 Mae ydych chi'n fyddwch ar beth o'r ffordd o'r nifer 1-994, yn y name of Michael Matheson, o'r llyfrfynau a'r licensu'n fitnid y bydd. Mae'r ddweud y cychwyn i gwylio i chi i'n defnyddio'r llyfrfynau i gweithio'r ddysgu'r mwysoch, and I call on Michael Matheson to speak to and remove the motion, Cabinet Secretary, 14 Minutes, or so? Thankyou, Presiding Officer, and I'm happy to open the Stage 1 debate on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland coronavirus. I'd like to begin by thanking my colleagues my colleague and predecessor, Kenny McCaskill, who brought forward this start-up at the染 bool last year. I'd also like to thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, the Finance Committee a y Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its work in considering the Bill. I was pleased to note from a report that the local government and regeneration committee supports the general principles of the Bill, in particular the licensing of air weapons. I am grateful to the committee for the manner in which they took evidence to stage 1 on the Bill. The committee invited a wide range of stakeholders to give evidence and did this in the spirit of drawing out those changes that will, in line with the aims of the bill, best improve the relevant licensing regime in Scotland. The evidence and the committee's report have been extremely valuable in helping the Government to reflect on whether we can make further improvements to those particular areas. The committee will have now seen my response to its report. I am pleased to be able to now update the wider Parliament by providing an overview of the bill. The bill comes in four parts. Part 1, the air weapons section sets out a new licensing regime for air weapons administered by Police Scotland. Part 2 covers alcohol licensing, amends the existing licensing regime for alcohol licensing, including within the Licensing Scotland Act 2005. Part 3, civic licensing, amends the existing licensing regime, including within the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. Lastly, part 4 sets out our general provisions. We are looking first at air weapons. The licensing of air weapons has been on our agenda for quite some time. Our 2007 manifesto set out plans to tackle this. We reiterate this as a name in our 2011 manifesto and, following the report of the Carman Commission in 2009, the responsibility for the regulation of most air weapons was devolved in the Scotland Act 2012. Kenny MacAskill introduced the bill, having chaired a firearms consultive panel of experts and carrying out a wider consultation on the principles of licensing. The aim has been to set out a regime that parallels the existing firearms legislation where appropriate. That is familiar to the police and to shooters, but is relatively light touch in its practical application. The local government and regeneration committee suggested a few amendments in their stage 1 report. I have already responded to those recommendations, but I would like to mention a couple of the most prominent issues at this particular point. The first is in relation to Police Scotland and the need to smooth the transition workload for the work that is to be undertaken by Police Scotland for the introduction of the licensing. Officials are still discussing this with the police to ensure that the impact of the new regime is minimised as far as possible. We are considering whether that is best achieved by way of an amendment at stage 2 or through regulation under the bill. The second issue is the proposal to add some forms of identifier mark to air weapons to support the certificate system. The Scottish Firearms Consultive panel agreed at a very early stage that it would be appropriate to licence a person rather than the gun itself. Continuing discussions with stakeholders, including Police Scotland and the Gun Trade Association, confirm that there is little or no support for a proposal to mark weapons individually. That would place immense additional burdens on the police, the trade and shooters, but do little to help tackle criminal misuse of air weapons. Therefore, do not intend to bring forward amendments to introduce an identifier mark at stage 2. Turning from air weapons, we should also consider the areas around alcohol licensing provided within the bill. Consultation has made clear that people do not want to see a route and branch review of alcohol licensing legislation. However, there are areas that are not working as effectively as they should be. Therefore, rather than propose any radical overhaul of the regime, the bill looks at those areas to find ways to improve the existing system. For example, taking forward a commitment that was made in the 2011 SNP manifesto, the bill will create new offences of giving or making available alcohol to a child or young person for consumption in a public place. That will allow Police Scotland to address the problem of drinking dens where vulnerable young people can congregate to share alcohol. The bill introduces a fit and proper test for both the premise and personal licence applications. Licensing boards will also be able to consider spent offences. Those changes have been widely called for and will assist licensing boards in ensuring that only those who are fully appropriate can hold such a licence. In terms of licensing board practice, we are clarifying that an overprovision assessment can relate to an entire board area and can take account of licensing hours. We have also considered statements of licensing policy. There is some very good practice at board level, but licensing policy statements are often failing to have the strategic impact that we would hope that they would provide. We are therefore amending policy statements to better align with local government elections. That will encourage a new board to take stock, gather evidence and set a policy statement that reflects its views and aspirations. There are also a number of fairly technical amendments. For example, I amending the final licensing objective to include young people alongside children. The distinction between children and young persons can create difficulty for licensing boards when they are dealing with issues around young persons and can have the effect that issues around 16 and 17-year-olds cannot be considered in relation to protecting children objectives. The amendment is to make sure that licensing boards have the power to be able to consider that as part of their licensing objectives. There are also a number of provisions that should be welcomed by the trade. For example, removing the five-year ban on reapplying for failure to render a personal licence refresher training certificate and imposing a duty on boards to report on their income and expenditure. The bill also improves the effectiveness of civic licensing regimes with a variety of reforms across a wide range of areas. For example, the bill will ensure the tightening up of the licensing of metal dealers to ensure more effective regulation of the industry and to make it more difficult for metal theft to be disposed of by which it has been stolen. It will deliver that by ensuring that all dealers are licensed, banning the use of cash for a payment of scrap, tightening record-keeping arrangements and requiring proper identification of customers. The bill will also allow communities a greater say over whether lap dancing takes place in their area by allowing local licensing authorities the power to control the number of licenses for sexual entertainment venues, in particular localities. Central to this proposal is the belief that local communities should be able to exercise appropriate control and regulate sexual entertainment venues that operate within their area. Local licensing authorities are best placed to reflect the views of the communities that serve and determine whether sexual entertainment establishments should be authorised and under what conditions. The bill also simplifies licensing of theatres by merging the theatre licence with the public entertainment licence regime. That will allow some theatres that currently have two licences to now operate with a single licence. Additionally, the new licensing regime is more flexible, replacing mandatory licensing with a discretionary scheme that allows local licensing authorities to exempt smaller theatres if they so choose. The bill also aims to bring greater consistency between and within taxi and private car higher licensing regimes. Local authorities are responsible for the taxi and private higher car licensing regimes. They have discretion in applying a local regime that best meets the specific requirements of their local area and can take account of the views of both customers and trade. In general, this local process works well. However, we are aware that there have been a number of concerns with the taxi and private higher car licensing regime for some time. Those have been highlighted by stakeholders during informal discussion and were further reinforced during the public consultation exercise. Specific provisions in the bill include the power to refuse to grant private higher car licences on grounds of over provision. The extension of driver testing to allow testing of private higher car drivers and the removal of the contract exemption to the licensing and regulation of taxis and private higher car, bringing higher car used into the contract regime. Those provisions, in part, acknowledge that, in part of the country, taxis, private higher cars and contract higher cars are essentially operating in a very similar market. Some of the distinctions between their modes of operation, for example pre-booked versus rank and hailing, have been blurred with changes in technology. In addition to the amendments to specific regimes within the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982, there are additional provisions that will have effect across licensing parts of the 1982 act and aim to create greater consistency and clarity to the licensing regime. The bill includes a number of provisions aimed at improving the operation of all civic government licensing regimes and clarifying compliance with the EU Services Directive. Specific provisions include power for Scottish ministers to make provision for the procedure to be followed at or in connection with hearings. The bill also introduces a new role civic licensing standards officer, with broadly the same powers and duties as an authorised officer within the 1982 act, but with specific functions in relation to providing information and guidance, checking compliance, providing mediation and taking appropriate action on perceived breaches of conditions to a licence provided under the 1982 act. I set out the Government's thinking on some of the key areas of what is a wide-ranging bill. I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues through the course of this debate and to working with the committee as we continue with the passage of the bill through Parliament. I therefore move that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. Many thanks, cabinet secretary. I now call on Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the local government and regeneration committee convener around 10 minutes or so. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's my pleasure to speak in today's debate on behalf of the local government and regeneration committee. The Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill is an important and necessary piece of legislation. Before I embark on the core of our deliberations, I want to take a moment to set out the key role licensing plays in Scotland today. Licensing assists in preserving public order and safety, reducing crime and advancing public health. I will return to those themes later in my speech as those objectives were the backdrop to our scrutiny and are fundamental to the recommendations that we have made in our report. While recognising the importance of those objectives, few of us actively consider the relevance of licensing to our daily lives, but for those we spoke to, it's about their livelihoods, the services that they use or the activities that they take part in. The bill is wide-ranging and deals with the complexities of licensing of various activities such as owning or using an air weapon, selling and purchasing alcohol, operating taxis or private hire cars, dealing in scrap metal, the holding of public entertainment events or the running of sexual entertainment venues. There are, of course, some obvious headline stories that emerged from the bill. For example, the creation of two new licensing regimes, one for air weapons and the other for sexual entertainment venues. Both of those aims are praiseworthy, but they are not the only stories that we uncovered. I want to focus members' attention on the other, perhaps less immediately obvious parts of the bill, topics that I and my colleagues believe are equally worthy of prominence in today's debate, and perhaps have a wider impact on those living and working in modern Scotland. Modernity, Presiding Officer, is also a key theme that I wish to explore today. I want to look at how the committee set about the task of scrutinising the diverse bill. The Air Weapons and Licensing Bill was introduced in June last year. That afforded us some time to issue our call for evidence over the summer months, which closed at the end of September, receiving 146 responses. Those responses came from a wide section of stakeholder groups such as local authority, drug and alcohol partnerships, equality organisations, energy and transport providers, as well as the police, to name but a few. We heard from a very wide range of interested individuals. I'm very grateful for taking that intervention, Mr Stewart. I just wonder when the committee was undergoing its scrutiny and you mentioned Police Scotland. My understanding is that Police Scotland was able to give statistics from April to July 2014 on airgun crime, but the figures for the year up to April 2014, unlike all previous years, have not been published and have been delayed to the autumn of this year. Did that give the committee any difficulties in having up-to-date information? I would say, Presiding Officer, that we have had information and data from a number of years about air weapons offences. We are all far too aware of the deaths and injuries that have taken place, the maiming of animals that has gone on across this country. I think that, with that information, that gave us a good guide of why. The committee thinks that this air weapons licensing regime should be brought into place. As I said, we heard from a wide range of individuals and took a wide range of evidence. I would like to thank all those who responded for the part that they have played in helping us to examine the proposals in the bill. The committee was also given the opportunity to inform ourselves on the constituent subject areas. We held a number of informal meetings with academics, industry representatives and licensing experts to aid our understanding. At that point, I would like to take the opportunity to thank former members of the committee, Mark McDonald, Stuart McMillan and Ann McTaggart for their work in exploring the various strands, and I know that they put in a huge amount of effort in doing so. While thanking members past, I would also like to make mention of the new committee members, as it were, Claire Adamson, Cara Hilton and Willie Coffey, who picked up the baton and carried it on to the finishing line. We held nine themed evidence sessions and heard from the cabinet secretary culminating with our stage 1 report being unanimously agreed and published. Before I move on to the specifics of our scrutiny and recommendations, I would like to say a little about the committee's engagement activities. Engagement is a key priority for our committee. We have had close to 4,000 new engagements with ordinary people over and above the well-kind faces. Local government is an area where many hold views, but people need to be encouraged to share those views with us. Engagement is a long-term relationship where trust is earned. We published a promoted Facebook post on taxi and private hire cars in the Highland area. We did that because of a gap in identified information that we had, and we were required to seek further views. That post was shared by 56 people. Our YouTube video on taxes and private hire cars was also a success. A mass of close to 1,000 views demonstrated the level of interest from the public in that topic. Comments that we received fed directly into our thinking on the proposals in the bill. Responses to our video suggested in the minds of users of taxes and private hire cars were all intents and purposes the same. One of our principal recommendations in this area is that the Scottish Government should consider a full review of all aspects of taxi and hire car licensing, because if a licensing system was being designed now, it would, in our opinion, be implemented differently. Our experience of engagement has shown us that, to be successful, it has to be well targeted, relevant and accessible. People have to feel they are being listened to and the value of their comments needs to be demonstrated. Only then will we encourage those quieter voices to enter the discussion. Let me preface my next comments and our findings by saying that we support moves to licensair weapons and to have a separate licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues. We have made a few recommendations as to how to improve those proposed regimes, although others might like to comment on those aspects. I like to concentrate on some of the key recommendations that we make concerning alcohol, taxi and private hire cars and metal dealer