 Good morning and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2015 of the Health and Sport Committee. I would ask everyone, as I usually do at this point, to switch off mobile phones as they often can interfere with the sound system. Also to panel and others here this morning to note that members and colleagues may be using tablet devices instead of their hard papers. I have an apology this morning from Rhoda Grant. We are expecting Jane Baxter to be attending as her substitute. Our first item on the agenda today is subordinate legislation, and we have two negative instruments before us. The first instrument is national health service payments and remission of charges miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-333. There has been no motion to annul and the delegated powers and law reform committee has not made any comment on the incident. Are there any comments from members? I take it there isn't any comments. Can I take from that that we are agreed to make no recommendations? Thank you. The second instrument before us is mental health tribunal for Scotland practice and procedure number two amendment rules 2015, SSI 2015-334. Again, there has been no motion to annul and the delegated powers and law reform committee has not made any comments on the incident. Do we have any comments from members? I take it we haven't. Do we take from that then that the committee has agreed to make no recommendations? That's agreed, thank you. We now move to agenda item number two, which is our second evidence session on alcohol licensing, public health and criminal justice Scotland bill. We have Richard Simpson here with us as the member is responsible with us and who will have an opportunity to ask some questions at the end of this session. To feed into the committee's consideration of the bill, I and Colin Cair, Nanette Millan and Malcolm Chishol, members of the committee attended a fact-fising visit yesterday in Newcastle. We met a range of representatives from the local authority NHS and pleased to learn more about their alcohol watch container marking scheme and the supersynth scheme, which deals with supersynth drinks. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record, first of all, for my colleagues who gave up their time yesterday to come to Newcastle and, more importantly, for all those who gave their time to community police visits. We were very well received and we appreciate that very much when we have found it an informative and useful visit. I now welcome to the committee John Lee, head of Public Affairs, Scottish Grocer's Federation, Douglas Frewd Douglas, chairman of the National Licensing Standards Officer Group, Arsham McEaver, licensing, law, sub-committee, convener, law society of Scotland, councillor Creil Shand, chair of central licensing boards Aberdeenshire Council and Douglas Campbell, remfashire licensing board, assistant manager solicitor licensing. Thank you very much for your attendance here today. As usual with the round table, the politicians around the table expect to listen a wee bit more rather than questions. Although we will move to a question, the panel will be successful if we can get some discretion across the various people here representing different views, as expressed in their written evidence. To get us kicked off, Richard, will you ask the first question? I identify that I was a grocery manager for 14 years. In particular, I was interested in the submission by the Scottish Grocer's Federation. I will direct my question to John Lee, but I will hopefully ask other members to come in. In the submission, we do not support the majority of the proposals, including the bill, and believe that further changes to the licensing system will only add to the complexity of the existing system. Many of its proposals are either unworkable or come very close to simply duplicating existing legislation. What proposals do you believe are unworkable and what their members may feel on those proposals? I would like to focus on one of the key provisions, which was to develop a national container marking scheme. We had some serious reservations about that. Container marking within a store is very time consuming and very onerous. Unfortunately, there is not a central way that containers can be marked. It cannot be done through the barcode that appears on the product, for example. The key concern is that that measure is ineffective when it comes to dealing with the real issues that we have, such as the proxy purchase of alcohol products. We felt that it was impractical and did not deliver any particular benefit to the real and tangible problems that communities face, such as the proxy purchase of alcohol. That was one of the key things that we felt were unworkable. Some of the provisions relating to advertising, for example, we felt that they have already been dealt with. There are now quite serious restrictions on how a retailer can promote alcohol within a retail premises. Overall, we felt that there was too close and overlap with existing provisions, and some of it, as you say, was indeed unworkable. We have concerns—many politicians, councillors— This time, Richard, but we need to— I have concerns about kids getting purchased in life alcohol. It is very hard for the police to find out where they got it from. That proposal would identify a local shop or ensure that we could go back to that shop and say, well, you must have sold it, it has your mark on it. The product may have originated in that shop, but it does not show how it got into the hands of the young person. I think that there is a big issue with young people getting alcohol from their family, parents, older siblings, etc. It is not an indication that there is any lack of due diligence within the retail premises. Proxy purchase is extremely difficult for a retailer to deal with. We are currently involved in a campaign against proxy purchase in Motherwell and Wishaw. It has been highly successful, particularly because Police Scotland has been committed to taking action on it. We have noticed a decline in antisocial behaviour, an increase in arrests and charges for proxy purchase offences. The issue can only be dealt with by a multi-agency approach that involves police, social service, housing services, local community, community safety partnership and so on. I am afraid that container marking is a very blunt and ineffective instrument in trying to combat the issue of proxy purchase. Do the other panel members agree that it is a blunt and ineffective instrument? I do not think that all their written evidence reflected that. To a large extent, the Law Society would be supportive of Mr Lee's position here. I should say at the outset that society is very much behind any measures that will assist Scotland's relationship with alcohol just to make that absolutely clear. We are not gainsayers, if I can put it that way, but equally any measures that have to be introduced or will be introduced have to be effective, enforceable and have some tangible result. The concern that we have is that the bottle marking scheme would simply set people off on a false trail. At best, it would indicate that, at some point, the alcohol had been purchased or acquired from a particular set of premises, but that is as far as that would go. If the police or other enforcement agencies come across kids drinking alcohol in the park and trace it back to the shop, all they can say is that, at some point, it was acquired at that shop, was it acquired by their parents and they have pinched it from the house, was it legally acquired by someone of age who passed it on to the kids, how did it get there? I think that that is the highest that that achieves, and with respect to society's position is that it does not go terribly far to preventing alcohol from getting into the hands of underage drinkers. Douglas Campbell in The Council of Shand. Thank you, convener. I think that the points that have been made by the Federation and by Mr McHeaver are certainly demonstrative of some of the limits of how the system is being used. Certainly, on your licensing board, you have given a broad cautious welcome to some of the provisions. Although we think that any initiative at a national level to deal with proxy purchases and so forth has got to be a step in the right direction, I think that Police Scotland may see some benefit in terms of being able to gather intelligence if they are seeing a pattern of alcohol coming from the same premises to them again, but certainly in terms of specific cases it may not be enough, as Mr McHeaver has said, and the Federation has said just to say that this bottle came from that shop, because clearly that has been purchased by someone on perhaps some behalf of the young person with which the shop may not have been able to deal with directly. That would always be a mitigation if not a line of defence that might be taken at a board meeting or otherwise, but I think that I am certainly aware that our partners in the police feel that a pattern, if a pattern is seen to emerge from a premises in terms of alcohol time and time again coming from the same place, then that might be somewhere the police would want to target their resources and to that extent, as opposed with some note of caution, we would probably have some sympathy with the aims of this as with some of