 Good morning and welcome to the fourth meeting of the committee in 2015. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. Agenda item 1 today is our seventh oral evidence session on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland bill. Today, we are taking evidence from the British Transport Police and Police Scotland on the provisions relating to scrap metal dealing, alcohol licensing, taxi and private hire car licensing and sexual entertainment venue licensing. Before we start, I point out to the witnesses that you do not need to press the buttons on the microphones, they will be operated by the sound engineer. I would like to start the session off with questions on scrap metal dealing on which British Transport Police take the lead, so we should direct our questions to them. Once we have exhausted all of our questions on scrap metal, British Transport Police witnesses will step down from the table and will continue the rest of the session with Police Scotland. I would like to welcome from the British Transport Police, Chief Superintendent John McBride, Divisional Commander for Scotland and Superintendent Alison Evans, National Metal Theft Task Force of the British Transport Police. Then from Police Scotland, Assistant Chief Constable Nelson Telford, Head of Police in West of Scotland and Chief Inspector Morag Stewart, Liquor and Civic Licensing Policy, Police Scotland. Chief Superintendent McBride and Superintendent Evans, can I start by asking if you have any opening remarks that you would like to make on the scrap metal provisions in the bill? If I start, so I'm providing evidence of the activity that's been undertaken in England and Wales. Looking at the Scrap Metal Dealers Act that was put into provision there in December 2013 as part of the suite of measures, that we've undertaken around metal theft. With the whole aims of that, of making metal harder to steal, so putting protection in there and trying to work with the industries to make sure that we tried to make metal as safe as possible by other marking it, or increasing or enhancing the protection around it. Making it easier for offenders to be caught. Our enforcement measures that we undertook as part of the task force, making sure that we did the joint up activity between Home Office Forces, BTP and, importantly, our other agencies. People like the Environment Agency and local authorities who had a huge part to play in this. So I think it's important to put that into context to see the Scrap Metal Dealers Act as it came in as part of, in the round, it was hugely important. It's been very necessary and it's been very helpful, but it is only part of the activity that's been undertaken. The results for us speak for themselves. So in 2012-13, England and Wales saw a 43 per cent reduction in metal theft overall and that's all types of metal theft, so cable, power cable, media cable, theft of lead from church roofs, catalytic converters. So we're talking the whole round. We need to not make sure that we don't just think about metal as being the cable that we usually associate it with. That was matched by BTP figures as well. In the year 2013-14 BTP saw a further 36 per cent reduction. Now we haven't got the figures for England and Wales for the year 2013-14. They're due to be published imminently, but unfortunately I haven't had foresight of those, but what we're being told by the forces that we're working with anecdotally over the previous year, they're seeing a similar sort of reduction. So we're looking at a round, certainly for BTP, an 80 per cent reduction. You would expect, having had those decreases, that there's no way that that could be continued. But at the moment, since April 2014 onwards, we're still seeing just under a 50 per cent reduction, 48 per cent reduction, both in our live and non-live crimes. When we talk about live crimes, we're talking about cable that affects the running of the railway, so the signalling equipment that stops the trains running. But there's also still thefts that go on from depots, from line side, that don't necessarily affect the running of the railway, but still have a huge impact and a financial cost to network rail. Although I can't say that those figures are completely reflected within England and Wales as a whole, it's indicative of the successes that bringing in the scrap metal dealers out, particularly with the cash ban, particularly with the licensing requirements, the threat that it's actually had. We've worked with the local government association very closely on this, and also with individual local authorities. Nobody there has indicated to us that they've seen any particular increase in flytipping, that they've seen that correlation between the act coming in and an increase in the financial requirements on them to act upon that. Although the BMRA indicated when the scrap metal dealers that came in that their members have seen a downturn in the income coming in, HMRC have done some testing around the returns for tax returns, and they certainly have seen nothing that they can link to suggest that there is a downturn. It may be considered that the tax returns of scrap metal dealers, even the BMRA, I think, were times to say that they've been careful about how they've managed their tax returns, so you might not think that that's particularly indicative, but we've tried to do some testing as we can around it. That's what we found. We haven't seen any particular links to a cash ban to a downturn in resources. You've asked about cash-checking facilities. We'll probably question some of those things. Can I ask Chief Superintendent McBride if you want to come in on any of those points? It's just a couple of things, thanks, chair. A lot of what Allison has described there took place under, or still takes place under, the national metal theft task force, and Scotland has indeed played into that. Replicated much of what has been played out in England and Wales, so co-ordination of operations between ourselves, Police Scotland and, before that, the constituent forces, together with SIPA and other agencies that have some locus in this type of criminal activity. So, lots of co-ordinated policing operations targeting different angles and working with utilities, both transportation, telecommunications, power generators and suppliers around housekeeping disposal, preventative measures that would help to tighten down and also working with local authorities. And I suppose what we've seen there, Allison's described, there are some falling crime rates in England and Wales, both in BTP in England and Wales and the Home Office forces. The reduction on the railways here around crime has been more modest than what the rest of the force has seen, despite taking much the same action. And what we've seen across the board in terms of crime figures in Scotland is actually a slight increase. Now, of course, I suppose that the part that's different in this complicated arena is the change in legislation in England and Wales. And I'm really hopeful and welcome what the committee are progressing here, that the changes in registration and licensing in the scrap metal dealing industry, who primarily are the market makers, will reduce crime in Scotland even more. Do Police Scotland have anything to add at this point? Nothing to add at this point, convener, thanks. Thank you very much and we'll move on to questions. The committee have heard a fair amount of evidence of the impacts of metal thefts and I'm looking at a press report from the Hamilton advertiser here which talks about thefts. From Akinhead Farm, Tannock side of 200 metres of cable carrying 11,000 volts, which it's quite unbelievable to think that folks would risk life and limb for that. But that seems to be quite commonplace. We've got incidents galore listed and we know that there have been major impacts in the railways over the piece. You suggest in your submissions that there should be the creation of a national register of metal dealers. Would you like to comment on why you think that there should be a national register? Can we start with the British transport please? A national register would be really helpful, I think, from a number of points of view. I think for members of the public who are looking to dispose of household waste and metal, it would certainly help them to identify, if you like, recognised and bonified scrap metal dealers would be the first thing. From an enforcement point of view, there is good information and intelligence opportunities to be shared amongst a number of law enforcement agencies who have some jurisdiction in this issue. Sharing of information on a business-by-business basis with SEPA, with local authorities who have some locus in this and ourselves when we visit scrap metal dealers would be really useful. It's also really useful to be able to see and have some clarity over who has registration and licensing and which local authorities. Not just for scrap metal dealers but also for the itinerant mobile collectors to have visibility on that. Please Scotland, do you have a view on that national register? Certainly a review on the national register would support that Chief Superintendent McBrides just emphasised in terms of regulation and the sharing of information and intelligence. We would welcome that and support a colleague's position on it. Chief Superintendent McBrides, you mentioned itinerant dealers there and the committee has also heard about waste dealers who may also deal in smaller amounts of metal. How do we deal with these folks and ensure that they are staying within the law? We have heard from others that that might be much more difficult to deal with in the police. I think one of the aspects that would strengthen the regulation is the definition around dealers and that should, I would offer, include those who buy or sell and through that mechanism we would catch a number of itinerant or mobile collectors within the legislation. In operations in Scotland and the experience will be similar in England and Wales, the itinerant and mobile collectors, although they do a social good in terms of some of the scrap metal that they uplift, there is considerable evidence that there is an element of them that will steal metal. Of course, that gets into the chain in terms of the selling into unscrupulous dealers, so we have, if you like, harm done to communities, local communities. There is evidence of garden furniture, trampolines being taken out of gardens, there has been a proliferation of metal collectors because the value was such that it made it a good low risk high reward crime to become involved in. I think that if the legislation could be strengthened as the committee scrutinises it to include itinerant and mobile collectors, that would be really valuable and we would prevent a fairly significant section of the industry sitting outwith the legislation. How have itinerant dealers been dealt with in England and Wales? Each mobile collector is required to have a licence for the local authority area that they collect in. There has been some discussion about the display of those licences and with mobile collectors saying, if we collect in several areas how we went to display them, we would have licences all over our windows and it wouldn't be safe, which is slightly ridiculous because they are only required to display the one in the area that they are actually collecting at that time. Some local authorities have gone down the photographic route, which is really helpful so that people don't swap over their collectors' licences to other people. It gives great reassurance to the public, so the public know that if the licence is on display, the person who comes to their door asking for any metal can check that they are genuine and legitimate. There is reassurance to the public that it makes our life easier when we do roadside stops because we can see immediately that this person has a licence and we can check their records. If they are keeping the appropriate records, they can go on