack of prosecutions or a lack of reporting? I am pretty sure that the representative from Midlothian Council said that there was a lack of prosecutions. However, the police said that it was very difficult to establish what drunk meant and who was responsible for the selling to a person who then was involved in the social work. Is there a public display of drunkenness after that point? Obviously, there are two aspects to it. One is the reporting of it for the police to be able to investigate it and then to report the matter on to the procreator fiscal. Any decision on prosecution would be a matter for the procreator fiscal and the Crown Office. We cannot direct that. I would be interested to know if they are saying that cases are being reported to the procreator fiscal's office and they are not being prosecuted, or whether it is a case of the police saying that in those circumstances there is not sufficient evidence for us to put a report even to the procreator fiscal and those individual circumstances. It is important that the power is there. My view would be more around a pattern emerging in a particular establishment on a regular basis. I am sure that members at various times have had representations from local communities about particular localised issues, so that there would be better scope in order to look at taking that forward. However, I think that there is a distinction to be made, which is whether the police feel as though it is difficult to prove in individual cases and demonstrate it therefore to report it on, or whether there are cases going to the procreator fiscal's office which they are choosing not to prosecute on what grounds they are on. It has been important to clarify that. I am more than happy for us to discuss with the Crown Office where they are finding those particular issues that could assist them better in deciding on cases that should be prosecuted and ones that shouldn't, but we can take that away and discuss that with them. It would be very helpful. Thank you, Government Secretary. Very briefly, Cameron Buchanan. We discussed at one of the other things the plight of personal licent hoses who lost their licence, and it was going to take a long time to get it back. I think that it was going to be dealt with somebody in secondary legislation. I think that the Cabinet Secretary has just indicated that it can only be done in primary legislation. Oh, you said that, but they did say that it could be done in secondary. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to reiterate what you have said to Ms Adamson? There have been some representation suggesting that it could be done that way, and those issues are being considered. The legal advice from our officials is that, in looking at matters, we need to amend the primary legislation to deal with this issue, and the provisions that are put in the bill will do that. We will look at trying to commence that provision as early as we reasonably can in order to try to deal with this issue. We have, at this moment in time, 11 out of 40 licensing boards that have not published licensing policy statements, and we have 17 that do not have over provision statements. What action can the Government take to address this situation and make sure that the system works properly for the people of Scotland? Licensing boards being the very nature of them are that quasi-judicial body that, to a large extent, sit to the side of the local authority and themselves with the local authority members who are on it. It is important that we provide them with the right type of support and assistance in order to achieve that. I will ask Peter to explain a wee bit about some of the work that has been undertaken in order to try and make sure that those licensing boards that have not taken forward the licensing policies are updated and over provision statements, and the measures that we have taken forward to try to encourage them to make sure that they take forward an appropriate statement or policy. The licensing policy statement is a relatively new innovation in licensing regimes. The intention is that it provides a shift to a more policy-based regime that the local authorities and licensing boards can then adopt. A regime that works into planning where you have overall plans and you use and you deliver within an overall strategy. In that way, the licensing policy statement is intended to be a tool to assist the boards in deciding how they want to deliver their overarching strategy, and the over provision assessment within that gives them a very strong ground for refusal of a licence or a major variation should they choose to do so. I would very much see it as a tool that is available there to allow them to support them in their decision making. It is unfortunate that some licensing boards have failed to be as proactive as they should be and really grasp the opportunity to use the licensing regime in that strategic manner. The cabinet secretary talked about enlightened boards and proactive boards. Now you are talking about boards that have failed to be proactive. Would it not be fair to say that they are actually not carrying out the duty that they should be doing in serving the public in their area by not having those in place to ensure that they are able to have some say in what is going on? Is it the fact that the fact that they do not have those things in place means that it is much easier for them to be defeated in court? We would accept that the licensing boards face a wide variety of very different circumstances, that the issues that we might be discussing in relation to over provision and some of the other material that would be included in the licensing policy statement might be far more germane and faster-moving in certain areas. I was not seeking to tar them all with the same brush. There are major issues in some areas, but in other areas it is more of a steady state, and there is less change from year to year, so it is perfectly appropriate that some licensing boards are probably not quite so proactive in updating those documents, because they have probably not seen much need to. That is not for me to say. Convener, although you raise a fair point on the fact that some licensing boards have been less proactive, I would say that this is an issue that concerns the committee. I would be more than happy to consider any views that the committee has on how you feel that could be more readily addressed, and what particular measures you would believe would assist in helping to address that to see if there is further work that we can take forward in order to deal with those boards that are not being as proactive as either the committee or I would like to see them being. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We will now move on to taxi and private hire car licensing. One of the things that we have found during the course of our evidence session is that this is an ever-moving feast in terms of new technologies. We are keen to hear about how we can future proof or come back to this area in the near future, if need be. We have the app-based company models now in place in many parts of the world, and only today we have seen in the Scotsman that one company is hoping to establish a presence in Edinburgh and Glasgow. How do we ensure, cabinet secretary, that we continue on with the regime that we have here, where a car is licensed and an individual is licensed to deal with the public? I always look at this from the aspect of, would I be happy for one of my nieces to step into a car? Under the current situation where we have licenses for vehicles, licenses for drivers, that pacifies me. How do we ensure that that continues and that any of the new companies that enter the market do not get away without having their transport and their drivers licensed? There is a requirement that if you operate as a taxi, you need a taxi license or if you are operating as a private hire, you need to have a private hire license. We have an existing legal framework in place, but whether you are ordering a taxi over using an app, some of the taxi companies use