Local Government and Transport Committee, 26 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Official Report 349KB pdf

---

Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 2 is further consideration of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome to the committee Malcolm Dickson, the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders police. He is here today in his capacity as a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I give him the opportunity to make introductory remarks on the bill, following which we will move on to a question-and-answer session.

Thank you. It is a pleasure to be at the committee.

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has certainly been widely consulted and involved in the build-up to the bill; ACPOS was also involved in the Nicholson committee. Therefore, ACPOS strongly supports a great deal of the bill's provisions. We particularly support the fact that, for the first time in Scotland, we have a proposed purpose for licensing in the five licensing objectives. That is no small step forward.

It has been understandably difficult for licensing boards over the years, and certainly since 1976-77, to focus on what their function is and what they are trying to achieve because local councillors wear many hats from day to day. Councillors may find themselves playing a strong role in promoting economic development, but the following day they may find themselves on a licensing board. In a country such as Scotland, where tourism, which is a mainstay of the industrial life of the country, relies heavily on the hospitality trade, councillors will clearly be minded much of the time to try to promote the growth of that trade. ACPOS is delighted by the proposal in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill that licensing should have a clear, separate function that concentrates, correctly, on harm reduction.

We welcome various aspects of the bill, including: the retention of licensing boards, which give a local angle; mandatory training—the professionalisation of the licensed trade, if you like; over-provision assessments, which the Scottish Executive has added since the Nicholson committee reported; the discouragement of irresponsible promotions; the protection of young people; and, as I said, the introduction of the five licensing objectives.

However, there are a couple of areas in which we think that care has to be taken during consideration of the bill or during its implementation, in whatever form it is passed. We accept that, in the 21st century, nationally prescribed permitted hours may no longer be the best way in which to deal with trying to keep some control over the total provision of licensing. We think that, as the Nicholson committee stated, law does not change culture. However, we are slightly concerned, because the drinking culture in Scotland is quite different from that in southern Europe, as I think that everyone acknowledges. I know that the bill does not propose a complete free-for-all, but there is a danger that, over the years, control over the total provision of licensing might be lost. That is our fear. If someone could tell me that the bill will not lead to an inexorable rise in the total provision for public drinking, I would be happy, but I am concerned that there might be such a rise, given the way in which the bill is framed.

My second concern is related to that point, as it is about over-provision. The police service welcomes the bill's approach to over-provision, but there should be clarity about how over-provision will be measured. We do not suggest that the standards in relation to over-provision should be the same in the centre of Glasgow as they are in the centre of Alloa. However, there must be a consistent approach.

A further concern that we have expressed since the process began is the diminution of the role of the police service in the person of the chief constable. The current legislation is not perfect, but it allows licensing boards to take account of matters that do not necessarily result in a conviction in a court of law. The civil standard of proof—on the balance of probability, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt—is required, as is the case in relation to the decisions of other bodies. There are matters to do with licensing, and particularly the people who are involved in the licensing trade, that police forces should legitimately bring to the attention of licensing boards. The bill removes that discretion from licensing boards. That is our thinking on the bill, in broad terms.

Thank you for those comments and for the paper that you submitted before the meeting, which members have a copy of.

I used to be a member of a licensing board and an abiding memory of the board's meetings, apart from the fact that they were very long, is the useful input that we received from police officers, not just about whether applicants were fit and proper persons but about how licensees ran their establishments and how their staff dealt with difficulties on the premises. Given that I have that background, I am receptive to the compelling arguments that are made in the submission from ACPOS for retaining the current level of police involvement and role of chief constables, as well as for including in the bill a definition of "fit and proper person". The submission argues that the current procedures on the role of the police in licensing should be maintained. How could the procedures be improved?

I cannot think of an answer at the moment, but I appreciate your comments. In our written submission, we tried to cover the wider area of how the police are exposed in the first response to a crisis situation in licensed premises. Licensees might not be on their best behaviour when they run premises, but there are matters that licensing boards have a right and perhaps a duty to consider.

The current operation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 is more or less adequate in enabling us to get views on such matters across to boards. However, we have some difficulty with appeals after a licensing board has decided, for example, to suspend a licence. Even though there might be a prima facie case for suspension, if an appeal is submitted, the licence is reinstated while the appeal waits to be heard. However, if I remember correctly, I believe that that issue is partly covered in the bill, which gives police forces some discretion in closing premises.

On the list of relevant offences in the bill, you feel that boards should be left to decide on the relevance of convictions. In fact, you feel that boards should have regard to convictions that are not related simply to running licensed premises.

As far as personal licences are concerned, you feel that the bill's current provisions would lead to self-reporting of court cases and convictions by those who are applying for licences. What would be the result of such an approach?

The list of relevant offences in the bill represents the kind of straitjacket that we want to avoid. That is not because we are spoilsports and always see the worst in everyone; however, as members who have been councillors before will be aware, the police possess certain information about offences and convictions. I should point out that that information can be corroborated to a degree; I am not suggesting that we provide questionable information to licensing boards, and in any case it is always up to the licensing board to question how information has been obtained and whether it is reliable. Police forces throughout Scotland are much better now than they were 20 years ago at assessing the reliability of non-conviction information.

There are occasions when the behaviour of a personal licence holder or the person named on a premises licence under the terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 might not fall into the strict categories of relevant offences that legislators have set out, including—obviously—those that contravene the 1976 act. However, the repetition of an offence might indicate to a licensing board that there is a question mark over a person's fitness to be a licence holder or that they did not have sufficient respect for the law. Moreover, although they might not have proffered a charge or although the case might not have gone to court, police officers might have dealt with an individual in circumstances that suggest that his or her own use of alcohol might be out of control or might differ from the norm. The boards have a right to know about such factors and to dismiss or accept them as they wish.