their way. We make sure that we focus our activity on the people who are totally contravening the activity, who will be contravening environmental legislation's likelihood as well. Working with partners in the roadside operations that Mr McBride has described but making sure that we have all the parties to the table so that if they are not keeping the appropriate records, we can seize loads or whatever we need to do as necessary. I noticed in your submissions that you are interested in a national register and a requirement to display ID. Are you absolutely convinced and the banning of cash payments? Do you think that that is going to help a lot? The problem that we have had with other witnesses is that they can have a check and then go next door and cash it. How would you stop that? There is no doubt that the availability of cash in the industry leads to poor business practice, if I can put it that way. There is good evidence that there are scams in the industry, probably driven by the availability of cash. Therefore, I would really support the prohibition that is suggested in the bill that will take away, if you like, some of that temptation. More importantly, the availability of the cash is in some ways what greases the wheels of the criminality because it allows for absolutely no traceability in the transactions. The record-keeping where it is poor and designed to wrong-foot any investigations provides anonymity. Those two things combined ease the criminality that is involved. If we can prohibit the use of cash by introducing a mechanism that gives us some traceability, either through non-transferable checks or electronic payments, that would be really useful. I think that your point is really well made that they may very well go to a check-cashing outlet to cash that check. That moves us into an area of money service bureaus and businesses that also bring in a considerable amount of regulation from HMRC and they know your customer checks, where identification is required initially to create that relationship. In some ways, the regulations and the requirements around knowing your customer are much more stringent than anything that we have ever seen around the registration and record-keeping in the scrap metal dealing industry. I would fully support a prohibition on the use of cash to buy or sell scrap metal. Once again, convener, to emphasise our full support for our colleagues in BTP and their position on it, nothing further to add. Keenol photographic ID, which is essential out of thought. Is it photographic ID for everybody? The display of licences, I think that you answered the point, is that when there is one licence in your area, particularly area, you just display that licence. I think that that is answered the point. Grant, thank you. Clare Adamson, please. He was just a quick supplementary on the evidence that I could ask Chief Institute and Intendant McBride. You talked about the definition of tightening up the definition. The phrase that she used was someone who buys or sells. Should that be someone who buys and sells? I am conscious of at what point would an ordinary householder become a requirement for a licence if they are just selling. I think that the specific part, and that is why I was careful the way that I worded that, is to capture everyone who is involved in this. We talked briefly about itinerants and mobile collectors, because they do not always buy on the doorstep that they may be given. It is important that that is in there, that it is not buy and sell, because they are not always buying. That may create a loophole in the legislation for some people who are of a mind to try to step around it. For an individual householder who is selling, as you say, trampolines, or use garden furniture, how would you measure at what point a licence would be required? Would that be on the bulk of the sales at a particular time, or the value of sales? I think that there are provisions in England and Wales that cater for that. I do not think that there is anything suggested in the draft bill that would make us any different in that regard. The point that Ms Adamson is trying to get to is that sometimes in our lives we may get rid of excess, whatever it may be. In terms of the England and Wales provision, is there something about the regularity of buying and selling would be the thing? Rather than some of us who may be had that garden furniture or whatever, is a one-off selling it and suddenly finding ourselves in breach of the law? Within the England and Wales Act, it talks about the business carrying out a business as a scrap metal dealer. The role within that business is that they buy or sell. It would exclude myself, yourself, on a one-off basis or on an irregular basis. It is that business proposition, if you like, but within that we would like to see that it is said to buy or sell so that it would include the mobile collectors who do not buy but who definitely do sell. Does that make sense? If the records are kept better and would allow the power of entry inspection, we would be able to ascertain if somebody has come in there quite frequently and they do not have a licence, then we could take that forward. That would capture and deal with that element as well. The draft bill says that the section applies for a metal dealer or an itinerant metal dealer. In the course of the dealer's business, A, it acquires any metal, whether or not for value, or B, it processes or disposes of any metal by any means. Would that be similar to the English and Welsh legislation? John Lawson, please. Good morning. The first question is to Superintendent Evans. Superintendent Evans, you gave an example earlier in terms of the mobile itinerant collector. You said that in England and Wales those collectors are registered in every local authority that they operate in. Is that correct? The present moment, as I understand the current legislation in Scotland, is that they only need to be registered in one local authority area but they can collect in other parts of Scotland. I wonder if Police Scotland or Transport Police would have any comments about whether or not it would be appropriate to introduce a licensing regime. It ties into the question raised earlier by the convener about the national licensing regime to ensure that anybody who is an itinerant or mobile collector is covered rather than some of the issues that were raised previously, where if someone is stopped in the Highlands and has a licence in Glasgow, it is how they check that out. Who is going to tackle that first? If you have a national register or a Scottish register, then anybody who has stopped somebody with a licence from Glasgow in the Highlands will be able to check that national register to make sure that that licence was legitimate. It is similar to the way that a peddler certificate operates, although the police issue the peddler certificate that they are allowed to operate throughout Scotland. Obviously, in England they are licensed on a local authority basis, which might keep tighter controls. The Police in Scotland at the current time issue peddlers licences. Has there been any discussions with Police Scotland about issuing the itinerant mobile collector's licence? No, it is the local authority that would issue a itinerant metal collector's licence. Is it just trying to work out why the police would issue peddlers licences and not... A peddler's licence is given for the sale of goods and wares, whereas a metal licence is specific to a dealer in metal, as opposed to other ancillary items. So you already have a national register for peddlers in Scotland, and you operate that. We will have records of those that have been issued with a licence. Just another question that other members can comment on, convener, is once again Superintendent Evans made reference to the issue about... One of the areas that has been raised by the committee, if we cut out this, introduced the cash for scrap issue, then what the scrap metal dealers have told us is that there may be an increase in fly tipping. It is just that Superintendent Evans made reference to the levels of fly tipping. It has not really seen any relationship to the introduction of the new legislation in England and Wales. Superintendent Evans, please. I have to say that when we looked at working with local authorities to draft and the Home Office to accept to draft the bill, that was not something that, as far as I am aware, we even thought that that might be an issue. So good that it has been raised here and you are considering it, and that is something that we need to take back. Certainly it is not something that, even when we are talking on a one-to-one basis with local authorities, they are telling that individuals have found it a problem. Working as a whole with the local government association within England and Wales and the environment agency, there is nothing that we have been raised at all, either on an individual or on a national basis, to suggest that that has occurred. I am happy to take back and go and ask those questions and see if there is some written evidence to you if that would be helpful. That would be extremely useful to Superintendent Evans, if that were possible. Willie Coffey, please. I wonder if I could pick up on the cash plan issue and how it has been working in England and Wales. Surely cash transactions are therefore criminalised now in England and Wales. Is there any evidence to support the criminal activity and data gathering to show how that is proceeding? Perhaps it would be a wee bit naive of us to think that there is no cash transactions taking place anymore because of your legislation down there, but how is that panned out? Are there any prosecutions in relation to cash transactions? Superintendent Evans, please. Yes, there have been prosecutions in various parts of the country for dealing in cash, for not keeping appropriate records, for not checking the identification. All parts of the legislation have been enforced. What part of the work that we have done, as well as with the judiciary, is educating them around how important it is that we have the cash plan in place? Those people who have contravened it have got more serious fines. We have not had any imprisonment sentences for it, but they have got more serious fines for ranging up to £1,000 for contravention of the act. Do you think that that has made the biggest contribution to that quite impressive reduction in the number of metal feth deaths that are taking place? The figures that you mentioned were quite impressive. It has taken out the ability of low-level offenders to process their metal without any risk and to get the immediate reward for it. That was what was so easy for them previously. Metal is relatively untraceable, so it is difficult to make it so much harder to steal because it is so prevalent within our communities. We had to think of another way of doing it. That is looking at the middleman, getting the co-operation of the scrap metal dealers to make those enhanced checks. They are almost put by having the identification checks, policing it themselves to a certain extent. We had to get the legitimate industry on board. In order to do that, you have to show them that you are taking enforcement activity against those who are contravening. If you have the legislation that our learning was, we really have to show the legitimate industry that we are doing something about it. We have taken out the bad guys because otherwise they do not have any faith in us. They will not keep giving us intelligence. We have not got them any resources, so we have to focus them on the people who have really taken the stolen metal through them. The cash ban for us was hugely important because it takes out that immediate realisation. It puts another step in the way of identifying somebody who has handed in the metal. It puts another step in the way that they have to jump through before they have cash in their hand for the metal that they have sold. I thought that it might be helpful