provisions in the bill. The alcohol provisions at part 2 of the bill contain a number of proposals, but I shall focus on two areas that are determining over provision of alcohol and alcohol licensing objectives. Our recommendations on those areas explicitly link to the overriding objective of advancing public health and preserving public order and safety. Firstly, a little background on over provision. Licensing policy statements must contain a statement as to whether there is over provision of licence premises in any locality within the licensing boards area. The bill should change the definition of over provision to enable licensing boards to take into consideration licenced hours as well as the number and capacity of licenced premises. It would also clarify that the whole of a boards area can be classed as a locality for the purposes of carrying out the assessment. Trade bodies firmly oppose those changes, questioning their proportionality. On the other hand, police, health boards and alcohol and drug partnerships were strongly supportive. We support the latter group and will go further in efforts to reduce the harm that alcohol can cause to some. In terms of licensing statements, we heard suggestions that professional organisers abuse the occasional licence system to evade the requirements of being fully licenced premises and those events added to the over provision of alcohol in an area. A similar concern was raised about members' clubs with alcohol-focused Scotland observing that in the borders, 22 per cent of all licenced premises are members' clubs. We therefore recommend that club licences and occasional licences must be included when licensing boards are assessing provision. Given the overwhelming evidence that we received of harm and links to disorder from overconsumption, we also recommend that an additional licensing objective be added to the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 to include the reduction and consumption of alcohol. We spoke to a number of organisations and individuals involved in the taxi and private hire car trade and those who licence it. Changes in the market with the advent of hire car bookings must therefore take place within a framework that does not allow the fundamental principle of having a licensed driver and a licensed vehicle being the ones that folks can safely use. We want to ensure that the public know that when they call, hail or use an app to get a car, they are entering a licensed vehicle with a licensed driver. Further reasons must also include the delivery of an accessible, reliable and affordable service to customers while preventing opportunities for criminal activity. Police Scotland told us that regulations ensure legitimate business that thrives and provides opportunity to prevent organised crime groups from getting a foothold in this industry. Finally, licensing of metal dealers is extremely important. This is not a victimless crime and we have heard that it costs a great deal in terms of money but also has created real dangers. I think that what we must ensure is that the maximum penalty for this crime is to be upgraded from the current £5,000. In conclusion, I hope that my contribution to today's debate has provided a flavour of the range of issues that the committee encountered when scrutinising the bill and sets out some of the areas that we wish to see strengthened in the bill. Licensing is important to all our lives. It keeps us safe, cares for our health and reduces the opportunity for crime in our communities. I commend the committee's stage 1 report to the Parliament. Thank you, convener and to now call on Alec Rowley. 10 minutes or so please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I firstly say that Labour supports the principles set out in the policy memorandum of this bill. We will be supporting it today at stage 1 and we are keen to work with the Government at stage 2 to agree any amendments that we think can improve the bill as it progresses and goes to stage 3. I would also want to put on record our thanks to the work of the local government and regeneration committee for their work in scrutinising what is a lengthy and complex bill with many different parts to it, all of which are important in their own right. Indeed, I do wonder if this is the best way to make legislation to just lump all the areas of licensing together and try to come up with improvements, often adding on to previous legislation that is itself outdated. The policy memorandum states that the principle policy objectives of the bill are to strengthen and improve aspects of locally led alcohol and civic government licensing in order to preserve public order and safety, reduce crime and advance public health. That has been achieved through reforms to the existing systems to alcohol licensing, taxing, private hire car licensing, metal dealer licensing and giving local communities a new power to regulate sexual entertainment venues in their area. In the time that I have this afternoon, I could not possibly cover everything that has been packed into this bill, but it is withdrawn to the attention of the Parliament, some of the views that have come through the evidence received. The committee report states that the bill is what could be described as a picking mix. I am not sure that this is the best way to have dealt with all the matters that the Government wants to address and I do think that a future Government will have to return to some aspects of this bill sooner rather than later. The minister told the committee that he had no plans to fundamentally review the 1982 act, as it was reviewed only some 10 years ago and found fit for purpose. But the practitioners, the people out there on the front line dealing with the legislation on a daily basis, had something different to say. Solar, the society of local authority lawyers and administrators in Scotland, their licensing group said that we would reiterate that the act is now 30 years old and that it has become increasingly difficult to address modern business activity within the structure of that act. Edinburgh Council said that the continued amendment of the act is not helpful, and one of its officers told the committee that the 1982 act has probably passed itself by date. Glasgow Council agreed with one of its officials telling the committee that any change would have to be substantial. I am teeter on the brink of saying that I do not think that enough amendments could be made to the bill to address the issues. The fundamental issue is that the 1982 act has been in place for more than 30 years. It has served its purpose, it has had its time, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up in line with the 2005 act and to set out an entirely different framework for how we approach licensing. I suggest to the minister that he should look again at the evidence that was given when it comes to this part of the bill. The Glasgow official suggested that the Parliament would have to go right back to the beginning and start again with the 1982 act so that it could pass legislation that was fit for purpose in a modern Scotland. I know that the SNP has a majority who can pass what they want, but it is surely about getting it right. There are too many voices suggesting that we cannot keep amending 30-year-old legislation and get it right for what is best for Scotland. That is an issue that I think I would want to take up with the minister. I now want to move on to the proposals for air weapons. As the committee report says, there are two camps on this part, those for and those against. Labour will support the proposals and the principle of the policy memorandum that we believe the bill achieves, which is to recognise the need to protect and reassure the public in a way that is proportionate and practical. I am pleased to note that the Government is supportive of many of the points that the committee made and will make sure that there is plenty of publicity and the lead-in to the legislation coming into effect and that those who no longer have the need for a gun will be encouraged to hand those weapons in. As I said, we have heard the arguments from both sides of this debate, but for me the evidence shows clearly that the legislation is the right thing to do. With regard to the introduction of a licence for sexual entertainment venues, we believe that this is necessary as there is no adequate regulation in place at present. The bill will empower local authorities to be able to determine whether or not such venues can operate within their areas, and this is a step in the right direction. Representations have been made and the committee has made specific recommendations, which I hope will be brought forward at stage 2. We will also want to explore with the Government other areas of concern and possible amendments for stage 2 that have been raised through groups such as Zero Tolerance. Those include allowing under-18s to work in such venues. The committee did look at this, and I know that the minister did not think that the bill could address the issue, but we would like further discussion with him about this. The fact that there is no fit and proper test for a licencee of a sexual entertainment venue included in the bill is an issue raised that we would welcome further discussion on. There is no provision on the face of the bill to restrict signage and advertising of sexual entertainment venues, and again we would like further discussion around this. There is no provision on the face of the bill about community consultation on the provision of sexual entertainment venue licences. In line with previous legislation that the committee looked at around the community empowerment bill, we do believe that again this is an area that we should explore further. There is no provision on licensing fees. There is a view that these should be much higher than for running a venue that is open to all sections of society, such as a cafe or a pub. Many English and Welsh local authorities have imposed high fees since their new sexual entertainment venue regime came into force. Examples are Birmingham City Council charge over £6,200 for a sexual entertainment venue licence, whereas a skin piercer licence would cost £87. Manchester City Council charges £4,425 for a sexual entertainment venue licence, but a cafe licence would start from around £100. There is an argument being made that we should look again at the costs and whether those types of venues should pay a larger licensing fee. There is no requirement for a licensing policy statement, as this is discretionary within the bill as it stands. We would prefer that this is to be mandatory so that a licensing committee is able to make a public statement about their intention in terms of the licensing of these venues and their understanding of the wider policy environment in which they operate. Again, we would like to have a discussion with the minister around that. Those are all matters that I would hope that we can have dialogue with the minister over the coming weeks. On the question of changes to the licensing of taxis, we heard evidence from the operators of Scottish Taxi Federation and the licensing boards, all of whom were fairly positive for the proposals. For my part, I have certainly written to operators in my constituency and will be meeting them soon to get their take on where we are at. With reference to scrap metal, this brings us in line with the rest of the UK, which is important, as there are no borders when it comes to theft of such materials. Metal thefts threaten the safety of the public and cause a huge amount of disruption to energy supply, transport, communication and other industries that people rely on. Labour supports the proposals that have been brought forward in the bill. In conclusion, there are issues that I have highlighted and I hope that we can all work together to strengthen any aspects of the bill at stage 2 and 3. I hope that the minister will consider the evidence in terms of the 1982 act, which was fairly overwhelming from those who are the practitioners in the field. The Air Weapons and Licensing Bill covers a wide range of matters. As such, it requires consideration of a broad range of principles, some of which I will touch on here. Before we venture into the specific details, I would first like to set out two overarching principles that underpin our position. The first is that legislation should be passed only when it is considered to be good government, not just when it is thought by some to be good politics. The second is that legislation should be targeted. Law-rebinding people should not find themselves caught under a legislative net just because it is politically expedient for the Government to impose obligations. The area of the bill concerning air guns, or air weapons, as the Government wants to call them, raises concerns both in principle and in practice. That is because it seems partly to be about looking tough rather than sensibly tackling pressing issues. Indeed, crimes involving air guns fell by 75 per cent between 2006 and 2013, a figure that surely indicates the problem of misuse is receding rather than growing. No doubt, some people would want to intervene at this point to say that criminal misuse of air guns should be tackled, whether or not the levels are falling. I absolutely agree on that point, but making a big show of requiring licensing of all air guns is not a sensible way of going about it. It may gather less attention, but better enforcement of existing legislation will be targeted and a better act of government. I recognise that we are not talking about the licensing of individual weapons, but we are talking about the licensing of individuals. Even during the course of the deliberations that we had, the committee itself heard of cases of maemings of people. We heard of a serious incident in Durham, and of course we have had past deaths. Does he not think that individuals who have those weapons should have to be licensed before they can get them? Thank you very much. Is there any evidence that licensing will reduce those instances? I am not really sure about that. I think that what is going to happen here is that some people want to intervene. Criminal misuse of air guns should be tackled, whether or not the levels are falling. I absolutely agree, but making a show of licensing of all air guns is not a sensible way of going about it. It may gather less attention, but better enforcement of existing legislation will be targeted and a better act of government. You fell into the same trap about the licensing of individual weapons. We are not talking about the licensing of each individual weapon. We are talking about the licensing of people who own those weapons. I think that we have got to get that right, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I do know that. Thank you very much indeed. Making everyone who wants to use an air gun and apply for a licence is certainly not targeted. Why should innocent users who want to shoot for sport be forced to go through a cumbersome licensing process that charges for the privilege? I, for one, consider that when there is a problem, a Government should seek to address it without imposing itself unnecessarily. Laserly casting aside the legislative net over every current and potential air gun user certainly breaches this principle, which is particularly worrying when the problem is a question is confined to a tiny minority of users. Furthermore, a vast new air gun licensing regime would bring practical difficulties. At the moment, we estimate that there are around half a million air guns in Scotland, which are for all intents and purposes untraceable. For Police Scotland's to licence and track these would also be very difficult, and I know that this is not proposed, but for the people who are using them, I think that they will go under cover. Is it the public's best interest to invest police time and resources—I think that this is crucial—in licensing air guns or licensing people to use air guns when Police Scotland is facing increasingly budgetary constraints and pressures on its staffing infrastructure? Most people, I think, would think not. I would like to move now on to alcohol licensing provisions. I agree that overconsumption of alcohol is a very serious problem that must be addressed. I also think that it is useful to clarify the powers that licensing boards have to avoid confusion or uncertainty in future. However, it is important that aspiring small business owners do not face unnecessary barriers to entry that their competitors did not have to face. On a similar note, I remain concerned with the potential power of licensing authorities to refuse to grant a licence for a private hire vehicle on the grounds of overprovision. I feel that this is anti-competitive and simply not in the best interests of people we should be helping, which is the consumers. Greater provision of private hire vehicles will allow more people to access this form of transport than ever before, but I think that this Government is proposing direct barriers to entry that will block consumer benefits, as well as prevent the creation of jobs in what is genuinely an expanding industry. The mechanism to allow licensing authorities to require knowledge tests for drivers of private hire vehicles has a similar effect. Regulatory barriers to entry will restrict growth in the industry, and I do not think that it is now necessary with the advent of Tom Tom, Garmin and satellite navigation. I think that this will cost jobs and acting against consumers' interests. I will always maintain that Governments should support innovation and refuse to protect vested interests from fair competition that they find inconvenient. Having said all of this, there is