the other provisions in the legislation. Thank you for that councillor. Thank you. No, the licensing board's view on this was that in multi-packs, how do you mark all the contained items that were in that multi-pack, you've also got to think about cans, as well as bottles, it would be such an honourous thing for grocers and such like. In the bulk of the alcohol being bought nowadays it's through supermarkets and I just don't think they've got the infrastructure to deal with, creates a 12 cans of lager, how do you mark out individuals? I think that he's got to be targeted based, if there's a particular problem, if there's a kids hanging out at a particular point and it seems to be a particular type of drink that they've got, then tracing it through that way, it's sledding a hammer to cracker, not in our view. That might take us in, I don't know, Malcolm, you indicated you wanted to say something, I don't want you to relate to our visit yesterday because it's a good point. The main issue that's been discussed and our visit yesterday, because I think it's probably important just to put on the record one of the main things we saw yesterday was the use of the alcohol watch sticker, so I think at least it's part of the debate, whatever people think about it, and the reality is that it has been used quite extensively particularly in the centre of Newcastle and just in terms of the practicalities it's done, it's not done by the grocer, it's done by the officials of the council in terms of stickers that go on and we've saw the stickers and they go on quite easily and can't be taken off, so it's certainly possible to do that, it doesn't cost a lot of money either, we were told, and so people can gain intelligence about where there have been problems, I mean I think it's obvious that you can't just assume that an underage person has bought the bottle, but I think you can still gain important intelligence from that and interestingly a lot of the stores were quite keen to be involved in the scheme, now of course it's a voluntary scheme in Newcastle which I think is different from what's suggested in the bills, so no one's suggesting it's a panacea, but I think it would be wrong just to rubbish it and say it's not unworkable, it's obviously not perfect and would need to be complimented by other measures, but I think at least people should look at the evidence of where it has been applied and have at least recognised that it possibly does have a contribution to make. Just as part of that debate, and you'll get a chance to respond, we heard yesterday that it is very targeted, it's targeted not at all drinks within a grocery store, it was as you suggested Mr Shant, certain drinks were to be high volume lagers, you know the white lightning stuff, you know certain areas, we heard yesterday that it also gave comfort to some staff that worked in and out with the city centre and in outlying areas that they were being watched, so they averted some of the pressure that was put on them, particularly young members of staff from maybe youths that they know in the area or numbers of youth coming into the grocery store, and they felt that that gave them a bit of confidence and it wasn't applied to everybody and of course it was voluntary and that was a good principle that they pursued. Of course it limits their opportunities when it will have been voluntary because they are open to legal challenges, they haven't been legally challenged up to now but they are continually open to legal challenges in particular as you go up the chain, you know, but it's, so I just put those reflections in the mix I had. Yes, please, Mr Lee. Chisholm said something very interesting, if I picked you up correctly, that the markings that are actually applied by officials, presumably trading standards or licensing standards officers, I mean certainly that would take away a lot of the hassle for retailers, but again I think there's an issue about enforcement, I'm not sure that LSOs or trading standards in Scotland would have the manpower to do that, I think there's been a lot of concern recently about the impact of cuts on those services and I'm really not sure that they would have the manpower to take that on in any widespread way. I think I could see the way that conversation was going, that was one of my concerns that obviously Mr Campbell quite rightly said that when targeted it's good for information and getting a pattern emerging from that. One of the things that our members would obviously, there's the enforcement side of things, if this was to be a condition of a licence, the physical aspect of checking every can bottle in a large supermarket or small grocer or whatever would be very difficult for us to do and if that has been doubled up in terms of us actually applying those in the first place, in the first instance, actually applying the stickers that were marking the bottles, I don't know how that would sit if we were to then try and take a premises to review for breaching a condition or serve a notice for breaching a condition or a licence when it was our officers that actually technically applied the sticker itself. On the other hand we saw in our written evidence that there was a lack of prosecutions for sales under age thinking that it was being put as a positive. Now we are not confident that we've got the resources to police any of this and we know from a caseload and others that there are people getting access to alcohol causing that kind of social behaviour problems, et cetera, et cetera, as well as the health problem. That's already a problem for us, is it not, in terms of the number of and the opportunities to enforce. It's targeted, is it not? In terms of the enforcement of offences being committed to the police that would be targeting that, I don't have those figures that the police have. I think that in our written evidence the prosecutions are down, it's put as a positive. I think that it was a grossly federation that we got some of that information. What I'd say, Cymru, is that what we're picking up from the proxy purchase campaign that we're involved in in North Lanarkshire is that a problem seems to occur when the police can't take very positive action on that, but then the reports tend to get marked by the prosecutor's fiscal services no further proceedings. I'm not sure that the court system is really taking this seriously, even if the police are. I don't think that there's always a good flow of information back to the police about whether or not those cases have actually been preceded with. That's a useful clarification of the written evidence. Dennis was beat you to it, Bob, and then I'll get the council's hand in. Thank you, convener, and that's very appropriate, because in the evidence it was suggesting that Aberdeenshire Council had trialled a scheme with marking within the Elinan district area. I'm just wondering how effective that was, and why the council decided to stop continuing with that. Perhaps councillor Shand could answer that question. I'd be happy to answer that question. It must have been a scheme of four my time, because I didn't call it a implementation. I was thinking that a councillor, as well as being a chair of a licensing board, and I'm loath to encourage councils on extra expense on a general y like mandatory marking of all bottles, but I'd be content if legislation was permissive in that LSOs and trading standards or even the police had the ability to mark specific or request to a store or whatever. We think that bottle type is a problem that we could maybe get to mark our bottles, just to see if we can trace the history or even identify how fast around it, from the time it was purchased to the time it was consumed. We'd hate to be targeted us to deal with a particular problem in a particular area. A general mandatory thing, I think, would work. Again, we are at an advantage because we had a fact finder. I don't know if anybody else is taking the time to be in this interesting area. We visited Newcastle yesterday where they've introduced, with support of minimum pricing and bars, initiatives in and around SuperSense drinks. There's a lot of initiatives taking place there right, later, wrongly. They have used their imagination and initiatives and they can be described as best practice with the co-operation of businesses in Grocer. If any of you haven't been down there, it's not for us to defend our scheme, but go down and test it. Bob? That's a really interesting comment. It maybe shows the strength of a voluntary scheme, rather than one compulsion in legislation, from what you've said there. Irrespective of whether this would be a desirable power or not to have, I ask about the power contained within the legislation, because my understanding is that it would be at the request of police, for police to decide how the product should be marked. If licensing boards don't comply with that request, they would have directed the chief constable to explain their reasons for not complying with that request. I'm just wondering if this power is to be taken. Is it best, if it's to be taken, to be best sitting with licensing boards themselves, rather than with the police, given the fact that it's licensing boards and local authorities that have to incur the cost and have to deal with enforcement? I'm just wondering, even for where to go forward