Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Official Report 668KB pdf

---

Travelling Funfairs (Licensing) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 5 is our final evidence session on the Travelling Funfairs (Licensing) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome Richard Lyle MSP, who is the member in charge of the bill; Claudia Bennett, who is from the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Parliament; and Nick Hawthorne, who is the senior assistant clerk for the non-Government bills unit.

We have allocated about an hour for this session and we have a number of issues to discuss. There is a pre-arranged questioning order and I will call members in turn to ask their questions for up to nine minutes. I ask Richard Lyle to clearly state if an official is brought in to answer any question.

We might have a short amount of time for supplementaries at the end. I ask that everyone give broadcasting staff a second to operate their microphones before they speak.

I invite Richard Lyle to make a brief opening statement.

Thank you, convener. I remind members that I am the convener of the cross-party group.

Travelling funfairs, traditionally operated by proud communities of showpeople, have been a valuable part of Scottish culture for centuries. Fairs in Scotland were added to the provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 but not to the UK legislation. The Scottish legislation allows Scottish local authorities to require travelling funfairs to have a public entertainment licence to operate and, for many years, all of Scotland’s local authorities have required fairs to have such a licence. The act allows for temporary licences for events of no more than six weeks.

I believe that the provisions in the 1982 act are not proportionate or appropriate for travelling funfairs. Over time, individual local authorities have developed layers of unnecessary bureaucracy which, when combined with inconsistent and often unacceptable high fees and processing times, threaten the survival of travelling funfairs across Scotland.

We have a situation in which 32 local authorities charge widely varying amounts for licences—from £50 to many thousands of pounds—and the processing of applications takes anywhere between three weeks and three months, because all 32 authorities have their own particular administrative requirements. That situation puts up many barriers for a business that involves travelling around the country and staying in each place for short periods of time.

The results are that travelling funfairs are going out of business and disappearing from our communities, and showpeople are struggling to survive. My bill addresses those problems through the creation of a simplified, proportionate and well-balanced licensing system, which tips the balance more towards the interests of showpeople than towards those of councils.

The bill improves the 1982 act in five main ways. It would introduce reduced, consistent costs for operators; reduced and consistent timescales for the process of applications; the option to transfer the licence to another site should the original site prove unstable; clear limits on the conditions that can be imposed on licences and on grounds for refusal of the licence application; and an application process that would ensure that operators know the criteria in advance.

11:00  

I have read and listened to concerns from councils that the fixed fee of £50 that I have included in the bill will not cover their costs and that the required processing time of 21 days for valid applications is too short. I know that Fife Council charges £50 and has short timescales, which I can discuss later. Why can other councils not do as Fife Council does?

The current regime for showpeople is not fun and it is not fair. Showpeople and the wonderful cultural tradition of travelling funfairs across all parts of Scotland need our help to survive. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue, especially given that many showpeople have not worked since last March. If that continues, Scotland will lose much that it will never get back.

I look forward to answering any questions.

I will kick off. Can you clarify whether it is your view that the single biggest reason for the decline of travelling funfairs in Scotland is the current licensing system?

Yes, which is why I propose to update it. The cost of licences can be large and the time to get a license can be long. Ask any showman why fairs have declined. If a licence is refused, a showman can lose hundreds of pounds and I know of many occasions when that has happened, so they do not apply for them now.

Can you give me some evidence to show that funfairs are in long-term decline in Scotland, because I have been reasonably told that there is no evidence of that?

You only need to look at how many fairs are applying and how many are getting rejected. Some councils are charging well above what you were told last week taxi drivers or window cleaners pay. The level of bureaucracy that is involved in the process that councils require a showman to follow is well above what is involved in other applications. At your last meeting—this is the nub of what you are asking—one council stated that it had only three fairs in a year. Its licence cost is £708. I suggest that that cost reduces the number of applications.

Fairs are also declining due to former sites being built on for housing. However, showpeople are family businesses made up of several generations, and they know what is reducing the number of fairs: it is the licence conditions; and the evidence shows that.

A key aspect of the bill is setting a flat fee of £50 for applications. Local authorities say that they cannot cover their costs with that. Do you think that it is fair for funfair operators to have their licence costs subsidised by other licence holders, including charities and community groups?