themselves and some of the private hire companies use themselves, I have no doubt that we will see more of that in the years to come. If someone is operating as a private hire without a private hire license, they are committing an offence. We have a regulatory regime in place that, no matter how you are ordering your taxi or your private hire, you have to comply with the licence regime that we have in place. Clearly, there is an enforcement issue that if there is a company using an app that is allowing private hire cars to operate without having a private hire licence in place, those particular drivers are committing an offence. There is also a licence provision for booking offices. We have a fairly robust system in place, and we can alter that through secondary legislation, as it needs to be. What is important is to ensure that it is being appropriately enforced. On the booking office, does the booking office have to be in the local authority area that the company is operating in, or is it possible to have a booking office for the whole of Scotland? There seems to be some debate about the Civic Government Scotland Act and the conditions of that. What is the definition of a booking office? Could a booking office be established in somebody's front room or the cupboard under the stairs? It is very interesting to have a booking office, I would imagine, but Peter might be better placed to tell you in relation to where the booking office has to be placed for the purpose of the licence. What I think is important is that we have a robust legislative framework in place. Even with the issue of new technology, that still has to be complied with, and it is important that we enforce that and make that very clear. In terms of the specific locations, Peter, can we explain to you how the licence regime operates? We were interested in the conversations that were had at the evidence gathering sessions and the different views that were expressed. The booking office regime is entirely in secondary legislation, so it has been created under secondary legislation and we could also amend it within secondary legislation. Therefore, it is not something that we would be compelled to amend within the scope of the bill. Our view looking at it quickly was that the premises would have to be licensed where the order was taken. However, if there is genuine difficulty and confusion with licensing, it is possible for us to amend the relevant order to clarify that. The order is taken now with apps. How can you define where the order is taken? It is not still that I am phoning up and talking to somebody in an office wherever it may be. It is a different world. Yes, you make a good point. Clearly, the original secondary legislation was drafted envisaging somebody sitting somewhere receiving a phone call and that being the order being taken. That notion does not translate quite so well to a smartphone app existing in the ether, and it is something that we would be happy to have a look at. You will have a look at it. You suggested at the beginning that you may. I think that it has to be leaked out, cabinet secretary. What we are confident about is the licensing regime that we have. In terms of the development of new technology, that is why we deal with it through secondary legislation. We can adapt to that if there are particular circumstances arising that need to be addressed. As and when issues are presented to us that would indicate that there is a need for us to alter that secondary legislation, we can respond to that at that particular point. During our discussions about the matter, a case arose in the media about a taxi driver who had a series of complaints made against him, who did not make this information known to a neighbouring authority when he applied to get a taxi driver's licence there. How can we help, cabinet secretary, to protect the public from those types of risks? Is it indeed possible to share that kind of level of information between licensing boards if it has not already made it on to, for example, Police Scotland database systems? It is possible for it to be shared between licensing boards if they consider that appropriate. For example, if someone is applying for a licence to a particular local authority for a taxi or private hire licence, it would be reasonable for that particular authority to contact if they knew that they were operating, had been operating somewhere else in order to see whether there was any further information that they should have brought to the attention about it as well. There is also the case about getting further information from the police and having a case check to see if there is something on their system as well. There is a significant level of checking that individual local authorities can undertake as they see fit for an individual in a particular set of circumstances. Discretionary that the authority being applied to should try to check that kind of information, because it is not always going to be certain where the person has perhaps operated previously. It might be their own original authority where they live, but it might not be. Is there any central way of accessing that kind of information much in the same way that Police Scotland has a national access to that kind of information? There will be some information that they have to disclose at the time of application when they are applying for a licence, but any wider checks that are undertaken would be a matter that is at the discretion of the actual individual lies to the local authority and how they take that fall within their own individual application of the law. There is a bit about the information that they have to provide, but there is further discussion of local authorities to where they want to carry out further checks on a given individual. There is not a mandatory requirement for that. The issue that has arisen during the evidence sessions is the discrepancy that exists between taxis and private hire cars and the licensing of those. We heard from one of the local authority representatives that they apply a cap to the number of taxis that can operate in a particular area, but there is no similar cap to the number of private hire licences that can be issued in the local authority area. They claimed that they were using 1982 legislation to impose a cap on taxis, but felt that the 1982 act currently does not give them the powers to impose a cap on private hired cars. The issue is whether it is a fair practice to have a cap on taxis being operated in an area, but without the same provision being in place to cap the number of private hire cars and, given the differences in how taxis operate compared to private hire cars, should there not be some parity brought in to ensure that local authorities can review the issue of the issuing of taxi licences, particularly given that some of those caps have been in place for over 20 years? Those are quite difficult things to measure because of the way in which a taxi operates, which can be hailed and can be ranked, is that there is an element where you can measure demand more readily, which is more difficult for private hires, which obviously do not rank and cannot be hailed. It is more complex in trying to understand the level of demand that they are experiencing. That is why we have taken two different approaches in terms of how licensing authorities can measure those things to give them the scope to consider that. I am not entirely sure about the 1982 act and whether there is provision or there is no provision in the provision for… President, in relation to taxi vehicle licences, there is an unmet demand test. The Air Weapons and Licensing Bill proposes, over provision test, in relation to private hire car vehicle licences. The cabinet secretary points out that it is slightly different test because they operate in slightly different ways. Provide a mechanism for them to actually do that. One of the things that we are going to be looking at doing is taking forward some work with local authorities and how they can start to apply the measurement of over provision for private hires and