As for personal licences, the Nicholson committee's recommendation of a national database of personal licences would have been sensible. However, I understand that resources and the logistics involved may prevent the immediate implementation of that recommendation.

The difficulty with introducing the personal licence that the bill proposes is that the licensing board where a person resides when that person first applies for a licence would be responsible for maintaining the record of that licence. Therefore, there would be 32 or more different databases. As soon as a person moved from one area to another, there would be an opportunity for information to be missed, especially in relation to that person thereafter appearing before a court. The bill assumes that a personal licence holder will self-report a conviction to the new licensing board; however, that leaves too much to chance.

Over the past year or so, police consideration of such aspects of the bill has been informed by the outcome of the Bichard inquiry into the tragic murder of two girls in Soham, Cambridgeshire. As you will recall, the inquiry was fairly critical of the way in which police forces exchanged information with one another—especially information on non-court convictions. We are sensitised to that situation albeit that, in Scotland, there is a national database of police intelligence that we hope is a big improvement on the situation in England and Wales. Nevertheless, just as we are not complacent in relation to child protection, we are not complacent in relation to ensuring that licensed premises are run in a proper manner.

My question is probably more relevant to the off-trade than the on-trade. One specific concern that has been raised with us is that when local communities arrive at a licensing board hearing and are advised that there is no police report, that does not always reflect their local concerns, as they may have made a number of calls in connection with an off-licence. It appears that their perception of antisocial behaviour surrounding premises and their concerns about that are not reflected in a police report. Is there an argument for having a recognised and consistent format at licensing board hearings to ensure that it is not in the gift of the police officers to report such matters but a requirement on the police to report them in a consistent format?

I sympathise with that point of view. We would all—including the association—like to be as consistent as we could be throughout Scotland. However, we are faced with the fact that the eight police forces in Scotland all have different information recording systems: there is no standard format for information capture and provision. There may be room in the bill for, as you suggest, at least a requirement on police forces to bring forward to the licensing board the information that they have gathered about a premises over a given period of time.

It is the practice in Lothian and Borders police for us to try to capture as much information as we can about any incident—to use police speak, for which I apologise—on licensed premises. That sometimes covers incidents that are close enough to the entrance of licensed premises to cover the information that you are talking about. It is sometimes difficult for police forces or boards to differentiate between behaviour outside premises that is related to the premises and behaviour that is there because it is there. Equally, however, I understand that a board might to want to know about that and might want to make that decision itself.

I have a question about the licensing standards officers. In your submission, you raise a particular concern about the power to enter unlicensed premises. You are concerned about the fact that no warrant is proposed in relation to that power and, importantly, about the potential for LSOs to be subject to violence. Would it be more appropriate for police officers to pursue that role? I ask you to expand on the point.

More broadly, what relationship do you envisage between the LSOs and the police? As well as mediating between licensees and the local community, LSOs will also have an enforcement role. If LSOs are established in local authorities, will they be in the right place or should they be attached to police forces as civilian officers? Do you have other opinions about the proposed operation of the LSOs?

The proposal is partly about the decriminalisation of licensing offences. On the technicalities of how the running of licensed premises is conducted, I no longer see a need for those premises to be policed by the police—I say that as a police officer who is constantly juggling resources and trying to meet increasing public demands with finite resources.

The convener's first point was about the power to enter unlicensed premises. I think that most of my colleagues across Scotland would say that we are no longer in the situation of dealing day in, day out with shebeens, illicit stills and drinking clubs. That said, we still need to maintain an awareness of the potential for such premises to exist. It is therefore right for the bill to address the potential for the unlicensed sale of alcohol.

The power that is proposed in the bill for LSOs to enter unlicensed premises without a warrant exceeds the power that police officers have at the moment. Consideration has to be given to safety in that respect. After all, the LSOs, who will be working for licensing boards or local authorities, will be expected to look at the less criminal end of enforcement, monitoring and compliance. We do not expect them to be trained in dealing with disorder or potential violence to the degree that police officers are. That is one reason why we raise the issue.

I turn to the enforcement role and where I see the best place for LSOs. As I said, I tend to think that it is not a bad idea to shift some of the responsibility for enforcement—at least for monitoring and compliance—from police forces to LSOs. LSOs will work for licensing boards or local authorities, partly because of the decriminalisation issue and partly because of the issue of police resource.

The fact of the matter is that, as much as we want to give adequate attention to licensed premises today—here and now in April 2005—other demands on our service mean that we are not doing that to the level that the public has a right to expect. Having a dedicated resource that is at the behest of licensing boards or local authorities seems to be a sensible way of trying to preserve the monitoring and compliance role.

In some ways, having such a dedicated resource might de-escalate the confrontations—that might not be the right word—that arise with some licensees or their staff. It is an unfortunate fact that some members of society do not like the police. I do not know why that is the case, but there are such people. Perhaps the proposal for LSOs will give a more acceptable face to enforcement, monitoring and compliance than the bobby is seen by some to give at the moment.

The association's view is that, as long as monitoring and compliance are done, we do not have a strong feeling either way on the issue. We are not confident that all police forces across Scotland are providing that monitoring and compliance at the moment.

I would like to explore your concerns about warrants to enter and inspect unlicensed premises. I take your point that illicit stills are probably not the concern; I suspect that duty evasion will probably be the biggest concern over the unlicensed trade in alcohol. I understand that organised crime is often behind such trade. Do you fear that if the power in question were introduced, LSOs could potentially put themselves in very dangerous situations?

That potential exists. Through exchanging information with HM Customs and Excise, we know—indeed, I think that everybody now knows—that the movement of alcohol across national borders as well as within countries is problematic, and I would not like to think that LSOs, whom we think of as the friendly but coercive face of the local authority licensing board, would step into such situations.