I would not say that they are being subsidised. Do you think that it is fair that showpeople are getting charged £708 in West Dunbartonshire, £970 to £6,000 in Edinburgh, £889 in Renfrewshire and £597 in Glasgow when the average cost—

That does not answer my question. The fact is that a flat fee of £50 would mean that funfairs would be subsidised by, for example, charities and community groups that have to pay for their licences.

Again, I do not accept that. Fife Council charges £50 for a licence, but other councils charge hundreds of pounds. We are prepared to sit down and discuss with councils what a reasonable fee would be, but it is not fair that councils charge £700, £900 or £6,000 for a licence for only a couple of weeks.

Councils say that they are allowed only to cover their costs but not to make a profit. Are you suggesting that some are doing that?

If Fife Council charges £50 and West Dunbartonshire charges £708, what would you say those councils are doing differently? I know that I have to answer your question, but—

Do you have any evidence that suggests that local authorities are profiting from the process?

When you look at what one council charges compared with what other councils charge, I would suggest that there is unfairness. They are doing the same work, so why is there a difference in fees?

There could be a number of reasons for that. I am asking whether there is any evidence that councils are profiting.

Well, across the board, 32 councils charge 32 different fees for the same licence. That is not fair.

Okay, but I still cannot get past the idea that funfairs should be subsidised by charities and local organisations.

I am not asking people to subsidise funfairs. Funfair operators want to pay their way—and they do pay their way; they pay taxes and they pay fees. I am looking for a fair licensing system. May I remind you that there is no licensing system in England? Fees down there are well below the levels in Scotland, but councils seem to do well. I want to encourage more funfairs to operate, which would bring councils more money. Some councils get only three funfairs in their areas, whereas others get 50 or 60. If councils promoted funfairs, they would increase their income, not decrease it.

Do you not accept that, with this bill, showmen are trying to compensate for missing out on a previous opportunity to get the same regime as exists in England? They missed the boat there and are trying to catch up.

Well, 1982 is long since away. Sadly, you are correct. Two bills went through the House of Commons at the same time, and funfairs were added to the bill that covered Scotland in an amendment that was missed by the Showmen’s Guild.

Showmen do not want special treatment. They want fairness.

They do want special treatment, Richard. There is no argument about that. For example, they are asking for applications to be processed within 28 days.

I based my bill on what happens in near enough one of the best councils in Scotland when it comes to supporting funfairs, which is Fife Council. Fife charges a fee of £50 and processes applications in 21 days. I am prepared to look at increasing the period to 28 days, but some councils take three months, and there is a difference between 28 days and three months. I want funfair operators to sit down with councils and agree sites a year ahead. Just because the bill talks about £50 and 28 days, that does not mean that showmen cannot talk to councils well in advance of events.

Okay. Thanks for that.

I want to talk about how the process of applying for a licence and getting a decision would work in practice. Richard Lyle talked about a period of 21 days, in principle, but local authorities tell us that that is not enough time to enable council committees to make decisions in contentious cases. Richard, do you think that councillors should be involved in decisions about having travelling funfairs in their areas?

I think that, earlier, someone said that they were on a council. I was a councillor for 36 years and as far as I am concerned councillors can have a role. I encourage community councils to get involved, too. We need showmen to be able to sit down with councils and perhaps community councils to agree sites, and dates and times when they can operate. Let us get back to a situation in which funfairs are encouraged.

I think that 21 days from the date of the application, as opposed to six weeks, eight weeks or three months, is a reasonable period. I refer again to the time that Fife Council takes to turn applications around, as well as the cost of a licence in Fife.

Under paragraph 7(3) of schedule 1 to the 1982 act, the only person who should be consulted is the chief constable. Most applications are not contentious, and can be agreed by officials who have delegated powers. If there is a contentious issue and the application goes to a committee, the problem is that some councils work on a cycle rather than having weekly meetings, which is what happened when I first went into the council back in the days of yore. They work on a two or three-month cycle, so the committee meeting may not happen before the time that the funfair is to be held.

Under the 1982 act, there is no such provision, and I based my bill on what is in the 1982 act.

In its evidence, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland suggested that six to eight weeks is a more reasonable timescale for contentious decisions. Would you consider amending the bill to take its views into account?

If councillors are involved, it gives the communities the capacity to feed back to councillors, and it gives the council the opportunity to advertise the fact that an application has come in. It would make the process more robust when it comes to making a decision that is right and in the interest of both the funfairs and the local communities.

