 Gweinwch i'n mynd i ddechrau i gwylliannau 18 gysylltu'r Cymru ar 2015. Felly bywch yn gallu gweithio'r gweithio cyffordd o cyflwyngau oedd atweud yn gweithgwyl gyda'u gwrodoedd, byddwch yn gweithio'r gyrwg honno, Österreichid, sy'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r cyffordd o'r cyflwyngau cyflwyngau. Mae ei gweithio cyffordd o trofodigau cyflwyngau mewn gweithiool iawn, the meeting, because we provide meeting papers in digital format. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. We decided whether to consider a forthcoming work programme, our draft 2014-15 annual report and consideration of our approach to potential forthcoming legislation in private at future meetings. Are we all agreed? Agenda item 2 is consideration of two negative SSIs, the Town and Country Planning Hazarded Substances Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-181 and the Town and Country Planning Hazarded Substances Inquiry Session Procedure, Scotland's rules 2015, SSI 2015-182. Members have a cover note from the clerk explaining the instruments. As you will note, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has comments on both these instruments. Do members have any comments to make on the instruments? No. Are we agreed not to make any recommendations to the Parliament on these instruments? Agenda item 3 is our main item of business today. It's our third and final day of stage 2 consideration of the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. I'd like to welcome back Michael Matheson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I also welcome Colin Keir MSP, who is here to speak to amendments in his name. Later in the meeting we will also be joined by Richard Lyle MSP, who will speak to an amendment in his name. We also expect to be joined by David Torrance MSP, who may be speaking in support of Richard Lyle's amendment. Today we are considering the remainder of the bill from sections 6A to 79 and all amendments to those sections. This covers part 3 of the bill on civil licensing provisions and part 4 of the bill on general licensing. Before we move on to consideration of amendments, I think that it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2 consideration. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill that is introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on Monday, and the groupings of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate in each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech. As with a debate in the chamber, the member who is winding up on a group may take interventions from other members if they wish. The debate in each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate in each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say, not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that the members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. It is expected that the committee will conclude at stage 2 consideration of the bill at this meeting. With that, we will move on. Can I call amendment 93 in the name of Colin Kear, a group with amendment 99. Mr Kear, could you move amendment 93 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Thank you for your welcome and I will be moving this amendment, probing amendment. Amendment 93 pays niceness to modern technology when the Civic Government Scotland Act was written. No one would have heard of apps on mobile phones with a direct link to customers totally computerised and not recorded locally. While many locally licensed taxi and private hire car operators now use apps, the advent of multinational companies with no licensed local bookie office could well make local conditions set by licensing authorities redundant or difficult to enforce. This is a worry shared by the Scottish Taxi Federation and with local conditions focused on safety and comfort of passengers, the amendment may help to ensure multinational realises that local conditions, including booking office ones, are a legal nicety that they have to observe. The second amendment would you? You should speak to both, Mr Kear. Again, another probing amendment. Section 60 brings clarification for local licensing authorities. I think you've taken me up wrong there. This is to speak to 93 and amendment 99, if you wish only, Mr Kear. I see, no, 93 only. It's a big apartment. Atch, you've done that. Okay, welcome to that later. Can I ask Cara Hylton to speak to amendment 99 and the other amendment in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Amendment 99 is designed to ensure that taxi operators are required to have an office in the local authority area in which they are licensed and in which they operate. During the evidence sessions that the committee had, we heard a lot of concern from the Taxi Federation and taxi drivers about the impact of app operators such as Uber who could operate without a licence premises and indeed may be able to bypass local licence and regimes. This amendment is aimed at tightening up the bill to ensure that it reflects the change in nature of the taxi and private car industry, to ensure that we don't have a situation where app companies are bypassing local licence and regimes in the counts of undercut taxi drivers, private car companies. Essentially, it's about creating a level playing field and ensuring a fairer deal for all in the sector. Thank you, convener. I'm grateful for the amendments that have been lodged by Colin Kear and Cara Hylton. I share their concerns that the current booking office regime provided for in the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982, licensing of booking office's order 2009, should be examined again to ensure that it regulates the subject matter effectively. The stage 1 evidence session session is discussed to need to reflect developments in modern technology within the legislation. I provided an undertaking that we will examine and review the existing legislation to ensure that it operates as effectively as possible. Scottish Government officials have already discussed growing concerns on the issue in a meeting of stakeholders back in August 2014. A follow-up meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 3 June. That will bring together representatives from the police, licensing authorities, academics and the trade, including Bill McIntosh of the Scottish Taxi Federation. I appreciate that Colin Kear and Cara Hylton want to ensure that the 2009 order works as effectively as possible. However, I am concerned that by making an amendment via primary legislation and then updating the secondary legislation for the other issues that may arise in further meetings with stakeholders will create confusion and possibly introduce delays. These delays can be avoided by dealing with everything at the same time as part of a comprehensive package, which has the benefit of full and considered stakeholder engagement. I therefore ask Colin Kear and Cara Hylton to withdraw their amendments on the basis that the Scottish Government is already engaged with stakeholders on this very issue and is committed to updating the relevant secondary legislation. We will keep the committee advised of progress that we make on this issue. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I call Mr Kear to wind up and press her with draw, please? Thank you for that. I found that incredibly interesting. I also have some degree of sympathy with Cara Hylton's motion as well, but having listened to the cabinet secretary, I would ask that I be able to withdraw this motion. Thank you. Are the committee content that that is withdrawn? Thank you. Can I call amendment 99, in the name of Cara Hylton, already debated with amendment 93. Ms Hylton, to move or not move, please? Not move. Are the committee content that that is not moved? Thank you very much for that. Can I call amendment 94, in the name of Colin Kear, group with amendment 91. Mr Kear, to move amendment 94, please, and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In section 60, yet another probing amendment, and this goes back to my days when I used to be the regulator here in Edinburgh for taxis, among other things. One of the problems is the bring clarification for local licensing authorities who wish to limit the number of higher vehicles operating in their area. Currently, how to establish unmet demand, which is the current factor that is required, is a problem when having to justify the numbers on the roads and a policy of limiting numbers. An accepted methodology may lessen the chance of a legal appeal for those who have applied for a vehicle licence but have subsequently been refused. I will say that I have some degree