what that might look like in terms of a process that they can take forward. However, it is a more difficult thing to measure given the nature of the way in which private hires operate compared to that of taxis who are ranked and can be hailed where it can be measured more readily. Before Mr Wilson comes back in, it has been suggested by some that a cap already exists in private hire in certain parts of the country, including in my own city of Aberdeen. Would that be allowed under the current 1982 act? I did the foreword with somebody in Aberdeen city, and they do not apply a cap in relation to private hire cars. I think that my recollection is that there are very few private hire cars in Aberdeen city. The regimes are very different across the country, and they look quite different. There are very few private hire cars in Aberdeen because there is an unofficial cap. My understanding is that there is no cap. Maybe they prefer to operate as taxis rather than private hires. If the licence fees are about the same, it makes more sense to apply for a taxi licence. In terms of monitoring the different local authorities in their handling and interpretation of legislation, do you think that that could be done better and that you can apply the new legislation better than the current legislation that is monitored? The idea behind the existing legislation is to try and give them some more flexibility around how they can measure some of those things and some of the additional work that we will do is assisting them in how to go about doing that. What we do not try to do is to create one size that is all. The approach that is taken in Aberdeen is not necessarily the appropriate approach that should be taken inverness. We try to allow the level of flexibility for local licensing authorities to determine how many taxis they should have that can serve their purpose and the issues around that and the mechanisms that they have in place for dealing with private hires. We are trying to get a balance between allowing local flexibility but also at the same time making sure that we have a regime in place that people can be confident in. It also helps them in assessing those issues at a localised level. Cabinet Secretary, the reason why I have raised the issue about the taxes versus private hire cars is that for many towns and cities throughout Scotland you will find taxis sitting in taxi ranks not getting any business. However, if you go to major supermarkets you see private hire cars regularly picking up shoppers because they have a direct line to some of the private hire companies. It is just trying to get to that balance in terms of whether or not we are getting an unmet demand versus over provision issue right in terms of whether or not we should be having more taxes operating or allowing the ever-increasing growth of private hire cars, which seems to be happening in many local areas throughout Scotland. As you are well aware, private hire cars do not have the same restrictions on them as a taxi has in terms of the knowledge, the licensing of the car and the other issues that apply to a taxi operator. Would it not be fair to try to bring some of the private hire car operators into line with some of the provisions that we apply to taxis? The first thing that I would say is that it is not for the Government to set how many, you know, what the percentage should be of taxis and private cars within a local authority. That is local licensing authority's responsibility to reflect local need. What we are doing is providing a mechanism for them to consider the issue of over provision. Some of the work that we are going to take off the back of this is to assist them on how they can apply that at a localised level. It would then be for those individual local authorities to then determine how they want to take that forward at a local policy level. I understand and recognise the point that Mr Wilson is making, but we get into very dangerous territory if the Government starts to try to set some of the limits around those matters, what we are providing as a mechanism and the scope for local licensing authorities to determine that at a localised level, depending on local circumstances. Some of the support work that we will do is to assist them in being able to achieve that as effectively as they can. Can I seek as an assurance from the cabinet secretary that the over provision issue will be something that the Government will work closely with local authorities in trying to identify, because one of the issues that you raised earlier was that in terms of over provision or unmet need, there are clear difficulties in trying to measure the private hire car sector in terms of how they operate and how they record the journeys that they make compared to that of taxi operators? What we are doing and what we will do is providing a legal framework for the local authorities to assess those matters and the support that they need and how they can interpret that at a local level. I am not going to get into a situation where we start to set limits at a national level and how that should be applied at a local situation, because rural areas have different needs against that of more urban areas. What we will do and I can give you an assurance of is that we are going to do some work around the over provision aspect with them and how they can apply that at a local level and how they can interpret that at a local level in order to determine policy in this area. In terms of the rural situation, it has been suggested that a number of rural authorities may be concerned about the impact of removing the contract exemption. Would you, cabinet secretary, consider making the power to do so discretionary? So, one of the things that we are going to do is, before we take forward the contract exemption aspect or the removal of the contract exemption, we are going to do some work with local authorities in just understanding how it would apply to their particular set of circumstances and we can address some of those concerns through secondary legislation. Before we go ahead with that, we are going to take some aspects forward that will allow us to provide some exemptions as we see fit or to allow them to apply exemptions as they see fit and we will deal with that through secondary legislation. If we could move on now to metal dealer licensing, cabinet secretary. One of the things that there was quite some discussion about during the course of the evidence was the definition of a metal dealer. We heard from some of the folks from the industry that waste dealers can actually deal in metal as well. How can we ensure that the legislation works properly and stops those who may not be currently defined as metal dealers from dealing in stolen metal? We are trying to achieve an approach that does not get into a situation where a plumber who may be dealing with a bit of discarded metal, copper and stuff like that, gets themselves classified as a metal dealer. I think that the provisions that we have tried to set out in the bill are to try to achieve that balance as best we can and also the licensing regime that has been put in place for metal dealers as such as in achieving that. It is not the intention of it to have a situation where the plumber who might have some scrap copper from his work then finds himself in a situation where he has to register as a metal dealer. I think that the provisions in the bill should guard against that happening. I understand that. That is the common sense approach, but we heard from folks in the industry about waste dealers who are licensed by SEPA, who often deal in metal. They were referred to as itinerant dealers. How do we make sure that they are covered by the regime? Can I just clarify whether they suggest that because if they are dealing in waste, they obviously have to be registered with SEPA as well, but was the view that they also required to be registered as a scrap metal dealer? The scrap metal dealers themselves felt that those folks were given much freer rain than scrap metal dealers were, yet they feel that they are often dealing with substantial amounts of metal. I am more than happy to take that away and to look at that particular issue to see whether there is something further that we can do in that particular area. I do not know whether there is any further scope to do anything in the present piece of legislation, but we were generally of the view that the way we had metal dealers defined that the present moment was sufficient. The registration scheme for that was sufficient, but I might be able to say a bit more about that specific issue. The position coming into the bill was that the definition that was in the 1982 act was not actually amended by the bill. In other words, it has been in operation for 33 years and it cannot be miles away from being right on that basis. We are aware of the concerns that the dealers themselves made in the course of their evidence and we have had discussions with them. We are happy to look at seeing if an amendment of the definition is required for stage 2. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, it is a question of balance. We want to catch up with some of the people on the margins such as the itinerant dealer who only collects door-to-door but does not make a payment for the cash and, effectively, they are only selling, so they would not be caught at the moment. There is a suggestion that we should move from a definition of a dealer of somebody who buys and sells to somebody who buys or sells, and that is something that we are happy to look at. We are also trying to maintain that balance of not capturing people who are very peripheral as the plumber has been the classic example. Just because something has been in place for 33 years does not necessarily mean that it is right, I would say, Mr Drummond Murray. This is certainly something that seems to worry the scrap metal dealers, who obviously want to co-operate. They feel that others are in the same business but are not facing the same regulatory regime. In terms of licensing itself, during the evidence that the police gave on the issue, it came to light that they deal with the licensing of peddlers on a nationwide basis. Would it be wiser to, instead of licence scrap metal dealers at a local level, to maybe licence them at a national level and bring in that itinerant dealer-type scenario into that licencer regime, too? It is possible to do that. I am not entirely sure how extensive an issue it is or how much of a problem it is, but I think that the important point is that we are trying to get a proportionate approach in taking forward this particular provision. It is trying not to inadvertently draw people into the registration process that we had intended to draw into. I recognise the concern you have raised, but I am not entirely sure just how extensive an issue it is that would require further registration in order to deal with it. Cabinet Secretary, we heard in evidence that some of the greatest gains that were made down south were in the removal of the cash payment system, but part of our proposals here are to remove this requirement for storage of metal in 48 hours. We also heard that some felt that it is unlikely that the police are able to respond to inspecting premises within 48 hours, so I was wondering what your thoughts were and how effective that might be to aid the detection of metal theft if we remove the 48-hour requirement and the police serve a difficulty in inspecting premises within that timeframe, in any case? That is an example of trying to take a proportionate approach, because once a metal dealer holds certain types of metal for a particular period of time that they end up having to get into registration from CEPR, etc., which can add a significant burden to that, then there were particular time thresholds around certain types of metal type. There was also a need for example once you get into that and they have to have that certification from CEPR is that how it is stocked as well has to change in terms of individual piles, etc., and for many of the scrap metal dealers they just do not have the space or anything to be able to accommodate that. We have tried to again take a balanced approach to recognise that there is a potential that we could push the burden so far, that for many of those metal dealers it just becomes unsustainable and it is not possible to operate your business because of the additional regulation that we then have to face for holding certain metals and for how that would have to be stored against all, so trying to make sure that we have a reasonable enforcement regime that is able to deal with what is and what has been a big problem with the metal theft as well, so again it is trying to balance these off and I think the approach that we have taken is to try and achieve that a balance as appropriately as we can and the time frame is a reflection of that. Do you think similarly that the greatest gain for us will be in the removal of the cashless element of this because it seemed to have a significant effect for those who gave evidence from jurisdiction down south? Down south I have now had this I think for a year or two, it appears to have made a significant impact so I think it will because it creates that auditable trail to be pursued as well and I think it will also place a challenge on those who may have got metals illegally from places that have been much greater difficult to be able to dispose of these things because of the way in which payment will have to be carried out, so I think it will lack both as a deter and also it will assist us in being able to investigate cases in pursuing cases where metal that has been gained illegally has taken place. I think that you have actually answered my question about the advantage of a national licence. I was not sure if you think that it is a very good idea to have a national licence. I think that it is trying to take a proportionate approach to these things at a localised level and I am keen for local authorities to be able to take that forward in a way that they see as best fits and I think that the regime that we have set out I think can best help achieve that rather than move into our national registration scheme. John Wilson, please. Cabinet Secretary, we heard in one evidence session from some of the power companies regarding the cost of the scrap metal. Now, whether we are effectively arguing as the piece of metal or the wiring or cabling that is stolen may have fairly insignificant value but the cost of the damage that it has done in the bestailing of that cabling could run into thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds and could endanger life of the area that is affected. In your role as the cabinet secretary, how would you like to see the value not of just the metal stolen and the communal act to stay in place, but how can we incorporate the overall cost of the damage that has been caused to the energy companies, households and others when individuals are being considered in courts for the theft of that cabling or metal? We are in a situation where it is really for the courts to determine that and it would not really be appropriate for the Government to set down in terms of what it would expect to court to do in terms of dealing with those costs. I am sure that Members are aware that courts will look at the whole range of mitigating circumstances, including the costs associated with the relative damage and the danger that someone committing metal theft may have caused when it comes to determining a sentence, but the final determination of that would be a matter for the courts in itself. However, there is absolutely no doubt that I have heard of cases where metal theft is taking place, where not only have those carrying out the theft caused others to put themselves in danger, they have put themselves in very significant danger in order to get the metal in as well and placed a lot of other people significant inconvenience, including power cuts. I suffered a power cut myself a number of months back from a metal theft or an attempted metal theft that was taking place in some power in a Scottish power