If we adopted SOLAR’s suggestion of six to eight weeks, what would be the point of the bill? We are presently at three months. Six to eight weeks is not an option—we might as well leave matters as they are. As I have stated, we need to devise and set up a system that is fair. Too many councils have layered on numerous conditions that are not fair. [Inaudible.]—that showpeople and councils sit down and agree sites and when people can come. At the end of the day, councils have local byelaws, so local conditions can be applied. However, I suggest that timescale discussions will have to take place long before an application is submitted. The application dates and times have to be set out in the bill, but I am sure that showmen will go to the council weeks before that. Nobody in their right mind would leave it until 21 days beforehand before putting in their application.

As I said to the convener, I am looking for fairness and for councils to start to work with showpeople, because showpeople want to work with councils.

There are potentially two issues. One is about having good long-term relationships between the funfair sector and councils, whereby they discuss opportunities and work together to determine what works for both sides. The other issue is about the detail of provisions in the bill to grant licences by default if a decision is not reached in 21 days. How would the bill ensure that public safety is not compromised in such situations? If something needs to be addressed properly before permission can be given, would such a provision not be a problem?

What do you mean by “public safety”? Health and safety is a reserved issue and is not covered by this bill. Health and safety is covered by the health and safety legislation. When they put in their application, showpeople have to show councils their safety certificates and address such matters. I would like to know what safety issues you are referring to.

There is the issue of proximity to residential properties, as funfairs potentially have a big impact on residents. There was a case in my constituency in which the structure was incredibly close to the houses, and the issue needed to be properly considered.

Yes, you would hope that basic health and safety issues would come into play, but the health and wellbeing of local residents is an issue, because the siting of funfairs could compromise public health. Does the issue not need a bit more thought?

11:15  

Again, councils can make stipulations on where equipment can be sited. Showmen must submit their site plans. Council environmental health officers, or even the police, can tell people to turn their music down and to turn the equipment another way.

If there is one thing that I have discovered in the past 10 years, it is that showmen want to work with local communities and councils. If they are given the chance, they will do so.

Okay.

Some stakeholders have been looking at what the right approach to take is and whether councils would refuse applications rather than let default provisions operate, which would impact on the industry and travelling funfairs. Is that a risk? If so, are there ways in which that could be addressed?

That is a risk every day of the week. There have been situations in which applications have been refused. I am not seeking to remove that risk. I am trying to provide a bill that is fair and proportionate; a fee that is fair and proportionate; and a timescale for processing applications that is fair and proportionate. I am also trying to encourage funfairs and councils to work together.

Sadly, there will still be councils that might not want funfairs in their area. My local council does not exactly go out of its way to encourage funfairs to come. I had to press the council as an MSP to designate sites. Do you know what? It would not even designate a site in my constituency.

Applications by funfairs will be refused—that is an everyday occurrence. However, we want to have a system that is and can be seen to be fair and proportionate.

I call Jeremy Balfour.

I remind members of my membership of the cross-party group on the Scottish Showmen’s Guild

I am, in principle, in favour of the bill. I think that funfairs bring a lot of value and entertainment to communities. I suppose that the one issue that I want to ask about—the convener has pushed quite hard on this—is the £50 fee. Are you open to having a maximum fee that a council could charge, rather than having a fixed £50 fee? Rather than specifying a fixed amount, could there be a limit to which councils could work? For example, in Edinburgh, there are quite a lot of issues when funfairs come, particularly with regard to what needs to be done to sites once the funfair is over. As a consequence, there might well be a variation in the costs between Fife and Edinburgh, or between the Borders and the Highlands and Islands, for example. Are you open to an amendment that would replace the fixed fee with a maximum fee?

I am prepared to review the figure, within reason. I mentioned that SOLAR had cited window cleaners’ and taxi drivers’ licence fees. I have since discovered that a window cleaner in Scotland pays between £60 and £150 a year for their licence, and a taxi driver pays between £150 and £300 a year for their licence, on average. They pay more in Edinburgh—I do not have the figure to hand, but I know that they pay an extra £500 or £600.

The fee of £50 is what is paid to Fife Council. Fife is a shining example to every council in Scotland. It processes applications quickly, for which it charges £50. It says that that fee covers its costs and that it will not lose money.