to share in France when they introduced a cash ban. The evidence that they found between members in the industry and having a level playing field between those legitimately playing within the law and those who were out with it, there was quite a lot of reporting from within the industry in France which allowed the police there to target their operations. There has been a similar experience in England and Wales where competitors have been reporting through their own intelligence networks in the industry where people are not operating within the law. We would expect to see a similar experience here if the provisions of the bill came to be. I wonder if I could ask a question in relation to the 48-hour requirement of both the Transport Police and Police Scotland. You have both said that you would prefer to retain the requirement to keep metal on site for 48 hours, but we have heard in evidence at previous sessions that perhaps the police are not always able to investigate metal theft within 48 hours. Could you respond to that and give us your advice on that, please? As part of our minimum standards of investigation that have been written up in BTP, shared in England and Wales and shared with colleagues in Police Scotland, when there is a metal theft attack on the railway, part of our minimum standards is to visit the three closest scrap metal dealers with a view to looking for the metal that has been stolen. The 48 hours would be really helpful to us. The reality is that I understand and the BTP understand the pressures in the industry. They are regulated heavily by SIPA and rightly so to try to stop any environmental pollution. There is no doubt that the longer they leave metals on the ground, there is a danger of pollution into the soil. I understand the pressures. I also understand the pressures of throughput and have been able to keep things. Keep stacks of metal that are 48 hours is problematic for them as well. From an investigative point of view it would be helpful, but I do understand the business considerations and the environmental impacts that that retention period might bring on them. It is just to echo John's comment that being a bit parochial from an investigative point of view whilst understanding that, in lesser cases where scrap metals go through metal dealers, we do not get there within 48 hours, such as the cases of volume and gravity at metal thefts now, there are cases where we do quite frankly take it seriously and expedite that investigative process. I think that in terms of the 48 hours that we are suggesting we keep, it is a good compromise and a good balance between our approach to investigating the more serious offences of metal theft and the business concerns that John has quite rightly highlighted. It is supportive of the 48 hours that are being kept. There is the requirement in the post-bill to improve record keeping in any way to compensate for that, do you think, or would you still prefer to retain the 40 hours? I think that in terms of best evidence, when I speak about the more grave cases of it, it would be beneficial for us to retain that best evidence. That 48 hours window of opportunity is particularly beneficial in relation to that and to do away with that would, in real terms, be doing away with our opportunity to gain that best evidence and recover stolen, what is in effect stolen property. I think that there is definitely a balance to be struck here. If the bill becomes an act, then there will be new provisions around much better record keeping with identification that will help to ensure that or reduce the anonymity. The ban on cash transactions, if that comes into being, then that improves the traceability. I would absolutely agree with Mr Telfor around the best evidence and if that is there. Actually, if you have been in the scrap metal dealers and some of the bigger ones, the reality is that there is metal all over the place and you would need some fairly good processes that the dealers themselves sign up to that keeps the 40 hour stock, which obviously needs to keep moving. It is fairly clear when we go in looking for any stolen metals after a crime has occurred, for us to know exactly where that is going to be. I suppose what I am trying to say is that there are a number of ways in which they could get round that by not having the 40 hour stock in the 40 hour pile where we might expect to see it. It is all a balance. I appreciate what you are saying about best evidence, but how often is the police using that? The scrap dealers that came in here, particularly the larger ones, were saying that it was really difficult for them to be able to do that, as you see the processes moving stuff forward. Is it not the case that the other steps that have been put in place around cash, around better record-keeping, around photo ID etc? Where is that balance? Is this one that you feel really strongly on, or is it something with all the other steps that are put in place that might not get you best evidence, but these other improvements mean that that will be compensating for it? It is a difficult one, because there is the environmental need that SEPA would certainly and rightly be concerned about, and there is the best evidence around the investigations. Certainly, if the metal is there and we can find it and we can identify it, given some of the challenges that Alison outlined, then that would definitely be the best evidence and would help us. I think that some of the safeguards that may come into being as the bill progresses, may help us as well and may provide a compromise around that. There is no requirement in England and Wales for the 48-hour provision. How do you think that that works there? Do you think that it is an impediment that you do not have that in place? I think that in an ideal world, for us as enforcement agencies, we would have everything that we possibly could in place. However, in consideration of the 48 hours rule, it would help considerably. Obviously, we do not know how much it impedes us. We, as BTP, have the minimum standards that we get to the closest three scrap metal dealers within 24 hours. With all the provisions that have been put in place, each one builds a step into making the traceability of stolen metal, improving that traceability. The 48-hour retention would be another step that would assist us, but we also recognise, because we do have consideration for BMRA colleagues, that for some of the smaller operators, potentially, it could prove very onerous upon them to accede to this, as well as the environment agency requirements that are placed upon them. We understand the business objections against us. Obviously, in our world, we would prefer to have as much assistance as possible to trace that metal. Given the gravity of some of the incidents in relation to metal theft, the time when it is reported, multiple locations identify what dealers have taken the metal to. As I have already stated, we can cover the whole of Scotland. In 40 hours, I would suggest that there is a minimum to allow enforcement agencies to do any positive inquiry. Without that, it would certainly impede any investigation. It is not necessary that they will go to the nearest scrap metal to process the metal, because the theft could come from, as I said, multiple locations, and we do not know that. It takes time, and the removal of the 48-hours could be significant. Alex, do you want to come back? No, really. I mean, just to mean that point, because the trader is, obviously, quite concerned about the 48-hours, particularly the larger dealers. They are saying that their views, there is no practical benefit, and that record keeping can be just as effective. You would dispute that. I can understand where they are coming from, but that is if the record keeping is up to standard, they are checking identification, they are recording properly. As I said, there are difficulties with any police inquiry building up from when the incidents occurred to locating the stolen item, etc. Given 48 hours to complete to identify where the metal is, it is not a long time for the police. Beyond that, it is gone and it is easily disposed of. If the record, as I said, has not been kept and there is no CCTV, etc., that makes it even more difficult for us to trace that back. In my opinion, it is a compromise between allowing an enforcement agency time to at least try and make that inquiry and investigation balanced against how long they need to keep it and comply with CPI, etc. My colleague Willie Coffey is very impressed with the figures that he quoted from the reductions in England in Wales. Digging down a little bit deeper on that, he also mentioned that, as well as the licensing act, you have also got a considerable amount of work in different industries. I was just wondering in the area of heritage thefts in particular, if you have seen similar reductions there. A comparison about whether that work that you do with industry is also paralleled in Scotland at the moment? Yes, we work very closely with, certainly from our side, English Heritage. We work with people like Ecclesiastical Insurance, the main insurers for churches who look at the theft of lead from church roofs. We get evidence from a variety of sources around the increased decrease of thefts or whatever. English Heritage will tell us that they have seen an incremental decrease in the thefts. Certainly, for Ecclesiastical Insurance, the amount of claims that they have had from churches for the theft of lead from their roofs has decreased over the period, around £2 million to £3 million. Over the period of the three years that we have had, 2011 to 2014, the period of the task force. We can definitely say that we do not just see it in the power networks, in the round networks in media, but it is across the piece. If you like, the only gap to that is around catalytic converter theft, which is a side-off to itself and a side issue for this probably. Just a quick question about this 48 hour. When we visited a scrap metal dealer, they said that it would be quite easy to hide some of the metal that had been stolen and just push it aside and just give you a bit of it. They were not keen on it because also the area that could be stored in takes up valuable space. Would you like to comment on that? I think that those points are very true. I have been in a number of scrap metal dealers myself and I understand the challenges that they face in being able to store material. The other point, and I would imagine that BMRA, as the representative body of the industry, may have raised that. The percentage of processed materials that are stolen, the BMRA would suggest is very small in terms of percentages. Incredibly small when you consider all the recycling that is done within this industry. As a proportion, they would make a perfectly valid argument that 99 per cent of their processed material is legitimate, is not stolen and this would impose disproportionate burdens on them. It is hard to argue against that. I think that what we have seen with some of the evidence that I know the committee has received on some of the more major or more impactive metal thefts when hospitals have had their power cut, when tens of thousands of houses have had their electricity supply affected. That is when it is really critical for us to be able to get into yards round about the scene or round about the locusts where the crime has occurred or further afield to try to get into that metal and then take the inquiry forward. That is when the pressure is really on us. Felly Scotland, do you have anything to add to that? No, just as previously articulated, the only other way round that is perhaps even further tightening of the bureaucracy round that maybe needs to be looked at if there was concern about the 48 hours, but I would be concerned about the removal of that given the time for a police inquiry to be undertaken, particularly in significant issues with the metal being quickly moved on. Thank you very much. I thank British Transport