facility. It is a serious issue and some of the additional measures that we are taking is to recognise that in order to deal with this much more effectively. However, I have no doubt that courts will take these things extremely seriously, but it is not for me to start determining what courts should do in itself, and I would be very reluctant to go down that particular route, given their independence. I am well aware of the independence of the court judicial system in Scotland and the UK Cabinet Secretary, but I am keen to try to ensure that, when the place and the procurator fiscal office are taking forward cases, they look at the total cost of the damage that has been done by the theft of cabling or other metals in a community so that when someone appears in front of the court system, it is not just for the theft of £1,000 worth of cabling that they are facing the offence for, but other factors, including the cost of repairing the damage that has been caused, is taking into consideration so that the courts can fully understand the final cost to the damage, not just in terms of the value of the metal stolen, but the other issues that are caused by the theft of that metal. I would expect, in a case that has been prosecuted in the courts, overall cost to be something that would form part of the case in making sure that that was brought to the attention of the courts. I would expect that to be part of the facts that are presented in a prosecution in my own mind. However, I would certainly expect that to be something that would be part of the information that is put before the court when a case has been prosecuted. We heard evidence that change in the law in itself does not reduce crime in this case in England and Wales where it seems to be specific enforcement action that made the difference. I became to hear more about what plans the Scottish Government has to encourage enforcement action to support the new licence and regime when it comes into place. A major part of the enforcement is for Police Scotland to take forward. I am confident that they have the resources to be able to do that effectively. The other measures that we are putting in place assist them in being able to investigate those matters more thoroughly. The issue of not being able to pay cash for the metal again and not having to take down details. All of those things create an auditable trail that allows anyone who is investigating something from the police to be able to trace issues much more effectively and to look at who is involved in procuring the metal in the first place. The measures were assist us in being able to tackle some of that, but I am also confident that Police Scotland has the resources to be able to take forward the appropriate enforcement measures as they see fit. Back to Mr Wilson's comment about the offence. The draft bill says that a person who commits an offence under this section is liable and somebody conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 in the standard scale. A level 5 fine is not that high, as is my understanding. We can give you some details on that further. You are right that the penalties in our view are probably inadequate and that is something that we will seek to address at stage 2. Can I suggest that we take a very short comfort break before we move on to the final couple of furlongs? Just a five minute break, I suspect, for five minutes. We now move on to the provisions of the bill that deal with sexual entertainment licensing. Cabinet Secretary, during the course of our evidence taken, one of the things that we found in terms of frustrations from members of the public are the different bodies that deal with different aspects of sexual entertainment. Bright Crew highlighted the alcohol aspects. Some of the aspects are dealt with by licensing committees rather than licensing boards. One of the things that we found is that planning authorities are responsible in terms of advertising outwith premises, which seems to be a major problem. We realise that certain aspects of that are being brought together, but would it not be better to bring all aspects of sexual entertainment licensing and advertising under the remit of one body so that the public know where to go to if they have a complaint about a particular venue? I can see the attraction of that. Clearly, licensing boards have a very specific statutory function to undertake, which is somewhat different, but similar to that of the licensing committees in local authorities. I would be reluctant to go down the route of just having one single committee or board that is responsible for taking forward all of those licensing provisions. I think that there may be a practical challenge around taking forward some of that work at a local level for those who would be members of the licensing board that we deal with at all. There are also some particular specialities. One of the benefits that we can get from licensing boards is that we have a group of elected members who have had additional specialist training and developed expertise in understanding and allowed alcohol licensing matters. That is something that we should value. I am inclined to retain the approach that we have at the present moment. That is not to say that there is not always scope for improving how they are operating, but it comes to an individual who wants to make a complaint. There should be any reason within a local authority that, if someone wants to make a complaint about a particular thing, whether it is to do with alcohol or entertainment, they should be able to get put through to the relevant officer who would pursue that form and to take that forward in any matter within a local authority. I do not think that going to one particular committee deal with it all or one board deal with it all would necessarily improve that process. I agree that they should be able to go to one individual within a local authority and get the service that is required, but that is not happening. We had some licensing officers in the other week who suggested that the reason why some of those regimes were split was more traditional than anything else, and that is why, in some places, you have a licensing board and a licensing committee. I have to say from my own experiences what I have found in the local authorities that I am particularly aware of. The licensing teams are the same solicitors and officers for the licensing board as they are for the licensing committee, and many of the members who served in the licensing board also served in the licensing committee. It is very difficult for the general public to get their heads around what that difference is. In fact, it has been difficult for the committee and some of the folks who have been supporting us to get their heads around the different terminologies. I wonder, cabinet secretary, if we do the things that we do more out of tradition rather than logic. There are cases where that is, but I am not necessarily persuaded that moving to a single body for taking forward all of those things at a local level is the best way to achieve that. I recognise and give your own experience in Aberdeen as a local councillor. You will first hand experience some of those challenges, but given the nature of the licensing purposes that the different bodies are taking forward, there is benefit in having two separate bodies doing that. It may be at some point in the future if there is a view that it could be more effectively delivered for whatever reasons by one body, that could be considered. At this stage, I am not persuaded that there is sufficient reason for us to look at moving to a single body at this present time. You are not even giving sexual entertainment licences to deal with by one body, rather than the gamut that we have at this moment in time, which seems to be leading to frustration? One of them is going to be about the need for having a licence for the purpose of the entertainment that they are providing. Obviously, there would be an issue around having a licence for selling alcohol in the premises, if that is what their intention was. I recognise