of sympathy with the other motion as well. Can I call on Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 91, and the other amendment in the group, please? Mr Buchanan. Thank you, convener. I will also take amendment 92 at the same time. No, you can only speak to amendments 91 and 94 at this moment, Mr Buchanan. Okay. I will speak to amendment 91, thank you. 91 is to leave out section 60 totally, because I think that this would mean that licensate authority may not refuse a private higher car licence application on the grounds of overprovision. I think that to allow a licensate authority to refuse a private higher car licence application on the grounds of overprovision is severely anti-competitive, and it would hurt consumers, jobs and the local economy, as well as the wider public. Allowing refusal due to overprovision would be against the public interests for four reasons. They are, restricting the supply of private higher vehicles would limit the ability of consumers to choose between different services on offer and thereby select their most preferred option. This ability to choose is crucial to increasing and maintaining the standards of service in the industry. Secondly, preventing new entrants to the industry would reduce the amount of price competition in the industry. Therefore, prices would be prevented from going as low as possible in a freer market. Thirdly, putting up barriers to entry would prevent increases in the supply of private higher vehicles. Combined with price competition, they would allow more people than before to make use of private transport. Finally, I think that it is apparent that allowing a licensate authority to determine that a locality is overprovided would prevent economic growth and job creation. If someone wishes to start work as a private higher vehicle licence driver, a licensate authority should not stand in the way of this just because other drivers have already entered the market. I think that the Government should aim to facilitate job creation rather than shielding cumbents from any competition. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? I am grateful for amendment 94 and 91 proposed by Colin Kear and Cameron Buchanan. On amendment 94 from Colin Kear, this would require the Scottish Government to provide secondary legislation setting out the methodology to be used by licensing authorities to assess demand for private higher car services for the purposes of the overprovision test. Stakeholders have consistently argued that there needs to be guidance in order for the overprovision test to operate effectively and we accept that. The Scottish Government is already fully committed to working with stakeholders to prepare guidance on the overprovision test. By providing guidance rather than secondary legislation setting out the methodology, we can adopt a more user-friendly approach and include materials such as best practice examples that would not be appropriate within secondary legislation. For those reasons, I would ask Colin Kear to withdraw this amendment with the assurance that we will prepare guidance on the overprovision test as part of its implementation and its roll-out. In addition, I am also happy to keep members informed of the progress that we make on this matter. I turn now to amendment 91, which would remove section 60 of the bill. Section 60 of the bill would allow a licensing authority to refuse a private higher car licence where they are satisfied that it would result in there being an overprovision of private higher cars. I remain of the view that an optional overprovision test in relation to private higher cars is a useful addition to the taxi and private higher car licensing regime. By providing an ability to limit private higher car numbers where demand which is deemed necessary, licensing authorities can ensure that those entering the private higher car trade can have an expectation of making a reasonable income and reduce the temptation for private higher car drivers to attempt to operate in illegal competition with taxis. I therefore ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 91. In terms of my amendment, having heard the cabinet secretary, I will be asking the committee to withdraw my motion and I will look forward to seeing what comes forward from the Scottish Government. Are the committee content that amendment 94 is withdrawn? Can I call amendment 91, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 94, Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 91, please show, and those against amendment 91, please show. Those in favour of amendment 91 is one, those against five, the question is disagreed to. One and six, I am being told by the clerks, I am relying on the paper, I could have done it myself, show. If I can call amendment 92, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, in a group in its own, Cameron Buchanan, to move and speak to the amendment, please. Thank you, convener. That also refers to section 61, but refers back to section 60, because this amendment, I think, would prevent licensing authorities from being able to require testing of applicants for private hire vehicle licence. Technology now allows drivers to efficiently navigate without extensive knowledge and requiring a test, I think, would be a significant barrier to employment and growth in the industry. With Garmin and Tom Tom, nobody really needs the knowledge. If someone wishes to become a private hired driver, the government should not prevent them in any way from doing so. Some people will refer to be driven by someone with extensive local knowledge who does not need to use a GPS navigation system, but these people can therefore choose to use a black cab instead of private hire vehicle. The point is that passengers should be free to choose for themselves which type of transport they want. I think that requiring testing of all drivers would be another method of shielding incumbents from the competition, which refers also to section 60. This behaviour, I think, is favouring vested interests over aspiring entrants to the market, and more importantly, it would not be in the consumer's interests. I am grateful to Cameron Buchanan for his amendment and his explanation of amendment 92. I remain of the view that offering local licensing authorities the ability to test private hire car drivers is entirely appropriate. The training and testing of taxi drivers serve a useful purpose. With the growing numbers of private hire car hired drivers, I believe that it is important that they too should receive training and testing. The legislation has deliberately been drafted to provide licensing authorities with the discretion to determine whether a test should take place and what that test should be, to ensure that unduly burdensome training is not required where it is clearly not appropriate. Such training could cover issues such as customer care and disability awareness. That would allow for consistency between taxis and private hire cars and would make for a more professional and capable private hire car service, better able to meet the needs and aspirations of the people who use the service. Therefore, I ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 92. I was not so much talking about training as the knowledge test. That was the real key. As I said at the time, I think that it would require all drivers to shield incumbents from the competition. I am against that. I would like to keep the competition open. I would like to press my amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 92, please show. And those against amendment 92, please show. Thank you. Those in favour, 1. Those against, 6. The question is disagreed to. The question is that section 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 58 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group in its own? Cabinet secretary to move and speak to the amendment, please. Convener, amendment 58 increases the penalties for metal dealers who either operate without a licence or who fail to comply with licence conditions. Amendment 58 increases the relevant penalties to a maximum fine of £28,000 and or up to six months in prison. There's widespread agreement that the penalties in relation to metal dealing offences are inadequate, inadequate when set against the multi million pound cost of metal theft. Also inadequate when set against the possible rewards that can be obtained by rogue dealers who seek to circumvent the licensing regime, either by failing entirely to apply for a licence or by failing to comply with the conditions that are attached to a licence. The increased penalties are required to ensure an effective deter to someone who operates outwith the licensing regime. The committee recommended that the penalties be enhanced and there is widespread support for that position from the police, the legitimate trade and those companies and organisations that are badly affected by metal theft. It's also worth highlighting that, irrespective of the criminal penalties for any scrap metal dealer, the mere fact of a conviction would have a very serious potential consequence. It would open to a licence authority to be able to remove an individual licence with the implications that may have for someone's livelihood. I would ask the committee to support this amendment and I move on to amendment 58. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? No. Can I put on the record that I think we welcome this amendment from the Government after the evidence that we've taken? Do you wish to wind up, cabinet secretary? No. In which case? The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that sections 63 and 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 59 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 60 and 61? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 59, please, and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 59, 60 and 61, tighten the definitions used to define how payments for scrap can be made. The policy intent, which enjoys widespread support, is to prevent a scrap metal dealer paying in cash. As members will be aware, the rationale for this is to ensure that payments can only be made in a traceable fashion via check or bank transfer. These amendments seek to ensure that any loopholes are avoided by clarifying that an account used for a transfer of payment must be a bank or building society account. Amendment 59 clarifies that an account must be a bank or building society account. Amendment 61 provides a new section 33AA with a definition of what a bank account or building society account means. Amendment 60 allows for any consequential amendments that may be necessary. This ability to make amendments to the definition in the new section 33AA is limited to a consequence of changes to the method of payment in the new section 33A2, which adds, amends and removes methods of payments. I have asked the committee to support these amendments and I move amendment 59. Does any member wish to enter the debate? No. Cabinet secretary, do you agree to not wind up? The question is then that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 60, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 59. Cabinet secretary, please move the formula. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 61, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 59. Cabinet secretary, please move the formula. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 62, in the name of the cabinet secretary, a group with amendment 63? Cabinet secretary, please move amendment 62, and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 62 and 63 make amendments to the record-keeping requirements for scrap metal dealers contained within the bill. Amendment 62 responds to an issue raised by the industry that the proposed requirement to record the date on which metal is processed is impractical for many dealers. That is because of the business practices that most dealers follow, in that once metal arrives in the yard it is quickly sorted and stored collectively with a significant amount of other summer metal derived from other sources. In those circumstances it would be difficult to record on what date a specific item is processed in the sense of being melted or crushed. We have always been clear that we are eager to work with and support the legitimate scrap metal industry and believe that the concerns that have been raised on this matter are well founded. We believe that the change taken in the context of the other enhanced licensing arrangements brought forward by the bill will not diminish the effectiveness of the scheme. Amendment 63 allows Scottish ministers to specify through secondary legislation particular forms of identification that will be acceptable for the purposes of establishing a customer's name and address. That may be a passport, driving licence or a document of a similar nature. I would ask the committee to support those amendments and I move amendment 62. Thank you. Any other member wishes to enter the debate? You forgot to write to wind up Cabinet Secretary in which case. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 63 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary? Already debated with amendment 62. Cabinet Secretary to move formulae, please. Moved, thank you. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 64 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary in a group in its own? Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the amendment, please. Amendment 64 allows Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations to establish a register of metal dealers and itinerant metal dealers. We accept the view of the committee that a register of metal dealers would be of value. A new register would build upon the existing arrangements for licensing authorities to publish details of licenses already contained within paragraph 14 of schedule 1 to the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. The second legislation powers that we are proposing in the bill allow Scottish ministers to make regulations to establish, keep and maintain such a register. The regulations may also include such other matters, such as specifying who will maintain such a register, what details will be published and what duties will be imposed on individuals or bodies to provide information to be published. That is the committee to support this amendment and I move amendment 64. Thank you. Any other member who wishes to enter the debate for going right to wind up? The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 65 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary in a group in its own? Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the amendment, please. Amendment 65 makes provision for revised definitions of metal dealers and itinerant metal dealers. The legitimate trade has argued that it is essential that a more comprehensive definition of metal dealers is provided. That is required to capture those at the periphery of the industry who run businesses that involve the acquisition of large amounts of scrap metal. This might be a skip hireer on a building site, a door-to-door collector who doesn't pay for metal but takes it away for the convenience of the householder, a car breaker or a demolition contractor. This concern was picked up by the committee in its stage 1 report and this amendment seeks to address the problem identified. The amendment seeks to strike a balance by ensuring that some of these wider activities are captured without requiring someone who acquires metal and sells it as an extremely peripheral activity to have a licence. Examples of this might be a plumber or a heating engineer who takes away some domestic piping. The amendment expands the definition to include those who buy or sell metal for scrap, including those who sell metal without having made a payment for it in the first place, such as an iterant collector who does door-to-door collections taking away unwanted items. That departs from the previous definition, which requires a person to both buy and sell metal for scrap before they would need a licence. By defining the licence and roll activity as a person carrying on a business that wholly or substantially consists of buying or selling scrap metal, we ensure that those who acquire or sell metal as a peripheral activity such as a plumber in the normal course of events will not require to have a licence. Whether a licence is required in an individual case will, as with any licensing system, rely upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case. It may be a question of the degree to which scrap metal forms a part of business, and that can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. The new definition also provides that a motor salvage operator, as defined by subsection 3, is carrying out the business of a metal dealer and will be required to have a licence to do so. We believe that the amendments strike the right balance, and I ask the committee to support them and I move amendment 65. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 66, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, in a group in its own. Amendment 66 makes provision for secondary legislation making powers that allow Scottish ministers to set out circumstances where the metal dealer and the itinerant metal dealer regime does not apply, thereby creating exemptions for metal dealer and itinerant metal dealer licensing requirements. We are confident that the definition of a metal dealer or an itinerant metal dealer strikes the right balance. It provides clarity to capture those activities that should fall within licensing, but avoids licensing those peripheral activities where the metal acquired is wholly incidental. It is also flexible enough to respond to the particular facts of individual circumstances. Nevertheless, we believe that it is right to enhance the flexibility to deal with circumstances that may not emerge until after the new regime is up and running. This amendment will allow ministers to prescribe circumstances where a licence is not required. Such circumstances could perhaps relate to particular premises or activities where it is concluded that scrap metal dealers or itinerant metal dealers licensing is not required. It is right to build this flexibility into the system, and I would ask the committee to support this amendment, and I move amendment 66. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Can I go straight to the vote then, cab sec? The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 67 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group in its own cab sec to move and speak to the amendment, please? Amendment 67 restricts the circumstances in which premises licensed under the Licensing Scotland 2005 act 5 are exempt from the requirement for a public entertainment licence. A number of boards have raised concerns that a large public entertainment event such as a music festival attended by tens of thousands of people could be licensed under a £10 alcohol-occasional licence issued under the 2005 act. We are sympathetic to those concerns. The occasional licence is simply not intended to cover events of this nature and is also to do so. We also would not like to go as far as to remove the exemption for those with an alcohol licence entirely, and thus require thousands of pubs to require an additional public entertainment licence. We do believe that the exemption should be restricted. This amendment therefore limits the exemption from any premises licensed under the 2005 act to only those who possess a premises licence within the meaning of section 17 of the 2005 act. That would include a premises licence and a temporary premises licence. However, an occasional licence under the 2005 act will no longer provide an exemption from the requirements of public entertainment licensing. That is the committee to support this amendment and move amendment 67. Thank you, cab sec. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? You for go cab sec, the right to wind up. The question is then that amendment 67 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move on to amendment 68 in the name of Richard Lyle in a group in its own. Mr Lyle, could I ask you to move and speak to your amendment please? Mr Lyle. Thank you, convener. I have to identify and am the convener of the cross-party group of the showman's guild. Today I move this amendment near behalf in order to right a wrong which they have been unable to resolve for over 30 years due to UK parliamentary procedure and time. The 1982 Civic Government Scotland act related to fund fair licensing is creating hardship for showmen to operate their legitimate business and continue their way of life here in Scotland. The act now falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The act has been used to prevent fund fairs by way of implementation of excessive licensing conditions. It has taken so long to process the events that cannot be applied for in time. Many local galler committees simply cannot have fund fairs because the licensing legislation is too expensive or lengthy and very involved for them to handle. You have to ask if fund fairs in England, Ireland and Wales require to hold a temporary public entertainment licence. No, they do not. Fund fairs in the rest of the UK kingdom are not classed as regulated entertainment. Why are only fund fairs travelling through Scotland required to be licensed? This is because of our parliamentary mistake dating back to 1982 in a Scottish act introduced by the UK Parliament. The Great Britain showmen guild employed a parliamentary agent at that time to keep abreast of the legislation likely to affect travelling showmen both in England and Scotland. In an oversight by the parliamentary agent in 1982, he missed the Civic Scotland Government Scotland act and its ramifications for Scotland showmen. In the rest of the UK, apart from Scotland, showmen only need to obtain permission to operate. The fund fair organised in England, Ireland or Wales obtains permission from the landowner or the local authority and simply notifies the local police of their presence in the area. In other parts of the UK, they only need to show their safety certificate to again obtain permission to operate. That is the same as fund fairs in Scotland, which comes under the directive of HSG175, guidance on practice at fund fairs and amusement parks, the health and safety work act 1974. The showmen guild works with the national association for leisure industry certification and amusement device inspection procedure scheme by ensuring that all fund fair equipment is registered subject to annual inspection, which involves electrical, pneumatic and hydraulic structural testing of welds, design, review and conformity of design and risk assessment of HS sport checks. You may ask, does the 1982 act on licensing relate to safety? No, it doesn't. You may ask if this amendment was passed how would local authorities control fund fairs without licensing. I would contend that there are provisions within the law that colour fund fairs such as the noise act, the HSG175, the safety work act, the alcohol act and the gaming act. When making application to local authorities, the same procedure would follow with regards to police, fire, local councillors, local community and environmental health departments. Most fund fairs let land from their local authority and a simple set of conditions of let can be applied as required and enforced by all local authorities, Scottish local authorities. All we ask for is the same that takes place in England, fairness. Why do fund fairs travel through Scotland need to be removed from the 1982 act? I would suggest that the time involved in obtaining a temporary licence is too long to be practical in real life. After that, it needs to have the all knowledge relating to an application submitted from 28 days up to 90 days in advance of a fund fair date. That includes the layout, types of rides, attending and the specific people present in those rides. There is no provision within the 1982 act for a short notice of emergency change, regarding change of layout, tenant of fare, extra attractions, extension to dates and a new venue. For showman who arrives at a site that is waterlogged, the canal work as permission has only been granted for a particular site. There are other ways that this act affects the showman's presenting fund fairs. The act created a further financial burden, fees varies from local authorities, implementation and implementation of the 1982 act, which is subject to local policies, even if that disregards the working of the act. If the licence is refused, there is no refund to the applicant and no alternative way of earning a living during that period. I would suggest that this is totally unfair and may breach the important human right act. The 1982 act requires each fund fair to be licensed and must include every tenant of the fair plus equipment plan. Can you imagine a window cleaner needing a separate licence, application for a house, a separate plan for each window location and a type in size of each window? That is what showmen have to provide under the 1982 act. You may also ask how to exempt a fund fair from the act. You simply have to follow the phrase after section 67, public entertainment licence exemption for fund fairs in section 41 of the 1982 act, public entertainment licence after subsection 2 insert premises used for the purpose of a fund fair. In concluding, removing fund fairs from the 1982 act will relieve a financial and insecurity burden from the Scottish showmen and their families and allow more opportunity to operate their attractions. That would alleviate fear, the cost of refusal, giving them a greater sense of security and allowing them to continue with their culture and tradition. It would also allow for circumstances outwith their control such as bad weather and letting operators seek an alternative site to operate in conjunction with their local council. If the rest of the UK and the European Union do not have licensing of fund fairs, then why do we? I understand that the showmen have also gained the support of other parties in this Parliament and I hope that this Government will take steps to support show people in Scotland by removing the anomaly. I move them in my name. On the Scottish showmen's guild, can I go on to make a contribution? Yes, please. Can I congratulate Richard Lyle for presenting what was a very comprehensive detail of the arguments and the problems that are faced by the showmen's guild operating under the current system? However, there has been a very big bill with lots of different areas in it. We have taken no evidence on this at stage 1 and have not consulted with the stakeholders. I have sympathy with the reasons for them to be bringing forward this amendment today. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support it because we have not consulted on it in the process of this bill. I certainly think that Mr Lyle puts a very strong argument in a way to see what the minister says. Even if we have not taken evidence at this stage, I would hope that there would be some kind of commitment to actually take on board and look at what the case that is being made is, because it seems to me that he makes a fair case that the showmen's guild and the shows go round the different communities and they are struggling. We often see the Scottish weather and it depends on the summer as you get in whatever. I know that my own home village makes the gala, part of the gala that refers there. I think that they make a case and at least I will wait to see what the minister has to say, but I hope that we can certainly be sympathetic if not to support today to take on board. Before I bring in the cabinet secretary, it would only be fair for me to say that we have received communication from COSLA on this issue who had concerns that we have not taken evidence or consulted on this particular issue. I think that it is only fair to put that on the record. Cabinet secretary, please. I thank Richard Lyle for tabling amendment 68, which draws attention to the concerns of funfair operators regarding public entertainment licensing arrangements. I am well aware of those concerns and I agree that there is scope for local licensing authorities to consider their current practices in dealing with licence applications. Licensing should be fair and proportionate. There is no reason to gold plate licensing conditions so that funfairs become impossible to hold. There is no excuse for the outright hostility to funfairs that some operators have reported that they face. It would be a great shame if funfairs, which adds so much enjoyment to public life in many towns and communities, were lost. Nevertheless, I cannot support this amendment, which removes funfairs from regulatory control through the licensing entirely. On the terms of the amendment itself, I am concerned that it does not seek to define funfairs that may give rise to problems of enforcement. Similarly, the amendment does not clarify the extent to which a premises may be used for the purposes of a funfair before the exemption is applicable. Since it fails to come in a variety of forms and can have associated activities such as market stalls and galaday parades, it would be important to be clear what is being exempted. While it may be possible to address those issues, it would require careful consideration and would benefit from appropriate consultation to ensure that we got it right. However, more fundamentally, in many ways, it is hard to think of a better example of a public entertainment that needs to be licensed. Funfairs do raise obvious considerations in terms of the impact on neighbours, in terms of noise and minor nuisance. Some fairs in the past have raised the possibility of low-level alcohol-fuelled, anti-social behaviour. There are also health and safety considerations. While other enactments provide some protection in this regard, licensing is how it can be ensured that those enactments are being followed and provide a quick and effective means to deal with any concerns. As a committee is aware, the cosler opposed this particular amendment as do the police. However, it is clear that there is work to be done to ensure that funfair operators are treated fairly. To that end, I am prepared to work with local authorities to ensure that the issue raised by Richard Lyle has highlighted can be addressed. I am also prepared to work towards the Scottish Government issuing guidance to licensing authorities to assist in their consideration of funfair applications. I hope that Richard Lyle would agree that those are welcome steps and a proportionate response to the issue, and I ask the committee to reject the amendment. Can I call on Richard Lyle to wind up and press her withdrawal, please? Thank you, convener. It was actually physically my intention to press this amendment because I feel that there is an unfairness in Scotland and separate to England. In discussions previously with the cabinet secretary, he has given me anna, but he will work towards this, and I would ask that he hold with me, meet with me as soon as possible, and with the showman's guild in order to progress this. In light of the assurances that I am giving, while I was of the other mind before I come in this committee room today, I will not press them in. So, Mr Lyle has withdrawn. Are the committee content that that amendment be withdrawn? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 95, in the name of Cara Hylton, in a group on its own? Ms Hylton, to move and speak to the amendment, please. Thank you, convener. I begin by putting on record my thanks to Zero Tolerance Trust for working with me on these amendments and to the organisations, including Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, who have offered their support. Essentially, this amendment would oblige local authorities to produce a licensing policy statement. The statement would outline their intentions in respect of licensing sexual entertainment venues, setting out clearly why the local authority chooses or chooses not to offer licences for these venues, and putting that in the wider context of public health, child protection, community safety, gender equality, other policy concerns, but especially focused on tackling violence against women. I share the view expressed by the Zero Tolerance Trust and others that the licensing of these venues is incompatible with many of the Scottish Government's priorities and with our ambitions to ensure genuine equality for women and girls. Allowing these venues to exist seems at odds with our equally safe strategy, with the Scotland strategy to eradicate violence against women and girls, with the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland Bill, with our approach to domestic abuse and rape and sexual offences and, indeed, with the United Kingdom's equality and human rights legislation. The amendment would ensure that any local authority looking at offering a licence to a sexual entertainment venue would be obliged to take the policy context into account in justifying any licensing decision. I do not think that any decisions on this should be operating a vacuum and we should be reflecting this wider policy agenda locally and nationally. The evidence to date suggests that often local authorities have not placed sexual entertainment venues effectively. They have allowed multiple breaches of licensing conditions, which are apparently legally unenforceable, such as in respect of private booths and no touching policies. There seems to be evidence, too, that shows that some licensing authorities have taken their eye off the ball in respect of monitoring these venues. There was a court case recently involving city of Edinburgh officials accepting lapdances in return for award-imbuilding contracts. There is absolutely no doubt that there needs to be a lot more public scrutiny before sexual entertainment venues are granted a licence. A policy statement, as required by the amendment, would be one way of achieving this and of increasing accountability. I move amendment 95. Thank you. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? Mr Rowley, please. Thank you, convener. I want to support Kara Hilton with this amendment. I support the idea that it is for local authorities to be able to make these decisions. I think that that is correct and it is correct in the bill. I think that where a local authority is making a decision on this, then to have a policy statement that is open, transparent, that the public can understand is important. That is why I think that this amendment would enhance the bill. I hope that the minister will consider that. Anyone else? No, cabinet secretary, please. In, convener, I have considerable sympathy for amendment 95. The Scottish Government acknowledges that commercial sexual exploitation may be a form of violence against women. However, we have always argued that the local authority who licences the activities are best placed to reflect the views of their communities on this issue. The proposed licensing scheme will allow proper local authority control. Part of that is to ensure better working conditions and a more controlled environment for women who work in these venues. A local authority that seeks to licence sexual entertainment in their area will have to undertake a proper exercise to reach a determination of how to approach the licensing function and what their policy objectives are. The Scottish Government will produce statutory guidance to assist them in undertaking that exercise. Guidance will make clear that a local authority will risk challenge unless they have sought the views of relevant stakeholders, gathered evidence and addressed all of the relevant considerations. In other words, a local authority will have to give violence against women groups and some of organisations the opportunity to raise issues and the final determination that is reached will have to show that those issues have been considered. I am concerned, however, that this amendment would make it appear that any sexual entertainment venue licensing regime adopted by an authority had only one consideration or objective in that. It was to address violence against women. Our intention is to give local authorities the power to licence these venues and to reach the decisions that are right for their, for its own area based upon a range of considerations. For example, I would envisage them considering the impact on neighbours, the impact on those who make use of a locality, the impact on any schools and churches that may be nearby. I would also envisage them considering whether there is an associated risk of criminality or public disorder. I would not wish to create the impression that the regime is driven by only one consideration, violence against women, albeit this is of crucial importance. However, it should not be the sole consideration here and the legislation needs to reflect that. I do, however, recognise the importance of the issue that Kara Hilton has raised. I would offer to work with her to produce a fresh amendment at stage 3 that will make explicitly clear in the legislation that local authorities have to consider the issue of violence against women, but as one of a number of issues that they have to consider. For this reason, I would invite the committee to reject the amendment. I am really grateful to the minister for his comments. I think that it is important that we do. I really would like to see the spirit of this amendment reflected in the bill, but I accept his offer to work on a fresh amendment at stage 3. I will withdraw. Thank you. Are the committee content that amendment 95 is withdrawn? Thank you very much. I call amendment 96 in the name of Kara Hilton in a group on its own. Ms Hilton, to move and speak to the amendment, please. Thanks, convener. Once again, I thank the Zero Tolerance Trust for working with me in this amendment and also the Scottish Commission of our Children and Young People who has offered his support. The purpose of this amendment is to protect under-18s from working in sexual entertainment venues. As the bill stands, under-18s would be able to work in sexual entertainment venues at times when sexual entertainment is not taking place. At the Zero Tolerance Trust, I argue that this creates a groomer's charter allowing venues to employ teenage girls to work as cleaners or in office admin roles and then possibly persuade or coerce them to become performers when they reach 18. We all know how short of cash people are at that age, and it is probably quite a tempting offer for many girls in that situation. That is a particular concern for vulnerable young women, such as care leavers or women living in poverty or disadvantage. Some men who attend these venues will be seeking to buy sex there, and there is no guarantee that they will restrict their inquiries to the performers. Under-18s working in sexual entertainment venues are at risk of sexual exploitation being propositioned for sex and being exposed to an industry that damages women. Many of those venues screen pornography in the background and the real risk that under-18s will be exposed to this is obviously a child protection issue. I do not think that any under-18-year-old should be allowed to work in or attend in any capacity a sexual entertainment venue. I think that it is simply not a safe, healthy working environment for children. It is already the case that under-18s cannot work in sex shops and this provision should apply to these venues too. This is a personality for me as well, and I have a six-year-old daughter. I certainly do not want her to grow up in a Scotland where women are viewed and treated as sexualised objects. I think that these venues normalise what is a really harmful form of sexual exploitation. I think that a failure from the Scottish Government to send out a clear message on this is a failure to young people. That is not my words. That is the words of the commissioner for children and young people. The Scottish Government's own Violence Against Women strategy recognises the very real links between discrimination, objectification, violence against women and commercial exploitation. I think that we are serious about an equal Scotland and we are serious about tackling domestic abuse and violence. If we really want to ensure that Scotland is the best place to grow up for girls, then the Scottish Government really needs to be consistent here at sexual entertainment venues. There is no place for any child to work. We need to put a stop to this and ensure that our young people get the protection that they need. I would like to move amendment 96. I would like to support Kara Hilton on this, because I think that this is rather an anomaly that the 18-year-olds under 18 can work in a sexual shop or even if they are cleaners and they will be influenced by it. I think that it is the inconsistency that is prevalent here. I would like to support Kara Hilton on this amendment. Any other member? No? Cabinet Secretary, please. It convener, I do have sympathy for the objective of amendment 96, which is clearly aimed at offering better protection to young people. It follows issues highlighted by the Children's Commissioner ahead of the stage 1 debate. However, I do have a number of concerns. Firstly, I want to make clear that the bill does not relax controls in any way. Quite the reverse. Sexual entertainment premises are currently treated in the more or less the same way as any other licensed premises. That means that at the moment under 18s could perhaps be collecting glasses or undertaking similar activities while the sexual entertainment venue is open. The bill makes clear that if young people are being employed in such roles, then that must stop. Under 18s should not be on the premises while sexual entertainment is taking place. This is a reasonable and a proportionate step forward. I would not, however, be comfortable in necessarily saying that a 17-year-old cleaner could not be employed or a plumber's apprentice could not enter to repair a leak when the premises is closed or when it is merely being used as a bar or when the sexual entertainment venue is not taking place. I am not sure that this is proportionate and it gives rise to concerns that the employment opportunities of young people may be unreasonably restricted. Turning to the concerns expressed by the Children's Commissioner, it should also be noted that I have not seen any evidence that the type of grooming that concerns him in which the cleaner progresses to eventually participating in sexual entertainment actually takes place. The tighter controls that are offered in the new licensing regime should, in any case, prevent that sort of thing from occurring. All at that said, I acknowledge the important issue that Kara Hilton has highlighted here. I would again like to offer to work with her to produce a stage 3 amendment to address her concerns but in a way that allows some flexibility to avoid consequences that may be viewed as unreasonable. On that basis, I would invite Kara Hilton to withdraw her amendment. The minister says that the bill does not relax the rules in any way. I do not