some area of the bill that I am in agreement with. The removal of the requirement for metal dealerships to hold metal for 48 hours before processing is a very welcome example of Government stepping back and removing costly regulation. On a visit that I made to Williamoch scrap metal recyclers in Granton, I saw for myself the large amount of space and therefore expense required to comply with this. The provisions requiring payment in cash would also help to increase transparency, which would be beneficial, provided that the definitions are clear. As for provisions regarding theatres, they may bring increased flexibility and consistency across the licensing of public entertainment venues, which I think would be welcome. It seems that in a bill of so many parts there are some aspects that are sensible, and it would have been beneficial if this bill had been divided into two, as my colleague Alex Rowrie stated in his speech. It is clear that this bill would need to be amended, I think, substantially at the next legislative stage. As a result, are we submitting amendments at stage 2 that seek to apply the principle of sensible targeted government throughout the bill? I hope that today's debate will draw out in the open the key areas of the bill where work is still needed. I have only touched on some aspects, which my colleagues might come on to others. Some aspects, such as the licensing of airguns, I think that a considerable change in policy is required. However, I also wish to reiterate my view that there are some provisions within the bill that appear to be very sensible. From this position, I will seek to amend the bill in such a way that it will make it overall impact targeted beneficial and fair. For those reasons, the Scottish Conservatives will be abstaining at decision time. Thank you very much, and we now turn to the open debate. Speeches of six minutes, please. At this stage, I have a little bit of time in hand for interventions. I call Claire Adamson to be followed by Cara Hylton. The convener of the committee has already mentioned that I had to come somewhat late to the bill. I joined the committee in November of last year, but I would like to pay tribute to the many witnesses who have contributed to the state 1 proceedings, both by appearing before committee and in the written evidence. I thank those who have submitted the many organisations that stakeholders have submitted briefings for today's proceedings in the chamber this afternoon. As we mentioned, the bill covers many topics that fall within its remit. I suspect that I would not be able to cover all the areas of the bill today. However, I hope to link them in some way in that my main concern will be in relation to the area of safety. I believe that every member of the committee and everyone in the chamber today will be looking for an outcome of safer, healthier communities. I am sure that we will agree that that is the outcome that we would want from the intended changes within the bill. I think that we had a bit more consensus on the committee. I am surprised that the Conservatives have chosen to abstain today because all the members of the committee agreed with the report. There did not seem to be much contention at that time about the report from the committee. I listened to Alex Rowley talking about how he felt that maybe the complexity in bringing together of many items was a mistake in this area. I will take an intervention. Unfortunately, due to my relatively limited brief parliamentary experience, I did not realise the full implication of my acquiescence at the committee stage 1 of the bill, which is why I agreed to it. What I would say is that Alex Rowley reminded me of an old joke about a traveller seeking directions from a local to be met with. I would not start from here, but we are here. We do not have a blank sheet of paper. We have to work within the constraints, the capacities and the existing law that we have both in this place and in the local government level. The way that the Government has presented the bill is possibly the only way forward at this stage to address some of those very serious issues. If I could turn to air guns and licensing, despite some of the comments this afternoon that this is a proportionate and a reasonable way to approach air gun licensing, we cannot forget where that has come from. A few of us will forget the young boy Andrew Morton, two-year-old, who was killed in Glasgow. Indeed, his parents campaigned to have the issue of air gun licensing addressed in Scotland, but I believe that it was a nominee, if not the winner, of one of the press awards in the year of following Andrew's death. Is the strategy that sees individual cases where the system is completely inadequate in protecting our communities? I am sure that it has driven us to where we are at the moment. I think that what we have is the right balance between protecting communities and allowing the legitimate use of shooting in a safe environment to continue. We have taken evidence from scouting organisations and people who work with air guns in their day-to-day lives from apprentices. I think that we have—this bill does strike the right balance between what is in the best interests of our communities going forward. It is estimated that there is— Yes. I am very grateful to the member for taking intervention. I totally agree that the type of crime to which she is referred is utterly unacceptable in any society. I wonder if she can tell me of the evidence that she heard on the committee that suggests that an air gun or a regime to licence the people who own an air gun would prevent that sort of crime, because I simply cannot find that evidence. I was at the committee at the time when the police gave their evidence in this area and they spoke of their frustration at their inability to address air guns in premises where they are suspected of other crimes being committed and the fact that whether it is domestic abuse, whether it is drug crime, whether it is any kind of crime in our community, the inability to do anything about air guns being present in these areas. I found the police evidence compelling. The Scottish Arms Consultative panel estimates that there are 500,000 air weapons currently in circulation in Scotland. I have to say that one of them is in my loft and has been for the last 20 years. I believe that that is the case for most of those weapons. They have been bought for recreational use at some point. My husband and his father were scout leaders and used them to train scouts, but nonetheless the weapon remains in circulation. I think that the sort of amnesty period and the ability for people to hand in weapons that are no longer in use will make our communities safer. I am very rapidly running out of time, Presiding Officer, but if I could turn to the metal dealers and really metal theft and what that means to our communities, as someone who represents the Auckland geek area in Woodiesburn, I was absolutely appalled when the fundraising had been done by the local community and the miners there to make a memorial of the Auckland geek disaster from 1959. To have that memorial stolen within a matter of weeks was, of course, a real blow to that community, an emotional blow, and one that was felt by everyone who is from an industrial background in the Lanarkshire area. It was replaced with a very generous donation from a local businessman, but when things affect our built terriges and memorials, the fabric of a community in our historic buildings, it does have a detrimental effect on our communities that cannot be measured, whether that is led from a church roof or the destruction of an historic building, or, indeed, the theft from memorials, which we have seen more and more in the past time. We also have to look at the often disproportionate impact and the economy of an area where the value of the metal theft is as nothing to the distribution of costs to the local economy and the disruption to infrastructure, whether that be to telecommunications, rail or road infrastructure. I am really glad that that is being addressed within the remit of this bill. I am not sure if I have much more time, Presiding Officer. A little bit, if I could just talk about the taxi app situation. There was a lot of talk about the changes in technology. As someone who is a technologist, I was very interested in that, but only last week there was a case in Edinburgh of a young woman who is in alleged crime where she got into what she thought was a private hired car and was taken away and was sexually assaulted. When we put safety at the very heart of what we are doing, I think that we should look to the opportunities of apps where some of the apps that are on the market at the moment provide a picture of the driver, they provide the licence of the car that is picking you up and they can track the journey as well. While those are seen as a threat in some areas, I think that there is a great opportunity to improve safety and I think that that will be driven by the market. Thank you very much, I call Cara Hilton to be followed by Gil Pratysian. Thank you Presiding Officer. Can I begin by adding my thanks to all those who have contributed towards getting the bill to this stage and provided us with the excellent evidence and briefings? Like Clare, I am new to the committee, I only joined in January, so I missed some of the evidence that we received. As Alex Rowley said, Scottish Labour is supporting the bill at stage 1, but as he also pointed out, the bill is so wide-ranging that it might have been more effective to have several small bills rather than tagging everything together. I intend to focus on section 6 to 8 of the bill, which is an area that I believe needs to be strengthened considerably. In his briefing for today's debate, the commissioner for children and young people, Tam Bailey, has drawn our attention to the fact that the bill, as drafted, would allow children under the age of 18 to work in sexual entertainment venues so long as there is no actual entertainment taking place at the time. Zero tolerance has also expressed serious concerns about the provision and has warned that it could create a groomer's charter, allowing venues to employ teenage girls to work as cleaners, for example, and then persuade them to become dancers when they reach 18. They also highlight the fact that many venues screen pornography in the background, which gives rise to concerns about child protection, too. During stage 1 evidence, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice advised that those issues could not be addressed within the scope of the bill, but zero tolerance and the commissioner for children and young people disagree. I share their view that no child under the age of 18 should be allowed to work in or attend a sexual entertainment venue in any capacity. I hope that this is an area that the Scottish Government can look again at to see how we can protect young people more. In respect of the proposed regime itself, while there is no doubt that sticking to the status quo is not an option and that Scottish Labour supports change in principle, I think that we have also got to consider carefully, too, whether there could be unintended consequences from the bill. There is a real risk that, in licensing these venues, the Scottish Government also risks normalising what is a harmful form of sexual exploitation. Zero tolerance has pointed out in its briefing note for today. Ever to move beyond women's value and worth being located in their bodies and their perceived sexual attractiveness, we need to move beyond seeing sexual entertainment venues as normal and harmless. This is a view echoed by the commissioner for children and young people, who has said that the idea that children could be working in these venues and exposed to degrading images of women simply does not sit well with the Scottish Government's own equally safe strategy to end violence against women and girls. That strategy rightly places at its heart the recognition of the links between discrimination, objectification and violence against women. It aspires to, and I quote, create a strong and flourishing Scotland where all individuals are equally safe and respected, but normalising these venues risks sending out the wrong message to young people and especially to young girls. We only need to look at some of the customer reviews of these venues to get a real flavour of the lack of respect that the clientele hub for the women that work there. There is a real risk that, by regulating the sector, we could end up expanding an industry that is harmful to women and is especially harmful to our children, undermining all the good work to address unequal power relationships, to tackle gender stereotypes and to achieve true gender equality. I hope that the Government will be favourable to this section being amended at stage 2. Sticking to the theme of protecting children and young people from harmful sexual images, one area that I believe the bill should also go much further is to restrict the display of harmful sexualised content in areas where children could see it, such as on supermarket shelves. Here, I would like to highlight the fantastic girls' guide campaign, Girls Matter, which is aimed at ensuring that the issues that matter to girls are addressed in the 2015 general election campaign. In recent months, we have spent a lot of time arguing about full fiscal autonomy and about which of us is most anti-austerity. The girls matter campaign is calling for politicians to take action on the issues that really do matter to children and to young girls. One of the key issues that they are asking politicians of all parties to take action on is children's exposure to harmful sexualised content in the media. That is absolutely vital, because the research has found that 75 per cent of girls and women aged 11 to 21 and 48 per cent of 7 to 10-year-olds believe that there are too many images of naked or near-naked women in the media. The majority of young girls, almost 60 per cent, have experienced sexual harassment at school, college or work in the last year. A staggering 40 per cent say that they sometimes feel ashamed of how they look and that they do not take part in fun activities like sport because they feel self-conscious. Given that the images that girls are exposed to on a daily basis on YouTube, in magazines, newspapers and music videos, is it any wonder that they feel pressure to conform to ideals that are often unachievable? That is not just undermining girls' self-esteem. The harsh reality is that, in the way that women are portrayed in the media, only those venues entrenched gender inequality and the unequal power relationships that are at the root of abuse and violence against women and girls. I do not want my six-year-old daughter to grow up in a Scotland where women are viewed as sexualised objects or where women are judged on how they look. I want my daughter to grow up in a society where gender is no barrier to success, but every child is treated equal. It is time for us to start to take responsibility to make sure that the images that are portrayed of women and young girls are realistic ones. I think that we have the opportunity to do that here and now in this bill. One measure that we could take would be to make it an offence to knowingly display harmful sexualised content on the front pages of magazines and newspapers that are in sight of children's eyes. I intend to submit amendments on this at stage 2. The bill gives us scope 2 to act to put restrictions in place and signage on advertising of sexual entertainment venues. In that respect, I notice that the cabinet secretary has referred to this in his letter to the committee. I hope that this is an issue that we can progress on. We all aspire to a Scotland where equality is not just an aspiration but a reality. I think that we should do as the powers in this bill to make this happen. Let us ensure that girls really do matter, that their voices are heard and that we do all that we can in this bill to tackle the exploitation of women and girls wherever and whenever this takes place. I have indicated to the chamber that I have a little bit of time in hand for interventions, but it is up to members whether they wish to take interventions or not. If they do not, then I would suggest that they try to stick to their six minutes. Gil Paterson, to be followed by Eileen Murray. Thank you very much. First of all, I share all the views that she expressed with regards to broadcasting and internet scenes that are explicitly available. Unfortunately, this Parliament does not have any powers to do anything about them. I am not a member of the committee, but when looking at the title of the bill, it appears to be straightforward enough. However, as organisations and constituents started contacting me ahead of this debate, I realised that the bill was wide-ranging in its names. I applaud the Scottish Government and, of course, the local government and the Regeneration Committee on the extensive work that they have carried out to bring it on to stage 1 today. In my contribution, I intend to focus primarily on two aspects of the bill. Firstly, the licensing of alcohol, which is part of the larger approach to dealing with our relationship with alcohol and the negative impact that it has on a number of our citizens and communities. Secondly, I will look at the provisions contained within the bill that aim to tackle the increasing problem of metal theft in our country. As a former member of the Health and Sport Committee, I have been involved in a great deal of the evidence-taking and round-table discussions regarding the impact of alcohol on Scottish society. The Scottish Government, and indeed all parties