with this, are we maybe starting to unpick who's of the strategic role in relation to the licensing strategy and to implementation and enforcement? It would be quite interesting to know any views on that. Can you comment on that, Mr MacKeever? I think that in the Law Society's response we did comment on this, in fact. The view that the Law Society takes is that Parliament has entrusted licensing boards to regulate, if I go into a better term, the sale and distribution of alcohol, and if the power is then to be given to the police to promote the bottle-marking scheme, in our view you're starting to undo the principle fundamentals of the legislation whereby it's the boards that are in control. It's interesting too that if a request from the police goes forward and the board decides, no, it's not for us, there is then an accountability to the police as to why that should be the case. I do feel that there would be a danger that the power of boards would be starting to be undermined slightly if the power was to be given to the boards. That would be the Law Society position. Members of the panel have got a comment on that, Mr Campbell. I've got some sympathy with what Mr MacKeever has just said in terms of reasons happening to be given automatically to the police, where that's not something that would normally happen throughout the course of the legislation. The only other similar analogy I can think of at all is in relation to if we don't follow the recommendation of the licensing forum, we have to. I think that it's under section 12, we have to give an explanation as to that. However, this is clearly another organisation that doesn't have quite the role that the licensing forum has, so I think I'm inclined to agree with Mr MacKeever. No other responses? Councillor Shand. I think that the licensing board should be ultimately determined on what goes on within their remit. They are charged with licensing. If a police request comes in, I think that there's a problem here in a particular area, I think that most boards would be happy to consent to the police dealing with things relating to criminal activity. In my board, we have a very good relationship with the police and they are sitting in it all by board meetings and we meet them on a regular basis on other matters through police things. Co-operation between the board and the police is essential, but it's got to be the board that has the ultimate decision dealing with alcohol. Thanks for that. Any other comments from the Mopano member? No? Colin? Thanks. I'm just a wee bit concerned about what I've just heard because I don't think that in terms of the licensing board, I think the court, I don't know if you meant it this way, but consenting to the policing in relation to criminal activity, I would have thought that there was no place for the board to be doing that. That's the job of the police and certainly I wouldn't expect any licensing board to ever come into conflict with the police in that way. In terms of the use of the bottles and whatever, talking about this thing, about the licensing board consenting and all this sort of thing. Again, I saw it as a bit of a timesy yesterday if the police are looking, they see a problem in any particular area, they were starting to bring in stuff like the bottle labelling and all that to attack something that is in an area with specific types of drinks, everything like that. I don't really see if, allowing for the fact that the police should have that in their toolkit, why would you really need all that much in a way of extra power anyway if they saw it as a part of a criminal activity when really I don't see licensing boards or licensing committees having been not in liquor licensing but in other types of licensing in Edinburgh, I would never want to get in the way of the police doing anything about criminal activity, that's not my job or wouldn't it have been my job? Councillor Shant is going to clarify this. I agree that anything relating to criminal activity even failure to implement licences properly is a police matter but I think that co-operation with a licensing board would be essential at least to know that that was being planned especially if it's a local authority it's going to have to put the labels on the bottles. Any criminal activity will ultimately be a responsibility of the police to enforce their means of operation entirely for the police to deal with but I don't think that a licensing board should be excluded from what's known what's going on, it was a problem because it possibly eventually come possibly come to a review in front the licensing board so of a particular premises that was to be what the police were to find but no I agree that it is ultimately police responsibility to enforce the law. The idea of and it seemed to come across in Newcastle that the local authority licensing authorities, the police, the businesses for the most part were all working on to the same script if you like but I wouldn't like to see you know the non-availability of say this tool to the police just because somebody say a licensing committee or board didn't like the idea of almost like losing authority if you like. Okay. Any other aspects of the bill? Any questions from committee members? Dennis? Thank you, convener. It's just with regard to the licensing of premises and the possible extension to 42 days from the 21 within the planning and there seems to be some degree of controversy and disagreement. I think the law society are content that it remains at 21 days as is other planning however the councils as in Aberdeenshire are quite content to see it be extended to 42. I'm just wondering if we could maybe examine that and ask maybe why either support the 21 of the 42 days in terms of the licensing of premises for the consultation period. Councilor Shand and then Mr McEath. The Aberdeenshire I don't think is a single policy. I think a northboards consultation put in for 21 it was a central board consultation that came in for 42 and the reason why we were happy with 42 is to allow community councils a chance to sort of consider things because they often go in a four-week cycle of 21 days would now allow them to do that. Also that 21 to 42 days didn't seem to be particularly onerous in those who are applying for a lease. Another 21 days wasn't going to take much of a difference in our view so that's why we were happy to go along with the 42 days as opposed to 21 days. The law society position is that we would not be in favour of the extension. One of the difficulties I suppose that all parties to the process have is that we all tend to look at our own little areas and we base our decisions on our own experiences of our areas and I've not the slightest doubt that in certain parts of the country applications are processed very quickly but that is not uniform throughout Scotland. To put that into context I had a meeting in a major city last week and of the 19 applications on the agenda 14 of them had been lodged in excess of nine months prior and indeed somewhere a good bit more than nine months and so already there's a considerable delay in the processing of applications which in turn kind of a major impact on businesses that can stifle development and I would remind your honours sorry members with respect. I have elevated you to the peerage. That's the problem with appearing in front of a licensing board when it gets your honours in the brain. Members and convener that under the previous legislation the 1976 act it was only five weeks lead in time from an application being lodged to it being dealt with by a licensing board and now we're talking about nine months a year. Anything that will further that delay is in the law society's view a bad thing and from experience of those who sit on the committee who have contributed to the response certainly we do not find those of us that are practitioners on a day to day basis in this field do not find that people are slow to object within the 21 day period if they feel the desire and the requirement to do so. 21 days is also the planning lead in time as I understand it for objections and again I'm sure those of you with experience in that field will readily accept that people take advantage of that 21 day period and lodge their objections so we really don't see any reason that that would support the increase to 42 days your honours. I think in our written response we did reflect that it may mean that some applications may take longer, the point that Mr McIver has just made, and also accept what has been said by the councillor, councillor Shand, in relation to the community council cycle and that they can't respond sometimes unless they've had a chance to have their meeting. I think in relation to that stuff although we haven't really taken a strong, in fact, I think that we could understand the reasoning for extending the period to 42 days. As an officer what would worry me more about the community involvement provisions is the extension of the 4m to 50m. That is going to have massive implications for Mr Frude as an LSO. I might have a view on that. I anticipate that if you have an area where there's not a community council active and we have such an area where it's built up, there's loads of tenement flats and effectively this provision isn't just going to apply to new premises licences. That could be