Local Government and Transport Committee, 22 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Official Report 198KB pdf

---

Proposed Licensing (Scotland) Bill

The final item of business concerns the proposed licensing (Scotland) bill. Perhaps we are a little bit ahead of the game, as we are aware that the Executive proposes to introduce the bill shortly—perhaps very shortly—and that it is likely that the Parliamentary Bureau will designate the Local Government and Transport Committee as the lead committee.

To ensure that we can hit the ground running if we are designated as the lead committee, I ask members to agree to start the process of appointing an adviser to the committee. Having an adviser would be useful, as the bill will be complex and there could be a lot of technical, legal and specialist information.

Paragraph 4 of paper LGT/S2/05/7/5 says that

"a candidate would have to be identified who was sufficiently ‘neutral' in relation to the issues raised in the Bill."

However, people who have the degree of expertise that the committee would want to benefit from could be those with legal expertise in this area who might have acted for clients in that regard. The fact that they had acted for clients would suggest that they have experience that we would want to benefit from, but I am not sure whether that would mean that they were no longer neutral.

We are used to the word "neutral" being used in the political sense, but I am not sure what it means in paragraph 4. We will be looking for people who know the current law inside out.

I do not think that the word "neutral" is meant to suggest that the person has to be someone who has no experience of dealing with licensing issues. I would interpret it as meaning someone who has not been actively campaigning for a particular change in the law one way or another, which could colour the advice that they would be able to give to the committee. I do not think that the call for neutrality would exclude people who have experience of working in the area.

Could you say a bit more about the nature of the advice? Although the bill will involve a lot of technical issues, it relates primarily to a social issue. There is no doubt that a change in licensing laws will have a huge social effect, particularly in the busy city centres. I hope that we are looking not for an adviser who will be able to tell us the history of licensing laws dating back to the 18th century but for one who will be able to give us some facts, figures and guidance on the relationships between licensing, crime, disorder and other issues, based on a knowledge of licensing regimes in various parts of Britain and the world. I am not sure that we need an adviser who will be able to tell us only what a particular part of a licence means.

I expect that anyone who has been working in this area will be aware of the social implications of particular changes. To ensure that we deliver a licensing act that operates in the way that Parliament wants it to, any adviser that we get needs to have specialist knowledge. It should be possible to get an adviser who has a perspective on the social implications of the changes as well as the detailed technical elements.

If we get approval to have an adviser, we will identify a range of potential advisers and members of the committee will have an opportunity to comment on whether the candidates are suitable for the tasks that we want them to perform.

Tommy Sheridan is right to suggest that we will want to have input from people who have direct experience of the impact of alcohol on the public and the social aspects of the issue. However, I believe that those are matters that we will undoubtedly pursue when we take evidence. As the paper before us rightly suggests, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and the associated legislation are immensely complicated—so much so that lawyers such as me would not touch the act with a barge pole because we know that, if you do not know exactly what you are doing, you are likely to be calling up your professional indemnity insurers. I mention that simply because I think that it is essential that we have an adviser who is expert in the law as it stands. If they are not, it will be impossible for him or her to advise us about how we should change the law. No doubt we could get evidence about the important social issues from the witnesses who come before us.

I am sure that we will take a lot of evidence. I repeat that I am sure that anyone who is expert in the relevant law will have an appreciation of the social issues as well. It is perfectly possible that we could cover both bases. As I say, we will be able to reflect on that when we see the list of potential advisers.

Are members content to agree the paper on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 15:29.