accept that that is the case. I am quite concerned about the provision and the loopholes that could be in the bill. I think that sexual entertainment venues simply are not the type of place that we should be encouraging children and young people to work in and that we should be challenging the culture. Could Ms Hilton indicate that, in terms of the comment that was made by the cabinet secretary about a 16-17-year-old apprentice plumber or electrician being called out to work in such premises, that they should be excluded from those premises because of their age? We are talking about employment opportunities for 16-17-year-olds and we need to be clear if we are going to press amendment on how that impacts on the wider society, particularly those young males and young females who undertake apprenticeships and are called out to carry out plumbing emergency repairs or electrical emergency repairs in such premises. The amendment is intended to protect young people who are employed by the sexual entertainment venue itself. I think that that is an important— You are still in intervention. I was going to say that surely the plumbers could send a 19-year-old or 20-year-old rather than an 18-year-old. That is what I would have said. There is no need to send an apprentice on that sort of job. That is a very valid point from Mr Buchanan. I really do not think that these venues are the type of place that our young people should be working in. I think that that is what you are trying to do is to establish the principle that no one of the 18-year-olds should be in those premises. Miss Helton? Thank you for that helpful amendment. It is essential that this is a clear message about the type of Scotland that we want to see and about the value that we place in our young people. I would like to press this amendment. I think that it is really important. I will be pressing the amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 96, please show. And those against amendment 96, please show. Those for, three, those against, three and one abstention, therefore falls to my casting vote. I will put my casting vote with the against, in which case the question is disagreed to. Amendment 97, in the name of Cara Helton, in a group on its own, Cara Helton, to move and speak to the amendment, please. Thanks, convener. Amendment 97 would require licensing committees to consult with violence against women, partnerships and with other bodies with a similar function. Again, this is aimed at ensuring that licensing committees fully appreciate the wider policy environment in which they operate. Right now, public policy can be a wee bit disconnected. Local authorities have all got strategies on preventing sexual abuse and violence against women, but not a lot have joined up thinking about how the licensing decisions impact on women. A little attention paid to how the venues in our towns and city centres impact on women and girls. I do not think that that makes sense. The Scottish Government's violence against women and girls strategy, equally safe, which I referred to earlier in our proceedings, defines commercial sexual exploitation as a form of violence against women. The equally safe strategy aims to create a strong and flourishing Scotland where individuals are equally safe and respected. The amendment would mean that local authorities would have to discuss their approach to sexual entertainment with local violence against women partnerships and think seriously about how their approach to licensing these venues fits with the strategy. The minister referred to this a bit earlier in his answer to one of my previous amendments, so hopefully he will have something positive to say in that. However, this is about ensuring that proper joined up thinking in our policymaking and ensuring that our public policy aspirations are reflected in the decisions that are made. I would like to move amendment 97. I support the intent of amendment 97, but I have some practical concerns. Whilst the current process already allows for robust notification procedures with requirements for both newspaper advertising and notices to be publicly displayed, I can see there may be advantages in more practical practice and principles of requiring specific forms of notification. The practical advantages in that ensures that important stakeholders are notified of applications and have the ability to make timeously representations and to influence the process. The advantage in principle is that it will send a very clear message that violence against women partnerships and similar bodies are important stakeholders in this licensing process. I am concerned, however, that the amendment as drafted specifically identifies violence against women partnerships. Whilst it is currently obvious what we are talking about, these are non-statutory bodies and we need to guard against some future reorganisation or refresh approach which makes these bodies extinct. My preference would be for an amendment that would allow each local authority to identify which organisations within their area should be notified of an application. The statutory guidance that will follow the bill will specify what types of bodies and organisations should be considered, including bodies such as violence against women partnerships. Therefore, I invite the committee to reject the amendment, as I have already asked officials to bring forward an amendment at stage 3 that will achieve the similar aim. Thank you. Ms Hilton, could I ask you to wind up, please, and press or withdraw? Thank you, convener. In light of the cabinet secretary's comments, I will withdraw the amendment. I look forward to an amendment that will come forward at stage 3. Thank you. Are the committee content that amendment 97 be withdrawn? Thank you. The question is that section 88 be agreed to. 68, even. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 69, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 70. Cabinet secretary, could you move amendment 69 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Amendment 69 and 70 will allow licensing authorities to revoke a licence under part 2 of the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. Part 2 licences include taxes in private highercalls, metal dealers and street traders, and can be granted for one to three years. At present, such a licence may be suspended for a specific period or for the remaining duration of the licence, but cannot be revoked. However, it is possible to revoke a licence under part 3 for a sex shop, as indeed it is for an alcohol licence under the Licensing Scotland Act 2005. The ability to revoke a part 2 licence was called for in the evidence sessions and calling here MSP made the same point during the stage 1 debate in Parliament. Therefore, I am pleased to bring forward those amendments. As I said, while it is already possible as part of part 2 of the licence to suspend or vary the period in certain circumstances, those amendments will allow for a proper response in those cases, where the stronger section of evocation is more appropriate. I move amendment 69. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 70 in the name of the cabinet secretary who is already debated with amendment 69? I move amendment 71 in the name of the cabinet secretary who is already debated with amendment 76 and 79. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 71 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Amendment 71 concerns civic licensing, while amendment 76 and 79 relate to alcohol licensing. Amendment 71 is a technical amendment. The bill, as introduced, repeals the word unconditionally from paragraph 9 of schedule 2 on the grounds that its inclusion is redundant when viewed alongside the new condition-setting powers created by the bill in section 71. This amendment improves the drafting by defining more precisely where the deleted word lies in the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. Turning to amendments 76 and 79 on alcohol licensing, amendment 76 will allow a licensing board when determining an application for a major variation to a premises to request that the chief constable provides them with a report on all cases, complaints and representations made regarding antisocial behaviour on or in the vicinity of premises in question. Currently, the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 provides that a licensing board when determining a premises licence application may request that a chief constable provide them with an antisocial behaviour report to help them to consider whether or not to grant the licence. However, the board can only do this when considering the original premises licence application and not any later application for a major variation to a licence. We love the opinion that this power should be available to boards when they are considering major applications for major variations. Amendment 79, meanwhile, is a minor amendment to remove reference in section 57.5 of the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 to the previous repealed section 57.2. That subsection 2 was repealed by the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010. I hope that the committee would support those amendments, and I move amendment 71. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 72 in the name of the cabinet secretary, a group with amendment 98? Cab set to move amendment 72 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 72 enhances the ability of licensing authorities to deal with the way in which sexual entertainment venues and sex shops seek to market themselves. Currently, conditions that may be imposed by the licensing authority are limited to regulating displays and advertising on or in the premises. The amendment will ensure that advertising activities in connection with the premises may also be dealt with, irrespective of where they take place. As sexual entertainment venues sometimes conduct a range of activities in the surrounding streets, such as handing out flyers and putting up signs and posters, it is sensible to ensure that the authority is able to deal with these matters. Kara Hilton's amendment 98 seeks to address the same issue. Obviously, I therefore welcome and support this objective. However, in my view, the amendment 98 is a more complicated way of achieving a similar objective and it significantly cuts across the new provisions in section 71 of the bill, which permits Scottish ministers to, by order, provide mandatory conditions and for local authorities to set standard conditions in respect of sexual entertainment venues and sex shop licences. In addition, although amendment 72 would allow a local authority to deal with advertising and displays, Kara Hilton's amendment would require a local authority to set conditions on this matter. My view is that it is unnecessary to make such a condition a statutory requirement. The proper approach is to enable local authorities to deal with the matter, support them in doing so through guidance and then leave the local authority to choose how to go about using those powers at their local discretion. Additionally, where amendment 98 to be passed, further amendment would be required at stage 3 to find a means to integrate the principle behind Kara Hilton's amendment into the new scheme for mandatory and standard conditions. That seems unnecessary given that section 71 of the bill provides for the ability to set mandatory and standard conditions for all part 3 licences and amendment 72 expands the ability of local authorities to deal with the issues of display and advertising at a local level. Furthermore, the Government intends to issue guidance to local authorities on their use of conditions for part 3 licences. The Government may also impose specific mandatory conditions in such licences if it is subsequently shown that that is necessary. I therefore move amendment 72 and ask the committee to support it and to reject amendment 98. I call on Kara Hilton to speak to amendment 98 and the other amendment in the group. Thank you convener. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of amendment 98, which is aimed at restricting displays and advertising of sexual entertainment venues. Often, venues have prominent sexually explicit signage, yet they can be seen by anyone passing the venue, including children going to school and women going about their ordinary business. I do not think that this is acceptable that our children are being exposed to these images and that women feel uncomfortable on a day-to-day basis. I do not think that those venues are a mainstream form of public entertainment and they are certainly not aimed at a cross-section of the public. I think that it is only right that we need to have restrictions on how these venues are allowed to advertise. Why should moms and dads have to plan their daily walking routes to avoid those images? I do not think that children should be exposed to these images on our high streets. That is why I have submitted amendment 98 and I would like to move it. I am not moving it, sorry. I am confused. Not yet, not yet. So please support amendment 98. Thank you. Anyway, other member wishes to enter the debate. Cabinet Secretary to wind up, please. As I have already outlined in my opening comments, convener, largely what Kara Halton is trying to achieve with her amendment is actually covered by her amendment and it provides the powers for local authorities to take appropriate measures. As we have also set out, we will provide guidance to local authorities on how they should take forward that area of the powers that we have under this legislation. Thank you. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 98 in the name of Kara Halton, already debated with amendment 72. Ms Halton, to move or not move, please. Are the committee content that that is withdrawn? The question is that section 72 to 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 73 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group in its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to the amendment, please. Amendment 73 is a consequential amendment that inserts a new part into schedule 4 to the Firearms Act 1968. The Firearms Act 1968, as amended, currently restricts the commercial sale or transfer of air weapons to registered firearms dealers. Schedule 4 to that act sets out the details of such sales or transfer that must be recorded in a dealer's register of transactions and therefore available for police inspection on request. Section 24 of the bill maintains the existing restrictions but also restricts the manufacturer, repair or testing of air weapons by way of trade or business to register to registered firearms dealers, as is the case with other firearms. This amendment is necessary to ensure that details of those transactions are also properly recorded in a dealer's register. Registered firearms dealers will essentially be required to record the same transactional information in relation to air weapons as for other firearms, and so we will be familiar with the new requirements. I therefore move amendment 73 in my name and invite the committee to support it. Thank you. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? Forgo your right to sum up, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I call amendment 74, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group in its own cab sector. Move and speak to the amendment, please. Convener, this amendment matches existing provisions in the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, which applies to court proceedings relating to firearms or shotgun offences. For the purposes of such proceedings, a constable or person employed by the Scottish Police Authority may sign a certificate stating that the accused did not hold the appropriate firearms or shotgun certificate on the date in question. That may be taken as sufficient proof of the matter, rather than requiring police witnesses to give such routine evidence in court. Amendment 74 makes similar provision for the purposes of court proceedings involving offences under part 1 of the bill. We believe that this amendment to the 1995 act is a sensible and proportionate measure for dealing with matters of routine evidence, which will save both police and court time. I therefore move amendment 74 and invite the committee to support it. Thank you. Any other member forgo your right to sum up? The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated? I would point out that some of those were debated on day 2. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 75 to 79 on block, please. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendment 75 to 79? In which case, the question is that amendments 75 to 79 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 80, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83 on day 2? The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 81, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83 on day 2? The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Can I thank members for their participation today? Our next meeting is on Wednesday 3 June, when we will consider the committee's draft annual report and future work programme. As agreed earlier, those items will be considered in private session. I now close this meeting. Thank you.