David Davidson has a question. Is it related to what Paul Martin asked about?

Yes—it is on the previous point. I would like clarity on a specific matter. I could not find details of the police's position on personal licences and a way forward—in other words, positive recommendations on what the police authorities or ACPOS would like to see. Do you support personal licence holders holding a Scotland-wide licence, particularly as some chains now have managers who move around? Would you like there to be an accredited standard that people must pass, with no automatic provision? People would have to become accredited and they would then have a national licence. Equally, should there be a central register through which police input—regardless of which force it came from—would be made available to the appropriate licensing board when it came to make a decision? You were not terribly clear about that matter.

I apologise for that. ACPOS's position on personal licences, on which I am authorised to speak, is that the idea has some attractions, but we understand why the Executive has stopped short of advocating a national database, as that would have big resource implications. However, without a national database, we cannot see any advantage over the current system of personal licences.

You asked what the association would like to see in relation to personal licences. I suppose that a Scotland-wide licence would be a sensible progression. I do not think that such a licence would necessarily be administered centrally, but if it were to apply throughout the country, agreement would be needed between the eight forces and the licensing boards that they were willing to conform to a standard.

Accreditation is probably dealt with reasonably well in the bill, which covers training for personal licence holders to be qualified. Perhaps there is a question of timing and whether a person must graduate as a personal licence holder before they take up the occupation or whether there is some leeway. For example, a person could be in the trade for some time and then progress to a personal licence.

Do you see a comparison between police forces' access to, for example, information on traffic offences that is recorded on driving licences and the process that we are discussing? A system already exists for any police force to obtain information about a driver at any time.

I am concerned that, as things stand, we would not be able to hold nationally all the information that I mentioned earlier, over and above relevant offences. Most information about specific incidents that do not result in court cases, for example, will be kept locally, probably at the headquarters of each of the eight police forces. Scotland does not have a national police force, so there is no standard way of capturing such information.

I accept what you said in response to the convener's query about court cases. However, would you care to consult your colleagues and write back to the committee offering a view on how information that is not the result of a court action or prosecution could be transferred and the information that you think should be covered? The committee would find that useful.

I can certainly do that.

You made some interesting points in response to the convener's question about the powers of licensing standards officers. Rightly, you are worried about their being given even more authority than existing officers of the law have. I am therefore surprised that there is an omission from your written evidence regarding section 86 of the bill, which describes the powers that are to be conferred on licence holders to remove from premises any person on whom an exclusion order has been imposed. Section 86(4) states that the licence holder may

"(a) remove the person from the premises, and

(b) if necessary for that purpose, use reasonable force."

I have asked a number of witnesses about the provision, and all have expressed concern about it. I thought that ACPOS would have expressed more concern than anyone. I am concerned by the suggestion that a licence holder could use reasonable force to remove a person from premises, because I do not know what reasonable force is in all circumstances. Do you share my worry about that provision?

I am glad that you have brought that to my attention. Although I have studied the bill, I have not read it line by line and I confess that this is the first time that I have noticed that provision, so there is a shortcoming in my association's submission to the committee, for which I apologise. The provision has not been brought to my attention by any police force, which surprises me. My response to the question must therefore be personal because I have not been authorised by the association to give its view on the matter.

I share some of your concern that people who are not empowered officers of the law should have a statutory right to use reasonable force. As you say, "reasonable force" is not defined in the bill, although it is defined in other legislation, notably the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. I suppose that the provision is an attempt to be pragmatic and to acknowledge the reality that exists. I am sure that licensees have asked people to leave their premises and have escorted them to the door. However, there is a world of difference between that and using the degree of force that a police officer might use in making an arrest.

At previous meetings, I have referred to it as the Rambo provision, because there is concern that a power is being conferred that could be used disproportionately, depending on the size of the licence holder and of the person who is breaching the exclusion order. Superintendent George Clelland of Strathclyde police, who gave evidence to the committee, said that it was a dangerous road to take. Sheriff Principal Nicholson said that the provision would open up a can of worms in relation to potential legal challenges. If a licensee bashes a person over the head to knock them unconscious so that they can remove that person, is that reasonable force, if the person is 6ft 4in tall? I ask the association to consider the issue and to give us a written opinion on it. I hope that your opinion will be similar to those of the people who have already expressed a view, and that the Executive can be persuaded to remove the provision.

It would be useful if you could give us written confirmation of the association's views, once you have liaised with colleagues.

I would like to put another question to Malcolm Dickson. I have my first parenting class tonight and I need to leave at 5. May I ask the question now?

As long as it is not a long speech.

It will not be. The question relates to the interesting paragraph in your submission entitled "Polluter Pays?" which is short on solutions, as I think David Davidson said. You hint, quite rightly, that the policing of licensed premises, particularly larger ones, usurps much of your resources. As a result, you say that some areas, such as housing schemes in Edinburgh, are

"not receiving the level of policing"

that they need and deserve. You suggest that we introduce "some mechanism" whereby big licensed premises would pay for the extra attention that they would receive. Yesterday, a housing association in Glasgow received publicity about a scheme through which it would pay for police officers' time. I am interested to hear what ACPOS says, so can you come back to us with possible solutions? You talk about a mechanism, but what would it be and how would it work?

In England and Wales, the legislation's approach to licensing hours is similar to that which the bill takes, and the Government is considering such mechanisms, not all of which would address my concerns. For example, the Government is considering linking hot spots of disorder with particular licensed premises. Another approach is to identify localities in which there is a specific need and to designate zones in which charges will be levied; such an approach might tackle the problem in Scotland.