a case of a major variation to increase the capacity of a premises by two square metres. That's a major variation. Effectively then somebody has to notify everyone within a 50m radius on what might be a very built up area. I think that there are potentially huge implications for LSOs in all likelihood to try and administer that system if it was to come in. Although I can understand the sentiment behind it and why that might be something that would seem attractive in the face of it, but it could mean LSOs effectively having to have vast amounts of their time taken up trying to implement such a system, rather than perhaps trying to deal with enforcement matters that may be beneficial in terms of the licensing system as a whole. The extension of the distance was excessive and totally onerous and virtually impossible to deal with in a particularly built up area where it could have high-rise flats. It was 50 metres. It was a nightmare for licences, clerks and LSOs to deal with. It was totally out of proportion. Kate Malcolm? Sorry Douglas. Kate, he's on my blind side here. Give me a dog. It was just in response to what Mr Campbell said that there is a great degree of variance across licensing board areas as to how LSO carries out their duties. Many of our members would have absolutely no involvement with the application process in terms of who is notified, etc. Depending again on your local authority, you may be involved in dealing with representations or objections that come in before they go to the board, because a lot of people will simply object or make a representation while not fully understanding what the application was. I take on board that it may have an effect on some LSOs, but for a lot of LSOs it would have as a group, we didn't make a response to this particular provision. I appreciate that it may not just be LSOs, but certainly somebody would have to deal with the notifications, so there will still be a resource issue involved. Malcolm? I was going to move it on. That was an interesting discussion, although I suppose there are intermediate options between four metres and 50. I suppose four does seem ridiculously small. I was interested in the evidence on advertising, because it is one of those areas in which I think that people in general are sympathetic to the intention and so on. The law society seems to concentrate mainly on enforceability and feel that it was not enforceable, so it would be interesting to hear about that. The national licensing standards officer's group thought that, again, I think that without disagreeing with the principle that it was not quite worded in a way that would deliver the intended result. I was quite interested in those submissions. The whole area of advertising would be interesting to hear people's views on that, particularly from the law society. There is also some reflection on how it relates to current good practice. I am not sure whether there is any or much legislation about that at all, but there seem to be a lot of codes of practice and such. It does seem to be an area where there has been a lot of general goodwill towards what is intended, but there are a lot of questions about the detail. I think that that is a fair way to summit, Mr Chisholm, in the sense that there is goodwill behind it, but perhaps the devil is in the detail, as is always trotted out in those discussions. The first point that I would make is that there is already enforced legislation to do with promotions. The Alcoholic Sector of Scotland Act 2010 introduced provisions to cover that. To a large extent, I would suggest that they almost replicate what is being proposed in the bill. I suppose that I raised the question of whether we are really getting into the terms of duplication here. The second point that follows on from that is that, if we were to proceed down what is proposed in the bill, there is a great deal of scope for confusion, I would suggest, in that we have a definition in the legislation already about promotions. We have a different definition in the current proposals regarding advertising. They are similar but not the same, and there is plenty of room for complete and utter confusion, I would suggest. Where there is confusion, there naturally follows from that. Difficulties about enforceability. The other aspect that the Law Society's view is founded upon is the practical difficulties. If you were to accept 200 metres from the boundary of a school or a creche and so on, what happens, for example, to existing premises when a creche moves into the area? How does the existing business respond to that? There is one aspect that I think I should correct because it is, in my view, on reflection wrong. We did cite the example of somebody wearing a football jersey turning up at the school gate. I accept that that is not a fixed place, so perhaps members could draw a line through that one, unless you could have a very lazy parent who is standing there for days at the end. That said, I think that there are slightly other aspects to it. We cited the example, and we are not being flippant in any way when I say this, but one does see, for example, coming up to sporting events, youngsters putting posters in windows and things, and the Scottish Cup final was once, maybe still is for all I know, sponsored by a very well-known drinks company. Technically, that is an advert in a fixed place. I am not for a second suggesting that the police are going to go kicking down the doors, but on the face of it that would be a criminal offence. I think that there is a requirement to be at best a degree of tightening up, if I can put it that way, and at worst a serious look at whether it is actually required, given the promotions legislation that is already covered within the existing legislation. I echo almost everything that Mr MacIver said there from the retailers point of view, the 2010 act already restricts the promotion of alcohol within the retail premises. It seems that the provision was just adding more ambiguity to that and was not clear about the differences between promotions and advertising, so there are already very strictly defined restrictions on promotions of alcohol within a store. I think that Mr MacIver explained the potential problems of whether that is very well. Anyone else? We have had some evidence, so you guys, Douglas, do you want to tell me about that? I think that Mr Chisholm has said about enforcement as well, and Mr MacIver has stolen something with thunder in terms of that there is legislation there at the moment that is brought in by the alcohol etc act, which excludes premises from advertising outwith our alcohol display area unless it is 200 metres away. From our point of view, it possibly brings in the notion of trying to find out where the creches, nurseries, playgroups et cetera are and where they may spring up from. In my experience, there has not been a great deal of local premises that will advertise outwith that area. It tends to be your national, not necessarily retailers, more providers and manufacturers of alcohol that would be there, and they do not hold premises licences, although they would be committing an offence again. Further talking about these offences would be under an authorised officer and not necessarily the police in that respect, so that would be something else that might be brought, depending on the intention of that provision, into our remit. If I can just add, I think that there is probably a fair bit of common ground in terms of what has been already said by the various people that have spoken today in terms of perhaps the provision that has just been tightened up to ensure that the laws of unintended consequences do not apply and that people are not fully criminalised. We have touched on our response, but I think that having looked at some of the broader responses that have been made to the committee, there are issues around, as one premises is not going to display some sort of placard outside its premises whereby some other premises, 10 metres, we might be able to do that because they happen to fall outwith the 200 metres from the creche, so you have got some of their advertising and some that aren't. I think that it may be a provision that needs to be looked at more closely. Anything else on the advertising? Events, postal events, cultural events? No? Bob? Thanks. Can you add something? I want to again move the conversation on the discussion because it is a fairly wide-ranging bill, so drinking banning orders is part of the provision. I am interested to get some views on that, perhaps in relation to—again, I am just looking through my briefing there in terms of how that relates with existing legislation in relation to what I suppose currently exists. I also note that there is a bit of a lack of clarity in terms of whether it is on sales, off sales, by postcode definition certain streets, what would come in the auspices of a drinking banning order and how that might or might not be enforceable. I also notice within the legislation that where someone is convicted for an offence where alcohol was part of that offence, from my reading of it, the court would have to give a reason for why they weren't imposing a drinking banning order. I may have got that wrong, but I think that that's what the legislation says. Just in terms of how desirable moving towards drinking