represented across this chamber, are committed to tackling this problem. The impact of alcohol on the health of adults is well documented, but alcohol is an even greater effect on the health of young people. That is why I am pleased that the Scottish Government has announced in the bill that it will close the legal loophole and that it allows for adults to purchase alcohol for someone under the age of 18 if the alcohol is then consumed in public. The loophole has encouraged outdoor drinking dens of young people, which are detrimental to the young people's health but have also led to concerns being expressed by people who are afraid of groups of young people, especially if they have been drinking. For this to work, however, I would advise that the police use their discretion to avoid being overactive in their enforcement, as it will only lead to those drinking dens going underground, which may indeed be harder for them to police. Although there must be a focus on those who purchase alcohol, it is also paramount that when licensing boards are considering someone's application to sell alcohol, the board is provided with wide-ranging information to ensure that the applicant passes a fit and proper test. The fit and proper test exists in many licensing regimes, and I am pleased that this bill incorporates it into the alcohol licensing regime. That will offer some comfort to families across Scotland that those who hold an alcohol license have went through a vigorous process that they can be trusted and their character is fit and proper to sell alcohol. Those are positive steps in the campaign to changing our relationship with alcohol, and I very much welcome the proposals. As I stated at the start of this contribution, a second aspect of the bill that I would like to focus on is the provision that aims to reduce metal theft. I have been approached by a number of constituents, including a religious background who have raised their concerns over the increasing problem of metal theft and have themselves and their establishments been victims of the crime. Metal theft does not only have a negative effect on those who are affected, but it also has a dangerous impact on those who are carrying out the theft in the first place. I am pleased that the Scottish Government acknowledges the efforts to reduce metal theft and requires legislative action, and the proposals that the bill offers this action. Although it is important to bring forward preventive action to ensure that metal theft does not happen in the first place, life must be made very uncomfortable for the thieves to try and dispose of the stolen metal. I believe that by introducing effective regulation of the metal dealing and the sale, it will become more difficult for thieves to dispose of their stolen material. Geniw metal dealers who provide a valuable service to the community and manufacturers will be protected by the legislation, as it is aimed to target those unscrupulous dealers who offer a way for the metal thieves to dispose of their stolen goods. By cutting off the route, it is hoped that metal thieves will be discouraged from stealing in the first place and ensure that our churches and railways are not despoiled and damaged. I did not focus too long on other aspects of the bill, as I am sure that colleagues will do so in greater detail, but I am certainly one person who welcomes the Government's commitment to licensing air weapons. I think that that is one of the most significant parts of the bill, and if it protects one child or one animal, then I am for it. In the wrong hands, air weapons are a danger to our communities, wild and pet farm animals and the system proposed within the bill offers measures that are proportionate and practical. I commend the bill to the Parliament. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am not a member of any of the committees that have considered the bill, so I am going to focus my contribution on three areas of the bill. The first is air weapons. I have no wish to prevent people with a legitimate reason for owning an air gun from being able to do so. I do not think that anybody in this Parliament does want to see air guns banned altogether, but it has to be recognised that air guns are weapons. They use pneumatic technology and, in fact, air weapons were used in hunting and in war in previous centuries until the firearms technology overtook them. We know that they can kill way. Claire Adamson made reference to the horrific case of the murder of two-year-old Andrew Morton, but the extent of the misuse of air weapons was revealed by ACC Wayne Mawson in evidence to the local government committee when he advised that between April and July 2014, Police Scotland had recorded 84 offences specifically involving air weapons, six of which involved injured animals and nine involved injured human beings, including one attempted murder. Air weapons are often implicated in criminal activity, almost half of the firearms-related offences involved air weapons, and they are frequently used in attacks on both domestic and wild animals. Last year, in Dumfries and Gallow, there were reports of a somebody's 13-year-old pet cat having to be put destroyed after an air gun pellet was injured at slags. Air weapons are often used against rabbits, rodents and other animals considered to be pests, but they are not always used by people who are trained how to use them properly. They are cruelty and animal welfare considerations that militate against the continuation of unregulated ownership of air weapons. I am not sure that I followed Cameron Buchanan's argument, but it seems to be that the logical extension of that would be the banning of the licensing of firearms. You could apply the same arguments to the licensing of firearms, and I would imagine that nobody particularly would want to reverse all that. We need to take air weapons seriously. There are half a million of them estimated in Scotland. That presents a challenge, and I understand that there is an argument that it will probably be the law-abiding responsible air gun owner who uses guns for legitimate purposes, who will be the first to comply. That is the truth, with most legislation as the law-abiding people who are first to comply. I also appreciate the resourcing issues for Police Scotland and that the ministers are seeking ways of mediating those pressures. The committee has made a number of recommendations on that. The committee is right in making a strong recommendation that there needs to be a comprehensive public information campaign beginning well in advance of the commencement of the licensing regime. I think that that can also be about informing owners, but it is also an opportunity to change attitudes towards air weapons to make the public realise that they are a lot more dangerous and the sort of damage they can do in the wrong hands. When I was a child, my father had an air rifle, and he enjoyed what I understand from the report that is known as plinking. Even actually, my sister and I, to do it on occasions, probably had some danger to our neighbours, I would imagine, in my case anyway. In those days, ownership and use of air guns was totally acceptable. He did keep the air gun knocked safely away, but that was 40-odd years ago, and attitudes do need to move on from then. The dangers of the misuse of air weapons to humans and animals outweighs the arguments that anyone who wants to should have the right to enjoy informal target practice at home. I also welcome the long-awaited proposals and measures to deter metal theft, although I agree with the committee that they could be further strengthened. Back in 2014, I have a Williamson, the owner of Rosefield Salvation Dumfries, visited one of my advice surgeries to argue for a ban on all cash payments for metal. He believed that that was the only way to really combat illicit trade in metals. Genuine metal dealers like his company have nothing to fear from, for example, a national register for metal dealers in Scotland or modernising the definition of a metal dealer. Metal theft inconveniences at the very least, but it often endangers life. I have noticed that, living near the A75, there is a stretch of the fence along there, which is routinely taken away from a field where children play, where dogs are walked and where there could be danger from people running on to the road. My final comments on the bill relate to the proposals for the licensing of the sexual entertainment industry, prompted by the Bright Crew versus City of Glasgow Court of Session opinion. I agree with the Scottish Government that it is violence against women's strategy that commercial sexual exploitation constitutes violence against women. It is harmful not just to the women being exploited but to all women, because of the attitudes towards women and their bodies that it promotes. I would prefer that no such establishment existed. I cannot accept the argument that the commercial provision of the entertainment providing sexual stimulation is necessary to attract business conventions to a city, as one witness appears to have suggested. In my view, establishments that encourage men to objectify and depersonalise women have no place in a modern and progressive country. I can have sympathy with the arguments for an outright ban and that regulation might imply acceptance of the attitude towards women that those establishments promote. However, I also agree with zero tolerance that regulation is better than the current situation. Local authorities in Scotland have taken different views on the sexual entertainment industry as they have done on prostitution, so it is perhaps appropriate that those decisions are taken at a local authority level. However, I hope that it would be possible for a local authority that does not wish to allow any such activity to be able to set their appropriate number of venues at zero, and I would hope that many authorities would do so. I would just like to finish on suggestion related to appropriate numbers of venues, but it is not actually in the legislation. I have been, members of local authorities have said to me that they feel powerless to prevent the proliferation of betting shops and gambling establishments in some communities. Obviously, it is not part of the bill, but I would like to think at some stage that we would give some consideration to whether or not local authorities require to have more powers to be able to set appropriate limits for the number of gaming and betting establishments in particular communities, too. Many thanks. I now call Colin Kear to be followed by Tavish Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am not a member of the committee, but I thank them for producing the report, which is very welcome. I would like to restrict my comments to the sections in part 3 of the bill relating to taxi and private hire licensing. In my previous life as an Edinburgh councillor, I was the convener of the regulatory committee that effectively made me the spokesman for the then administration on taxi and private hire licensing. As the committee report points out, the main reason for licensing taxis and PhDs is that the general public must have confidence in the knowledge that it is safe to get into a vehicle and there is a fit and proper person behind the wheel. There is also the issue of ensuring that any operating company is not a front for organised crime. My first television interview on licensing as a local politician some years ago was in relation to an incident where a young lady got into a vehicle thinking that it was a taxi. She was taken by the driver to a secluded spot where she was then subjected to a serious sexual assault. That is why I feel so strongly that we must have a robust licensing system and, for the most part, the trade in taxi and private hire trade are of a similar mind. So that those who have been subjected to a tax such as this in the past feel that we as legislators are listening to them and that everyone is safe using taxis and private hire cars at any time. The Civic Government Scotland Act 1982 was legislation written at a time when technology, as we know, did not exist. If I start with the—no one today had thought of mobile phones as we use them today, they were massive in early use and certainly nobody had heard of such things as apps. However, if I may start with the issue of booking offices, I absolutely disagree with the comments attributed in paragraph 311 of the report, which was attributed to Audrey Watson of West Lothian Licensing Board. Although Police Scotland could investigate nationally, in my opinion, it is vital that booking offices are local to the licensing authority area or a short distance from the area that they are licensed to operate in. That allows the police or the licensing authority to easily check on driver and vehicle movements. To say, as Audrey Watson suggests, that a booking office did not have to be in Scotland would demand an almost unlimited amount of trust to be placed on a taxi or a PHC operator. Although most operations are professionally run, there have been odd exceptions over the years. I believe that local licensing authorities should have not just the right to suspend a driver or vehicle or an operator's licence but should also, in extreme circumstances, be able to revoke a licence—something that they do not have just now. I say that because there are examples of, after a suspension of licence and scrupulous operators changing their day-to-day named operating manager or changing the ownership of an incorporated company, while they fight licence suspension in order to give the impression that there has been a substantive change to the business. I know that the current regulatory committee convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillor Barry, would be supportive of such a change, as he informed me of his frustrations in combating unprofessional and unsafe practices within a small minority of the taxi and PHC trades in Edinburgh. Booking offices are key within the local licensing systems with regard to public safety and accessing records. That has to be the case for traditionally run taxi and PHC companies, but also those who use apps as a method of communications with their customers. Indeed, any company, apps-based or traditional, should only be allowed, surely, to operate if they do so, taking cognisance of local conditions set down by the local authority licensing. If I may move on to the issue of limiting numbers of vehicles and unmet demand, in my experience, this has been one of the most contentious subjects over many, many years, particularly here in the city of Edinburgh. I suspect that the same will happen should we decide to extend the right of licensing authorities to limit private higher car numbers. I have absolutely no objection at all, in fact, having seen the mess that some cities get themselves into with a vast amount of private higher cars are taxied in an unregulated manner. Oddlyr, in the comments made by Mr Buchanan earlier on, we had a mirror debate in the City Council back in 2007, so I have to say that Conservatives are not actually changed their view in that time. I have absolutely no problem with the limiting. Indeed, I was a supporter of that policy for taxies at that time when I was in charge of licensing here in the capital. I would, however, say that in order to help licensing authorities, an accepted method of the calculation of unmet demand, which has always been a problem, should be made available and agreed. For those who have had licence applications refused, it has been too easy to run off to the sheriff court, making appeal based on no real accepted methodology being in place. In a licensing system that litigation has been frequently used by many, I believe that it would make sense for a more prescriptive change to the Civic Government Scotland Act in certain circumstances in order to make it easier for local authorities as well as keeping the cost of licence application or amendments manageable for applicants. I welcome the report, and I am well done to the committee for doing so, because when you look at limiting numbers, the ability to ensure that private higher drivers can be tested is something that I have no problem with, and principles have been done locally in a correct manner. I would also like to see vehicles and drivers currently exempt such as stretch limousines brought into the regulated system for safety purposes. Once again, I commend the committee not just for the bill scrutiny but for opening up the discussion within the report, which I think has been very, very useful, and I support the general principles of the bill. I now call Tavish Scott to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, my apologies for being a minute late at the start of proceedings today. I've got no good reason at all. My legs just didn't get me here quick enough. First, I have some sympathy with the cabinet secretary for his responsibilities now for licensing. I had a previous responsibility for licensing bill back in 2005, and I recall the best advice I got as to how to understand the extent of problem over provision then was part of the issues that we were dealing with as a Government. That was very simple. This advice came from the most senior civil servant in the department, which was to spend as much time as I could in the bars of Glasgow and Edinburgh on a Saturday night at one o'clock in the morning, which wasn't exactly the advice that I expected to get from a senior civil servant, but it's nevertheless advice that I considered very carefully. I also spent a lot of time with the division of then Strathclyde's police looking at what happened at 3am on our Sunday morning and how they dealt with that the night. I was out with