I am worried that we are giving the impression that we are anti-entertainment or that we are opposed to people enjoying themselves, which is certainly not the case. Nor are we opposed to superpubs—as they tend to be called—many of which are well run. However, every time a new big premises opens, policing feels the pinch. We are feeling it particularly in Edinburgh, where there are twice as many licensed premises per head of population as there are in Glasgow, as members know. During the past five years, the traditional city-centre entertainment area has grown tentacles down Leith Walk, along George Street and down the Cowgate and might even extend as far as Holyrood—heaven forfend.

When large premises open, the number of people who enter the city centre for night-time entertainment increases, which has an effect on disorder and violence on the streets. We are not saying that disorder and violence emanate from particular premises; we are saying that an increase in the totality of public drinking has harmful effects. The infrastructure to deal with such effects in Edinburgh is already creaking; we cannot provide the level of policing in housing estates on Monday mornings at 9 am that we should provide, because between 11 pm and 3 am on Fridays and Saturdays we are dealing with the situation in the city centre. The policing pattern for the 24-hour, seven-day week is skewed to the period between 11 pm and 3 am, 4 am or 5 am on Friday, Saturday and sometimes Sunday nights. We must comply with working time regulations and police officers must sometimes have days off, so every time we put an extra officer on duty on a Friday or Saturday night, we must take one or two officers away from daytime policing of other social problems. That is our worry.

You ask for constructive suggestions; we have sought legal opinion and there is no obvious way of dealing with the problem. For example, we cannot simply allow councils to vary business rates, which might be one approach. I suggest that we cannot have a voluntary arrangement that relies on the good nature of individual licensees. Some licensees have approached us and have offered to chip in, which is commendable although it is not a solution. We need some sort of precept: the money from that need not necessarily go straight into police coffers, given that public drinking puts demands on other parts of the public service infrastructure that we have mentioned today, such as public transport, lighting, closed-circuit television and refuse collection.

We need some way of getting the trade to provide for public services. That might mean, for instance, amendment of the bill to allow licensing boards to designate part of an urban centre as placing particular demands on public services, such that a condition of any licence is that the licensee must pay X or Y, according to the size, capacity or throughput of the licensed premises.

That idea seems to have parallels with the arrangements for recovering the costs of policing football matches, which are another major business that can sometimes involve disorder and violence. I understand that a significant proportion, if not all, of those costs are recovered by the police. Should we adapt that model to recovery of costs from licensed premises?

To be honest, I would prefer not to adopt the model that is used for sporting events, which has been fraught with difficulty ever since it was introduced and is not easy to enforce. To allow police forces to issue enterprises with bills for extra policing is not what the ethics of the situation demand. I would prefer that the extra need for public service infrastructure be recognised in community planning, perhaps by the community safety side of community planning. Instead of the police force deciding what that extra need is, the police force could simply state how much extra resource it feels it must afford to deal with the problem. Perhaps the community planning authority—that is, the local authority—or some other body could arrange for that money to be pulled in by precept.

I will allow brief supplementary questions from Bruce Crawford and Margaret Smith before we return to the questions that are written down.

I have two brief questions on resource issues, on which Malcolm Dickson has made some important comments. First, if the City of Edinburgh Council's licensing board issues more licences and creates more licensed premises per head of population than exist elsewhere, surely the council has a responsibility to acknowledge that in the level of grant-aided expenditure it provides to Lothian and Borders police. Should not the council recognise the added pressure on the police that results from its attempts to create economic development and growth in the city?

Secondly, why would it necessarily be more expensive to have a national database, which could be updated with local input using web-based secure systems, than to have 32 separate local databases created by local authorities? I just do not understand that. Is an issue of scale involved?

I will answer your second question first. I am very much in favour of there being a national database. The personal licences will work—if we go down that road—only if we have a national database. However, I was trying to suggest, although perhaps I did not make myself clear, that the information that licensing boards need before someone could get on to such a database is currently held by eight different police forces in eight different ways. We could not simply from one week to the next take that information from those eight different places and put it in one place and expect that the data would, as it were, be able to talk to one another. However, you are absolutely right that the way ahead for licence holders is to have one national database rather than 32 local databases.

In Edinburgh and other towns and cities that have special licensing needs, some of those factors are considered in allocation of grant-aided expenditure, but the licensing issue gets lost in the plethora of factors that are argued over. Perhaps such a special licensing need does not have a high enough profile among those factors, but that would perhaps be the ideal way to consider the matter. As members probably know, Lothian and Borders police force recently argued that Edinburgh is a special case and was granted additional funding by the Scottish Executive. That funding did not take into account Edinburgh's licensing situation although, as you can imagine, we tried to make that case. The additional funding took into account demands on the police that are unique because Edinburgh is a capital, such as the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, consuls, VIP visits and so on. The situation remains in Edinburgh. You are right to say that the City of Edinburgh Council could decide to pay more. It has in other cases—for example, on policing of antisocial behaviour.

Some of my questions have already been touched on. I can testify to the fact that the problem is clearly a drain on community policing around Edinburgh: we have heard about one example. I had cause to call the police a couple of weekends ago; an hour later I got a phone call explaining why they had not arrived. I have not yet seen a policeman on a Saturday night because they have, I think, been dealing with problems outside licensed premises in the Haymarket area.

My other point is about the funding mechanism and the grants that are given to local authorities. The issue should play its part in working out of GAE, because it is not just about a simple figure that indicates how many licensed premises there are in a local authority area. There are several knock-on impacts, of which policing is the most important.

You mentioned that you sought legal advice on the matter. I know that people get very agitated about the possibility of making public any legal advice that they have been given. You sought legal advice on whether there is a simple way to address the problem, for example though varying of business rates, on which you came to the view that it could not be done. Can you expand further on those comments? I guess that one of the problems is that of attributing blame to particular premises. Would there be mileage in giving licensing boards the power to vary fees if there were continual issues about the need to police particular premises, or would the correct response in such a situation be to decide that the premises should no longer have their licence?