banning orders would or wouldn't be, how much there is duplication with how the law currently operates or works and how workable enforcement would be and whether courts should be driven towards considering a drinking banning order in each case. I know quite a lot on that, but it would be helpful if we could get some comments on that, convener. Can we have some comments on that? Yeah, we were supportive of that bit with the banning orders, but it somehow has to be dealt with cautiously. It does have its downsides and other problems could rise, but we were generally supportive of the banning orders. Anyone else, Mr McEvar? I think that the only comment that the law society would make is that, again, to some extent, we're moving into the potential realms of duplication here, in that there are already exclusion orders available under the existing legislation. There are the asboes that we've heard mentioned in passing that are available. Also, if we understand the position correctly, banning orders would only apply to premises' licences for consumption on the premises. The general feedback that we tend to get from the police and the like is that much of the social fallout from the abuse of alcohol is centred on drinking in the home, alcohol obtained from off-sales premises, which would not appear to be covered by the current proposal if we understand it correctly. Perhaps there's a slight gap there. Although it's not a question really for the law society, we did touch on the question of the resources, because as I understand it, it would either be the police or the local authority who would have to seek such an order, and in the current budgetary constraints that everyone's working under, we just wonder whether the financial wherewithal would be there to pursue these particular orders. Anyone else? No? Any other questions from members? The exclusion orders in the 2005 act and the banning orders, is there an overlap there, or are you saying that they're almost identical? I think that the main difference would be that exclusion orders really cover a situation where a person has been convicted of a violent offence, so it's really restricted to violence in or in the vicinity of licensed premises. I accept that Dr Simpson's proposal widens that to I suppose you could classify it as antisocial behaviour to some extent, so there is a degree of difference. I can't give you statistics. I'm not particularly aware of a huge use being made of exclusion orders, and again we come back to certain things that were touched on earlier, that the powers may already be there, may not just be being used over much and whether this would be yet another item in the statute book that is there and is available, but nobody actually uses. The powers are there and they're not being used. I'm not sure that, we haven't touched on the matter in the licensing board response, I don't think it's a matter that I would directly comment on. I think obviously it would echo some of the concerns as to if there's duplication in resources, but it's probably not something that would be directly involved in the pursuit of a certain ban in order. It may be a wider local authority matter. I don't think it's a matter that really affects boards directly. It's really a matter for the police and criminal matters. I don't think it really affects boards. I would go in favour of it. The net milling, please. I just wanted to touch on the alcoholic drinks containing caffeine. I did raise this with the police in the Newcastle yesterday and was met with a fairly blank look. I don't think they've had any problem with it at all, as far as I can gather. I just wondered what people hear if there are any concerns about the consumption of things like Buckfast or other caffeinated alcoholic drinks. Mr Lee. That's a good question. In our preparation for the written submission that we submitted to the committee's request for written evidence, we could find no evidence that there was a problem with these types of products. We looked at a report from the European Food Safety Authority panel, which concluded that caffeine is unlikely to mask the subjective perception of alcohol intoxication. We found several other research papers that suggested the same thing. In gathering our evidence for our submission, we could find no substantive evidence of a particular problem with these products. We are uncomfortable with particular products being targeted in this way, or that there are mandatory licensing conditions that retailers cannot stock particular products. We really feel that there is simply no sufficient evidence to justify a ban on these drinks, and until that becomes available, the proposal should not be taken forward. The Law Society's position is perhaps slightly more technical in that, fundamentally, the first issue that we have is that the level of caffeine that is to be referred to in the legislation would not be decided as part of the primary legislation but would be dealt with by ministers in this abordinate fashion. That, I would suggest, is a difficulty in that it goes very much to the heart of the question, what is the level of caffeine that we are talking about. We are discussing this in the dark at the present time, and I think that there would be a major impact on manufacturers and retailers depending on what that level was set at. If that route is to be pursued, the first thing that should happen is that the level of caffeine should be stated in the primary legislation. The second aspect is that, at the present time, as the proposal goes forward, it is already mixed drinks that are being discussed. Let us assume that that is followed through and that you are not able to buy a container of, say, a vodka and an energy drink mixed together, and that is prohibited. Of course, there is nothing to stop on that shelf there, a vodka, and on that shelf there, an energy drink, and somebody to come in, buy one of each and go and effectively mix it themselves thereafter. So, whether it would go to the heart of the perceived problem, I do not know. We are not in the position, as the Society to comment on, how great an issue the caffeinated alcoholic drinks is. It is interesting to hear Mr Lee's position. I believe that I am correct in saying that, looking at the last report of the previous evidence session, there was again a suggestion that it was a fairly small percentage of sales that fell into this category. I am not sure that it is perhaps the huge issue that it might seem to be. It is nearly a problem up in the north-east when I am in Bucfast. I could not find it on sale in my area anyway, so the best that I could do was go on an encyclopedia site to see how much caffeine I was in it, and apparently, from what I learned, there were brown bottles and green bottles, Irish public used brown bottles and UK used green bottles, and the equivalent caffeine was three cups of tea. I just thought, well, it seems to be a sledgehammer to crack a knot when you have things like energy drinks when I mention a particular brand, because supermarkets now produce the same at a much cheaper rate than the standard brand leader. However, I think that it is a social problem in Bucfast, in particular areas. I do not think that there was a common difference between caffeine in it or not. I do not think that that is why those people who have these problems drink it. I think that the sweetness of the drink is probably a bigger attraction in the ease of consumption than the caffeine content that I have read. It is a mad drink in Aberdeen. You know what it is, do not you? Tell me what it is. It used to be White Cider, which could free-late us for two quid, but it did not have a scene in Orchard in its life. It was made for corn syrup, so they could live right here. I say that because I relate back to your question about tab-getting particular drinks, and certainly, colleagues, that it could be the white light, and it could be wham and Bucfast in certain areas. I presume that nobody disagrees and the focus with current or past legislation that focuses on strong tides, strong lagers, etc. Other people target a lot of these drinks because they are very harmful, not just to the individual but the wider. Nobody disagrees that there are certain drinks. If we are tackling some of these anti-social behaviour or, indeed, health problems, I do not think that anybody disagrees that some of these particular drinks need to be targeted in certain initiatives. Are we, Mr Lee? I think it very much depends on the product, convener, but we are uncomfortable with particular products being targeted in this way. I think that is complex reasons why people have particular problems with those products. Banning them as such or using licensing to effectively ban them seems like us the wrong way to go about it without very robust and concrete evidence for why those products are causing a problem. We were very uncomfortable with that proposal. When we looked at the evidence, and there did not seem to be any issue with caffeine and alcohol, I think that there is a real challenge to the perception that those products are having the harmful effect that we think they are. As Mr Shann says from Aberdeen, it has nothing to do with caffeine at all, so I think that we have to step back a little bit and try to gather more evidence on this whole issue before