Police for coming to give evidence today. We are going to continue on with other aspects of the bill with Police Scotland colleagues, but thanks to BTP and I suspend for a few minutes to allow you to leave. I have a question with Police Scotland with the focus on alcohol licensing, taxi and private hire car licensing and sexual entertainment venue licensing. I intend to take this section by section, so we will deal with alcohol licensing first. ACC Nelson, do you have an opening statement about alcohol, please, sir? Thanks, convener, and thanks very much for the opportunity to be here today to present evidence. As you said, I will deal with the licensing of alcohol aspect first. You will be aware the purpose of licensing and regulation is to maintain standards and control activities, which have the potential to be harmful. An effective licensing regime provides safeguards, promotes public safety and reduces the risk of criminality, and reduces the risk of those linked with serious and organised crime who exploit legitimate enterprise. That is quite an important aspect. The cost of society for poorly managed licence activity, ranging from the sale and supply of alcohol right through to the theft of metal that we have just discussed, cannot be underestimated. It can also place undue burdens in both the public and private sectors, as you are well aware. Recent case law, such as Bright Crew, which I am sure will cover, has also frustrated both the police and local authorities' ability to tackle issues within the licensing industry that are not directly linked to the sale and supply of alcohol and licence premises. The regulation in management of licensing is a key priority for Police Scotland and is pivotal to a prevention and intervention strategy. We welcome the proposals outlined in the licensing bill, which seeks to enhance the 2005 act and the 1982 Civic Government Scotland act, which will enable us to effectively tackle the impact of licensing within our communities and keep people safe. There are probably key elements that I will skip over here in relation to part 2 of the bill, which seeks to improve regulation pertaining to the sale and supply of alcohol, as you are well aware. In terms of cost, excessive consumption of alcohol is estimated to cost the Scottish economy roughly about £3.6 billion per annum. This figure includes costs incurred by the Police, Scottish Ambulance Service, NHS, Social Work, Criminal Justice, to name but a few. I would like to emphasise that, in times of budgetary constraints, it is really concerning that the public purse and the Scottish economy suffer such a detriment as a result of the misuse of alcohol. There are many factors that underpin our poor relationship with alcohol, such as availability, accessibility and culture attitudes, which I am sure we will discuss. The bill outlines proposals to assist the licensing board to identify areas of over provision and includes provision to include the whole of a board area as a single locality and consider terminal hours as part of their determination. However, one of the main aspects for Police Scotland is the irresponsible sale and supply of alcohol, also being a contributory factor. On a daily basis, my officers regularly encounter incidents of violence, disorder, antisocial behaviour and domestic abuse, often linked to the overconsumption and overselling of alcohol. From a national perspective, 23.2 per cent of young people engaged in rowdy and disorderly conduct had consumed alcohol, and convener, I do have additional quite stark figures that we could discuss later, if you wish. I won't assume at this present time. There is a particular problem in relation to children and young persons, and, as you are aware, alcohol is an irrestricted product. It is often obtained by people supplying to children and young people through agent or by proxy purchase by unscrupulous adults. Drinking dens and alcohol-related youth disorder remain a big concern for local communities. Alcohol consumption by children and young persons also has an exponential impact on their health, educational attainment and future employability prospects, and it is imperative from our perspective that we have the ability to address youth-related drinking and subsequent manifestation. Under the current provisions, the licensing objectives only refer to keeping children safe, and we welcome the extension in the bill to include young persons. This will provide clarity to licensing boards and enforcement agencies around the sale of alcohol to young persons in relation to reporting and preparation of reviews. You will be aware that there is a new offence of supply of alcohol to children and young persons, whereby currently it is not illegal to supply alcohol to a child or young person. That new offence will allow us to take more robust measures to tackle the supply of alcohol to those underage drinkers and create a new offence to supply alcohol to a child or young person in a public place. If I can move on to the fit and proper criteria and spend convictions and very briefly, this was removed, as you are aware, from the Licence and Scotland Act 1976. The bill proposes to reintroduce a fit and proper test in respect of licensing applications, transfers, renewals, reviews and revocation of licences and also outlines a proposal to repeal section 129 in relation to spent convictions and foreign offences. This is a positive move and will allow us, the police, to provide details of spent convictions and foreign offences, providing greater information regarding individual conduct for consideration by licensing boards. We welcome these proposals, however. In our opinion, it remains to be seen as to how this will operate in practice and how the proposed fit and proper test will correlate to the licensing objectives. Finally, in relation to part 2, convener, section 48 of the Licence and Scotland Act 2005 is the provision in respect of interested parties, which includes any person who has an interest in a licence premise as an owner or tenant or has management and control over premises. While this section has never been commenced and the bill sets out measures for its repeal, having considered this part of the bill, our position is that it would be advantageous to retain and enact this piece of legislation, which would afford greater opportunities for the police to identify and disrupt serious and organised crime involvement in the licensing trade. That concludes my opening remarks in relation to this section. That is pretty comprehensive, I have to say. I am going to shift you on to an area that you have not yet mentioned. That is concerns that the committee has heard relating to club licences and occasional licences. Can you ask if you have any concerns about the current regime on those matters and whether you think that area needs tightening in any way? I am aware that occasional licences will often be used to circumvent obtaining a personal entertainment licence for larger events. Occasional licences are a relatively cheap licence—about £10—and you can operate a music event, etc. I know that there has certainly been concern from local authorities with regard to the use and frequent use of occasional licences. Occasional licences have also come to the fore with regard to serious and organised crime in particular counter-terrorism, where an individual can obtain an occasional licence in order to fund raise for a particular faction that they support. However, that is based on intelligence and it is what is going on there. However, I appreciate the main concern that may have been raised by Solar, which is the abuse of occasional licences and some anomalies with the clubs. I think that this is very interesting for us because we have not heard this before. You are saying that they can be used by terrorist organisations to raise funds for what they are trying to do. I would not say that it is widespread. I do not want to raise any fear of alarm. However, there have been occasions where it is known that links to organised crime have obtained an occasional licence under the pretext of a charity or a fundraising event. There is concern around that. I want to put some clarity on what more is meant by terrorism. It is mainly in respect of domestic terrorism and terrorist groups that are normally affiliated with the Northern Ireland situation, which, as you are probably well cited, sometimes infiltrates the west of Scotland. They are fundraising events. That brings something new into the equation. It would be extremely useful for the committee to get some written examples of that without compromising any on-going operations. If we could get more detail of that, it would be extremely useful for us. In terms of the club aspect of it, what we have heard from the licensed trade is that they feel that in terms of the clubs' uses of their licences and their occasional licences, they are getting round the law that others have to comply with. Is that something that Police Scotland would agree with? Is that something that causes you difficulties? It is certainly not anything that has particularly come to the fore with myself. It is nothing that I am aware of. I am quite happy to take that away from the table, convener, and look at providing further information about that. I will come in on the question of over-provision and try to seek your views on how you think that would be able to be used and benefit. On some of the evidence that we have had so far, it has been suggested to us that, for example, if a large supermarket comes along and wants to locate into a certain area, it attracts new jobs, etc. It means that they will only have any real problem in being able to be there, locate there and provide a massive alcohol outlet. I wonder whether Police Scotland has a view on licences, pubs and everything. How do you see that? How do you see over-provision and the proposals that are helping? I think that there is a balance to be struck. You have mentioned the attraction of jobs, job opportunities, but that has to be balanced with current businesses in place as well. Certainly, using your example of supermarkets, from my experience, the local authorities are at a planning stage, thoroughly scrutinising the additionality of a big supermarket in place and how they will impact local businesses. I have recently seen an example where a supermarket has not been back at the planning stage because of that over-provision, not only relating to alcohol but other aspects of life. I think that it is an important aspect to look at within each local authority area. I am quite glad to see that the whole local authority area will take into consideration over-provision because the availability of alcohol needs to be regulated in our opinion and certainly in terms of the knock-on effect of alcohol being overly available. That is there for all to be seen and I could certainly highlight some figures that would substantiate that in terms of offending behaviour, public health issues, etc. To bring that answer to a conclusion, it is an important aspect for us that the number of premises available, whether that be off licence or on sales, is regulated in terms of each local authority area and we are involved in those discussions. Is there a sort of trend in this, if you take underage drinking, for example, are supermarkets better regulated? Is there specific, is it the corner shops? Is there other things that this legislation, regardless of the legislation, for example, I remember in Fife for a while they did this test purchasing where they had young people going round basically and if they were able to get in and buy the alcohol, the police would do that. Is the legislation going to contribute to reducing the number of young people accessing alcohol or is there other things that the police need to be doing? I certainly think that it will contribute. Any further safeguards that we can put in place are very, very welcome. We do still do the test purchasing operations throughout the local