Showmen might not agree with my saying this, but a limit could be £150. However, a fee of £500, £700, £800, £900 or even £6,000 would be ridiculous. Yes, I think that a fee should be charged, and I am prepared to work with councillors and showpeople in order to get a fair fee, but a fee of £700, £800 or £900 would not be fair.

That is helpful. Finally, to return to Edinburgh, and the Meadows, which has been used for funfairs, and the other parks in the city that have been used from time to time, there is damage to the grass, and mud and mess are left behind, which must be dealt with. How can local authorities work better with the showmen community so that we can put places such as the Meadows back to the condition that they were in before the funfair arrived?

We are conflating two issues. There is a licence fee and there is a lease. When the showmen ask for a licence for the Meadows, they also have to go to the council for a lease for the Meadows, and they are charged for it. It would surprise you how much they pay. In one instance, a couple of years ago, I think that the council went back to them to ask for another £4,000. It should be in the conditions of the lease or the contract—it is in most leases—that they must restore the park to its previous condition and ensure that it is clear of rubbish and glass. Any self-respecting showman will do that, because they know that if they do not, it will be held against them for future applications. Therefore, I do not see that as a problem.

Jeremy Balfour mentioned a cross-party group: for the record, could you repeat which group that is?

I apologise. It is the group on travelling shows and funfairs.

It is the Scottish Showmen’s Guild cross-party group.

Nick Hawthorne wants to come in.

Thank you, convener. I want to clarify a couple of points. On Jeremy Balfour’s question, under the conditions provisions in the bill, which set out conditions that can be added to a licence, only certain kinds of conditions can be added, but one of those, in section 11 of the bill, relates to

“the repair or restoration of ground surfaces or any other things damaged or displaced by, or as a direct consequence of, the operation of the funfair”.

That is a specific condition that may be attached to the licence under the bill.

I will also clarify a matter that was raised by Sarah Boyack. Again, conditions can be added to the licence, and there are only two grounds for refusal that can be used by a local authority.

Gordon MacDonald is next.

I am looking at the costs of applying for a licence to operate. You have highlighted that there is a huge range in the cost of licences. In Fife, it is £50, but other councils charge more than £700, and Edinburgh charges substantially more than that. Is there not a need for a national formula for calculating licence fees? It should be cost neutral to local authorities. Instead of having a licence for every site and every application, is there a need for, say, a three-year licence for approved sites that would reduce the time that showpeople spend on applications and the time that councils spend approving them?

Would it not be better to step back, amend the bill and support some kind of national formula, with an explanation of exactly how the formula works, as is the case with other types of licences that councils operate? All councils would work to the same formula, which would reduce the onerous task of applying for showpeople as well as the council’s task of processing them. It would be a three-year licensing regime for a particular site that all sides are agreed on, and, unless there were problems, it would be automatically renewed each year until the three years were up, at which point the process would start again. That might eliminate some of the concerns that we hear from councils about costs, time and so on.

There are two types of licence: temporary and permanent. M&D’s is a funfair theme park in my constituency and it needs a three-year permanent licence. However, travelling funfairs need only a temporary licence.

Through the bill, I can change what I believe is wrong with the 1982 act. SOLAR and some councils have suggested that the 1982 act is no longer fit for purpose and requires to be upgraded. If my bill falls because of time constraints because of Covid and other reasons, I will encourage the next Government party to introduce a bill to resolve the unfairness to showpeople and make their bills fair throughout the 32 local authorities.

For the past six years, I have had various discussions with Scottish Government ministers about sending out guidance to councils. Yes, that guidance went out and the Government did its job, but I know where the councils put that guidance: not into operation but on a shelf.

I would certainly explore Gordon MacDonald’s idea if the bill falls due to time constraints. Again, however, the Government would have to introduce legislation on that to amend all the relevant aspects. If people say that it is unfair for showmen to get preferential treatment, then the situation should be the same for everybody. For example, window cleaners and taxi drivers should get a three-year licence. Everybody should get a three-year licence and the costs should be proportionate. I agree with Gordon MacDonald that that would also reduce the amount of paperwork.

