 Fy llo'r awoutheiniad a chwm mewn'r ei dводig sydd wedi'i gweithio'r bydd yn 2015, rydych eich gwneud o fod o ddolygu datblyg tawn gwleisydd o'r SNM i fi ddydw nasbydd o rynging o'i ffordd hebod hay iddynt i'r syfr cofant yn ei bod yn d binding. Mae gwbl fod yn ddateb mafight o Palace Cosm Cymru gyda won going ond gwreiddiad yn gyweodag. Maith yw yArthur Teim dem mwy fryd wedi hwnnw fel hwyl a'i endod drawers SEC gyda ni i dyfod i ddisgrannu gwneud i gŷnodau aesemaethau terminol yn Gŷnig. Rydw i ddim yn digwydd i ddweud Michael Matheson, Sekrifer ddechrau i gynnigol. Rydw i pa pigwyddoch Llyfrgell Rytjard Simsson, sy'n addysgu i ddim yn gweithio gyda newid yn y cyflwyngau. Dydy, mae gennymnwch gennymnwch oesemaethol 41-59 ar y gwybodol a phobl yn y welgol yn gwybodol o'i ddweud â'i gynhyrchu. Ayr cyfrwngoedd oesemaethol yn gwybodol o'r gwybodol and amends the alcohol licensing system in Scotland. Can I also remind members that, as the office of the clerk is closed on Friday, the 22nd, and Monday, the 25th of May, the deadline for amendments on parts 3 and 4 is 12 noon today? Before we move on to consideration of amendments, it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2 consideration. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on Monday and the groupings of amendments which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all 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 is 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 in the group may take interventions from other members if they wish. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following 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 members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point. Today, we will go no further than the end of part 2 of the bill. We move on to the marshaled list. The question is that sections 41 and 42 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 85 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson in a group on its own. Dr Simpson, would you like to move and speak to your amendment, please? I begin by apologising to you, convener, and the committee, and indeed the cabinet secretary and his team for the fact that this was submitted too late for evidence to be taken at stage 1 and for a prolonged period of consideration. The committee will be aware of the fact that I have a fairly comprehensive private members bill on alcohol issues that has been allocated to the health committee. The issues dealt with in that bill will arrive at after the usual consultation process, but after a helpful meeting with the cabinet secretary for health and sport, it is at her suggestion that I am moving a number of sections of my bill as amendments to the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland bill. Amendment 85, which is the first of these amendments, aims to enhance local people's ability to influence alcohol licensing decisions. In particular, it strengthens the consultation arrangements in relation to applications for a premises licence or a variation to such a licence, except that is for minor variations. This proposal arose from two sources. Firstly, communications with constituents who wish to have greater involvement in the licensing process, particularly with respect to variations in extensions of licence. Secondly, the experience in New Zealand of consulting communities where residents who might be affected more than the public generally were given the opportunity to object. At present, the licensing board, under the current terms of the 2005 act, which I will come back to in due course, must consult people who occupy land immediately adjacent to the premises in question, i.e. within four metres of the premises under consideration. They separately must consult any community council whose area includes those premises. This amendment would require the board to consult local residents within a much larger area where there is no community council in the relevant area or the relevant community council is inactive. Although a Scottish Government survey in 2013 showed that 84 per cent of the 1,370 community councils in Scotland are deemed to be active, the community councils deemed to be inactive were much more likely to be located in areas of deprivation. Whilst the Court of this amendment essentially gives greater rights to citizens, especially in deprived areas, the amendment also extends the period from consultation from 21 to 42 days for both active community councils and for the wider consultation proposed in the earlier part of this amendment. Community councils are unlikely to meet more than once a month and sometimes less at certain times of year, and this addition allows for more time for consultation. In considering this proposal within my bill, I did consider a more stringent set of amendments following more closely the New Zealand model whereby new licences would have to be reapplied for after one year and then through yearly thereafter. However, with the current economic situation for the on-license trade and despite the fact that constraints on alcohol consumption is best achieved through reducing availability along with price, I limited the amendment to those rather modest proposals empowering communities otherwise not empowered by a community council and strengthening the ability of the community council by increasing their time to respond. Half the respondents to my proposal were in general agreement. The industry did not favour those increases in consultation believing that alcohol licensing forums and existing law provided sufficient consultation. However, on alcohol licensing forums have limited representation and may not have representation from the area under consideration. However, I would reiterate that I believe that we need to empower communities who feel disempowered by the current arrangements. This amendment is a proportionate approach and it is backed by the British Medical Association and alcohol focus. Does anyone else wish to enter into the debate? Obviously, we haven't taken evidence in any part of this amendment previously, as a committee. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to speak please? I'm grateful for the amendment 85, which has been lodged by Richard Simpson. The amendment relates to expanding the notification requirement in relation to premises and major variation applications by amendment to the licensing procedure Scotland Regulations 2007, a piece of secondary legislation. The procedure regulations have not been updated since the first committee effect back in 2008. At that time, there has been considerable change. Society has changed and practices have changed. It does therefore seem entirely appropriate that we look again at the current regulations to make sure that the procedures and deadlines that they set out achieve what they intend to achieve. We already intend to review and, if necessary, update the licensing forums that are provided for the procedure regulations. We also intend to update the regulations in relation to the addition of a process of task authorisation within the alcohol licensing regime. I am also aware of recent work that was commissioned by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health on community engagement. I would like that to be taken into account when reviewing the procedure regulations. Some of those amendments would require consultation to ensure that they will work effectively. Other amendments are required to support the operation of the bill when it comes into force. We are therefore already committed to acting quickly to consult and update the procedure regulations. I appreciate that Richard Simpson wants to ensure that the procedure regulations work as effectively as possible. However, I am concerned that by making this amendment via primary legislation and updating the secondary legislation for the other issues that I have raised, we will create confusion and possibly introduce delays that can be avoided by dealing with everything at the same time as a comprehensive package. I also want to ensure that any amendments to the procedure regulations do not generate unduly large additional burdens on licensing boards. I now want to increase bureaucracy to needlessly delay the process of licence applications. In order to achieve that balance, I think that it is preferable to deal with all the changes in the round so that the appropriate consideration can be made to the impacts on businesses and communities. On that basis, I encourage Richard Simpson to withdraw his amendment with the assurance that the Scottish Government will consult on updating the procedure regulations following royal assent. I am happy to keep members informed on the progress that we make in this matter. Dr Simpson, can I call on you to wind up and to press her with draw, please? I thank the cabinet secretary for his very considered reply. It is very helpful. It is timely that we should review the regulations governing the whole process. There are clearly continuing issues about availability, for example, which I think need to be addressed, and engaging the communities with that in an effective way. For me, it certainly is a paramount consideration. However, having listened to the cabinet secretary, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. Thank you very much. Are the committee content that that will be withdrawn? Thank you very much indeed. I call amendment 38 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group 3 is shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, could you please move amendment 38 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please? The amendments relate to the fit and proper person test. Many stakeholders have criticised the Licensing in Scotland Act 2005 for not including a fit and proper test. The bill addresses that by bringing in a fit and proper person test to the 2005 act. However, introducing such a new test to an established licence regime is not a straightforward matter. The bill already includes a series of six sections in relation to fit and proper. We have engaged with stakeholders and carefully studied the large volume of very useful material that was submitted in relation to the committee's call for evidence, as well as following the discussions that took place before the committee and the committee's stage 1 report. This material was raised a small number of concerns in relation to the fit and proper person test. That could mean that it does not work as well as we had intended it. I have therefore brought forward these amendments in order to address these concerns. The three areas of concern were, firstly, concerns were raised about the board's ability to consider unsuitable associations as part of the fit and proper person test. Secondly, that by requiring an automatic evocation of a premises licence in relation to the fit and proper person test, boards might actually be discouraged from taking action. Thirdly, concerns were raised about the ability of boards to consider conviction notices and reports by the chief constable as part of the new fit and proper person test for a new premises licence. Dealing specifically with these amendments, amendment 38 amends the 2005 act on objections and representations in relation to premises licences applications. It is already open to any person to make an objection or representation in relation to a premises licence application. Amendment 38 clarifies that an objection or representation concerning a premises licence application may include any information that the person making the objection or representation considers relevant to any of the grounds for refusal, including information in relation to the applicant, where the applicant is neither an individual nor a council, a connected person in relation to the applicant, or any person who would be an interested party in relation to the premises if the application were to be granted. That will allow information to be provided that might be relevant to the board's consideration of the fit and proper person test, and in particular will allow information to be provided about those associated with the applicant, not just the applicant themselves. Amendment 39 is a technical drafting amendment. Amendment 40 amends the 2005 act in the determination of premises licence applications. It clarifies that any conviction notice supplied by the chief constable and any anti-social behaviour report by the chief constable supplied to the board can be taken into account by the board in its consideration of the fit and proper test. Amendment 41 is a technical drafting amendment supporting amendment 42. Amendment 42 amends the 2005 act on the transfer of a premises licence. The bill currently provides that when considering a transfer application, the chief constable can provide the board with any information in relation to the transfer and where the transfer is neither an individual nor a council, a connected person. Amendment 42 provides that the chief constable may also provide any information in relation to anyone who would be an interested party to the transfer if the application to the transfer were to be granted. That would cover those who are already an interested party and who would continue to be an interested party if the transfer application were to be granted. Amendment 44 amends the 2005 act on application for review of a premises licence. To provide that, any person who makes a premises licence review application may include any information that they consider relevant, including information related to the licence holder, connected persons to the licence holder or interested parties to the licensed premises. Amendment 45 is a technical drafting amendment. Amendment 46 inserts a new subsection to the 2005 act on a review of premises licence on licensing boards initiative. The act provides