authorities area and what I have tended to find is that in terms of compliance, our off-sales are very, very compliant and there are few cases where they have failed in having to be reported to a licensing board. Availability is our access to alcohol as a big issue for children and young persons and that is mainly through agent purchase or by proxy. The additional offence of supplying to children and young persons in public places is very, very welcome because, in my opinion, the opinion of Police Scotland has been a gap for 16 and 17-year-olds. It has been a gap in terms of how we can address the public space drinking then the antisocial behaviour because up until now we have only been able to seize alcohol where an 18-year-old is supplying to younger people. The additional offence will assist us in addressing the public space aspect of that. Accessibility to alcohol, unfortunately, occurs in private space as well within dwelling houses and that will continue to be a problem for us in terms of young people, children and young people being able to access alcohol within the home. There certainly is a care or parental responsibility there and as things stand at the moment, if we come across aspects of that we need to deal with it under the Children and Young Persons Scotland Act in terms of the neglect and so on. The new legislation in terms of public space is very, very welcome but there will still be issues in relation to private space. In your submission, you raised specific concerns about home delivery services and I wonder if you could outline more about those concerns, services of supply and alcohol outside licensing hours. Is that a big problem? Is it a growing problem? Have you got any suggestions of how the law could be altered to better regulate in this area? At present, alcohol is purchased for home delivery. The purchase has to be made during the normal off-sale hours. However, the alcohol can be delivered up to 12 o'clock at night and start again at 6 o'clock the following day. It is effectively extending the amount of time that people have got access to alcohol. In my view, it would be better if the sale and supply purchase elements around home deliveries were co-terminous with current off-sale provision. You would not be able to have home deliveries after 10 o'clock or at 6 o'clock in the morning. In addition, we are looking at the issue with home deliveries, particularly for those who are not licensed and have gone into this realm in delivering it. However, there is scope and provision to tighten it up and make it co-terminous with off-sale hours. Do you have anything to add? Only that dial-a-boos, as it is more commonly known, is becoming quite a significant problem. Having just come from an operational environment, certainly the division that I was covering, there were a few instances of it whereby tightening up legislation around it would be very, very welcome. It is kind of a new one in me, it has to be said. No, it is a new one in me, so that is why I asked the question. John Wilson, please. Thank you. Good morning. As a follow-up to that one, the question has been raised by Kara Hall. The issue is who is the supplier of alcohol after 10 o'clock at night and after 6am in the morning, because it certainly is a new area. I am aware of ACC Telfer's comments about some issues around the sale of alcohol through a particular issue that was raised locally with me. In my local area, you buy your curry-cari out and you order up a couple of bottles of the local brew that is consumed in the area of Larickshire. Who is supplying from 10 o'clock at night to 12 o'clock and from 6am in the morning? The legislation permits the delivery of alcohol between those times. For those who have a licence, I anticipate that it would be your supermarkets that are delivering your weekly shopping, along with whatever alcohol that you have purchased there, with the checks and balances in place to check the identification. What you have referred to in the situation in Lanarkshire is fast food, accompanied by alcohol, would tend to be unlicensed premises to sell alcohol, which is what Mr Telfer referred to. They are unlicensed, so they fall out. As I said, it is just for clarification. It is interesting that if you go into a supermarket, you can only buy alcohol from 10am in the morning to 10pm at night. If you are saying that if you make an order and you ask for that order to be delivered after 10 o'clock at night, you can include in that order alcohol. It is useful to get that on the record. The purchase has to be made within those hours, but you can get the delivery so that you can pre-empt what you think you might be consuming on a Friday or a Saturday night by getting them to deliver after 10 o'clock at night. The issue came up earlier about occasional licences, and I am not going to go into some of the discussion that was held earlier. It raises the question about the relationship that Police Scotland has with the licensing boards in Scotland. Do you mention Chief Inspector Stuart about the intelligence that the police have with regard to some of the applications that are being made? ACC has made reference to the issue about the ownership of some of the premises where licensed premises are. Someone makes an application for a licence to operate licensed premises, but the ownership of the building belongs to someone else or to some other organisation. What is the current relationship, or the feeling towards the current relationship between licensing boards and the police, and are licensing boards taking full account of the information that is being provided by the police before the grant licences? I would respectfully suggest that the relationship between Police Scotland and licensing boards has never been stronger. I can say that, as I said before, having just come from a police division in Scotland. Police Scotland takes full account of our observations, and we are represented at each sitting that they have. To bring that to a quick conclusion, I am very heartened with the way things are moving in terms of licensing. The aspects of the bill will add to that, but relationships have, in my opinion, never been stronger. I am sure that more I can speak from a central perspective. I concur with Mr Telfer that the relationship that has been built across Police Scotland with licensing boards continues to develop and grow. We must remember that they are a distinct legal entity in relation to licensing, however. It is interesting, because some of the evidence that was referred to in previous evidence sessions, there were issues raised about whether or not police intelligence could be presented to licensing boards, and whether or not licensing boards would take account of police intelligence. What we have heard is that, in some boards that demand that there be evidence-based decisions, rather than intelligence-based decisions, what would be your views on those issues? Clearly, the earlier example that you gave of the occasional licence, most of that would be, as I understand, intelligence-based rather than evidence-based. I do not think that it comes down to poor relationships. What it comes down to is an uncertainty from licensing boards to use intelligence and, obviously, the risk of legal action or a challenge to their decision. There are also discussions taking place about what kind of intelligence, what form, what form of words, so that it is information that is not intelligence as such that can be presented. Some licensing boards are looking to establish what the provenance of the intelligence is, if it has come from a covert human intelligence source, etc. However, there has been a short life working group set up. Included in that group is crime division, licensing clerks, solicitors and COSLA sitting in that group. It is something that we hope to work through and together come to some agreement about what can be taken forward in terms of intelligence and submissions to licensing boards. You mentioned earlier on about welcoming the additional crime of supply in alcohol to young people, but some of the evidence that we heard earlier was around the lack of enforcement of some of the current legislation, particularly in the few prosecutions that have been made for selling alcohol to young people. Given that you mentioned the social and crime problems in relation to alcohol that we are all very aware of, can you comment on how that legislation is used at the moment? Can I just clarify a ticket that you are talking about the selling of alcohol to intoxicants within a licensed? It is a difficult one to prove and there is no definition for intoxication. Who was the one who provided the alcohol, what stage they were when they came in etc? There are difficulties around that. However, certainly from a policing perspective, it comes down to further informing and training our officers and what their powers are and what they should be looking out for when they go into licensed premises, how to conduct an inspection and how to work with the trade as well. It is about that awareness raising but there are difficulties around the definition for intoxication. There is also the training and awareness raising within the licensing trade itself, which we work furiously on. That is the proactive aspect, but the very point that you raised is an issue and the reactive aspect of that. If an incident does occur in licensed premises and it would appear that it is as a result of selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, we will take the necessary executive action after that, bring that to attention of the licensing board and take the necessary action once we establish what has happened. There is a proactive stage in terms of training our own officers and the licensing trade and there is a reactive stage as well where unfortunate incidents do occur. Gweinard, i'n your Submission,lerini. It is your own submission that you have welcomed. If you would like it to be further divine, should there be guidelines for the information that makes up yourütting and proper test assessment? Should there be guidelines? Who should determine the information that makes up a fit and proper test assessment? Can you get your views on that? RideMarine Bell, Inspector Scott? Can you get your views on that? That will mirror provisions in the Civic Government Act茱s unless it applies to the o'r cymryd meithio, it is not defined nor prescriptive. It is best left to what a regular committee is dealing with, whether it is liquor licencing or in this civic world, to determine what is fit and proper based on previous convictions, which we will further enhance. We are able to take spent convictions. The only issue that we have is that it will still be linked to the licence and objectives in the sale and supply of alcohol, but it will remain to see how that works out. Mr Telford, do you want to add to that? I will agree with Morag's point of view in relation to difficulties that may occur in correlating it to licence and objectives. I think that if you look at the five licence objectives, they would probably cover all aspects of anything that you would see happening in a licence premise. The fit and proper person, the reintroduction of that is very welcome and it will assist us in a number of fronts, not only within what happens in a licence premise, but who actually has control, management or otherwise of those premises. It may well be linked to serious and organised crime, which has proven to be the case in the past and we can certainly have an impact on that front by the introduction of that legislation. In terms of liabilities, the provisions requiring notification of interested parties, that is those with a general, commercial or other interest in a licence, is to be retained. Witnesses could be asked to outline their concerns if this requirement is removed from the 2005 act in my briefing. Do you have anything that you want to say about that particular aspect? Section 40A relates to interested parties. However, that piece