we ban particular products. You are going to tell us your favourite mad drink, are you not? I actually do not have one, but if it would be, it would probably be a nice French cognac. I am just wondering if it is not a question of caffeine or whatever. Is it not merely that or even the product? Is it not driven by price for certain people who are buying whatever product it is? It is based on what can I get at the cheapest cost and therefore that is what they are buying. It has no significant area of caffeine or anything else. It is to do with what can I get at the cheapest price because I want to get drunk or blutered or whatever the term might be. I have got Richard Simpson who is champion at the bit, but he will get his opportunity to come in. I cannot take you in to respond to that, Richard, but you will have your opportunity to do it shortly. I am not aware that buckfast is particularly cheap. I remember when the minimum pricing legislation was on the go that it would have fallen out with that matter, so it is not a particularly cheap drink. It is not price-based. I would have said that the white cider might have been a better buy in Glasgow. It might have been cheap skates up in Aberdeenshire. I went to go for the cheap drink. It is funny as though they could follow you up there, that is what they said. Mr Lee. Just a very brief point, convener, and just to echo what Councillor Shan said. The main product that we tend to talk about in this context is not particularly cheap. As he says, it would not be affected, for example, by minimum unit pricing. I am not even sure that it is particularly strong. It is probably not as strong as we think it is. I am sure that there are much more potent products available. In terms of price and strength, it is probably not the problem that we think it is. Thank you for that. Richard, you have one final point. Can I move on to the point of notification of offenders GP, just to get an answer in regard to that? I noticed that there is a mission from the Refuture Licensing Board in regard to Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell may want to comment on it in regard to the individual's right to privacy in the criminal name, whether any of this proposal is a public benefit. Would you like to comment on that? Sorry, you are referring to the paragraph? The notification of offenders GP in regard to section 31 of offences involving alcohol. I will help you, if you wish. I am just looking to do you a reference to the GP. He stated that GPs would no doubt be aware of the patient's state of health as a result of misuse of alcohol. You questioned whether a provision is necessary in regard to public interference or an individual's right to privacy. I am just looking for the paragraph and the response that you are quoting from. Section 31. I am not sure that it is my response that has been quoted to me. That is my difficulty. Sorry. Sorry, it says that the Refuture Licensing Board has gone on. Okay, I apologise. Is there a reference to that? I am interested to know, convener, if anyone has any views in regard to that. I think that it is helpful to get it on the record, Richard. I think that it is referred to in your law societies. Mr McKeith. Yes, it was the law society response that referred to that, Mr Lyle. Really it was just a general comment about that we would anticipate that most GPs would already be aware of their patient's state of health in the context of alcohol misuse. Given that there is no requirement for the GP to do anything, once the intimation is made, we just questioned whether there was any real public benefit to this provision. There was nothing more dramatic than that. If we give them the information but they choose not to do anything with it, is it worthwhile legislating about that? That was really the general thrust of the comment. Okay, my apologies to Mr Campbell for my paper show heading renaissance in board. Okay, not guilty. Anyone else on that one? We were quite happy for notification to the GPs but we felt there was nothing a GP could actually do with that information once they got it. Personally, I was kind of maybe out of line with my colleagues on the board and at first it impinged on doctor-patient relationships and confidentiality. I just had my personal reservations that other people saying that it's a drink problem. It's something that the patient should be disclosing with the doctor directly, but that was my personal view on this matter. Plug for what was described as a no-brainer, a self-financing scheme in Newcastle. You defer half your drink-related fine and attend a four-hour course, and they claim great success for that. Linking that issue up, directing them to GPs, etc, etc, and you defer the £90, £90, £45, you attend the course. The reoffending is quite good. From those who don't attend the course to those who do is showing significant promise, and it's self-financing that doesn't cost any money apparently. I'll just recommend it there. It was important to mention that, but I think that that specifically relates to another proposal on the bill about alcohol awareness training as an alternative to fixed penalty fines, so it's the kind of example of what is being proposed, except I think that the bill is proposing all the fines wave, whereas obviously Newcastle was proposing half of the fines wave, but it's the same principle, and it seems to be effective, because they produced evidence that those who had been on the course, there was less reoffending than those who hadn't been. Any comment on that? No? Anyway, it's on the record now. There's a couple of brief areas, and that is in regards to the proposals around age discrimination and off-sales. Does anyone get any comment on that? I think that there was more support for that, so I take it to the silence. We didn't think that age discrimination should play part of the law at the age of 18 for everything. We weren't happy with 21 for some things. Do any of us know where any of that has been applied, Mr Lee? I can say that, in my experience, I've only ever come across this on two occasions. Both followed upon premises licensure review hearings, where the particular premises in question had failed at least two test purchases and part of the sanction for one for better term that the board imposed was a restriction on the age at which alcohol could be sold. They have both subsequently been overturned, may I say, and those premises are back to 18+. It was a tool of that word's thought to implement. Do any of yous, Mr Lee, on that one, do you know any of that? It would seem to make things clearer and more consistent, so, from that point of view, we were happy to support it. The other one was on the general issues. Just to finish that before I go to Richard, the general issue is the minimum price for packages containing more than one alcoholic drink. Do we have any views about what the provisions might bring in having reducing alcohol consumption? Any views on that, Mr Campbell? I think that we were generally supportive as a board towards the idea of why it should be a restriction on the single canneas against four cans and not between four and eight. I'm not sure that it introduces a complete linear pricing model, but I don't think that was the intention. So, generally, we've expressed some support for that provision. On that, again, you're confident that that measure could be enforced? I think that, like all those matters, we obviously have the provision in relation to the single canneas opposed to four. It seems logical that, if there would be a restriction that four cans sold as a package shouldn't be cheaper than four times the single canneas that forms part of them, it seems a loophole if you simply don't stop with single cans, or if you're going to have it at all, it might as well be more coherent. From that point of view, it would seem to be sensible. Like all those matters, it's a matter of time and resources for licensed standards and officers as others in terms of how that matter would be enforced and how proactively it would be enforced as opposed to other priorities. The logic of it does seem to make some sense to us as a board. Thanks, convener. We were happy with the multiple pack rules, but the mixed packs would always be a way around it if they didn't put things in like for like. If they wanted to find a way around it, I think they can find a way around it, but we were happy with the general question. I'm not going to go to Mr McIver at this point, but I'm going to go to Douglas. Thank you, convener. Yes, I agree completely. The licensed standards officers group was broadly supportive of that measure. It's something that has been lacking from the irresponsible promotions when they came in, the fact that there's no link between a four pack and an eight pack if that single can is there. As we commented adversely, the previous change to legislation actually forced the smaller single can off the shelf, so you now have the larger pint tin on the shelf as being the smallest amount of alcohol available to somebody looking to purchase. Because it's part of and could be implemented under schedule three, there's no real issues that we see. Obviously, with the detail and the workarounds that may come from the trade, we can't really see a great deal of problems with that as proposed. Okay. Thanks