that particular division, which I can still recall with some detail. The number of incidents was very few and far between. When we went back to the police headquarters for the briefing after the incident, after the evening, to look at how they had handled various incidents and to review what had gone on and to discuss where they knew there were flashpoints and where there weren't flashpoints, it was interesting to reflect on the statistics as to the number of incidents that did take place. Nothing changes in some ways in Scotland were still dealing with those things. I noticed that the cabinet secretary's opening remarks on making an overprovision assessment across an entire board area strikes me just in passing. That will create some very significant issues indeed, and I'm sure that the committee will reflect on that at stage 2, and certainly the trade will, because I recall some of that debate from some years back as well. I have some sympathy with the argument that Dalek Rowley forwarded as well, Presiding Officer, in relation to this being in effect the consolidated bill. I seem to recall Westminster still always being criticised for producing consolidated Scotland bills. We seem to do quite a lot of that in Edinburgh nowadays, but I do think that there is some merit in the argument that a number of members across the chamber have forwarded to say that, on something as clear-cut as air weapons, that constituted a piece of legislation in its own right. The aspects of licensing that the cabinet secretary introduced clearly do have a common theme and a common area of responsibility, and it may have been tidier legislation to have dealt with them in that way, not least of which, for the reasons that Mr Rowley gave, there are arguments about the length of some of the regimes that have been in place and how those should be assessed in this time that we're now in. I want to just make a couple of remarks, particularly from a rural perspective, on the licensing proposals on air weapons. I don't think that anyone disputes that there are problems with the ownership and inappropriate use of air guns. I do believe—and the evidence supports this—that there is a greater number of incidents in urban Scotland than in rural and island areas. However, in justifying the bill's proposals in this area, the current and indeed the previous justice secretary have quite rightly mentioned well-publicised incidents where young children have been hurt by the completely wrong use of an air gun. Those cases are appalling and have been rightly condemned, but they have also been prosecuted through the laws of Scotland that we already have, and I think that that point has to be borne in mind. The question, therefore, is whether the introduction of blanket restrictions across the board that is now being proposed will have a significant impact on the individuals and practices that currently present absolutely no risk whatsoever to public safety. I do not think that that is a fact that should be taken into account in considering this carefully. Nor will those measures, as I understand them, provide much if indeed any deterrent for those intent on acting irresponsibly. The cabinet secretary might well say that that applies to many things and he would be right, but I do think that when the words proportionality get banded round as we always band them around in these kind of debates, there is some requirement on all of us to make a judgment about these things and not just jump to the highest or lowest common denominator, depending on how you see the particular argument. There is also a greater risk, I think, for government in the context of the regime around licensing. That is, as I understand it from experts, that low-powered air guns would be at a higher level of restriction than double-barreled 12-bore shotguns and even smooth bore cannon. Now, I do not argue that there will suddenly be an upsurge in the use of such cannon, but this bill does provide, as I think the evidence to the committee and to members has come across in recent days, it does provide for an argument allowing a trade-up to more powerful weapons, and that would be a perverse and bad outcome. Not one, I'm sure, the Government wants, certainly not one that I want either. I totally appreciate that the Government is under pressure to act. Ministers are always under pressure to do something in the context of an incident, particularly if it's absolutely tragic, which has, of course, happened in the past. But the Government's also about a hard assessment of alternatives, and I would urge the Cabinet Secretary to consider two things. First, I'm not sure if he mentioned, but certainly other colleagues have mentioned that there are thought to be 500,000 airguns across Scotland. Annamnesty would take an awful lot of those right out of circulation. Clare Adam, who is no longer in her place, was quite right when she said that her family still got one in the family loft in her house. I'm sure there are many, many cases of that across Scotland. I would argue, as with other sets of circumstances, that Annamnesty would be a positive way in which to reduce the sheer number that are currently present in Scotland. Secondly, I will strongly advocate also the educating of young people about firearms. I see what games on playstations and online my boys play. They invariably involve guns at the moment. Our news, our national news, is not just dominated by politics but is also dominated by people drowning in the Mediterranean who are escaping from Libya. Libya is a place in the moment where there is no rule of law, there is the rule of the gun and there can be no doubt that young people are influenced by what they see on television, how that's being reported and what they read online as well. Parents, and it is absolutely also about parents and schools, in my view, have a responsibility to talk about guns and the reality of what they can mean as well. The Government are rightly concerned by public safety. The crime statistics suggest, of course, that instance involving air weapons are small and are falling. The evidence to the committee was very clear on that. I could contrast that, as some have, with knife crime that runs at significantly higher levels. Now, no one is suggesting that suddenly we license the kitchen knife, that would be plainly ludicrous, Presiding Officer. Yet, buying any kind of blade is easier, but as a croft to put it to me in Shetland the other day, there are more murders with a knife crime than will ever happen with an air gun. That is the proportionality argument, and I would ask the Government to bear in mind when it is introducing the licensing law. Presiding Officer, I thank the committee for their scrutiny of the bill and the attention that they have paid to all the evidence that they have submitted, including my own, on what has undoubtedly been, I think, an arduous and sometimes emotional task of taking evidence on air weapons, alcohol, supply, taxis, licences, metal theft and sexual entertainment venues. I also want to thank the clerks for the work that they have carried out during the process, both for the committee and for myself. Presiding Officer, I am not a member of the committee, but I have for many years taken an interest in the sexual entertainment industry and the effects that it has on women and girls and the perception of the wider public, particularly men to women through exploitation. I welcome the inclusion of regulation of venues that offer sexual entertainment such as lap dancing clubs. In 2005, the previous Government, and Tavish Scott, was just alluding to the fact that he was a cap second in that particular Government, set up a working group on adult entertainment, following concerns expressed about lack of controls and adult entertainment activity. The working group recommended that sexual entertainment should be regulated, however the regulation was not taken forward. In 2010, I took forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, which was supported by the Scottish Government at stage 3 of that bill, but it was not agreed by the Parliament at that time. To say that I was disappointed is an understatement, but undeterred, as most folk know, I have continued to pursue this particular issue. I thank the Scottish Government for incorporating my amendment, which was in 2010 and worked on, into that particular bill. I do welcome local governments comments in regard to that and other issues in the bill. I am pleased that the so-called entertainment is to be regulated and licensed. Mary Miller of Glasgow City Council said—I couldn't put it better myself—that it strikes me that we have licensing legislation and regulations to cover everything from window cleaning to selling burgers from a van or selling chewing gum at 3 o'clock in the morning under late hours catering regulations, but adult entertainment activity is currently not regulated. It is high time that it was regulated, and I thank it on that as well. I am thinking about some of the things that has been said by the other members. I was struck by some of the examples that were given in regard to licensing adult entertainment. I want to give a couple of examples myself. The example of the lady in Edinburgh, not far from here, who actually worked on one of those venues, who whilst wasn't working in the venue with a child who was walking along the street, and was attacked by someone who had been a customer in one of those venues, who was costed and attacked. To me, that is absolutely disgraceful going about our local business, but what does it say about those venues? The other issue is that women have contacted me from corporate businesses, where, basically, promotion was denied to them. During the corporate business, they had corporate clients who would fly in or come up from other areas, and they were expected to take them to those so-called sexual entertainment premises. If they refused to do so, they saw the promotion chances fall. There are different areas here, and I think that it is really good that we do absolutely have to look at the fact that those venues have to be regulated, not just for the sake of how women are perceived. That has been very well said by some of the members in the other benches. The fact is that it is not good for businesses, as Elaine Murray has said, that it is good for businesses to have those types of entertainment venues. Facts of matter, women are even being discriminated in the corporate businesses because they will not take clients to that. I think that that is really quite disgraceful. If I could turn to some of the recommendations that have been mentioned in the committee's report, particularly that of an appropriate number of sexual entertainment and discretionary mandatory regimes, I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to ensure that guidance is given, and I note that that is in the report and recommendations from the committee, given to the licensing authorities on the issue of appropriate numbers. That is to be welcomed. I also note the committee's recommendation to make sexual entertainment venues licensing mandatory. However, my original amendment, which is in the bill from the Scottish Government, was for an opt-in piece of legislation, because it is a fact that there are only four or five local authorities that operate those entertainment licences. Obviously, the Scottish Government put forward that they think that that is enough, that it is an opt-in and a choice by local authorities. I agree with Elaine Murray when she mentioned the fact that local authorities are the best place people to take the decision on just how many licences they should have in their areas. There are a couple of issues that were raised by other members as well. The issue of under 18-year-olds working in these clubs, I do not know what kind of work they will be doing. I do not know if it would be against EU regulations. If you stop people from 16 to 18 being able to work as a cleaner or whatever it might be, I do not know. I think that I would like that to actually be looked at, because some of the issues that have been raised, yes, it is the people that hang about these clubs as well, either in the working areas or not in the working areas. Another issue that I did want to raise was that of a fit and proper person. I think that those two issues particular should be looked at. On the recommendation of a single body to deal with the SCVs, we will call it alcohol and advertising, I would be worried if we were going down that road that it might take a longer time to go forward if we were bringing forward a new regulatory body. That would worry me that it would take longer to legislate in this field. I think that we have waited long enough for legislation in this field to tackle the issue of sexual entertainment, which so objectifies women. That is one of the areas where I have concerned that if we had to go down that road, would everything be thrown out and we need to start again? Perhaps the cabinet secretary could pick up on that, or we would look at it at stage 2 of the bill. I think that it is a move forward. I hope that everyone has said that they support the bill, and I really do think that I hope that it goes through stage 2 and stage 3. We must make sure that women are not objectified any more, but that is the so-called form of sexual entertainment. This is a wide-ranging and far-reaching bill. It is important that it is subject to close and scrupulous scrutiny in this Parliament. However, the scale of the bill's ambition does leave me to believe that it would have been better if it had been divided into smaller parts in order to ensure that each area is scrutinised as closely as possible. The provisions contained within this single bill could easily have formed a larger part of several bills. It is worth noting at the outset that, in future, the Scottish Government issues of the significance should do it in discrete bills in order to ensure that this Parliament's legislation is as robust and effective as it can possibly be. Firstly, the licensing of the owners of air weapons is a hugely important topic. I am sure that each of us can recall the tragic cases that have been in the news over the years where air weapons have led to deaths and serious injuries. The approach adopted in this bill is, therefore, to be broadly supported. It is important that we keep in mind that there are some, albeit very limited, reasons for people to own and use air weapons. Shooting sports are as legitimate as any other, and we should avoid stigmatising people who choose to participate in them. We must, however, remember that air weapons are weapons. We cannot allow further tragedy to take place across Scotland involving air weapons, and I am pleased that there is cross-party agreement on this topic, or at least there was until the debate today. I hope that we can get back to cross-party agreement on this topic. As the committee has noted, it is important that there is a well-funded and implemented publicity campaign across the country to ensure that all those affected by the changes contained in the long and fairly technical legislation are aware of the implications of the new regime. Many people may only own an air weapon and no other form of firearm, and therefore be unaware of the conditions for applying for and holding a firearm certificate. Moving on to the regulation of adult entertainment venues, I think that we would all agree that the current regime in place regarding such venues is inadequate. The question centre to this bill is whether it goes far enough. I agree entirely with the principle of leaving the last word on whether an adult entertainment venue receives a licence that should fall to local authorities. As a former local councillor, I believe that it is important that democratic accountability on a ward level combined with councillor's experience in making various quasi-judicial decisions is utilised in relation to such venues. Local authorities can currently decide only whether an adult entertainment venue is permitted a licence for the provision of alcohol. It is only proper that local authorities are empowered to evaluate whether such venues should be allowed in the first place, and I would endorse Elaine Murray's comments earlier about extending that to other sorts of venues, such as betting shops and perhaps payday loan shops. There are those who would like the legislation to go much further. I believe that in future stages of this bill those voices should be heard. This is an important moral question and we should strive to ensure that those with strong feelings on the topic are able to put their case forward. We should also examine the apparent loophole regarding holding fewer than four events of an adult nature a year. If the legislation can be circumvented with such ease then it is hardly worth implementing in the first place. That brings me to the question of the changes proposed in this bill relating to alcohol licensing. The abuse of alcohol is an enormous problem right across the country. Scottish Government-funded research has estimated the cost of alcohol that was used to Scotland to be somewhere between £2,883 million and £5,396 million per year. It is imperative, therefore, that our licensing scheme is appropriate, robust and effective. The bill seeks to amend fairly old legislation. I think that it would have been preferable for the Scottish Government to put forward a less piecemeal and more fundamental set of reforms for alcohol licensing in Scotland. We should look more broadly at how effective the current regime is across the country. I think that future Governments will have to examine this issue in a more fundamental way sooner or later. The remainder of the bill deals