Again, I am saying in my bill that showmen can go to councils in advance of the time that is set, sit down with them and come to an agreement; or that councils can designate sites in conjunction with community councils. I want to get back to a fair system. I find Gordon MacDonald’s idea amenable, given what I am suggesting, but I cannot do what the idea requires; the Government would have to do it through a total revision of the 1982 act. If the Government wants to do that, I am sure that everybody would welcome it.

Many communities welcome the annual visit of the funfair, which gives a bit of colour to the local area. Certainly, when my sons were growing up, they looked forward to the annual visit of the funfair. However, you touched on community councils there, Mr Lyle. Would you be prepared to commit to community councils being mandatory consultees?

Basically, community councils get sent planning applications by councils. As I said, I want to set up timescales. I want showpeople to go to councils a couple of months in advance or sit down with a council and make an agreement a year in advance. The council could send that agreement to the community council. Showmen are quite happy to come and talk to MPs, MSPs or councillors and they are the most amenable people I have ever come across. People tend to forget that they run a business.

You said that your kids used to love going to the shows, but when was the last time that you saw the shows in your area? That is what we are losing. We are losing part of our Scottish tradition. The bill will try to bring that back and help showpeople get back to a situation of fairness. However, if my bill falls due to time constraints, I would love to sit down and discuss your proposal, Gordon, take it on board and put it forward to the Government to change the 1982 act.

11:30  

Although it is not a registrable interest, I declare that I am one of the deputy conveners of the cross-party group on the Scottish Showmen’s Guild.

Richard, you said that Fife sets a shining example. That might be because there are 26 burghs within Fife Council, many of which have royal charters dating back to the 14th or 15th centuries that include the right to a fair in law. Those royal charters are still extant legal documents. They are admissible in court and set out people’s legal rights.

Some supplementary evidence from the Showmen’s Guild came in late last night. That evidence claims that Scotland is the only country in the European Union to require funfairs to have a public entertainment licence. Can you explain why Scotland has such a restrictive regime compared to England or to other parts of the EU? Is it down to the so-called mistake or oversight in the 1982 act?

Yes, it is down to that oversight. Although people may not quote that act, it is a 39-year-old mistake. While I was working on the bill, I posed as a showman and phoned English councils. I was astounded by what they told me. The application process took only a few days and applicants paid only a few pounds or were encouraged to make a donation to charity.

Two bills went through the House of Commons in 1982. Funfairs were not mentioned in either. I found out later that funfairs were added to the Scottish bill by an amendment, but were not added to the English bill.

In England, funfairs do not need a licence. They need a contract or a lease or they have to talk to the council. They are not unregulated. However, councils in England seem to treat showmen far more fairly than councils do in Scotland. That annoys me.

That could have something to do with the fact that England has the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847, and that there is also more recent legislation. The statute book has been maintained to facilitate markets and fairs in parishes across England. They seem to have done that far more assiduously than we have.

You have had conversations with English councils. You said in a previous answer that the council that covers your own constituency had refused to allow travelling funfairs to come there. Would it be possible for a local council in England to do that? If so, on what basis could an English council refuse?

I am sorry; I cannot answer that but I will refer the question to Nick Hawthorne. I have not taken evidence or inquired about that. I would not like to comment and Nick might say the same.

I probably will say the same. I would not want to speak on behalf of all parts of England. When we looked at the background to the provisions in the bill during Richard’s consultation, and in liaison with the Scottish Parliament information centre, it seemed clear that there was no fixed system or regime in England. Different councils and authorities took a wide variety of approaches. Some of them used by-laws. I cannot give an unequivocal answer.

I had the opportunity to take part in a showmen’s dinner in Nottingham. They were aghast at the licensing conditions in Scotland. They said that they did not come across anything like that. I have not taken evidence, however. I phoned councils to find out what they were charging and what their timescales were, and they were much shorter than in Scotland. That was purely because funfairs do not appear in the 1982 act in England.

You have made the point, and we have heard in evidence, that the wide variety in fees, particularly the higher fees in certain council areas, is a major contributor to the decline in funfairs. Are there other contributing factors to that in the conditions that councils attempt to put on public entertainment licences? Is that also an issue and, if so, will you give some examples?