of legislation has never been commenced and the bill proposes to repeal that. It is my view that it would be advantageous to retain that piece of legislation. Quite often, an interested party will be a tenant and, when you are looking at issues in the licence premises, we are able to take action and know who the licence holder is and we are able to take action and know who the designated premises manager is. However, if we do not have any legislation covering, for instance, who the tenant is and their involvement in that, then there is not much that we can do about that, bring them to account or check that they are indeed a fit and proper and appropriate individual. If you are looking at organised crime involvement in licence premises, could you impede what ability we have to tackle issues in the field? Carious liability aspects of that might have muddied the waters in that regard. I appreciate that there has been an amendment to the definition. With the vicarious liability, the interested party, after that, becomes a designated premises manager. A designated premises manager has to have a personal licence. That comes to the police to do background checks to report back to the board. However, the vicarious liability, but I am quite content with that aspect, if you can think of interested parties as tenants, you could have the owner of a building who will lease that to a business, who will be the licence holder. The licence holder can then lease that to another, which is your tenant, and the licence holder could put in a designated premises manager. It gets a bit confusing. However, the police are able to take action if the designated premises manager does not have control of his premises and there has been numerous incidents. We are able to take the licence holder if they are culpable to a review. However, the tenant remains out of that, because that legislation has never been commenced. Quite often, that tenant could either be linked to criminality, serious and organised crime or just be involved in the poor management of the premises. We are not able to take further action in that regard. If it is not enacted and it is actually repealed, it could hinder progress in that area. What about where the liability itself has that person liable for the offences committed by their employees, which is one of the things that some folk have argued about the difficulties of all of that? A DPM does not have to be in the premises, so I can understand from a certain perspective if, through the vicarious liability, they are responsible for that as an interested party and due to the amendments in the legislation. However, it is a DPM due to ensure that everybody is fully trained, but other than that, there is no further comment. A licence holder has his licence taken away if it is in the premises in a public house, for example. Can he get it back recently quickly or what happens if nobody has got the licence? What happens to the premises? If the licence is not in anybody's particular name, at the moment it has to be in a name, does it not? We would not hold a licence. The licence, the way that the 2005 act was developed, was actually the premises that has a licence. The person applies for that licence, but the licence would remain in perpetuity, so it could be transferred over. It can be transferred to another person with that penalty? There have been issues with that in the past in terms of transferring premises, that it may well fall into the hands of a serious and organised criminal, and there have been some practical examples in a major city whereby we have caught onto that, eventually four pubs have been closed as a result of that, but it is a long and wieldy process in terms of transferring premises, and it is a loophole that we are looking to close. Can we now move on to taxi and private car hire licensing? Do you have any opening remarks on that, Mr Telford? Thanks, convener. I would be pleased to know that those are very brief compared to the last ones. We welcome the proposals to improve training in respect of private hire car licences, which will undoubtedly improve the standards of public safety and facilitate greater consistency. Police Scotland also welcomes the proposals to remove exemptions, which currently apply to vehicles being used for the carriage of passengers under a contract for exclusive hire for a period of not less than 24 hours. That, in our opinion, will facilitate greater consistency in respect of this business area and allow the police to provide comment and present information to the regulatory body, ensuring that the applicant is a fit and proper person, for the promoting public safety and acting as a deterrent for those involved, once again in serious and organised crime. That is the very brief comments that I have, convener. Thank you very much, Mr Telford. During the course of the evidence that we have heard, although there are supposed to be quite big licensing differences between taxis and private hire cars, it seems that in some local authorities, including the one that I cover, Aberdeen City, it seems to treat taxi and private hire car licensing in exactly the same manner that is written in the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. Do those different regimes, different interpretations of legislation as it stands, cause Police Scotland any difficulties in terms of policing this across the country? It must be difficult for some of your officers who are now working across local authority borders to deal with the different aspects in different places. Does that cause you trouble? When a licence, whether it be a taxi or a private hire car licence, is applied for as consultee to the regulatory committee, we will receive that and we will do the same scrutiny on applications and report back. Are you referring to operational out in the streets or in terms of— I am talking in terms of application and in terms of operation, where it seems that in some places private hire car licensing and the actual policing of it, whether that be by yourselves or by the local authority, seem to be exactly the same rather than the two regimes that most definitely exist in other places, such as here in Edinburgh or Glasgow? It does not present us with any difficulties. The same scrutiny is applied to any application, whether it be a taxi or a private hire car. In terms of operational, the difference between a taxi and a private hire vehicle is that a taxi cannot lift somebody from the street. Mr Telford? I think from a national perspective, greater consistency running about the application of the regulations in relation to both taxis and private hire cars would be welcome. I do take your point and understand the difficulties that it may bring, where they are applied differently in different parts of the country, so we would welcome greater consistency across the country. Thank you very much. Molly Coffey, please. I raised the question last week at the committee where there was some media coverage on a taxi driver who had moved from one authority to the other. In the first authority, he had a string of complaints made against him but was not made known to the second authority where he had made an application. What are your views on that and how can we close that particular problem down? I can understand how that has been a problem, and it is perhaps down to communication between each police and area or local authority. However, we are developing a national licensing ICT system called Inkeeper, which will have every licence, whether it be a premises licence for alcohol, for a taxi or a private hire car. That will be available to every police officer in Scotland, so when an application comes through, those details will already be there, and that will flag that up to that department and inform what response they put back to their relevant local authority. Will it include things like complaints against a person who perhaps has not went right through a process and has been determined? Will it include that? Any complaints being received by the police, but if it has obviously gone to a local authority, they will hold that information. Again, that is down to communication to the police with regard to that to investigate. We are currently holding dialogue with every local authority in Scotland with regard to Inkeeper to establish whether they would embrace that as well. The very point that they make about complaints being made to a local authority would be a big seller for me. We share and record information that is disclosed to various agencies. We are having that dialogue at the moment in relation to our national system. How soon do you expect that to be in place, the new software, that will do that? Hopefully between May and June this year. Every authority will be able to feel into that. Local authorities will send us applications that we will check. We will keep that. It is a police database just now. However, I am aware that there is a working group looking at a single system for local authority licensing as well. It would be ideal if it could interface with ourselves so that any kind of request that comes from the local authority could be directly electronically sent to that system. It is just more comprehensive and improves communications between the police and the local authorities. It is something that has been worked on just now. Can I ask what in-keeper interact with the i6 system that is going on in place? Is that beyond your ken? I believe that in-keeper can be bolted on to the i6, which will be of considerable benefit as well and make it a lot more efficient when we are doing background checks and responding back to local authorities. In terms of the interaction between local authorities and the police in some of those issues, have you come across any data protection issues that have stopped the level of communication that is maybe required and may have even led to some criminality? I am aware of that. There are ISPs between the police and the local authority, plus the police are statutory consultee in relation to civic and liquor licences in that exchange of information. Where it is pertinent, it would not be anything that is erroneous to the process that we would provide over it. It is only where it is applicable. Mr Galvin, I am certainly not aware of any instances where that is occurred. Alex Rowley, please. When taking evidence on this, there were mixed views about the number of unlicened operators, people out on the streets. I think that one of the taxi operators said that in our major cities, basically the weekends in particular, there is a lot of that activity going on. What would your view of that being? How did you place that? Well, it is down to information from legitimate taxis and private hire cars. I have certainly heard dialogue on a number of occasions with Glasgow ToA taxis, which is your hackney taxis, that have raised this issue and getting that intelligence and information in so that we can proactively target and enforce that in addition to the intelligence that police officers can and our partners as well. I know that there have been a number of operations in conjunction with road policing to target those individuals that purport to be private hire cars and uplifting individuals in the night-time economy area, because that is a particular risk. Justy, I do that, convener. You are right, unlicened operators, mainly in the big cities, mainly at the weekends. It is an issue that has been on going for a while. To add a bit more, I said that it is built. To every city centre policing planet at the weekend for a night-time economy, our cops are well briefed on what to look out for there and make the necessary interventions where they suspect that it may well be an unlicensed operator picking somebody up off the street, but it is an issue. The other question was this bit in the legislation given licensed authorities the ability to limit the number of private hire car licences within their area. Again, we had a sort of mixed response to that, because