I have to say that the legal advice is currently draft advice, so we could not found our position on it, but it suggested that variation of business rates does not seem to be a possibility because those rates are set nationally; local boards do not have any leeway to vary them. However, Parliament can change the law.

As I hinted earlier, it would be difficult to vary fees on the basis of the blameworthiness of individual premises, although boards have the power to suspend licences or to attach conditions to licences. Generally speaking, we are talking about the totality of drinking in a given area rather than how individual licensed premises are run.

I read something that an eminent professor in England had written, which was quoted in Alcohol Focus Scotland's evidence to the committee. That evidence said that concentration on individual premises rather than on the problem holistically was a bit of a red herring. I sometimes feel that the same is true of the issue that we are considering now, and I have to give the bill credit for moving away from that. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 tended to focus on individual cases, so licensing boards have found themselves in a difficult position ever since because they have had to think about the issue case by case and have never been able to ask what effect a licence would have on a town, city or other wider locality. The bill is moving us away from that, and I like to think that we would not necessarily place blame on individual premises. That said, however, if there is incontrovertible proof that the presence of particular premises that operate a particular type of business in a particular place is adding to public service expense, that may be a justification, but that would be the exception rather than the rule.

The bill is designed to address what are perceived to be social problems in respect of the drinking habits of young people and—too often, unfortunately—children. Do you think that the no-proof, no-sale provisions are likely to be as effective as the Executive wants them to be? What other suggestions would you make from your perspective to enhance the no-proof, no-sale provisions or to take them in a different direction?

We certainly support the no-proof, no-sale provisions, and we have in the past encouraged boards and individual licensees and businesses to try to impose controls. It would be of great benefit in addressing the problem across Scotland if there were an acceptable standard. There will always be problems. As members know, people can nowadays apply for a proof-of-age card over the internet without ever having to prove their age. Mr Sheridan's child might be able to get proof of being aged 18 despite being a long way from that. There will always be certain ways round the controls, but a standardised, acceptable and recognisable proof-of-age scheme is bound to be a big step forward.

Michael McMahon asked whether there are other ways in which we might effect such controls. It is certainly a difficult social problem in every single police area in Scotland and it is the one thing that colleagues bring up time and again. I have to say that there is no easy way to tackle the problem. We have looked, and are still looking, at test-purchase operations—sting operations, if you like—to try to get evidence against off-sales premises that are suspected of selling to under-18s. The general view of most operational police officers is that the problem is licensees selling not to under-age people, but selling by proxy to the under-18s' slightly older companions. One way or another, young people who want alcohol are going to get it.

One of the things that will help is limiting of low-price offers. Research shows that young people have a finite sum of money that they pool together every Friday or Saturday night, with which they buy as much alcohol as the sum in the kitty can buy. To limit low-price promotions in off-sales premises might be a way in which to address that aspect of the problem.

Senior police officers in my area have highlighted their concerns about their inability to police deliveries to homes—what is known in our area as dial-a-drink. Does your organisation have a view on that? Do you have any suggestions as to how officers who find themselves in that difficult situation can deal with the problems of young people acquiring alcohol through that mechanism?

That has an awful lot to do with parental control. Usually, to be able to use dial-a-drink one must have a credit card; often, parents' credit cards are used. Preventing people from drinking in their homes is a bit like policing domestic violence; it is intrusive, to a degree. Alcohol will always be in people's homes. Is it an individual problem for parental control or is it something in which the police should interfere? After all, it is not illegal for a child under 18 to drink in his or her parents' home.

The concern that has been expressed to me was about the police's ability to control the sale of alcohol at source.

I suppose that one might insist on proof of age being used in such circumstances, but enforcing that would be difficult.

That is my point. As an organisation, do you have suggestions on how that difficulty could be overcome?

The short answer is no. The situation has grown just over the past two or three years, as you know. We have considered how to license premises from which alcohol is transferred, but the cash transaction often happens at a different place from the goods transaction. Legislating for that will be difficult. It might be that there is some means of proving one's age to the retailer over the phone or internet, but such a means is beyond me at the moment. That is probably what we want to aim for.

In your evidence, you link the abolition of nationally prescribed permitted hours with over-provision; I want to understand that better. As you know, the bill will allow for development within a licensing board of policies for permitted hours to be included in individual operating plans, and to do away with statutory permitted hours. We have heard evidence—primarily from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association—about its concern that the proposals will allow a more restrictive process to develop. If I have got your drift right, you suggest in your evidence that the bill might allow for a more liberal process as far as licensing is concerned. As politicians, we have to start making judgments on that. Who is right and why?

As I said at the start, my fear is that if we accept a total licence provision in Scotland in any current board area, I cannot foresee provision ever decreasing post-implementation of the bill, other than if individual licensees were to say, "I've made a mess of this business, I'm giving up", and nobody else takes up their licence. The number of licences will creep up year by year.

As we say in our written submission, there have been 3,000 new licences granted in Scotland in the past 20 years. Even that figure belies the fact that the capacity of each licensed premises—particularly in the cities—is increasing. We did not know about pubs that could hold 500 people when I was a boy—not that I went into pubs when I was a boy.

It is difficult to imagine a board saying to a big licensed-trade business such as J D Wetherspoon or Saltire Taverns, "Sorry, we have reached our provision limit. Either you'll have to reduce your capacity or give up your licence. You can't have any more pubs; we're not accepting this multimillion pound development in our town—go and find a site somewhere else."

It is telling that none of us has a measure of total licensed provision in Scotland. We do not know board by board or in Scotland as a whole the number of permitted hours or premises. If we do not know that now, where will we be in five or 10 years, when we will be asking whether the bill has been a success in allowing us to improve public health and to control crime and disorder?

A couple of questions arise from that. You have accepted that it is difficult to get an objective rather than a subjective view, so should there be a national formula that defines over-provision, or should we leave it up to local licensing boards to make such decisions?