that, for some individuals, it may feel as though there are unnecessary complications in it. However, my general view is that it broadly operates fairly well. There are always areas in which it can be improved. Broadly, it serves us pretty well at the present moment, and the additional measures that are provided in the bill will assist in improving the licence regime for sexual entertainment venues and will provide local authorities with the additional powers to deal with the issue more effectively. We are improving the existing legislation, but I am not persuaded that moving to a single committee or board would necessarily improve things further. During the course of the evidence that we took, both those who are pretty pro-sexual entertainment and those who were very anti-sexual entertainment shared the view that it would be more logical for all of it to be brought under one regime. I however feel though that having—it is worth from a single point of view going to a single committee—it deals with it all. However, I think that the present system lads those serves as well. I think that I would be reluctant to change that without sufficient evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements are not operating effectively, which I do not think is the case. Obviously, the Bright Crew case itself showed that one regime was trying to deal with an aspect controlled by another regime. All that fell foul of the law. If that had all been dealt with together appropriately, we might not have had the Bright Crew situation. Would I be right in saying that? No, I am not entirely sure that that is correct. The Bright Crew issue was about trying to use an existing provision within legislation for a slightly wider purpose than what the 2005 act is for. That was the outcome of that particular decision. Hence why we are making provision within this legislation for a civic licence provision around sexual entertainment venues. Having one board or one committee dealing with matters would not necessarily have changed that, because the Bright Crew decision has reflected that the alcohol act was not sufficient for the purpose for which it was trying to use it. Hence why we are creating this new licence regime. It was a matter of structure, a matter of the interpretation of the legislation, and that is why we are making additional provisions in this bill. In terms of not only the structure, but a common sense approach to structure, do you not think that a common sense approach in bringing that all together and creating the legislative framework that is required would be the way to do it? It would be easier for one body to deal with the aspects of that one legislative framework in terms of ensuring that those venues are up to scratch in every regard in terms of alcohol, in terms of the entertainment itself and in terms of the advertising. If we were to move to a single licence regime for both civic and alcohol matters, we would have to go back to the beginning again. It is worth keeping in mind that just 10 years ago, the Civic Government Scotland Act was reviewed. It was considered in great detail. It is found to be fit for purpose. It is flexible enough to allow us to be able to add to and to amend to it as circumstances change and develop, and that has happened over the years as well. The other aspect is that the Nicholson group considered the whole issue about licensing, which led to the 2005 act. We would effectively have to go right back to redoing licensing for alcohol and for civic purposes if the idea was to go to a single unified piece of legislation for both of those things. That would be a very significant piece of work and a very significant undertaking, obviously, well outwith the scope of that particular bill. I think that there is a debate to be had there going forward, but given the work that has been undertaken both in licensing for alcohol and also for civic licensing in the last 10 years, we have a new piece of licensing legislation for alcohol. The Civic Government Scotland Act has been found fit for purpose. I would be reluctant to look at changing that, given that both seem to be operating fairly well. It is flexible enough for us to be able to add to and to change it as we need to go forward. There seems to be a certain logic in having the same licensing regime. I say that, apparently, those clubs only make real money when they sell alcohol, which would seem to be the same licensing, because they do not make money at sectional entertainment or strip clubs, they only make money when they sell alcohol, that is what we were told. I must confess that I am not entirely o-fame with my business model, but I would just call whether it is just alcohol. It goes back to the bright right case where there was an issue around trying to use the alcohol licensing regime as a way of trying to manage some aspects of this and the difficulties that that created. That is why we have brought in the further alliances that are required for those types of venues, but also to give local authorities the scope to be able to do that in a meaningful way, which allows them to engage with other stakeholders to consider a whole range of other factors before they come to a decision on their local policy for those types of venues. I ask the cabinet secretary about the exemption that is proposed, where a venue that had no more than four occasions for entertainment would be exempt from requiring a licence, what the justification is for that and whether, given that there is quite a lot of opposition to it, an alternative might be considered an occasional licence for alcohol, and whether that is considering tightening that up at all from the evidence? That was considered in quite a bit of detail before drafting of the bill. Again, it was about trying to strike a balance. It was trying to recognise, for example, the approach that we are trying to take around these sexual entertainment venues is that there are only a handful of local authority areas where those particular facilities operate, and four or five of them. It was trying to take an approach that would allow them to take forward policy in a way that would best reflect the local circumstances. That is why we have taken it forward in a discretionary way, rather than a mandatory way. For example, local authorities do not have any of those types of venues that are being demanded that they have to take forward a particular policy in this area. There is a discretionary element to it. There was also some recognition that there could be on occasion in a particular venue for a particular event that something could happen, sort of an idea where there was some form of entertainment that was being provided. It was very difficult to regulate that in terms of knowing where they are, when it was happening and to the full extent of that as well. The approach that England has taken is that there are 12 when a month that they can have, so if something happened in a bar, technically, if it was happening on a daily basis, they would have to have a sexual entertainment licence for it once a month. We thought that was too much, and four a year was the figure that we arrived at. I am open to the committee's view on whether they feel that is the right balance that has been struck. It was largely to reflect that there could be occasions where, from an unintended point of view, a venue finds itself that it may have required that additional licence. It would be very difficult for us to regulate that or to understand the full extent of that. That was the unattent to trying to get that balance. Cabinet Secretary, there is ambiguity then, whereas with licences you do not sell alcohol unless you have a licence, either an occasional licence or a full licence. I think that there is more ambiguity in that situation, whereas, if premises are new, they had to have a licence. I think that it might give better clarity to it, but I would be more than happy to hear some of your thoughts on it as we progress with the bill. I am more than happy to listen to the committee's view on those matters. If you feel that