West Lothian licensed on board, for example, said that they basically leave it to supply and demand, and they were really suggesting that at the end of the day supply and demand would govern this. Is there a need for that to be there, do you think? In my opinion, taxes serve a purpose in keeping people safe at the weekend, whether it be a taxier, a private hire vehicle. That is getting patrons from licensed premises and those that go into socialised homes safely. Certainly, the way that we operate taxi ranks and safe zones has been very beneficial in reducing the number of victims of crime in that city centre setting. It is a difficult win for me to answer that, because I welcome the presence of taxies and private hire cars on our streets to get people home safely. However, I do understand the balance that people need to make a living and the supply and demand must come into being. I have probably not given you an answer there, other than saying that it is a good resource for us at the weekend to keep people safe. I do not know more. I give you anything further to add. No, I agree. It is entirely up to the local authority, and it would be quite hard to determine as well. However, it can impose limits on taxies, but it is certainly one for the local authority. Adam Simpson, please. Adam Simpson, go back to the work in particular that you mentioned with local authorities regarding the information share. It was just to get an idea of the scope of that. Obviously, Police Scotland would be the one body now. It is very easy for you to cover the whole of Scotland, but is that a cause? Are you involved in that? Is it likely that all, obviously to be 100 per cent effective, it would require 32 local authorities to sign up to it? Is there any indication of what the buy-in to that process is at the moment? The short-life working group is still very much in its infancy. There was a meeting last year, and this is the first meeting since then again to try to get a wee bit more momentum on to this. We appreciate that there will be other members that will be required to join, for instance, BTP as well, in their involvement, but I would envisage that it would have to go out to get that agreement from them. Coslove would cover most of the local authorities, but they are invited for an input from the licence and clerks as well. It is just taking it incrementally just now, but it would obviously need to get that agreement. You will not always get that agreement with every board area, but where we can, that gives an opportunity. I always have a worry when I hear the words short-term working. John Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning once again. Just to follow up from Alec Rowley's question about private hire cars, the issue about unlicensed operators, particularly app-based operators such as Uber, coming into the market. Does Police Scotland have any particular views about unlicensed drivers and unlicensed cars operating in the streets of Scotland? I think that the following is on from what we must have told for previously articulated. Anybody that is unlicensed and unregulated is a concern, because we do not know who this individual is. We do not know if the vehicle that they are driving in is safe, so whether it is app-based or quite simply, they are not licensed as a concern. We will take the bust action around that based on whatever information and intelligence is to hand. John Wilson, do you have any indication of what robust action you can take? Some of the evidence that we have heard, and I know that there have been challenges in other countries in terms of the operation of Uber-type organisations. At the present moment, what robust action can you take against someone who uses an app to get a car to pick them up, an unlicensed car or a driver to pick them up? What legal enforcement is available to you to take against those types of operations? Uber is certainly something that I have become aware of in the licence arena, and I am aware that they operate in London. I am also aware that they have recently been banned from operating in France, Germany and India, and it will be for a variety of reasons. One will be from the sector itself, a threat to those who are working in that area, whether they be taxis or private hire cars. The other is because of their operating plan, their business model, in which they will effectively engage with drivers to pick people up, car sharing, and they are effectively a broker, which seems to avoid having an operator's or a booking office licence. It is something that we are looking into just now. I am sitting in the national policy group for licensing, and it has been highlighted to us. We have had discussions with the licensing department at St Andrews House because of the number of concerns about unregulated drivers out there picking people up, the condition of the vehicle, what checks have Uber undertaken on those that they have engaged, whether they have not hired them because they are classed as self-employers. There are a number of issues around that, and I would be quite happy to come back to the committee with some more information once we have pulled that together. Part of the examination by the committee of the proposed legislation is to try and ensure that any legislation that goes through is future proofed as much as it can be. Would there be any recommendations in relation to trying to ensure that we have something in place that can stand the test of time, even if that might be a short period of time? Rather than have legislation that has been put into place within weeks of it being put into place, it might become unworkable? Mr Wilson has put in the spot there, and you can write back to the committee if there is anything that comes up when you do anything else. I am sure that Chief Inspector Stuart can answer the question. I can understand where you are coming from. To a more diluted degree, there is a situation at the moment where you have a booking office for instance in an area, and they take online bookings, so they can take online bookings from somebody that stays out with that area at the moment. That exists just now. The difference is that we can challenge that, because they are only allowed to operate in an area of which local authority has granted that booking office licence. It would seem to me that Uber is bypassing that, because they do not have that, and all they do have is an office there. We are, as I said, looking into that in the potential ramifications across Scotland and how that is managed, and how taxes will be operated effectively across the whole of Scotland via that app. I am quite happy to report that back to the committee in due course. You have said something that contradicts evidence that we have had last week or the week before, where we were told that a booking office did not have to necessarily be in the area in which the taxes were operating. An example was given where a booking office was in the borders of one local authority and the company was operating in another. Would that, under current legislation, not be allowed? It is my understanding that you have to have a booking office licence in a local authority where you are granted to operate. I need to get back to you again to take it. I believe that there is some case law around it, but I need to get back to you on that. I think that we need clarification on that, because I think that some of the licensing authorities—I think that it was the licensing authorities only—not the operators said that that was possible. I think that clarification is required on that, if we can get at that. If you include that report on Uber. The final question is on the booking office scenario, because, based on the evidence that we heard previously, what would be the Police Scotland's definition of a booking office? I put the scenario in a previous meeting that one person could be sitting in a room in their house in front of a computer and a smartphone. Could that be defined as the booking office, as far as Police Scotland is concerned? A booking office, according to the legislation, is where you operate more than three cars, and you organise the higher of vehicles, etc. That would be the definition of it, regardless of who it is. I could sit at night in my house with a smartphone, and as long as I operate more than three cars, that could be defined as a booking office. We have to apply for licence for a booking office, so it would be whether the licensing authority would determine that. It does not tend to be that, but it is up to the local authority again to licence a booking office. I ask you about the licensing of cars and drivers, which is obviously some concern to the committee if operators are going ahead and being unlicensed in unsafe cars, maybe dubious people behind the wheel. As it stands at the moment before any of the new operators enter the market, do you have any idea of how much criminality has arisen from cars and drivers who are unlicensed, and what kind of criminality we are talking about? I do not have any figures with me to date, but I can provide the committee with that. However, from the intelligence that we hold, and Mr Telfall will undoubtedly be able to add more from experience in Glasgow city centre, it is quite often that it can be sexual predators, or just opportunities. It goes from one extreme to another. However, regardless, if they are not regulated, we do not know that individual as a fit and proper person to carry passengers, potentially vulnerable individuals through the effects of alcohol, as they tend to target the nighttime economy, because that is when most money could be made. It would be extremely useful, because I believe that there have been some extremely serious crimes that have taken place after folk have gone into unlicensed cars, thinking that that is an easy way to get home. If we had those numbers, it would be very useful indeed. Can we maybe move on then to sexual entertainment venue licensing? Mr Telfall, do you have some opening remarks there, please? I do, convener. Thanks very much. Sexual entertainment venues such as lap dancing venues are currently licensed in terms of a licence in Scotland Act 2005. The subsequent case law that I referred to earlier on, Bright Crew, which was circa July 2011, that has significantly impacted in Police Scotland's and the licensing board's ability to address on-going issues with this type of establishment, or indeed other premises licensed in terms of the 2005 Act, unless it is directly related to the sale and supply of alcohol. The proposed bill seeks in part to remedy that situation in respect of licensing of sexual entertainment venues. The proposal advocates a dual licensing system whereby the premises will require a liquor and civic licence in order to operate. That indeed will provide the Police and the Local Authority greater scope to ensure compliance with this business area and remove some of the barriers that have resulted from Bright Crew. That will better enable the Police and partners to ensure the safety and well-being of those working in such premises and pursue enforcement activity where required. In principle, Police Scotland is supportive of the measures outlined in the bill. However, there remains uncertainty as to how the dual licensing will operate in practice. In that respect, licensing boards and regulatory committees have separate and distinct responsibilities for liquor and civic licences, and a situation may arise where a liquor licence is revoked and the sexual entertainment licence remains in effect. It would be beneficial if a mechanism existed whereby each regulatory body communicates and agrees matters such as terminal hours. There will also be two different inspection regimes in place, which may also impact on local authority licensing standard officers or the proposed civic licensing standards officers. It would be advantageous if respective powers are cross-transferable. To bring this to a conclusion, the regulation of sexual