with a series of highly specific forms of licensing. I return to my previous point that this bill is far too broad for us to provide proper scrutiny to all of its provisions, but I will briefly mention two key elements of the remainder of the bill. The taxi licensing scheme has always been predicated on the idea that taxis have a significant business advantage, as they are able to accept bookings on the spot. However, that benefit has been reduced by the near universal use of mobile phones. It is widely accepted that most journeys of this nature are now pre-booked. It appears that this trend is set to continue with the advent of taxi booking, mobile phone apps. Those technological advances question the entire approach adopted in relation to licensing of taxis in Scotland. Recognising that, however, we can still say that the specific provisions contained in the bill are acceptable and should be approved by the Parliament. In relation to the changes regarding the regulation of scrap metal dealing, the changes proposed also seem sensible. They are very similar to the approach adopted in England, which seems to work well. With that in mind, I see no reason to oppose the changes proposed by this bill. All in all, the bill seems acceptable in principle. As it is technical and applies to many specialist groups, it is important that the Scottish Government listens closely to the concerns and advice of experts in the relevant fields, campaigners and businesses affected by the proposed changes. The Law Society of Scotland, in particular, has raised several concerns regarding various aspects of the legislation. The Scottish Government should pay close attention to those concerns and amend the legislation accordingly. The bill deals with several key topics. It is important that we get the level of regulation right on them. Additionally, it is important that we ensure that when such questions are considered in the future, we are able to consider them in greater detail and we are appropriate in separate legislation. Along with our convener and other members who have spoken so far, I would like to add my thanks to the many people in organisations who took the time to offer their views and give evidence to us. To our committee, Clarkin team, we have done a great job in putting the committee's report together. The purpose of any licensing system is to regulate legal activities, which have a potential to cause harm to those individuals who are engaging in those activities and to the wider public who might be affected by them. In this case, the use of air weapons and licensing relates to taxis, metal dealers and various public entertainment activities. The bill makes it an offence to possess, purchase or acquire an air weapon without holding a certificate, rather than regulating ownership itself. If an offence is committed, it is more about who committed the offence, rather than who owns the weapon used. In relation to air weapons, it was pleased to see that the Government has accepted the committee's first recommendations in supporting a public information campaign to give the public the information that they need in advance of any certification system that is coming into place. A website and other social media tools will give people information about how to hand in unwanted weapons, the certification process itself and, right through to how they might wish to dispose of a weapon under the new scheme, along with all the appropriate information and fees and timescales involved, too. I think that that will be an important part of engaging with the owners and clubs and will also serve the wider public interest as well. The committee also wanted to ensure that the bill does not prevent remote sales outside Scotland to people who live elsewhere. That recommendation, too, has been accepted by the Government. I understand that an amendment at stage 2 will facilitate that. It simply means that an air weapon can be bought in Scotland and delivered to a registered fire arms dealer in England or Wales for collection. The issue of whether to introduce an air weapon mark in an identification system is discussed at some length at the committee, but I see from the Government's response to this that neither they, Police Scotland or the Gun Trade Association think that it is really necessary. There is other legislation in place to deal with criminality involving weapons and having the mark system would not be critical in helping to prove a case that might be brought to court. It is quite a detailed explanation from the Government and, hopefully, clarifies that particular issue. On the alcohol licensing proposals, one of the key proposals is the creation of a new offence of supplying alcohol to young people for consumption in a public place. Members will know that, while it is currently illegal to buy alcohol on behalf of a child, it is not illegal to buy alcohol to share with a child. The bill will close this loophole by making it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to share alcohol with a person under 18 in a public place. That includes private property, where drinkers might have accessed it illegally. The purpose is to help us to tackle outdoor drinking by children and young people, and the proposal has widespread support. I note also the Government's intention to consider the reintroduction of a fit and proper person test for a person to hold an alcohol license at stage 2. Although there was agreement among some of those giving evidence to the committee, there were some reservations about it, mainly about linking the test to the broader licensing objectives, perhaps giving rise to further litigation. So perhaps stage 2 will help us to resolve this issue when we are the other. There are a few recommendations there that I think strengthen the desire for local boards to consult the public health boards and alcohol and drug partnerships on a whole variety of issues relating to alcohol. The more informed our boards are, the better decisions they will take. Those sections in the report, supported by the Government again, are more about reminding everyone that there is some good experience out there and data to be shared before decisions are ultimately taken. On the taxi licensing aspect of the bill, I would like to make two points. One relates to the issue of a taxi driver who may be the subject of numerous complaints in one authority, then seeking to obtain a licence in another authority and, of course, forgetting to reveal that he has been the subject of such complaints. The response from the Government says that authorities can already make such inquiries and that Police Scotland, as a single entity now, should be able to assist. My view is that Police Scotland may not actually have such data recorded. I feel that in order to enhance the protection of the public who use taxis, particularly vulnerable young women, there has to be more than an expectation that authorities should try to find out from a neighbouring authority about any complaints made about an applicant. There needs to be a Scotland-wide response to that issue. Authorities should record all such complaints, which the other authorities can easily access. I think that anything less than this does nothing to reduce the risk. On the less controversial issue about knowledge, I support the committee's view that the knowledge test should apply to all drivers, regardless of whether it is a taxi or a private car, higher. The public expect, when they get into a car, to be taken somewhere that the driver actually knows where he is going. I had the unfortunate experience a few years ago when a private taxi driver in Edinburgh did not have a clue where Herberian's Easter Road football stadium was. I hope that any guidance notes issued on this by the Government will strongly encourage the knowledge test to be adopted across the board. In summary, the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill, with its many provisions, will, in my view, strengthen public safety in Scotland and provide opportunities for the public and civic Scotland to engage with their local licensing boards on those very important issues. I am happy to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1. Colin Rhoda Grant, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. I am fairly generous. I want to speak specifically about section 68 of the bill that introduces a licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues such as lap dancing clubs. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of Sandra Whitestone on the issue over the years, and I am sure that she is very pleased that the issue is now coming forward. That became an issue in Inverness where the licensing committee said that they were powerless to stop a licence being granted to a lap dancing club in the city, despite the violence against women partnership warning of the impact that that would have on the area. Therefore, I welcome the move to empower local authorities to stop such clubs opening in our towns and cities. That said, the Scottish Government's violence against women and girls strategy, Equally Safe, recognises that commercial sexual exploitation, including stripping, lap dancing, pole dancing, is violence against women. The tell-as-these activities have been shown to be harmful for individual women involved and have a negative impact on the position of all women through the objectification of women's bodies. It therefore seems a little perverse that we are licensing venues that perpetrate violence against women. My preferred option would be that we ban all such venues from our country and seek to create an equal society where women are valued and not sold as commodities. That said, the proposed licensing regime is better than the current situation where licensing committees feel powerless to stop them. Zero tolerance tells us that there is no place for a highly gendered form of sexual entertainment in Scotland. In every thing that they say, those venues are places where men often seek to buy sex. That means that women are often moved from sexualised entertainment into prostitution. They also encourage gender inequality, which impacts on all women and indeed our whole society. If we are to live in an equal society, we have to stop such venues operating because they treat women as commodities to be sold for the sexual pleasure of men. They are not normal entertainment venues. Other countries have none, for example Iceland, and the countries that will not tolerate such forms of entertainment tend to give gender equality a much higher priority. The licensing regime must be mandatory. Every venue, regardless of how often they are providing adult entertainment, should be subject to it. Local authorities must carry out equalities impact assessments on those venues before issuing licences, taking into account their impact on wider society and their local area. I would also wish to see violence against women partnerships being statutory consultees when licences are applied for. Local communities must have a say on whether those licences are granted and local authorities must be allowed to have a policy of no venues at all in their area. Other speakers have talked about the bill allowing young people under the age of 18 to work in those venues at times when sexual entertainment is not taking place. However, there are often pornographic images in those premises in which children working there would have access to. Again, zero tolerance warns us of the implication of allowing young people to work in that environment. They tell us that that, in essence, creates a grimer's charter. It would also normalise such entertainment and exploitation in the eyes of very young and vulnerable people working there. Young girls would also be vulnerable to being enticed to become sexual entertainers when they turned 18. Any young person working there would be at risk of developing unhealthy attitudes to sexual relationships. I believe that the bill must be amended to protect young people from the exploitative nature of those premises. The committee received a submission from Child's Eyes UK regarding the public display of sexualised images to children. I believe that they have a point, and I think that it was a point well made by Cara Hilton. Such images should not be on display publicly. We have the power and do and are proposing to ban the display of cigarettes because they are dangerous and harmful, and so are those images and how they impact on gender violence and inequality. The bill provides an opportunity to do that, and I hope that the Government will give it due consideration. The bill does not have a fit and proper test for a licencee of a sexual entertainment venue, while those applying for liquor licences are subject to that test. It is surely an oversight, and I hope that the bill will be amended to change the anomaly. Licensing must also ensure that employment law is adhered to. Women who work in those venues are often charged appearance fees and can also be fined, meaning that they can end up earning little or nothing at all. We all agree that we should be implementing the living wage that we should not be promoting zero hours contracts and that we should be protecting workers. If we allow those venues to operate, we need to make sure that they are working within the law and that those working in them are treated and paid properly, and that, again, can be addressed through the licensing regime. I firmly believe that the sexual entertainment venues have no place in a modern, equal society, and we should be banning them rather than licensing them. However, that is a step in the right direction, and I hope that all local authorities will take the opportunity to refuse all licences in their areas. Many thanks. I now call on Stuart Stevenson to be followed by John Wilson, a generous six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Before starting, I think that it would be appropriate to report that I am a member of the Banff Town and County Club, which is a licensed premises that is referred to in this act. I am not intending to speak on that part of the act, but it is appropriate that I say that. Interesting debate. One of the things that perhaps we ought to think about is that the problem of alcohol abuse, licensing and controlling alcohol is hardly something that is new. Christopher Smout, a renowned historian who wrote the book The Scots 1830 to 1950, is essentially a social historian, spoke of a village in East Lothian, which had one public house for every 14 occupants. Special circumstances, because it was a village where many people came seasonally to work in the agriculture industry. It is not exactly a new problem. It was also a problem when the Immature Spirits Act of 1915 was brought forward. I have personal interest in that because my father's cousin was responsible for that act. Lloyd George had wanted to ban the sale of alcohol altogether because of the effect alcohol had on the munitions factories and the military towns around the UK during the First War. James Stevenson persuaded them that it might be more effective to simply have a prohibition for immature spirits being sold, and that is why whisky has kept in bond for three years. It was not to improve the quality of whisky, although it had that secondary effect. It was to restrict the supply because there was seen to be an issue at that time. Of course, the improvement of the brand that is Scotch whisky that flowed from that act was an incidental benefit to whisky, because it meant that whisky no longer had any poor quality stuff in the market and could be trusted as a quality brand. We can move forward to the forms of the 1960s. Up to that point, licensing is going on. One of two things we have totally forgotten about. For example, we had the Vito poll, which Teddy Taylor, who was the Tory MP for Cathcart for many years, was a very strong exponent of, and Cathcart, I think, subject to confirmation, was the last area in Glasgow where there was a total Vito because the population had requisitioned a poll under the requisite legislation and voted to have no licensed premises in their area. That was the provision that it was the case after the war and up to the reform in the early 1960s. In addition, if you wanted a licence for a Sunday, it had to be in a hotel. The definition of a hotel meant that if you were going to sell a drink on a Sunday, you had to have somebody resident in the hotel. Across Scotland, you had hotels that advertised seven-day licences that actually had one room in there where somebody lived permanently at a discounted rate so that their licence was not discounted. I have to know one of the poor and unfortunate now-deceased called John Dalrymple, who got thrown out of his home that he had lived in for 30 years when we reformed the legislation in the 1960s. We should not imagine that any generation of politicians has been able to identify all the perfect solutions to what is a quite substantial problem. I am going to admit to you personally that I first entered a pub and consumed a drink on 21 March 1959. It was the register tap in Edinburgh. After a 3-3 draw in a Calcutta cup at Murrayfield, there was a need for consolation. You will probably have been able to work out that I may not have been fully of age. The barman did ask me to sit behind the door in case a policeman popped his head round the door. Things were a lot more lax in the old days. I think that the provisions that we are looking at now in taking things forward are much better. My grandfather, of course, would not have approved it all because he was a member of the Society of Recabites who went around trying to get people to sign the pledge. He was against drinking in all its forms. In relation to air guns, I