I have an example of a visit to West Lothian Council—I will give you a laugh. They suggested that a funfair had to have fencing around it and said that the police had insisted upon that. However, I had phoned the police before I walked in the door of West Lothian Council and the police said that they had not said that, and that the council, not them, wanted the fencing. The laugh that I had was that, when I went in, the lady said, “You’ll not know councillors, Mr Lyle.” I said, “That is funny, because I was a councillor for 36 years.” She then admitted that the council wanted to put in fences.

The point that I am trying to make is that they are piling factor after factor on top of condition after condition; they are really suppressing funfairs. For example, there are five funfairs in East Ayrshire, 15 in Glasgow, 20 in Inverclyde, 60 in North Ayrshire—which is the best—and 56 in Fife. There are areas that are depressing funfairs and other areas that are encouraging them.

You also mentioned the distinction between obtaining a licence, whether under the existing regime of the 1982 act or the proposed bespoke licensing of your bill, and the obtaining of permission to occupy the land concerned, which is a distinct exercise. In most cases, the land is owned by councils; much of it is common land but some of it will be private sites. Are you saying that a lot of the conditions that should more readily be contained in the lease or occupancy agreement are being crowbarred into the licence, when they should be part of the occupation lease? You mentioned the fences, for example.

A short response, please.

When you go along for a licence, conditions are added in by the council.

To be clear, your bill would restrict the scope of what conditions could be added and, if the council had any other concerns about fencing and so on, they would bring those under their lease or occupancy agreement. Is that correct?

My bill is about making the situation equal in every council in Scotland. Councils can still have their lease facility and put whatever they want into it. They cannot change the licence fee, but they can charge what they want for a lease.

Good morning, Mr Lyle. A lot of questions have already been answered. However, it would appear from your investigations and support for the industry that the whole tradition has been eroded over time because of a lack of flexibility in councils and them charging different fees and adding further conditions into the whole process. Is the sector being priced out of the market?

Yes. Let us remember that if someone is charged £500 for a licence, they still have to pay for the lease, whatever it costs. I will use the old adage that they have to put bums on seats in order to get their investment back. If they are charged £2,000 before they start their fair and they are charging £2 a pop for entry, they have to get a thousand bums on seats before they can make a profit.

I have met showmen who have been in situations where the weather and other conditions have meant that they have made only £15. They have all the diesel to pay for and every funfair supports perhaps several families; they do not support just one businessman. It is not someone making “loadsamoney”, as somebody used to say. If we can get honesty back into funfair licensing, we will promote funfairs and we may even—dare I say it?—reduce costs.

You say that if the sector is supported and given some assistance, it could thrive and survive in a much bigger way, similar to what seems to be happening south of the border. They are given the opportunity to run their businesses on an on-going basis and they do not seem to have the same barriers as are in place up here.

Another concern was about the lack of involvement of local communities in the licensing decision. It would be good to get your views on that.

The original 1982 act does not allow for public consultation—it does not specify that. I will bring in Nick Hawthorne to answer that question.

As Richard Lyle said, the 1982 act does not require consultation outside that with the police and fire service, and that is replicated in the bill. It does not prohibit it and, as the committee heard in its evidence sessions a couple of weeks ago, many councils are choosing to consult with wider groups—the community and other organisations. That right would still be available to councils under the bill, although consultation would not be required. The point is that decisions have to be made within the 21-day period that is specified in the bill.

The 21-day period for decisions on licence applications has been talked about, but local authorities say that it is not enough time for a council or committee to make that kind of decision. Do you accept that?

In England, they take no time to decide on a licence application, but in Scotland they take three months. I am proposing 21 days. SOLAR suggested putting it up to six weeks, but what is the point of having the bill if I am only bringing the time down from three months to two months?

I am quite prepared, in discussion with other people, to look at making it 28 days. Again, I will point to the shining example of Fife. I proposed 21 days to get a reaction, which I got, but three months or two months is too much. Perhaps one month is enough, but in England there are no months—it is only days. I just want fairness.

I will finish by saying that I want showmen and councils to work with each other to promote shows and get fun back into Scotland. For too long, councils and showmen have been at loggerheads. I want to do away with that. I want to work with councils, community councils and local people to bring fairness back to funfairs.

I have no further questions.

That completes our questions and concludes the evidence session. I thank Richard Lyle and his team for taking part. The committee will report to Parliament in due course. I ask the members of the panel who are leaving the meeting to press the red telephone icon and remind committee members that we remain in public for the next item.

I thank the convener and committee for their time.