entertainment venues should also be a mandatory provision, rather than a resolution that is in the bill and not left at the discretion of each local authority. Such a situation would encourage regime shopping whereby there may be a disproportionate presence of sexual entertainment venues in an area where this is not a licence activity. We also believe that consensus needs to be reached in the definition for adult sexual entertainment, which would subsequently inform conditions of licence to improve standards in this industry, such as robust mandatory conditions outlining what and what is not acceptable and to promote a consistent approach across Scotland. That is my initial comment. Let us move to the point that you made about the communication between, say, a licensing board who may revoke an alcohol licence and a licensing committee or other regulatory committee who may deal with the sexual entertainment aspects. You are saying that there would be difficulty if one part was revoked but not the other. One of the other things that we have heard during the course of evidence, which seems to be a real problem, is the advertising outside some of the venues, which comes under another regime that is normally planning. Do you think that the whole holistic regulation of sexual entertainment venues should come under one regime rather than the split all over the place? Is that your feelings? With regard to directly outside the premises, I think that that is something that could be taken into consideration in this regime for the dual licence. The problem thereafter that you have is that the fly posting elsewhere and other communications, and it is who would take responsibility for that. I think that that is something that would need to be considered a wee bit more fully. Fly posting and leaflets are supposed to have said that. Do you have that directly outside the venue posters, for instance? What is contained on that? What is the content? Do you have the fly posting in general through the remaining area? Surely, there are other pieces of legislation that can stop fly posting if the leaflets were offensive as well. Surely, there are some other actions that you can take in this regard. That is what I am saying. There are two distinct things that are advertised directly outside the premises and elsewhere. I think that we are looking at the scope around about the premises themselves. Any other illegal activity in this regard obviously does not come within the scope of this bill. I get where you are coming from in terms of some of those behaviours. Do you think that it would be good to bring all of the regulatory regime over the venues into one, if you like? I certainly take your point, convener, and I think that it needs to be joined up. The best way to do that is when regime is as far as we are concerned. Whether that is achievable or not is another matter for discussion, but that would be utopian, as far as we are concerned. It would join things up and have that overview from one body. Thank you very much. Is it on this issue, Alec? The question would be what will be for the licensing boards having this responsibility? Why wouldn't you do that? The sexual entertainment venues are currently licensed under the Licences in Scotland Act. There have been difficulties and frustrations because of the decision of Bright Crew, which meant that, if it was not linked to the sale and supply of alcohol, there was ancillary conduct, they could not tackle that. Licences and boards are only allowed to deal with the sale and supply of alcohol. That is where the issue has arisen. I imagine that they are looking at sexual entertainment venues to enact this piece of legislation, so that they can tackle the issues in there with the sale and supply of alcohol. Cameron, is it on this point as well? Okay, right. Let's continue on in that particular scenario. You mentioned there, Chief Inspector Stuart, that in terms of the licensing boards, they can deal with the alcohol licensing only. What would the situation be if a licensing board had a difficulty with, for example, a casino, which is providing something else? Maybe they are worried about the operation of that casino, but maybe not about the alcohol aspect of it. Does that create a dilemma with current legislation as well in terms of what a licensing board could or could not do? There is certainly a recent example in Glasgow where it basically came down to the alcohol side of things. That is why it was dealt with. Obviously, you get the gambling commission that would be able to look at instances in these kind of premises such as casinos. I do not envisage—well, it may cause some difficulty, but— Okay. That is a bit of a left-fiel question anyway. I am sorry for that. On this point, Mr Wilson. I think that it is relevant in this point because you have introduced potentially a fourth element in terms of the licensing regime. I know that there is a casino in Glasgow that has a large venue inside the casino, which it hires out to various organisations for parties and various other things. However, what it would be to stop them from hiring that out or using that within the casino venue for adult entertainment on a Friday or Saturday night as an ally to the other activities that take place within that casino? That comes to my next line of questioning anyway, so you can answer all of this in a winner. That is roundabout. The premises that hold sexual entertainment on no more than four occasions per year—maybe the casino that Mr Wilson has just mentioned—have no need in some regards for to follow the normal licensing regime? Do you have concerns about enforcement concerns roundabout that? What is Police Scotland's views about occasional licences for one-off sexual entertainment events—or four-off, is it the case, maybe? I think that there throws up some concern and a potential look, Paul. I know that Morag's been in comments before about potential for roadshowing, and for a particular group that provides adult entertainment to travel the length and breadth of the country, but only have it in venues maybe once or twice and expose that look, Paul. I would have concerns regarding the definition being three or less that you are allowed in any particular premises. I am going back to Mr Wilson's point about the potential for a casino holding adult entertainment as well. You have all those regulatory bodies that have oversight of their particular part of it. It throws up to me that it may become quite messy, and it is back to the original point about one body overseeing sexual entertainment venues and adult entertainment. We do have concerns about that particular point, convener. In terms of the policing, you described a round Scotland tour that could happen with occasional licences. Obviously, it would be much more difficult for you folks to police what is going on there. Have there been difficulties in the past round about any of those scenarios that you are aware of? It was just one of the considerations when we were looking at the proposals in the bill. As Mr Telfall articulated at the beginning, licencing is about keeping people safe for those that are working there and those that attend as a customer to those premises. If they were excluded because it was up to three or four occasions, whether it was in the operating plan for the licence that I anticipated would be, you are back to the bright crew decision again, which means that we would not be able to effectively regulate or challenge that unless it is to do with the sale and supply of alcohol. It would be better if that provision was not there and we were able to tackle that as long as it is catered for in a licence. Will your in-keeper system be able to keep track of occasional licences in this regard or in alcohol as well? Is that going to fall out of the remit because you might not be aware of the occasional licences that are granted? The occasional licences would be contained in the in-keeper system and would be linked to that premises. However, I would rather that there was not an exemption and that if they were wanting to undertake that activity, they had to get the licence for it so that we knew that that was coming in and that it was also outlined in the operating plan for their liquor licence as well, so that means that it joins up that information. It seems to be a bit of a minefield and a bit of an anomaly here between places of sexual entertainment on an occasional basis or if it is phoned up, telephoned up and booked a stripper ground or something. Have you got concerns about this? If it happens regularly in a premises, so somebody is doing it weekly or monthly, they are obviously holding it privately or for financial gain. What are your concerns about that? Are there any? If you wish, I think that goes back to my final point and my opening remarks about the definition of adult sexual entertainment. We really need to be quite concise about that in terms of what that is and if it includes the stripper ground stuff that is on going on a weekend basis for stagging in the end parties and such like. I think that we need a bit of dialogue about that definition to see what actually falls within that. You have concerns but there is no answer particularly to it that you can enunciate here? I do not think that there is a particular answer to it at this moment in time. We do have concerns about it. There has not been particular examples of the type of situation that you spoke about for the stagging end party, throwing up any significant issues. It would be very much a case that there is no evidence based here for including that but it is quite contextual. It depends on what situation it is. It is really quite a grey area at the moment, as you highlight. Is discretionary a bit realistic as far as you are concerned? There needs to be an element of discretion but, once again, there needs to be some concise definition around this adult sexual entertainment that will assist us in policing what is an issue. Most of our issues are out of places where lap dancing takes place. It is roundabout the vulnerability and exploitation of some of the employees. It flies in the face, certainly, of the Scottish Government's approach to victimisation of women, etc. That is where most of our concerns have been in the past. In terms of criminality, out of sexual entertainment venues, there have been lots of allegations that attracts a criminal element. Is that something that Police Scotland would agree with? Is the amount of activity that much different from nightclubs or other venues? It is certainly a place that does and will attract certain elements of criminality just because of the sheer nature of it and the potential to generate income for organised crime groups. There are potential and various licences and establishments for that to happen. It is just another opportunity for them, and it has been shown in the past that we can show direct links to a particular crime group when they are exploiting that for illegitimate purposes and perhaps laundering money. Again, it may be useful for the committee to get an idea of the crime figures roundabout some of the places so that we have an indication and maybe a comparison with some others as well. We will do our best on that one, convener. There are certainly difficulties in terms of the current administration of those venues. There are different approaches to that in different areas, as we have violated previously in relation to other issues, so we will do our best to provide those figures. I thank you very much for your evidence this morning. I could ask you to keep your seats just for a few seconds. We move on to agenda item 2. That is for the committee to decide whether to take consideration of the following items in private at future meetings. Those are consideration of our work programme, consideration of EU priorities for 2015 and approach to budget scrutiny for 2015. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We now move on to private session. I suspend the meeting.