the balance that we have tried to strike is not quite the right balance in the committee's view, I am more than happy to consider that at stage 2, as the bill is progressing. Will the Government consider the issue of guidance on how existing sexual entertainment venues would be treated if a local authority sets a lower limit on the appropriate number of venues in the area? We will provide guidance for local authorities in taking this particular area forward to assist them. It will obviously be down to the number of different things that they have to go through before they come to the limit that they wish to set as a local authority, although a range of factors that they will have to consider. We will take forward work in order to make sure that they are provided with some guidance in interpretation of that and how that should be taken forward. We have heard in evidence from a committee of theatre group representatives who were concerned that they might be impacted on by their artistic expression by some vexatious complaints or other individuals using the legislation that is proposed to shut down certain theatre productions. Could the cabinet secretary give any assurances to those theatre companies that, where there is nudity or other issues contained within theatre productions, they would be exempt or potentially exempt from the legislation that is proposed? That is a fair point to be raised and it is a reasonable concern for some establishments to have. That is why we are going to take forward some guidance in order to give some specific direction around the area as well about the types of premises and circumstances that would be exempt in those circumstances. That could be, for example, a theatre production that involves some nudity in it for a particular performance or a series of performances that they are operating. We are going to address that through guidance and some of the secondary provisions that will take forward to ensure that that type of issue does not come about. The other issue that the cabinet secretary has raised by the convener earlier is what advice and guidance—you have indicated that guidance would be issued to local authorities in relation to whether they actually wanted to reduce the number of premises that were provided in sexual entertainment in particular areas or, in the case of some of the authorities who decide to go for a zero-tolerance policy in relation to premises and have a blanket ban on any sexual entertainment venues in their local authority. How would that fit into, for instance, Edinburgh or Glasgow, to go for a zero-tolerance policy? What is argued by some in the industry, as grandfather writes, that they may have in relation to on-going provision of premises? One of the things that local authorities will have to do in coming to the desirable number that they may set at a local level is that they have to go through a rational process of how they have arrived at that particular figure. It is not an unfettered power that they have. They have to be able to set that out and to show that it was a rational approach that they took to come into that final determination. It is important that, when local authorities are setting what will be their desirable number, that desirable number can be zero, that they have gone through that process. Some of the guidance that we will issue alongside that is to give them some direction and understanding as to what some of that process may involve and should involve. Otherwise, they will find themselves subject to a legal challenge for disciplining something for no rational reason or whether they have considered the whole issue proportionately as well. Thank you very much, convener. One of the issues that came up during the discussion was the employment of under-18s in those establishments, albeit in ancillary roles such as cleaning and so on, cleaners and so on and so forth. The evidence that we heard was very much against permitting that to continue. Do you have a view on that or is that something that is out with the scope of consideration for us being an employment rights issue for under-18s? We can do that through the licence and provision, because, as it stands, under-18s are not allowed in premises where sexual entertainment is taking place. It would be possible for an under-18 to be in the premises at other times. For example, where sexual entertainment was not taking place, it could be in the cases if they were a cleaner who was in in the morning. However, it would be in the venue for the purposes of undertaking the cleaning of it, but it would not be allowed to be in the premises at any time when sexual entertainment was taking place. I think that that was the nature of the discussion. It was even in those circumstances that it was appropriate for youngster, young adults of that age to be working in those premises, even outwith the licenced activity. The evidence, the only evidence that I can recall, cabinet secretary, that we heard was very much opposed to continuing to allow that. Do you have a view of that? It would obviously be as in banning under-18s from being able to be a cleaner in a venue that has been used for sexual entertainment. I think that the challenge would be in terms of within the legislation being able to achieve that. I think that we would obviously have to, given the nature and intended purpose of it, we would have to consult more widely on what the implications of that were. I think that it would be interesting to know how many of those types of venues employ under-18s as cleaners anyway, first of all. My suspicion would probably be very few if any at all, but I understand the point that you are coming at it from, but I do not think that within the scope of this bill it is something that we could address. Just looking at more of this wider issue, given the Scottish Government's recognition of the harm that is caused by commercial sexual exploitation when the position of women and girls right across society, why is it that the Scottish Government has not decided to ban those types of venues instead of licensing them? What we are doing is giving local authorities the power to be able to license those venues and to determine what the number should actually be. If a local authority believes that the desirable number is zero, then there is a process for them to go through in order to achieve that. Rather than that the Government determines those matters, we are allowing local authorities to determine those matters. I think that that is the most appropriate way for something of this nature to be taken forward. If we can now move on to civic licensing aspects of the bill, in terms of our call for evidence and some of the oral evidence that we have had here, particularly licencing officials from Edinburgh and Glasgow, gave a detailed critique of the legislation and ripped certain parts of the 1982 act, including the fact that there were no powers to review a licence, no powers to revoke a licence and major discussion round about the lack of notification. Does the Scottish Government have any plans to review the 1982 act or address some of the specific concerns about the way it operates? We have no plans to fundamentally review the 1982 act. As I mentioned, it was only reviewed some 10 years ago and found fit for purpose. What we are always wanting to do is to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by local authority colleagues where they feel that there is a deficiency in the legislation that we can assist in addressing if there is a need to do so. For example, the issue about revoking a licence under the Civic Government Scotland act is something that we are considering. It is worth keeping in mind that a local authority or local current revoke it can suspend, which can have the same effect as revoking someone's licence. However, we are considering whether there are further measures that can be taken around revoking licences. If there is a way in which we can improve the way in which it operates for local authorities, we are more than happy to look at doing that. One of the things that