licensing boards with the ability to initiate a review of premises licence themselves. That amendment clarifies that the review proposal may include information in relation to the licence holder, the connected person to the licence holder or interested parties to the licensed premises. Amendment 47 amends the 2005 act on licensing boards powers to review a premises licence. The bill currently provides for immediate revocation of a premises licence on the grounds that, having regard to the licensing objectives, the licence holder is not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a premises licence. However, concerns have been raised that, without alternative disposals available to them, the board might be reluctant to make a finding that the person is not fit and proper to hold a premises licence. I remain of the view that revocation is the correct option where a person is deemed not to be fit and proper to hold a premises licence. However, amendment 47, along with amendment 48, addresses those concerns. Amendment 47 provides that a revocation under the licensing boards power of review takes effect at the end of a period of 28 days, beginning on the day on which the board makes the decision. That provides a short period of grace in which the licence holder may take action to address the problems that led to the board making the findings. Amendment 48 inserts a new section into the 2005 act, which provides that, where a licensing board has taken steps to revoke a premises licence on the grounds that the licence holder is not a fit and proper person, the board must recall the revocation if the relevant application is made within that 28-day period, and the board ultimately grants the relevant application. Amendments 47 and 48 provide that, where the licence has been revoked on the grounds that the licence holder is not a fit and proper person, the licence holder therefore has 28 days in which to arrange a transfer of the licence to another person, or to propose a variation that would address the concerns of the board. Those amendments ensure that boards can take robust action where a licence holder is found not to be a fit and proper person, but offer opportunities for reasonable traders to take prompt action to address the board's concerns and retain their licence. We believe that those changes will encourage boards to take appropriate action against those who are not fit and proper to hold a premises licence, and I invite members to support those amendments. I move amendment 38. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Does any member wish to enter the debate? No, I take it that you don't wish to wind up, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendments 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 39 in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 40 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I already debated with amendment 38. Cabinet secretary, could you move formally please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 41 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I already debated with amendment 38. Cabinet secretary, could you move formally, please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed. Thank you. Can I call amendment 42 in the name of the cabsec? I already debated with amendment 38. Mr Matheson, might you move formally please? Moved. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Ieithiwch. Amendment 43, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, grouped with amendments 49, 57, 75, 77 and 78. Cabinet Secretary, Ieithiwch. Can I ask you to move amendment 43 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. These amendments amend the arrangements for the transfer of a premises licence in the alcohol licensing regime. Yn gyfnod o'r holl ddweud o'r lawnau ar ein stanfeyr, rhai'r lawyeriaeth o'r lawnau ym Mweithloedd ym Mweithloedd, ryw cael ein sgwr i ym Mweithloedd, ryw cael ei wneud i'r llunau dda a i mi rhywb i'r lawer i'r llunau, ryw cael ei wneud i'r llunau dda ac mae mae yn cael ei ddefmwysig, i fi oed i'r llunau. ynolaeth, yn cymdeinol yng Nghymru, yn 2005, mae'r cymdeinol chi fel yna ei ddefmwysig fan that must apply for the transfer. The Scottish Government is keen to improve procedure where it can to reduce needless red tape and cumbersome procedures. As such, I am bringing forward these amendments to change the procedure in relation to the transfer of a premises licence. Amendment 49 is the main amendment that sets out the proposed changes to the transfer procedures in the Licensing Scotland Act 2005. Those changes provide that it is the person seeking to take on the premises licence that must apply for the transfer of the licence. When they do this, they should specify a date on which the transfer should take effect, provide the original premises licence or a statement of reason as to why that is not practical and a written statement signed by the holder of the premises licence consenting to the transfer or a statement as to why that is not practical. In addition, the board must take all reasonable steps to give notice of the transfer application to the original premises licence holder. That is a necessary protection against applicants submitting fraudulent consent letters or seeking to make a transfer without engaging with their original licence holder. The board may decide to dispense with the requirement for the written consent of the original premises licence holder. If they are satisfied that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to contact the original premises licence holder in order to obtain consent, part has received no response. Where the board decides to dispense with the requirement for consent, it must hold a hearing to determine application. Amendments 43, 57, 75, 77 and 78 are consequential and remove references to section 34 of the 2005 act that are no longer needed as a result of the changes in amendment 49. The amendments offer a transfer procedure that is most suited to the reality of business today, but that provides appropriate checks and balances to protect the interests of existing trade without imposing undue burdens on boards and clerking services in a move amendment 43. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? I take it that you do not wish to wind up, cabinet secretary. Therefore, the question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated? Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 44 to 48 on block, please? Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 44 to 48? In which case can I ask the committee whether they are in favour of amendments 44 to 48? That is agreed. Thank you very much indeed. The question is that section 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 46 to 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 49 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 43. Cabinet secretary, to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 50 to 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 86 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson in a group on its own? Dr Simpson, can I ask you to speak to and move your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. This amendment deals with the question of advertising of alcohol. It does so mainly in sections 122A, 122C and 122D, dealing with advertising, banning and advertising near schools and matters affecting children, and advertising within licence premises and advertising at sporting and cultural events. The Nicholson review on licensing was established when I was the Justice Minister and led to the 2005 Licensing Act. It may be coincidence only, but the consumption of alcohol has been largely on a downward path since 2005. Part of that may be the restriction on the display of alcohol to those areas that are licensed. Some members may remember that when managers' special offers were stacked high at the entrance to stores and indeed in the aisles. At the same time between 2001 and 2005, Nicola Sturgeon, who was on the health committee, was endeavouring to curtail the advertising of tobacco. As she found, our powers in Scotland are limited, but I believe that we should be seeking to reduce the normalisation of alcohol in a similar manner to that that has been achieved for tobacco. Recent surveys have shown how successful this has been for tobacco, with teenagers often unable to name the brands that are probably familiar to all of us, if we may encompass our various age groups here. I think that we would all be aware of the brands. This lengthy section seeks the further denormalisation of alcohol. It is underpinned by the WHO's strategy on what they have termed alcohol as being, which is no ordinary product. They believe that, by determining that children and teenagers who choose not to drink alcohol beverages have the right to be supported in their non-drinking behaviour and protected from pressures to drink. The strategy of the WHO went on to say that one of the 10 target areas for action should be the marketing of alcoholic beverages. The report recognised the need to reduce the impact of what our sophisticated advertising and promotional techniques are, at least in respect of their young people. I appreciate that in the UK, advertising restrictions try to avoid direct impact on young people, but alcohol advertising is so prevalent that brand identity is established at a very early age. The restrictions proposed here are aimed mainly at reducing young people's exposure. It bans alcohol advertising in the vicinity of schools, nurseries, crashes and play areas. It bans advertising within retail premises other than the areas which are licenced. It bans advertising at sporting and cultural events, where they are mainly involved or are principally aimed at at under 18s. The so-called Loire-Evain in France set out clear definitions for alcoholic drinks and clear guidance on how the law was to be applied. It was involved in banning any advertising aimed at children or on TV or in cinemas or at any sporting or cultural event. It is interesting that the predicted demise of sports deprived of alcohol advertising in France has simply not occurred. Also that France, which had a severe alcohol problem in the 80s and 90s as severe as ours was in 2005, has now moved back in terms of its alcohol problems to the EU average. That is an extremely significant improvement. The restrictions that I propose will complement the voluntary arrangements of self-policing by the industry-funded portment group. The portment group has a code, but it does not apply to wholesalers or to retail-led promotional activities. The advertising standards, I believe, are tested on an almost daily basis by radical new promotion methods. Specifically, my amendment will ban advertising within 200 metres of certain premises used by children, schools, nurses, crushes and children's play areas. The restrictions will apply to billboards, hoardings, bus shelters and to advertisements in or on licensed premises, except display primarily to be seen from inside the premises. The display on A boards of cans and bottles in shop windows and offers outside shops, pubs and restaurants would all be banned. There is an exception for factual information at pubs. The premises used for other purposes such as community halls where a nursery or a crash may be hosted on an occasional basis are, however, exempt. Similarly, open spaces that may be used by children and families are not specifically for children and are also exempt. Currently, while the display of alcoholic products as licensed premises is limited, advertising is not and my amendment would restrict advertising to the licensed area. Advertising at sporting and cultural events in the Llewyaevam was a blanket ban, as I have already said. Whilst that might be desirable from a public health standpoint, much of our sport is very reliant on alcohol advertising. This may indeed happen over time and I certainly put on my hat as a psychiatrist in addictions before becoming a politician that something I hope will eventually happen. For now, I have attempted the more modest but difficult task of restrictions for bans to venues where under 18s are the primary group either involved or in the audience. The restrictions will not apply to open-air or street activities. Council events were also difficult to define, but I believe that the balance is correct in my amendment. The responses to my consultation were, as you might expect, in a range from seeking the full Llewyaevam approach to the status quo. The only one that surprised me, I have to be honest, was the advertising standards agency, which felt no need for additional restrictions. 81 per cent of the respondents to my bill supported the proposal. Again, the BMA and Alcohol Focus Scotland are backing this amendment, and the law society was very positive in its consultation response. I move the amendment in my name. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? I will say once again that we took no evidence on this issue at stage 1. Cabinet Secretary, please. I am grateful to Richard Simpson for taking us through his amendment 86, which, among other things, looks to restrict advertising of alcohol-near premises used by children, restrict advertising within licensed premises and restrict alcohol licensing at certain sporting and cultural events. I know that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being recently met Richard Simpson to discuss this, among other things, and she agrees with me that understanding the evidence base and consulting properly are required for such important changes. We know that young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of alcohol whether they are drinking themselves or being affected by the drinking of others in their lives. The Scottish Government has, over the past few years, taken action to make it harder for underage drinkers to gain access to alcohol. As the committee is aware, the bill also takes forward our commitment to make it an offence to supply alcohol to under-18s in a public place, which will give police more powers to deal with the problem of underage drinking dens. The amendment by Richard Simpson was already a significant part of his recently introduced members' bill, the Alcohol Licensing, Public Health and Criminal Justice Scotland Bill. I understand that the call for evidence for that bill was launched just last week by the Health and Sport Committee. The proposed restriction on alcohol advertising would include creating offences of display and alcohol advertisement within 20 metres of a school, premises principally used as a nursery or creche and outdoor premises, and designed and adapted as a children's play area. Display and alcohol advertisement in retail premises containing an area licensed to sell alcohol for consumption of the premises except inside that area. The display of alcohol advertisements within premises being used as a venue of a culture event other than a film or a sporting event where the majority of the participants are under 18 or the intended audience for the event consists principally of persons under that age. Whilst I recognise the sentiment behind the amendments, I am concerned at the inclusion of those amendments within the bill at stage 2. Those are important issues and very significant changes to undertake at this stage in the bill. I believe that it is essential that they receive detailed scrutiny and consideration, including from stakeholders, to make sure, for example, that there are no unintended consequences of what Richard Simpson is proposing. The best place to consider those amendments is in detail that they deserve is as part of Richard Simpson's member's bill, presently before the health and sport committee. For example, scrutiny could ensure that the scope of those offences is appropriately drawn. They may risk criminalising those entirely outwith alcohol licensing regime for an advertisement or piece of branding that they might barely have been aware of. It may be challenging for individuals and businesses to ensure that they do not commit those offences and it may be challenging for enforcement bodies to prosecute them. A one-off event would require the owner of the premises to remove or cover up any branding and advertising or find themselves potentially liable for a criminal offence of a fine of up to £5,000. While I, too, would like to see further restrictions on advertising of alcohol, I believe that those provisions should be subject to fuller and more detailed scrutiny than consideration as part of the bill would allow. Those offences are already contained within the bill that Richard Simpson recently introduced to the Parliament and I strongly believe that it is only right that they should benefit from the full scrutiny of the bill process that will be the case, as it lies before the health and sport committee at present. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject amendment 86. I again thank the cabinet secretary for what must be the initial views of those amendments that were only submitted recently. I concur with him that it requires fuller consultation. There are clearly concerns about criminalising individuals who may not be fully aware of the situation. I think that reaching a point where things are covered up when children are present is actually appropriate. It will not be easy, but no one ever said that this area of law would be particularly easy. I think that it is absolutely essential that this Parliament moves on this issue as soon as possible. I hope that the consultation that is starting with my bill, calling for evidence, that the committee might wish to consider, as it has considered licensing issues, it may wish to further consider the amendments that I have moved and make some representations to the other committee when dealing with them. On that basis, and on the advice of the cabinet secretary, I will withdraw the amendment at this point in time. Are the committee content that amendment 86 is withdrawn? Thank you. The question is that section 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 82 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendments 50, 51 and 52? Mr Buchanan, can I ask you to speak to all of the amendments and move amendment 82, please? Thank you very much, convener. This amendment seeks to remove, in section 7, the whole of section 7A, to leave out lines 4 and 5. This will mean that licensing board should determine that the whole of its area is a locality. To allow a licensing board to determine the whole of its area as a locality, I think is far too restrictive. It would enable somewhere like Edinburgh, for example, to have one locality rather than say, leth, where there's a problem. I think that licensing should be based on the principle that each application is based on its own merits, be it social, economic, health-related or other factors. As it stands, paragraph A would allow a licensing board to operate a presumption against granting over a very, very wide area, particularly in cities, and I think that this would be unfair and anti-competitive against the new retailers. There is no evidence that, if you have another supermarket or something in the city, that people are going to necessarily drink more. There will just be restriction and it will be competition. I think that this would have a detrimental impact on economic investment, so I therefore was to press my, move my amendment. Can I call Cabinet Secretary to speak to amendments 50 and all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener, and I'm grateful for the comments from Mr Buchanan in relation to his own amendment. Overprovision is a valuable tool by which a licensing board can prevent new licence premises opening in areas where it considers that this would cause there to be an overcapacity of licence premises. This can be useful from a public order perspective in that disorderly behaviour, noise and other nuisances can be linked to areas where there is a high density of outlets selling alcohol, for example, disturbances at public closing times. It's also useful from a public health perspective in that easy access to alcohol can be associated with increased levels of alcohol-related harm. Mr Buchanan's amendment 82 would remove from the bill the provision that clarifies that a licensing board is entitled to treat, as a locality, the whole of the board's area when considering if there is overprovision. The bill provision has already been supported by the committee in its stage 1 report. It is important that the overprovision assessment is an effective and robust tool for licensing boards. Public health data may well only be available on a whole board area, so it's important that boards can determine that there is overprovision across the entire board area. If we accept amendment 82 and remove the provision that clarifies that licensing boards can class their entire board area as a single locality, then it will risk undermining the work of licensing boards in assessing overprovision. It may find themselves unable to rely on important population health data that is simply not available in small areas. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject Mr Buchanan's amendment 82. I wish to speak to the Government amendments 50, 51 and 52. The bill, as introduced, had clarified that increased capacity may be considered separately from an increase in the number of licensed premises in terms of overprovision, and that opening hours could also be considered. The rationale for doing this has been that even if there is no increase in the total number of alcohol outlets, the overprovision assessment is relevant if existing premises attempt to increase their capacity and or opening hours. However, following the publication of the bill, various stakeholders, including licensing board clerks and Alcohol Focus Scotland, expressed concern that revised drafting in particular stakeholders were concerned around the substitution of what was formally a must consider with a move to a may consider. Stakeholders have emphasised that the level of alcohol availability in terms of number and capacity of licensed premises in a given locality was such important in way of evidence for a licensing board when they were considering overprovision that it needed to be retained as a mandatory consideration for a board. On consideration of the feedback received, we agreed that it is more appropriate to retain original wording in the act to the effect that a licensing board must have regard to number and capacity of licensed premises in the locality and may have optional consideration of such other matters as the board thinks fit, in particular the licensed hours of premises in the locality. Amendment 50 reinstates a mandatory consideration for licensing boards when they are considering overprovision of the number and capacity of licensed premises in a locality, but making optional consideration of such matters as the licensed board considers appropriate, including the licensed hours of the licensed premises in the locality. Meanwhile, amendments 51 and 52 remove references to the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 as to what should be considered regarding overprovision as grounds of refusal when a licensing board is determining either a premises licence application or an application for variation. By removing those references from the 2005 act, licensing boards could refuse an application if they regard that there would be overprovision if the application was granted. I want to emphasise to the committee that we are not suggesting that the matters of numbers, capacity and licensing hours, among other things, are no longer relevant, but merely that a slightly different approach is now being taken so as to ensure consistency across the act. I hope that the committee will support those amendments to the bill, which ensure consistency in the definition of overprovision. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject amendment 82 and invite members to support amendments 51 and 52 in my name. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not think that this is too wide a restriction, because it will have a detrimental effect on economic development. In big cities, it is important that we do not just treat it as one, but as a small locality. I think that it will also give wider consumer choice. If overprovision expansion is allowed to restrict competition in detail, consumers will face less choice in their shopping for all goods and therefore higher prices. Therefore, I would like to press my amendment. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 82, please show. And those against amendment 82, please show. Thank you. Those in favour, 1, those against 5. The question is disagreed to. Can I call amendments 50, 51 and 52, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. Can I ask you, cabinet secretary, to move amendments 50 to 52 on block, please? Moved. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 50 to 52? In which case, can I ask that we agree amendments 50 to 52. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. I call amendment 87 in the name of John Walson, grouped with amendments 88, 89 and 90. Mr Walson, can I ask you to move amendment 87 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. In moving my amendments, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Alcohol Focus Scotland for the suggestions that they have made in relation to this amendment. This is a section that would be inserted into the existing bill that brings into line the issue of annual reporting from the licensing boards. It has been identified that if we are talking about increased accountability and transparency by boards, there should be some form of annual reporting mechanism that is put in place. That not only the licensing trade and other elected members, health boards and including the Scottish Government, are aware of the actions of the licensing boards in the preceding year, but also that the public are aware and can call upon the annual report to look at the work that has been undertaken by the licensing board. The amendment makes a number of suggestions in relation to the types of issues that should be contained within the annual report, but it has to be said that the issues raised are not exclusive. There are aspects of the amendment that also leave it open to the Scottish Government to include further information that they made relevant to come forward from boards in relation to the reporting mechanism. Those amendments are really about ensuring that we are actually getting the mix right in terms of the public's look on what is happening in terms of licensing in Scotland, because in many cases, and with regard to the debates that have taken place in the committee and the discussions, the public often feel that they are excluded and the decisions that are being made by boards and made in mysterious rooms and that the public are not fully consulted or aware of the changes that are taking place or the decisions that are going forward. It would be an opportunity to include the annual report exercise within the bill to ensure that the public feel more confidence in the decision-making process that is taking place. The issue about the data that is coming forward from licensing boards can be placed in one document. There is a suggestion that that document will be produced three months after the annual financial year. However, bearing in mind, the amendment also refers to the Scottish Government being able to amend that if boards may have particular issues in reporting at a later period. Crucially, in all of