used to have an air gun when I was a kid. It was not the kind of air gun that you can get now. It struggled to propel its 0.177mm lead pellet more than about 30ft. The guns that we have now are more significant. If I wanted to carry it in a public place, I needed a licence, but that was simply a question of going to the post office, handing over 10 bob and getting a licence. I think that it really was just a way of recording who had had those licences and seemed utterly pointless. In my concluding remarks, I want to commend the policy position that Kara Hilton has taken. I had enormous sympathy for what she expressed in relation to the sexualisation of the female image. I absolutely agree, but I caution because she appeared to suggest that she would bring forward amendments at stage 2 to deal with the media and the internet. That is not within the powers that we have in this Parliament. I just thought that it would be useful to spell out why that is a risky thing to do. When bills come forward, the Presiding Officer's office has to say that they are introverous, in other words, within the powers of the Parliament. As amendments come forward at stage 2, it is up to the convener of the committee to come to a view and it is up to the Presiding Officer to select amendments or not. Of course, we can pass legislation that is introverous. That is possible to do. However, when it goes for royal assent, if it is judged by the legal advisers to the palace to be introverous, royal assent will not be given. It is not simply a matter of the little bit of the bill that is introverous being struck out, although it could be at a later date if there is a dispute. It could cause the whole bill to fall. I simply advise, while utterly sympathising and agreeing with what has been said, and by Rhoda Grant and others—there is no policy difference between any of us—that we need to be very careful to take very good advice. If we get good advice and the legal advice that we can do, I am utterly content and I will be behind any such amendments, but we need to be very careful on those matters. Finally, it is only appropriate that I record our gratitude to Sandra White for the work that she has undertaken in relation to sexual entertainment venues over a significant period of time. She is not being the only person articulating the argument, but she has been the one who is utterly stuck with it. It is to her eternal credit that, in the bill that we see before us today, we see Sandra White not inconsiderably small and writ large in the effects that there are before us. I wish that every success in the bill passes through subsequent stages in Parliament. I come to this debate as a deputy convener of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and sat through many evidence sessions in the committee. I would like to pay tribute to those witnesses who came forward and many individuals who made submissions to the committee while considering this stage 1 of the bill. Like other members, I would like to take the bill in the sections that are of importance, not to say that every section of the bill is not important, but in terms of the air weapons section of the bill, which the bill lends its name to, we only had the powers following the transfer of section 10 of the Scotland Act 2012 to carry out legal competence in this area. For me, that took too long to give this Parliament that legal competence. The other issue that arises out of the debate is that when we talk about air weapons, we are not talking about all air weapons. We do not have the competence to licence all air weapons. There are still air weapons that are held and will continue to be licence by the UK Government. Those weapons are weapons that are defined as a handgun that can fire above £6 per square foot and rifles that can discharge at £12, and the issue for us is to make it clear. When we are rolling out the legislation, when it becomes an act, individuals are aware of the distinction and the differences that exist in air weapons that, where they are seen to be especially dangerous, they will still come under Westminster jurisdiction and it is only the air weapons without below those limits that we will have the right to have any regulation and any legislation on and be responsible for the licensing. We have also got to bear in mind, in terms of the legislation, that when we talked in committee about the licensing and the cost of licensing, the individual, not the weapon, as the convener quite rightly said, we are not licensing weapons. While firearms and shotguns are registered because they have registration marks, air weapons do not have registration marks. The licence holder has got to register firearms and shotguns against that certificate. In relation to the licensing regime that we are talking about here at the present moment, it is the individual that will be licensed, not the air weapon that they hold. In terms of the fees that have been suggested, there has been some discussion about what the charge would be to become a licence holder. We have got to bear in mind that, at the present moment, a firearm or shotgun licence fee currently sits at £50. I know that Westminster is considering that and I am sure that it will come back to that after May 7. However, at the present moment, the figures that are being quoted for a firearm are £88 and a shotgun £79. We have got to bear that in mind when we are talking about the potential full-cost recovery of a licensing regime for air weapons. We have got to bear in mind that, as Tavis Scott mentioned in his contribution, it does not encourage individuals to look at the cost of licensing an air weapon at potentially £80 when they could apply for a shotgun licence at £79.50 or £88 for a firearm. The trading up debate is there for individuals who may have and may be deemed to be appropriate to hold a licence by doing that trading up to hold a firearm and a shotgun rather than holding an air weapon. I think that the comments that have been made by a number of members where the estimated 500,000 air weapons are currently located in households throughout Scotland is one that we really need to try to address and try to find a way of reducing that number. However, if not reducing that number, finding a way that does not clash as the police Scotland has indicated with the peaks and troughs of the firearms and shotgun licencing that is currently taking place with the air weapons licensing, because what we would hate to see as a situation where the introduction of air weapons licensing comes in at the peak of the licensing period for shotguns and firearms, because we have that and clearly in evidence from the police Scotland indicated that there were peaks and troughs in terms of the licensing of those firearms and shotguns. Those issues that we really need to try to address and I welcome the cabinet secretary who has taken on board a number of the issues that the committee has raised in terms of air weapons. The issue in relation to other aspects of the legislation and some of the adult entertainment venues licensing has been covered adequately by a number of members. I welcome the opportunity to consider the amendments that will be coming forward with very much interest in terms of the proposals that will be put forward to the committee. However, I would like to talk about the scrap metal dealers, Presiding Officer, because I think that there is an issue. Other members have mentioned the factors, the risks that scrap metal dealers or the people who steal scrap metal to sell on, which pose in terms of life and health for individuals. We looked at the fines that were imposed, and the convener mentioned the £5,000 fine that can be imposed on somebody stealing scrap metal. The difficulty is that the overall cost of the damage that is done by some of the thefts that take place. We heard the evidence from one of the power companies who indicated that they estimated that it could be in the region of £40 million a year, or over a period of time, is the overall cost to that power company, not including the cost to the individual householders and communities because of the damage that is being done. The maximum fine at the present moment is only £5,000. It would be appropriate to make the fines or the penalties commensurate with the overall damage that is being caused by those thefts. Clare Adamson mentioned the Ock and Geef miner that was stolen, and I was there at the unveiling with the First Minister and other members of the chamber. Unfortunately for that community, the sculptor had not destroyed the mould that had produced the sculpture, and therefore he was able to replace the sculpture, and we actually had another unveiling of that sculpture. However, the difficulty is that, for many communities throughout Scotland, they do not have that opportunity when the theft takes place. Because they do not have the original moulds and they cannot reproduce the sculptures and other materials that have been stolen. I think that we have started the process, and, hopefully, as a committee, when we consider the stage 2 amendments, we can get to a piece of legislation that will be not only meaningful but, I would like to encourage future proofs against other developments, because there are other issues about taxis, private hire cars, apps and various other things that need to be considered as we move forward. I am happy to conclude this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, although, like other members, I am not a member of any of the committees that have been involved, but I find myself somewhat perplexed by the bill and its general principles that we have been debating this afternoon. As Cameron Buchanan detailed in his opening contribution, there is a great deal within the bill that we are very much welcome, even if we believe that some parts may require modest amendment at later stages. I particularly welcome part 2 on the alcohol licensing tradition. I know that that is something that is close to your own heart, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome the section of the bill that deals with scrap metal licensing as well. However, we have a real sticking point when it comes to the Government's proposals on air weapon licensing, and it is on that aspect that I want to concentrate on, because it is the single reason that we are unable to fully support the general principles at decision time. I dearly wish, as Alex Rowley and Tavish Scott both mentioned, that this part had been in a separate bill, but we are where we are on that front. I want to make one thing really clear at the outset. Whatever our views on this part of the bill—gun crime, any gun crime—is utterly abhorrent, whether it be against property, against human, against pet, against wild animal or bird. I think that that is something that I am sure that this whole chamber can agree on. We will always, on these benches, support the robust enforcement of existing and additional legislation, where there is an unequivocal evidence base that it will be effective in achieving its aims. However, I cannot find evidence in this instance that that will be the case. Let us not forget, as has been mentioned, that between 2006 and 2007, when there were 683 reported defences involving air weapons, and 2012-13, when there were 171, there has been a drop of 75 per cent in reported incidents involving air weapons. 2007 was, I think, the year that Colin Kear mentioned, which mirrored the debate of this nature and he suggested that the Conservatives' position has not moved. That is not true, because on the basis of those figures, our position has actually hardened, because it seems to me that a drop of 75 per cent is quite significant. In fact, that is a significant reduction in anybody's language, and it is presumably the result of successful implementation of existing legislation and increased educational initiatives by both the Scottish Government and shooting organisations, on which they are to be commended. Proof if proof were needed, Presiding Officer, that the carrot often works better than the stick, but on occasions like this, they can also work well together. On the subject of annual figures, I am concerned—I made an intervention earlier to raise this concern—that the most recent air weapon offence statistics for 2013-14 are not available. They should have been published in November 2014, but apparently due to difficulties in collating the data, they will not now be published until October this year—almost a year late and too late, certainly, to be included in this debate. A cynic—not me, but a cynic—might wonder why they cannot be produced by Police Scotland this year while this bill is under consideration, when they have been regularly produced in recent years, especially as Police Scotland—I will give way in a moment—were apparently able to quote figures from April to July 2014 in evidence. It seems to me that something is not quite right there, Presiding Officer, and it does not do this debate any favours. I give way to Kevin Stewart. I thank Mr Ferguson for giving way, and obviously he has pointed out that we have moved to a new regime in terms of Police Scotland instead of the previous eight forces. Mr Ferguson said right at the very start that he would support a separate bill, but not this one, which is joined together. What would be different in that separate bill from the proposed legislation on air weapons in this bill that would make him support that one but not this one? I think that I am being misquoted, because I did not say that I would support a separate bill. I said that there should be a separate bill, because what I do not like about this aggregated bill is that, at the end of the day, if the sticking point remains in place, we will have to vote against this bill, and that would be a great pity when there is so much of it that we believe is good. If it had been a separate bill, we could have disassociated ourselves from the part that we disagree with, but supported the part that we do agree with. Whatever the figures that are not available turn out to be, there is no evidence at all that I can find that a licensing system will reduce crime. Indeed, if the possession of an air gun without a licence becomes a crime, as it will, this bill can only increase the crime statistics, surely the very opposite of what the Government intends. We will come to the issue of the practice of that, if I have time. May I suggest to the member that no one cares about the statistics up or down? What we care about is what happens on the ground in improving public safety. The point that I am trying to make is that I cannot find anything in this regime that will improve public safety. I will come back to that later. Mr Stevenson's intervention has brilliantly made me lose my place into where I was. We come to the issue—which is well-timed, Mr Stevenson—but we come now, if I may, to the issue of the practicalities of introducing the licence. The British Association of Shooting and Conservation, and indeed other shooting organisations on whose behalf it was speaking, have pointed out that it can take up to nine months to process a shotgun or firearms licence at the moment. Police Scotland are in the process of reducing the number of civilian licensing officers from 34 to 14, and they are training up police officers who will presumably be taken off the beat in order to fill that gap. Their task will then be to cope with the demand of the owners of some 500,000 air weapons in Scotland who will presumably want to obtain a licence. Yet all of those weapons, lest the ones that will be surrendered during any amnesty period, are untraceable anyway, as air guns do not have unique identification numbers. I think that the cabinet secretary is right not to try to bring in a system of giving them one, but the law society will helpfully pointed out the difficulties of that situation. I can only say good luck when this bill is passed with all of that, because it can only create a mounted of extra work and bureaucracy for an already overstretched police force, with no measurable impact on air gun crime, and I therefore find myself asking, what is all this for? I don't think that it's about public benefit, despite Alex Rowley's convincing in many ways arguments—I'm afraid that he didn't convince me—and I listened to it very carefully. Tens of thousands of people will be caught up in a licensing scheme that will involve an incalculable number of inquiry officer visits to applicants' homes for purposes of verification and an indicative cost of at least £85 per application. That huge public expense is going to be incurred for no calculable public benefit or reduction in crime or requiring a new regulatory infrastructure to be put in place to oversee the system. In conclusion, I don't think that this section of the bill targets the wrong people, because future offenders won't be those who have obtained a licence. It will do nothing to preserve public safety, as the law society points out in its submission, where it highlights the very real possibility that many of the untraceable air weapons in Scotland will simply disappear into the wrong hands as and when a licence scheme is introduced. Finally, Police Scotland's infrastructure is illiquid and under-resourced to deal with what it's asked. The cabinet secretary strikes me as a very sensible man. I told him that I would be nice about him. He has seen sense on corroboration. I hold on to the hope that he can see sense on this as well. Thank you very much. Now I will call on Alex Rowley at a generous eight minutes. I think that there has been a lot of consensus as there was in the committee around the bill. On all sides, I think that there is a willingness to see the bill go forward and go