I certainly favour the bill containing a little more detail because, as you say, it is difficult to get an objective measure. As I have said, the same standard that is applied in Selkirk town centre cannot always be applied in Aberdeen. It might be possible to count up the total number of hours for which a licensed premises is permitted to trade in an average week, multiply that by the capacity of the premises—every premises has a set maximum capacity—and say that that is the total licence provision for the premises.

On over-provision, the bill envisages that each licensing board will decide which geographical areas to call localities. For proximity's sake, let us talk about the Cowgate and the Grassmarket, which form a recognised entertainment strip. The board will decide that the total licence provision for that locality is premises A plus premises B plus premises C plus premises D. That aggregate of licence provision could be measured today and used to say how many licensed hours there are in the Cowgate and the Grassmarket. That represents an objective way of deciding what the provision level must be and whether there is far too much provision or the level of provision is okay. Without such an objective method, how will we know when there is over-provision? In my view, if we ask 32 licensing boards to come up with such a method, we will get 32 different methods.

I want to ask about the seven categories of licence. The trade is worried about the change to the system; it suggests that there should be three distinct types of licence. What is your view on that?

To some extent, that is a matter for the licensing boards. Although I can understand the trade's fears, boards will always want to distinguish between off-sales and on-sales premises. They will also want to distinguish between off-sales in different localities. I do not share the fear that doing away with all the categories will lead us into danger, because the demarcation lines are pretty blurred at the moment. In my experience, there are premises in Edinburgh that are described as hotels in their licences but whose business is certainly not putting people up for a quiet night.

Are you saying that the trade's suggestion that there should be three categories of licence—on-sales, off-sales and entertainment—is sensible?

That broad division is fairly sensible. Indeed, if such distinctions were not made, I expect that boards would want to make them. It might be helpful for the bill to stipulate those categories, but we want the new system to be a bit more flexible than the system that exists under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which confuses operators and police officers.

I have a final question as a supplementary to Bruce Crawford's question on permitted hours. At the moment, many off-licences close at 10 pm and many pubs close at 11 pm or sometimes midnight. Nightclubs tend to stay open until later. If there were to be a blurring of the definitions of permitted hours, meaning that more licensed premises stayed open until 2 am or 3 am, would you foresee greater manpower difficulties for the police? Would it be more difficult to respond to incidents resulting from more people leaving such premises in the early hours of the morning?

If the number of licences increases, the number of permitted hours will inevitably increase. I cannot imagine a licensing board ever saying to a licensee who has never offended, "I'm sorry but we're going to have to cut back your hours." There will be a ratchet effect and the number of permitted hours will grow and grow. ACPOS believes that ways of dealing with that growth will have to be very carefully thought through, both by individual boards and by Parliament.

You mentioned the different closing times of off-sales and on-sales. Different areas have seen different effects. In some areas, it is considered beneficial to set the licensed hours for off-sales within the licensed hours for on-sales, because people who have come out of pubs cannot then go to the off-licence on their way home. In other areas—although perhaps not so many—the effects are different. It is right that the bill proposes that each individual board should set the times according to its own policy.

In a city centre such as Glasgow's or Edinburgh's, there could be many more pubs that want to open until later. If the number of premises that stay open until the early hours increases significantly, the number of people out on the streets in the early hours might increase significantly as well. That could have an impact on policing.

That is absolutely our point. We would not like to see that happen, because of the concomitant increase in the demand on police resources. We can talk all we like about police resources—and we are always grateful for whatever local or central Government gives us—but a steady rise in the number of people in town and city centres, and a steady rise in the length of public drinking times, would require a really substantial increase in policing capability to allow us to control situations and to maintain order as the public would expect us to do.

That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank Malcolm Dickson for his evidence. It has been very helpful.

Okay, we move on to our last group of witnesses for today. We have a packed panel of five: representing Alcohol Focus Scotland, we have Jack Law, its chief executive, and Mary Ellmers, its national ServeWise manager; representing the greater Glasgow alcohol action team, we have Jane Hasler, its co-ordinator; we also have Willie Caie, the project manager of Glasgow's safer city centre initiative; and, representing Moray Council on Addiction, we have Neil Ross, its former chairman. We also expected to have with us today Iain Campbell, its present chairman, but he is unable to attend.

I welcome all three organisations and invite you to make some introductory remarks. Given the broad range of groups on the panel, I encourage each representative to keep their remarks as tight as possible.

I thank the convener for the opportunity to present evidence to the committee today. Alcohol Focus Scotland has been involved in the licensing process for well over 10 years, during which time we have run training programmes and events. We have also pushed for licensing reform through the Scottish Advisory Committee on Alcohol Misuse. We see the need for good and effective legislation to underpin the intentions behind the plan for action. Our aspiration was always that the legislation would complement the policy intentions that lie behind the plan for action on alcohol problems.

We are very much in favour of the bill—we welcome it. We agree with the present licensing principles and are a bit concerned that they are renamed in the bill as licensing objectives. In some eyes, the new name might be seen to reduce the importance of the original principles. However, the matter is one for debate.

We have some major concerns about the bill as it is presently drafted. For example, at this moment in time, it does not seem likely that the bill will deliver on the licensing principles around public health. Perhaps that is because the focus of the bill is somewhat narrow: instead of tackling the wider issues of excessive or problem drinking, the bill focuses on binge drinking and disorder.

As we set out in our submission, our key concerns are that off-licences will be exempt from the measures to tackle irresponsible promotions; pre-loading and other similar issues; and the sourcing of alcohol for people who have alcohol problems. We are also concerned about the probability of longer licensing hours, in particular in supermarkets and off-licences. We understand that that suggestion is being considered, particularly south of the border. If it were to be taken on board, we are worried about the gradual spread of longer licensing hours into Scotland.