this, it is about trying to get an annual report prepared, produced and in the public domain that the public understand and can relate to. I would move my amendments and the other amendments in the grouping are consequential to the main amendment. Thank you. Any other member wishes to enter the debate? Thank you, convener, and I am grateful to Mr Wilson for bringing forward these amendments. I am certainly sympathetic to the views that he has expressed on this matter. I am also mindful of the views that were expressed by the committee in its stage 1 report. However, I am sure that committee members will recognise that boards are already under a very substantial requirement to report in a range of areas that place a significant burden on licensing boards at present. For example, they are obliged to prepare a licensing policy statement, an over-provision assessment, report annually on key statistics to the Scottish Government and they are obliged to maintain a public register of key information. The public register must contain information in relation to premises, personal and occasional licenses and the decisions taken in relation to applications. However, I believe that there is merit in moving towards an annual report for licensing boards. As a Government, we intend to see the introduction of an annual report for licensing boards. However, before doing so, I wish to engage with stakeholders, in particular local authorities and those responsible for licensing boards, on the existing reporting requirements of which they are required to report in order to consider which areas of reporting can be reduced or included within the annual report. I would like to ask Mr Wilson to withdraw his amendment at this stage with a view to drafting. Could you maybe give us an indication of the timescale for this consultation and reporting back? Obviously, the committee has a great interest in this particular area. As I was just about to say, to ask Mr Wilson to withdraw his amendment at this stage with a view to drafting a suitable amendment for stage 3, informed by an engagement with stakeholders. Does the minister accept that there needs to be more openness and transparency in the licensing process in terms of trying to engage with the public so that the public get a better understanding and perhaps more involvement in the licensing process? I think that there is great merit in that. I think that what we need to do is to also manage that against the burden that is placed upon licensing boards in undertaking that reporting. That is why I want to consider with them what would be the appropriate measures that could be put in place as part of the annual report, so that there is greater transparency and also a way in which local licensing boards are able to manage that in a reasonable way. That is why I would be happy to work with Mr Wilson with the view to drafting a suitable amendment at stage 3 informed by some of that discussion that we have with stakeholders before the stage 3 process. Mr Wilson, can I ask you to wind up and press her with her, please? I am grateful for the cabinet secretary's comments regarding the issues that have been raised in this amendment. I look forward to working with himself and his officials to bring forward a suitable amendment at stage 3. If a suitable amendment does not come forward from the Scottish Government at stage 3, I would deserve the right to press the amendments that have been brought forward today at stage 3, but I will withdraw at the present moment on the proviso that we get suitable amendments at stage 3. Thank you. Are the committee content that that has been withdrawn? Can I call amendment 88 in the name of John Wilson? Already debated. Mr Wilson, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Are the committee content? Thank you. Can I call amendment 89 in the name of John Wilson? Already debated with amendment 87. Mr Wilson, to move or not move? Not moved. A oedd y Cymru cynteg? Can I call amendment 98, in the name of John Wilson, already debated with amendment 87? Mr Wilson, to move or not move? Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? The question is that section 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 53, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Work and Pensions, a group with amendment 54? Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to move amendment 53 angen amddangosol yn y gweithio. Ydych chi'n gweld 53 a 54 o amddangosol yn cyflawnio'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol oherwydd ei'r cyflawni yn ddylch i ddwylliantau ar y cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol. Mae cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol yn ystafellonnol o'r F2005. Fyemdwch 53 o amdangosol yn cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol yng nghymru o gael r Cabinet o bwyddyn o gael rhaid i gael y gael rhaid i gael rhaid, yna yn cynters 힘�dwadau'r gael rhaid. Trif fod yn gweld 46, unig y cyfnodol cyfan, o unibod o gael rhaid i gael rhaid i gael gael rhaid i gael rhaid, o'r llwy llawer i gael'u cyfan'r Gael Rhaid i gael'u cyfan, oherwydd o'r gweld dda, gyda chi oedda chi oedda i gael rhaid i gael'r gael. As amendment 53 strengthens this by making it clearer that such information may include details of inconsistent conduct. In our opinion, the creation of this new general function can only improve the effectiveness of licensing standards officers. Amendment 54 provides licensing standards officers with new power to report to the licensing board. Conduct of any personal licence holder which they consider to be inconsistent with the licensing objectives. Currently, if a licensing standard officer finds a holder of a personal licence to be acting or has acted in a manner inconsistent with the licensing objectives, the only route to make the appropriate licence board aware is through a premises licence review application under the Licensing Scotland Act 2005. The feedback that we have received from stakeholders is that this requirement to seek a premises licence review is overly cumbersome. Therefore, by providing licensing standards officers with the power to now report conduct directly to licensing boards, it will ease the process and improve the effectiveness of the system. I invite members to support amendments 53 and 54. I move amendment 53. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? No. Forgo your right to wind up, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 54 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 53. Cab sec to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 83 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendments 84, 55, 56, 80 and 81? Mr Buchanan can ask you to move amendment 83 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Thank you, convener. Section 83 is technical and relates to section 84. I think that amendment seeks to reduce the time after which someone who has their licence revoked for any reason has to wait to reapply from five to three years. I do welcome the provision in many ways it's related to the amendments 53 and 54, because I do welcome the provision that will exclude revocations under 87.3 of the 2005 act from the five-year rule, as I think this is a sensible recognition of how disproportionate the rule is when directed at licence holders that have not met all the training requirements. However, I believe that the amendment of the 2005 act in this respect should go further. I think that it's a very long time to be automatically considered unfit to be licenced without the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. Whether or not people have had their licence revoked or remain unfit to hold a new licence should I think be for the Licency Board to determine rather than the Scottish Government. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to enter the debate? Cabinet Secretary, please speak to amendment 55 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm grateful for the amendments 83 and 84, which have been lodged by Cameron Buchanan. Those amendments relate to the personal licence, which is a key feature of the alcohol licence regime. A personal licence is required to supervise or authorise the sale of alcohol. It's therefore important that only appropriate people hold a personal licence. Currently, where a personal licence is revoked, the person is barred for five years from applying for a personal licence. We've already agreed that this five-year ban is not appropriate where a personal licence is revoked simply for failure to render a certificate of refresher training. However, the remaining grounds for revocation are serious and boards do not lightly undertake the revocation of a personal licence. Accordingly, I do not believe that it is appropriate to reduce this ban to three years. Therefore, I ask Mr Buchanan not to press amendment 83 and 84. Coming to the Government's amendments 55, 56, 80 and 81, amendments 55 and 56 will remove an apparent anomaly in the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 that would have rendered the process for the renewal of a personal licence after 10 years problematic. That was recently highlighted by the licensing stakeholders who raised concerns about the current procedures for the renewal of a personal licence prior to its expiry 10 years after it was issued. The renewal process allows the licensing board to ensure that the licence holder of a personal licence is an appropriate person to hold that licence and applies the same requirements in relation to notification and determination as to the original person's licence holder application. One requirement in relation to being granted an initial personal licence application is that the applicant must not already hold a personal licence. This serves a useful purpose. It stops people from holding a back-up licence just in case one is revoked. However, that requirement is clearly not appropriate when it comes to the renewal of a personal licence when someone will quite rightly already hold a personal licence. Amendment 56 therefore removes the requirement that an applicant for the renewal of a personal licence holder must not already hold a personal licence. That will ensure that the renewal process starting in 2019 operates smoothly. Amendment 55 simply allows for the renumbring of subsections of the bill to accommodate Amendment 56. Amendment 58 and 81, meanwhile, will bring into force the day following royal assent the provision of the bill that removes the current five-year restriction on reapplying for a personal licence. That has been revoked due to the failure of the applicant to supply the appropriate evidence of having an undergone refresher training. As committee members know, the 2005 act requires that personal licence holders should undertake refresher training every five years. That is why updated personal licence refresher training courses have been made available from the middle of 2013 to ensure that licence holders had sufficient time to sit the refresher course and to submit proof to their relevant licensing board. Nearly 30,000 personal licence holders undertook the training. However, it is also known that a number of personal licence holders unfortunately failed to complete training or submit the relevant certificates by the due deadline. As I have mentioned, when discussing Mr Buchanan's amendments 83 and 84, the 2005 act is clear that in such circumstances when the personal licence should be revoked and under current legislation such a revocation would mean that an individual could not reapply for another personal licence for five years. However, we share the concerns that revoking a personal licence for five years for what might be an oversight or an administrative failing may be considered excessive. That is why the bill already looks to amend that. I am sure that we will all agree that it is important that the provision is commenced as quickly as possible once the bill has completed this process through Parliament. Those amendments will do exactly that. I envisage that once commenced anyone who has had their licence revoked for failure to timeously submit evidence of their refresher training would then be eligible to immediately apply for a new personal licence provided that they meet the other requirements. That has been called for, and I trust that the committee will support those amendments. Therefore, I ask Mr Buchanan not to press amendment 83 and 84 and to support amendments 55, 56, 80 and 81. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I call on Mr Buchanan to wind up and press her withdrawal, please? Thank you, cabinet secretary. In view of what you have said, which I think is very opportun, I would like to withdraw my amendment. Thank you. Are the committee content that amendment 83 be withdrawn? Thank you. Can I call amendment 84 in the name of Cameron Buchanan? Already debated with amendment 83. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? Yeah. Can I call amendment 55 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 83. Cabinet secretary, to move formally, please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 56 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 83. Cabinet secretary, to move formally, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 57 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 43. Cabinet secretary, to move formally, please? The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends consideration of amendments for today. You still have some 52 minutes to get amendments in for next week, if you so wish. I thank everyone for their participation today. Our next meeting is on Wednesday, 27 May, when we will consider parts 3 of the bill, that is civil licensing provisions, and possibly part 4 on the general provisions. I now close the meeting and thank you all.