for that. I think of the final one. Mike? Thank you, convener. Representing the Highlands and Islands, I feel bound to ask this general question. I wonder if the witnesses' guests here this morning would exercise their imagination to the extent of considering whether this bill would have a detrimental effect on what I'm thinking about in rural areas and what I'm thinking about are the small village shops. Often there are post offices as well, often the teeter and the brink of viability, whether the burden imposed by this legislation could mean the difference between viability for those small community facilities. Mr Lee? It's a good point that Mr McKenzie raises, convener. I don't have a full answer, but I would simply say that our understanding is that there have been six major pieces of alcohol legislation. Sorry, if this bill is enacted, it will be the six major pieces of alcohol legislation enacted since 2009. I think that the retailer's view is that the landscape for licences has become increasingly complex, increasingly difficult to understand and store. As a trade association, we try to issue guidance anytime new legislation appears to ensure that our members are compliant and selling alcohol responsibly. That can be expensive and time-consuming. It's becoming increasingly difficult for all the key stakeholders to fully get to grips with the complexity of licensed legislation in terms of promotion and advertising and so on. Training is another particular issue. All staff have to undergo two hours' mandatory training in Scotland before they can serve alcohol. Premises have to have a premises licence holder, so it is becoming increasingly complex. There is a case for the Parliament taking a step back and trying to evaluate the impact of existing legislation before we go any further and enact yet another piece of licensing law. As a licensing board, it covers vast rural areas and towns. I appreciate what you are saying entirely, but I think that the remote village shops and the country pubs are financial situations to be dealt with in a different way. I do not think that we should be excessively onerous in our legislation. The licensing legislation is now very complicated and complex. It is a whole series of different pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, it is not a single act that you can refer to where everything is in. It is now amendments to the 2005 act. It has got so piecemeal that it probably needs a total reappraisal again. It is not a single act, but it is not for what we are at the moment. We are dealing with diverse legislation. We have banned us from exactly your point. I think that what has been said by both Councillor Shand and the Federation today is widely shared that if we could have the legislation effectively under one roof in a consolidated act at some point, it would be hugely helpful. We now have well over 30 sets of regulations. I cannot remember if it is the 5th or the 6th act, including the 2005 act, but it is certainly the criminal justice act, the alcohol act, the 2005 act itself. We had the weapons and licensing act, which of course has not been in the main commenced yet. It has become a very complex landscape. I feel the pain of the trade and the Federation's members in keeping track of matters. It is difficult enough for all the licensing lawyers across the country. I am just going to echo that, Mr Chairman. We all know the old adage ignorance of the law as no defence. It is fine if the law is easily accessible, but it is impossible now to be candid about it for the average retailer to keep up with the amount of legislation and regulation that governs this trade. Practitioners who do this on a day-in-day-out basis, we struggle to keep up with it. The chap is trying to run his local corner shop, or the big high street supermarket. It does not matter. It is trying to find the legislation that is bordering on the impossible, and it is a real cry from the heart if you have any power in this regard. You understand that the Scottish Government has got support of the Parliament tackling one of our biggest problems? Absolutely, but it is the finding of the legislation for the operator that is the difficulty here on. If it could be under one consolidated piece of legislation, that would make such a difference. No, thank you, convener, but I think that was a very important point, and that was the one I was seeking to tease out, the need for consolidation. I think it was reflected in the evidence. Mr Lees talked about how successful existing legislation has been. One of the things that we do have evidence for is the multi-pack discount restrictions that the Scottish Government brought in has already sought a fall in consumption, so there is very strong evidence that exists that that has happened. Would not in terms of consolidation, would Dr Simpson's proposals not simplify things? If there are already restrictions on multi-pack sales, if you keep it simplistic and you say that one cannot, and you add a multiplier, so there are no multi-pack discounts, I cannot see how that complicates matters for the trade. Surely it simplifies it, but I take on board the point that you are making about having all the legislation that impacts on the trade in the one place. Surely that could be argued as simplifying it for the retailer, not making it more complex. Any responses on that one? Yes, sorry, Mr Lees. That is okay, thank you, convener. I think that overall, Mr Doris, we are just seeing a constant raft of licensed legislation, and it is very difficult for retailers to get to grips with that. My concern about the multi-pack promotion thing was that it might have the unadverted consequence of forcing people to uptrade. It is no longer really viable for retailers to offer single cans for sale, for example, so customers may just keep buying four, eight, ten, twelve packs of beer. Although, as you say, the evidence seems to be that consumption is actually declining. We were just concerned that a lot of the provisions in this bill felt needed clarity, where it was slightly ambiguous and overlapped too much with existing provisions. I do not think that it would do any harm to pause, particularly with this particular bill, and perhaps review it at some further stage. Permission, I am going to move now to Richard Simpson to allow him a few questions before we finish this session. First of all, thank all the witnesses, because the written evidence and the commentary has been very helpful. The central tenent of my bill is that we deal with the very serious offenders very well, and that is the current legislation. Most of what I am proposing on the justice side, at least, is to try to move that into the area of dealing with people with a lesser offence. The DBO, for example, is designed not to deal with the violent offender but to deal with those who the police identify and the prosecution identify as having probably repeated offences. I just wonder whether Mr McIver particularly feels that the law currently deals with whether there is anything that requires the court at the moment to make a commentary on repeated offenders who are receiving minimal intervention by the courts. There is nothing there at the moment. There are the powers that we touched on in terms of the exclusion orders and the like, and as I say, our feedback is that they are not being terribly actively followed up. If that is the case with, if I can use your term, the more serious offender, then it does beg the question if they are not doing it for the more serious ones, are they likely to go down the road of banning orders for what might be perceived as the less serious offender. There is that question mark over whether, although it is undoubtedly perfectly laudable aim, whether in practice it would actually be enforced. I cannot answer that because that is a matter for the courts, for the police and for the local authorities, but I think that as a society with reservations that it may sit in the statute book if it ultimately becomes a law and gather dust, as it were. It is more designed to, if I can just comment on that, it is more like the drug courts or the DTTOs where the courts get involved more in the management of the case. Can I say on the issue of the multi-pack, which we have just discussed, whether anyone here disagrees with the fact, with the principle that the Parliament supported in its legislation, that volume discounting in Scotland should be banned? That is just designed to tighten that up. I mean, particularly supermarkets have got round this by not selling single cans and saying that 4, 8, 12, 20 are all different and therefore can be sold effectively in getting round the principle of volume discounting, but I'd just like to have it on the record if anyone thinks that volume discounting shouldn't be banned in Scotland. That's very helpful. On the question of caffeine, Mr McIver, the problem there is that it became clear in evidence from Mr Lee that the evidence is mainly American-based, the stuff about wire to weight drunks and taking risks in driving, taking risks, sexual risks, being more likely both predatory and to be responsive are evident, very clear in America, but it's mainly amongst college students. The reason for putting it not in primary legislation but secondary was to allow the Government to introduce that