Another issue of concern is the adequacy of monitoring and evaluation of the effects of the bill at both local and national level. It is important that the legislative opportunity that the bill offers enables people to become informed about what works and what does not work. Any legislation is only as good as its application. A strategic evaluation of the impact of licensing decisions needs to be made on a regular basis. In that way, we will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the new licensing legislation. The issue is as much about the quality of life in communities as it is about businesses and other commercial considerations.

I will close by saying a little about the local and national forums and how they will fit into the process. We are concerned that there is not much expression of how that will be done, particularly at the local level, where there is an interest in involving local communities and local people in the decisions that are made by licensing boards. In particular, we are concerned about the need to ensure that local people, who are perhaps not as well versed in licensing issues as others are, have the capacity, capability and information to enable them to participate in the processes in which we hope they will be involved.

Thank you.

I thank the committee for allowing us to attend committee today and give evidence. The greater Glasgow alcohol action team members and our wider partners welcome the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. We believe that it gives a unique opportunity to ensure that a supportive licensing and legislative framework underpins the work of the action team in tackling alcohol problems in the greater Glasgow area.

We recognise that the bill is only one part of a range of measures that were included in the national plan for action on alcohol problems, many of which alcohol action teams have been charged with addressing locally.

As the committee knows, greater Glasgow is one of the largest urban conurbations in Scotland. The action team has been concerned about the level of alcohol-related harm that is evident in the area. Statistics produced by the national alcohol information resource and locally show that the levels of alcohol-related deaths, hospital admissions, general practitioner consultations, accident and emergency department attendances and crime in the Glasgow area are consistently higher than overall Scottish rates. We know that a significant number of adults, 16 to 24-year-old drinkers and under-age drinkers are exceeding healthy, recommended limits for consumption.

On availability, although between 1996 and 2004 the local authority areas in greater Glasgow had rates of liquor licensing per head that were lower than the Scottish average, in most local authority areas the highest proportion of licences was for off-sales. In 2002, there were 152 applications for new licences in the area, the majority of which were granted.

I am here in my capacity as chair of the Glasgow city centre alcohol action group. We would like to raise a number of issues today. As the committee is aware, we have submitted a number of written responses, but it is worth my raising some issues again verbally.

Over-provision is a concern for local communities, especially in Glasgow. The issue is complex in urban environments. The night-time economy in cities such as Glasgow is thriving, and there is concern that insufficient transport and other provision exists to deal with the number of people who participate in that economy and are disgorged on to the streets.

In an area as large and diverse as greater Glasgow, we see setting up local licensing forums and their role in involving communities as challenging. We continue to support the presumption against 24-hour opening in the bill and the suggestion that the impact of the legislation on alcohol-related public health issues should be reviewed and monitored. We have strong concerns about the fact that off-sales are not included in measures to ensure responsible sales and promotions. We have specific concerns about the practice of pre-loading, to which the previous witness alluded in his evidence, and people purchasing cheap alcohol from off-sales before they go out to town and city centres at night.

I draw the committee's attention to some recent, as yet unpublished research that was commissioned by the greater Glasgow alcohol action team. The research, which was undertaken in a sample of Glasgow pubs, evidences the fact that there are other factors that encourage or discourage safer drinking in licensed premises. Those include ambience, noise and heat in premises, the availability of food for clients and the types of client who frequent the premises. The findings may be of interest to the committee when it considers certain sections of the bill. The greater Glasgow alcohol action team would be happy to make the research available to the committee, once it has been published, so that members may be aware of its findings.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to the committee.

Thank you for inviting me to attend today's meeting. I represent Moray Council on Addiction, which is a voluntary organisation and a registered charity. You will be pleased to hear that we are affiliated to Alcohol Focus Scotland and that we associate ourselves entirely with Jack Law's earlier remarks.

We approve of the bill's objectives and are pleased that training is being given to all personnel. We are also pleased about the establishment of local licensing forums, although we believe that they should be required to meet licensing boards more than once a year, as the bill requires.

You asked us to comment specifically on irresponsible drinks promotions. As a rural organisation, we have not experienced significant problems with such promotions at licensed premises. In our experience, binge drinking in our area is related to home drinking, and I associate myself with the remarks that were made by earlier speakers; we believe that irresponsible off-sales promotions have a significant impact on binge drinking in our area. We also believe that people tend to consume drink up to a specific monetary value; earlier, Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Dickson mentioned that younger persons have a limited pot of money and they will spend up to that amount on drink. The problem is not irresponsible promotions in licensed premises but those in off-sales premises.

I have a question for Jack Law. I read your submission, which is helpful and contains useful background information. The table entitled "International trends in alcohol consumption" shows that in Italy there has been a decrease in consumption of more than 47 per cent. Are you aware of any evidence to explain that trend?

I do not have any evidence to hand other than the information in my submission, but my understanding is that licensing processes in Italy are different from those in Scotland. As I understand it, there is a limit to the number of licences that can be provided. However, there is also an important cultural issue. In the continental culture, which is often mentioned and to which some cities in Scotland seem to aspire, drunkenness is not regarded as an attractive state for people to get into. The power of that cultural influence is pervasive in countries such as Italy and France. There have been changes and the picture is not consistent, but in general the culture and tenor of those countries is such that alcohol is enjoyed as part of a meal or a low-key social occasion and is not something that is used to escape.

Another point that you raised in your opening statement was on the need to include public health in the bill, and you mention that in your submission as well. I think that everyone would agree with that idea, but it is quite wide and your submission does not give any specifics on how it should be achieved. It is easy to say, "Let's improve public health," but what should the Executive have included in the bill to facilitate that?