was discussed was round about notifications. The example that was given by officers was a bit of a burger van. The fact that they could notify folk only within four metres of the said stance for a burger van. Do you think that that is giving the public a fair deal in being able to find out what is going on in their patches and being able to engage with licencing authorities with any objection that they might have? I do not know about the technical aspect around the four metres for a burger van, but I would be concerned if we were in a situation where something of that was occurring, where a burger van was establishing itself and that the communities felt that they were limited in being able to make representation. I think that in terms of looking at modernising the notification process, that is something that we could consider. Could that be dealt with through secondary legislation or would it require primary legislation? I think that what I would have to do in stage two of this bill is that there are requirements in the schedule of the 1982 act that local authorities have to publish applications and licences, but it is quite archaic. Currently, they would meet that requirement by publishing it in a local library or something like that. It is not terribly fit for purpose in the modern world, so it is something that we could certainly look at. If we can look to improve that, notwithstanding that, there is nothing to stop local authorities as well from being more proactive in how they engage with local communities that affect me some of these things. Secretary, we covered that in a huge amount of depth. We know that many local authorities are risk averse, and I am going to be controversial to a degree with some, but you put two solicitors in a room and you get six different opinions. Let's be honest with you. When it comes to risk aversity, it seems that this is one of the worst aspects. We specifically asked the folks who were in front of us about informing beyond those levels, and there was a huge reticence. From our own knowledge around about the table, a local councillor used to inform entire neighbourhoods about things. The solicitors at the council used to often go into a huge panic about such things. Mr Coffey had similar experiences. That is not fit for purpose. While the committee is looking at this bill, we are also looking at aspects of the community empowerment bill at this moment in time. The reality is quite simply that what we have here is certainly not empowering communities and is impeding some of the good work that the Government wants to see done in other areas. The first thing that I would say is that I do not accept that it is not fit for purpose because it can be changed and it can be altered. There are aspects in terms of local policy and approach that local authorities take. You have made reference to the fact that there are certain things that have happened in your ward and that you took the opportunity to inform the whole area as a local elected member. That has happened in other areas as well. Local authorities can be more proactive and I recognise that they can be risk averse. That does not mean that because local authorities are risk averse, it does not mean that the legislation is deficient in itself. However, if there are ways in which we can improve it in order to help to engage and to try to push greater engagement with local authorities, then we will look at trying to achieve that. However, there is also an aspect that local members, as you would well be aware in Aberdeen, are the ones that should be set in the course of direction for officials and how they take forward local policy. Rather, officials at local levels are always determining what the policy should be. I understand that all too well, but I think that what we have heard in evidence quite clearly shows that lots of local authorities feel that they are restricted. One of the things that those licensing officials said is that they wanted a link to licensing objectives, such as the 2005 act. Is that possible? The purpose of the 2005 act is clearly very different. The way in which the five objectives will be set within the 2005 act is that we are after considerable consideration. I am conscious that they want to have objectives set within the Civic Government Scotland Act. What will that lead to them doing differently? I cannot answer that question. That is a matter for them. That is the point, though. I often hear that. If you just put it in the legislation, that would be better. At times, it is not about deficiencies in the legislation, it is about proactive policy at a localised level. They felt that dealing with public nuisance aspects would be easier done if there were some changes. Beyond that, they were arguing that, in terms of what is currently in legislation, some of the things seem to be nonsensical, including, for example, those notifications within four metres. All that you need to do is part your burger van well over four metres away from something in your other bash. Willie Coffey, please. I want to take an opportunity to say something on the notification process and certainly some experience of that in the past, where the authority did not and would not notify anyone outside the radius of the particular application, despite the clear view that there was clear impact on the public beyond that. The fear was, cabinet secretary, that the authorities might be challenged in seeking objections beyond the limits of the notification distance that was in place. They were fearful of that perhaps coming through a legal challenge thereafter. The feeling, among the members, was that we needed to think more about impact on community rather than the distance away from an application would be much more in the public perception of that and receiving public support. Clearly, part of that is down to interpretation within a given local authority area, and the officials decided to interpret the law in a particular way. If there are ways in which the legislation can be improved in order to try to address some of those concerns, I am open to looking at that. What I do not think is a good way to go about doing things is putting things in legislation because some council officials do not like doing it or do not want to do it. There is a balance to be struck there, but where there is a reasonable case that improving the legislation could help to improve engagement with local communities and it can be justified, I am very open to looking at that. I have experienced those types of difficulties in my constituency, but I must confess that I am a bit sceptical sometimes at some of the excuses that I do here from council officials and why they do not do things when it would be reasonable for them to do so because of their particular interpretation of a particular piece of legislation, which, if you go to another local authority area, they have chosen to interpret it in a much more liberal way. We should be careful not just legislating for those local authorities that tend to be less deluctant to take forward proactive policies to engage with communities. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. I ask your officials to have a look at the official report on that. I share your frustration about interpretation in certain local authorities being much different from others, but the key thing for me and the committee as a whole is to make sure that the public are best served and feel empowered about certain decisions. It seems to me that what we have in terms of certain aspects of the 1982 act is things that fly in the face of common sense, never mind anything else. I urge the officials to go back and have a look in-depth at what those licensing officials said at that session, because it seemed entirely logical to me. The committee will consider the concerns that the committee has raised as well, notwithstanding some of my frustration at the approach that some of the local authorities have taken in those matters. I thank you very much for your time today, cabinet secretary. I now suspend and move into private session.