as the evidence becomes more clear. If you put in a fixed amount, then it's more difficult to change because it's primary legislation. Is that a valid— I can understand the rationale behind what's being said. I still think that it's so fundamental to the question that to enable proper debate to be had on the proposal that really there has to be an indication in the primary legislation of what that level of caffeine that we are talking about would be. To leave it to be promulgated by secondary legislation would not afford those involved in the production of the retail of these products the same amount of input in my submission, and I think that's the danger. So, we need to be affirmative rather than certain on the menu. I would suggest so. On the question of the advertising ban, the moment that there's a voluntary ban for 100 meters, and we know that it's been evaded in some cases, do people feel that the 200 meters is a reasonable distance? It's to try and denormalise alcohol on respect of children. We still have the 200-metre anti-promotion legislation. It was to bring it into Langdon. That's there already. I suppose that I'm just really coming back to is there an element of duplication, and that's the point here. It's actually make advertising as well as promotions because there are different things. I take the point convener about the in-store advertising and I think we'll look at section eight again, so I think we need to look at that again. I don't think we've got that quite right. On the question of consultation, this was based on the New Zealand system, which requires far more intensive consultation with communities than we actually have at the present time. If people feel that 50 meters, and I take the point that Councillor Shand and others, I think that Douglas Campbell was making and respective, if it was multi-story blocks, it would be quite onerous to have this, but at the moment it's four meters. If you don't have a community council and that's predominantly in deprived areas, then the consultation is very narrowed. Would you think that there would be some compromise somewhere between four and 50 meters that might be worth amending to? Thanks, Dr Simpson. I suppose that in any level, certainly a shorter distance would be better than 50, but I'm conscious that there could be cases potentially where, if you're within the vicinity of multi-story blocks and so forth, then it could still be fairly onerous. It depends what a distance is. I think it's again we're talking perhaps in loose terms without knowing exactly what might be proposed, but certainly at 50 meters, there's one area where, as I say, a small major variation application to slightly increase the capacity of an off-license premises, for instance, could end up in how many letters being delivered, I don't know, but it could be a substantial amount of work for local authorities and potentially I'm not clear how many responses would ultimately come in and whether the benefit gained by that would necessarily be proportionate to the amount of resources that would be spent on it, which would take away from other priorities. It's only in the 15 per cent where there are no community councils active, of course, so it's just limited. I've had some consideration of this, and I think there would be one area where, if we were to have a major variation application, it could certainly at the moment be a very substantial amount of work if there was to be, you know, if the change was to be brought in, so I appreciate that it might only, it would only be where the community council is inactive, but nonetheless there could still be a community council lacking in one of those particular areas and then cause a great deal of work for perhaps not such a great reward. I understand the principle of what you're trying to achieve and the benefits of community empowerment in more general terms. I can see your intentions, but the onus nature of trying to inform so many people that a major variation might be possible to distinguish between a new premises establishing a provisional licence as opposed to a major variation on an existing licence might be different criteria involved in that in order to mitigate the worst effects of having to inform possibly dozens of people on maybe just an extra shelf space might be deemed a major variation in a local supermarket, you know, but where it's a new premises, maybe a wider distance might be justified, but I think it's the problems attaching to licensing clerks to notify people that this is coming in, I think it's maybe just a burden too far. Okay, thank you for that. And my last one, convener, is on bottle marking, which was where we started our discussion today. I think the critical things here are that it's focused on specific stores and it's actually designed to protect stores as much as to seek to punish stores because there's evidence actually that from some of the stuff that I looked at, that stores that were thought to be selling underage, for example, it was discovered after marking that they weren't the ones, so it was about gathering intelligence, focusing on stores, so it's not a large number of stores, it's not a national scheme in that respect, it's not saying to all stores that you'll be required to do it, it should be focused on specific drinks, I think that's a very important point that's come out today. And the other thing is that it should be temporary, so it's not an on-going thing, it's designed to allow the police to gather intelligence and the purpose is that we have not, we've had hardly any prosecutions for proxy purchasing because it is extremely difficult, it's almost impossible for the retailer to actually know that they're selling to someone who's then going to hand it on, so it's to actually gather police intelligence. Now, I understand that there are going to be some costs involved, obviously, and working out who's going to do it precisely is obviously a matter for discussion and regulation, but is the general feeling that this is a useful tool for police to gather intelligence, even if it does require some temporary imposition on stores, or is the feeling still that, is there a feeling that this is a step too far, because proxy purchasing is one of our biggest problems and has not yet been, there has really been almost no prosecutions on that, it's because it's so difficult. Mr Lee. We're still not convinced that this is really an effective way of dealing with proxy purchase. As I mentioned earlier, there does seem to be a problem with, even when police take very positive action on this, arrest people and charge them, the reports are passed to procurator ffiscals, they tend not to be marked for court action, so there seems to be a problem there as much as anything. I think that this problem can only be solved, as I said earlier, with police working with retailers, working with social services, working with youth and diversionary services, working with housing, really to get to grips with this problem, because it is a complex issue. A lot of the time, the people who are involved in proxy purchase are people who have problems with addiction themselves and need very short injections of cash, that's why they're willing to do it. It's not something a responsible person would do, so unfortunately the other scenario is that it's people who want to cause some harm to children and young people who are willing to do it. It's a very complex issue and I'm still not convinced that the bottle marking scheme is the right way to do it, although I do have sympathy with, if it's a voluntary scheme, it has been worked out between the police and the retailers, then perhaps we could look at it, but in terms of a national mandated scheme, no, I don't think that's something that we could support. Just one final question. I don't know if there's any other comments, no, we're okay with that. Counselor Shand. I was going to make a comment about the proxy purchase, sort of implies that an adult is deliberately buying an alcoholic drink for someone who's underage for a specific occasion. I imagine it messed proxy purchases would have been done inadvertently and the parents would come home via trolley a supermarket drink and the children would help themselves and either unbeknown to the parents or with the connivance of the parents or just help yourself to that bottle, or that case off the go. I think it's a particularly easy thing to enforce or deal with. I think the vast majority will be inadvertent proxy purchases rather than deliberate proxy purchases. Okay. My final comment would be, I would expect that the police before doing this would actually be talking to their licence holders because they don't want a bad relationship with them. The information that we got on the Dundee project was that it was just so cumbersome when it wasn't actually a regulation that was allowed to be imposed. This gives the power to the police if they feel it's necessary, but if they don't feel it's necessary and they can do it on a voluntary basis, that's absolutely fine. Okay. Can I thank you all for your participation here today, your attendance and your valuable time you've given to the committee? Very helpful. Thank you very much indeed. We're now going to private session and I've previously agreed to deal with the remainder of our agenda. Thank you very much.