through. It is how we can work together over the coming weeks. I hope that the minister will give an indication that he is willing to work with the different groups and arguments that have been put forward today to try to find a way so that we can continue with that consensus as we move forward. The area that the consensus broke down was obviously the Conservative party and its view on the air weapons. I do not agree. It was Elaine Murray who pointed out that, in terms of the offences that were committed in it over a period, the committee was advised that there were 84 offences. We have also seen representations being made for animal welfare organisations and further organisations that highlight some of the issues that can arise around air weapons. Elaine Murray pointed out that there are weapons at the end of the day. I am certainly supportive of that part of the bill, and the Labour Party will support that as we move forward. John Wilson talked about the fees, and the committee picked up a point up in terms of the full recovery, cost recovery in terms of the air weapons. I know that that is a matter that still seems to sit with the UK Government, but the committee has picked up and talked about being able to recover all the costs. I think that it is important that the report itself is able to pick up those points up. The minister has indicated that, in his reply to the report, there are areas in the report that he is fairly positive about and will pick up some of the recommendations that are there. I do hope that we can have that discussion with the minister over the coming weeks. I think that there are a number of recommendations that the committee has brought forward. When Kevin Stewart made his contribution, he made the point that all those people who have given up their time to give evidence to the committee, it would be good to be able to demonstrate that it is worthwhile to take the time and the trouble and give evidence to this Parliament and to be able to demonstrate that those issues are being picked up and taken on board. I do hope that we can pick up some of those issues up. The number of the contributors also talked about the proposals in terms of licensing the clubs, the bright crew decision in terms of regulation. In effect, it meant that, for sexual entertainment venues, there was no regulation. That is why I think that, even those who have contributed and said that, in their opinion, they would rather that those clubs did not exist have welcomed the fact that we need some kind of regulation. The point was made again by a number of the people who have contributed that local authorities are well placed to be able to make the decisions in terms of whether or not they believe that those venues should be licensed within their local authority area. They, of course, are held to account by the electorate at the end of the day. For those of us who support the evolving decision making to the lowest possible level, then such an important issue is this. I believe that it is right that local authorities would have that final say. However, as a number of the contributors, Cara Hilton and others have pointed out, there are still a number of issues that we would like to have a discussion with the minister about. I congratulate Sandra White, because I accept that I know that she has pushed this issue for some time. On the questions of whether young people at the age of 16 to 18 should be working in those venues and so on. I know that there has been an argument put about employment law. However, again, if the minister is open to that discussion, we can have that discussion around those issues and hopefully pick them up and take those issues forward. Willie Coffey talked again about sharing the information between licensed authorities in terms of the taxi operators. Willie Coffey certainly asked a lot of questions about the committee. The committee report itself, page 55, has a recommendation that there should be more discussion there. Again, whether that is something that needs to be brought up in the amendment at stage 2 or whether the minister is open to having that discussion in that dialogue, I would hope that he is. We could pick that up and move that forward. Clare Adamson talked about the importance of safety when looking at taxis and the point about taxi apps, but he gave an example of somebody who was sexually assaulted by getting into a taxi that she thought was private hire. There was, I would have to say, an academic came, I think, from Edinburgh University to the committee that was certainly an expert on taxis not just in Scotland but across the world. He did, I think, give the view that, as this legislation came forward, it could be out today as quickly as it comes forward because of new technologies. It is an area that Willie Coffey has more expertise in in terms of technology, but it might be that that part of the bill will have to be looked at again in the future because there was a view that we were not. I thank Mr Riley for giving way, Presiding Officer. I think that one of the key things that we have got to secure throughout that is that folks know that they are going into a vehicle with a licensed driver and a licensed vehicle. I think that that is the essential element in all of that, whether we move technological wise and all the rest in terms of hailing or app-ing or whatever it may be. The key thing to keep folks secure, I think, is to keep that licensed driver and that licensed vehicle elements in place. I think that we should do everything possible to ensure that that continues. Alex Rowley, on to your final minute. I would agree entirely with what Kevin Stewart has to say. Again, Cameron Buchanan raised that in his introduction that he wondered whether we were being too heavily handed in terms of the licensing of taxis, where the provision of the taxis being treated in a similar way to the private hire. However, what I would say to that is that the evidence did not suggest that. Those who came to the committee and gave evidence to both the taxi operators who operate private hire as well as the taxi association all seemed to be fairly positive and in favour of the legislation that was being proposed. I was struck by the sense of pride that the taxi operators took in terms of the quality of the training, the skills, the expertise that they would expect for their drivers to have. I would say that there was a broad welcoming of the proposals that were being brought forward. There are a number of areas, particularly in the regulation of sexual entertainment venues, in which quite a number of members have said that there are a number of areas where they would like to look at amendments. I would ask the minister to give an indication that he is willing to meet members who have those concerns and want to bring forward amendments and see whether we can maintain the consensus that we have had in here today as we go forward to stage 2 and stage 2 and pass the legislation. First of all, I am grateful to all the members who have contributed in this debate, and I listen carefully to many of the comments and issues that have been raised with them. I also understand some of the frustration that members have with regard to the legislation and the way in which it is presented with several different component parts to that. Not something that is unfamiliar and unusual in Parliament, there are some parts of the particular piece of legislation that would be difficult to have as bills on their own, given that they are very limited in nature. However, I also recognise that this is an opportunity to take forward a number of different things that we are needing changed within other aspects of legislation, for example on the Licensing Act 2005, in which the bill is acting as a vehicle to deliver. I am also conscious of the point that Tavish Scott made. He has been in this place as long as I have, and I do not think that there is a parliamentary session that we go through where there is not some form of licensing legislation that is necessary, because of circumstances that develop that we learn from, that we then have to go back and look at amending the legislation, introducing new regulations and to respond to some of those challenges that they come up. However, I think that, for example, the Alcohol Scotland Act 2005, which Tavish Scott made reference to, made a significant improvement in the way in which we licensed premises that sell alcohol. One of its common issues used to always be raised with me by the police, where those who were off licences would be found to be selling alcohol to those who were under 18, and they were at risk of losing their licence. They would simply transfer it to another family member and the premises continued by having a premises licence and individual licence closing down that potential scope. I think that the Alcohol Licence in Scotland Act 2005 made a significant level of improvement in how we go about our licensing provision around alcohol. On the issue around the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982, I said to the committee at the time that I understand the calls for a review of that piece of legislation. I also said to the committee that we should not underestimate the scale of that type of review and the potential work that would be involved in that. My estimation is that it would take several years for that type of work to be undertaken in order to take it forward. I recognise and understand the calls for a review, but what I caution members on is the potential implications of that and the nature of work that would be involved in it. As I said to the committee, I have been more than happy to come back to the committee in the autumn having looked at that issue in greater detail. I will give way to Mr Wilson. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. One of the issues that came up with the committee cabinet secretary was how the 1982 legislation was being applied throughout Scotland and what appeared to be inconsistencies in relation to the application of the 1982 legislation by certain local authorities. It would be useful to get an indication from the cabinet secretary whether or not he could look at some of the inconsistencies that were identified when we took evidence. I am always prepared to look at areas where things can be improved but, by licensing in its very nature, there will always be a level of variation because of the way in which individual local authorities take particular matters forward. I am always more than happy. I say to Alex Rowley in his point about having a discussion around some of the areas that he has raised and his colleagues have raised where they believe that the bill can be improved. My position is that I am not in favour of deleting any sections of the bill that will disappoint the Conservatives, but I am always open to looking at how we can improve the legislation at whichever side of the chamber it comes from. I am more than happy to engage with Alex Rowley and his colleagues and any other members in the chamber to look at how we can improve that particular piece of legislation. I turn to the issue of licensing of air weapons. I note the position that the Conservative Party has taken on the matter. It is important to recognise that it is positive that the number of crimes that have involved a firearm over recent years has decreased and has decreased significantly. Having said that, almost half of all the incidents that involve a firearm involve an air weapon. Although that number has been dropping, it is almost half of all the incidents that involve an air weapon. The approach that we have sought to take in this area is a way in which it is to try and act in a proportionate way. The way in which the licensing regime will operate for air weapons is not the same as the way in which it will operate for firearms and shotguns. It is a much lighter touch, but it allows the police, as the police have said, to be able to prevent an individual from having an air weapon if they do not believe that they are a suitable individual to have one, or they do not think that they would be using it in an appropriate way as well, which has been a frustration to the police for some time, where there are individuals who do not believe that they should actually have an air weapon that they have been able to have one and that they have been powerless to do anything about it. A point that was raised by Sandra White in her own contribution. I will give way to Mr Ferguson. We have Mr Ferguson's mic on, please. I thought that you would have known better, Mr Ferguson. So would I, Presiding Officer, or absolutely right, I apologise. I wonder if the cabinet secretary is open to the possible suggestion, perhaps at a later stage in the bill, that, if somebody already holds a shotgun or a firearms certificate, they would automatically have the right to possess an air gun? Part of the provision that we are putting in the bill is for those who hold a shotgun or a firearms licence. They also have an air weapon, so they will not have to apply for an air weapons licence until they are applying for their new shotgun or firearms weapon licence when it expires. That is the only point that they would have to apply for during that particular process, and that is to take away some of that potential burden from them as well. I can also turn to this issue that Mr Ferguson raised around the burden that this will potentially place on the police in having to conduct all of the licences that will be required for those air weapons. As the member may be aware, there are very significant peaks and troughs in the way in which the police deal with firearms licensing. A point that was made by John Wilson in his own contribution. We are trying to ensure that the way that we introduce the provision around air weapons is in that trough when they are not dealing with any significant amounts of firearms or shotgun licences. That is the work that we are taking forward with the police. As I have indicated, we are looking at how we can take that through secondary legislation in order to manage that issue. I also point out that the fees for both shotguns and firearms has increased from £50. It increased as of 6 April for a firearms. It is now £88 and for a shotgun certificate it is now £79. I believe that we have sought to achieve a balance on the whole issue around the licensing of air weapons. I believe that the bill is reflective of that. I turn now to the issue particularly given the number of comments that have been made around sexual entertainment venues. Again, I understand the comments and concerns that have been raised by some members on this particular issue and the need to provide licensing provisions on this matter. Sandra White has pursued this matter for almost a decade now through this Parliament. To her credit, we are now making significant progress in this bill in addressing the issues of concern that she has raised. I am very conscious that, so often, when the Government takes forward action, there is the accusation that we are taking powers to the centre making decisions that should have been allowed to be taken at a local level. In this bill, we are allowing local licensing boards to make that decision based on local policy. That local policy, in the point that was raised by Rhoda Grant, is that if they wish to set a zero figure for those types of sexual entertainment venues, they can do so. There is a process that they will have to go through in the justification of that, but it allows them the opportunity to do that should they wish to do. It gives them the power and allows them to then engage with their local community and to reflect on that in the decision making that they make at a localised level. I believe that that is the right balance to strike on this matter. It gives them the power and the scope to be able to take that forward. On issues around under-18s being able to work in venues when they are not operating, I am more than open to looking at where there are measures that can be taken there. I am very conscious that there are issues around employment law, which we have to be careful of, but I am more than happy to look at that further. I am also on the issue of the working conditions for those. Again, I am more than happy to look at where there are provisions that could be put probably in secondary legislation for licensing boards to take into account those matters as well. That would help to improve the legislation, so I am open to looking at how we can take those forward as well. It has been a very useful debate. We will consider all the points that have been raised and I will respond to members in as positive a way that I can in order to build on the legislation to improve it, to make it as suitable as possible and to make sure that we continue to have a range of licensing regimes in Scotland that are fit for purpose. That concludes the debate on the Air Weapons and Licence in Scotland Bill. We now move to the next side of business, which is consideration of motion number 12488, in the name of Dawn Swinney on the financial resolution for the Air Weapons and Licence in Scotland Bill. I call on Michael Matheson to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, to which we now come. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion number 12994, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Air Weapons and Licence in Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12994, in the name of Michael Matheson, is as follows. Yes. 60. No. 0. There were 12 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion number 12488, in the name of Dawn Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Air Weapons and Licence in Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.