Many of the points that we have made on the bill are about our aim to improve public health. At the end of the day, that is about trying to change attitudes and introduce elements of social responsibility. The reason why people need a licence to sell alcohol is that alcohol is a drug and if people consume too much it changes their behaviour. Excessive drinking also has a major impact on people's health. If we ensure that licensees understand that they have a responsibility to guide people into not drinking excessively, ultimately that will have an impact on public health. That is what underpins our statement about the impact on public health. If that factor is absent, how will the legislation join up with the policy intentions behind the plan for action?

Finally, what practical measures do you suggest? Would you require every licence holder to have in place a programme to educate people? Would pubs have to display posters to tell people about liver disease? What practical measures would you include in the bill? The Executive has not included health promotion as an issue, but there is no reason why we cannot lodge amendments on that.

Several things could be done. First, we should ensure that irresponsible promotions in off-licences are outlawed. We should tackle the problem head on and make it clear that the legislation on irresponsible promotions applies also to off-licence premises. Furthermore, licensing hours must be contained. After all, people have as much of a right not to drink alcohol as they have to drink it.

We must ensure that licensees are trained and understand their responsibilities. We do not want them to proselytise and give lectures every time people buy a drink, but they should be able to identify instances when people should not be served. After all, there have been very few, if any, prosecutions in Scotland of people who have served drunk customers. It would also be helpful if literature on sensible consumption and the risks associated with irresponsible consumption were available in outlets.

It might be appropriate if we were to move to Margaret Smith's questions on pricing in off-licences.

Mr Law touched on the critical point that irresponsible drinks promotions affect off-licences. However, people have expressed concern that the bill says, in effect, that such promotions affect only on-licences. Given the argument that people can stock up on alcohol and drink it over a period of time, can effective controls be devised for off-sales premises? Furthermore, will you outline your concerns about the 48-hour rule? Would extending such a provision to off-licences and supermarkets be effective?

On your first question, it almost defies logic that concern has been expressed about irresponsible drinks promotions in one element of alcohol sales, but not about such promotions in the other. We need to do clearer research on this matter, but anecdotal evidence from those who deal with people with alcohol problems suggests that their source of alcohol is off-licences. People with such problems do not go to bars. Other investigations have found that young people and under-age drinkers source their alcohol from off-licences. As a result, there is a clear need to address the matter from that perspective.

The difference in the price of alcohol between off-licences and on-licences is staggering. For example, I discovered recently that, in some outlets that shall remain nameless, people can buy one unit of alcohol for as little as a penny. Again, that defies any logic. The price and availability of alcohol are crucial issues in tackling problem drinking.

We have concerns about the 48-hour rule. What will happen in that period? Will outlets be able to sell alcohol at extremely low prices? Is such an approach acceptable in tackling excessive drinking? Will that 48-hour period be followed by a 10-hour period followed by another 48-hour period? That would be no real change at all. The bill must be robust and direct about such matters by, for example, stipulating a minimum price. That would ensure that we would not have so many problems with cheap alcohol.

You mentioned minimum pricing. I do not have any details, but I believe that such an approach has been trialled in parts of Perthshire and Glasgow. However, questions have been asked about whether the approach is legal or open to challenge.

In your submission, you say that the Westminster Home Affairs Committee was advised by the Office of Fair Trading that prices can be fixed,

"as long as prices are fixed by local authorities and not by trade associations or individual pubs".

Will you expand on that?

That is our understanding of the situation. Our submission quotes a Government report; we did not draw that conclusion ourselves. We understood when the Perthshire experiment started that there was strong advice that local authorities could set minimum prices. I think that the basis of the approach is to do with ensuring that local authorities, as public bodies, have some control over pricing, rather than leaving it to commercial interests. There seems to be a clear suggestion that local authorities have the power to set minimum prices, which would have an impact on how people drink.

Convener, can we get information about the impact of the minimum pricing pilot schemes? Can we also write to the OFT for clarification?

The report to which Jack Law referred is not a Government report, but a report by the Home Affairs Committee. Is that correct?

Yes.

The clerks can ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to produce a briefing on the report that draws out the OFT's advice.

Bruce Crawford is interested in the matter, but he was out of the meeting when we started on it and Margaret Smith asked the question that he would have asked. Do you want to ask a supplementary question?

This might be a good time to write to the Executive to ask about its position on the legality of price fixing. It would be useful to have an answer on that before the minister gives evidence to the committee, because that would enable us to consider the issue in more depth.

We can consider doing that later. Do you have a question for the witnesses?

I am sure that I missed the discussion about pricing and irresponsible drinks promotions. What changes would the witnesses make to the way in which supermarkets and smaller off-licences sell alcohol, to try to redress the problems in Scotland and reduce the amount of alcohol that finds its way into the hands of young people and people who abuse alcohol at home?

A number of changes could be made. First, the most direct action would be to ensure that licensees and people who sell alcohol understand their responsibilities and how they can discharge them effectively. Training would offer the most effective way of ensuring that that happened. We should agree national standards for licensees and we should monitor compliance. However, we talk to people in the off-licence trade and we know that they face problems in managing sales. I do not want to diminish the impact of those problems.

Secondly, action could be taken in relation to where and how alcohol is displayed and promoted. We all know about the power of sophisticated marketing and positioning. If sophisticated marketing can bring a product to people's attention, I presume that there could be an equally sophisticated approach to not bringing alcohol to people's attention or at least to marketing it more responsibly. That might simply involve positioning, or it might involve ensuring that people are aware that products can be placed in a certain area for a purpose, to inform customers and discourage them from being irresponsible.

Finally, we should ensure that the licensing boards are aware of the issues and the ways in which licensees can be irresponsible.

Do the other witnesses want to comment?

I would like to mention the do us a favour campaign in Glasgow, in which we have worked in partnership with the police. There are prevention projects throughout Glasgow that target off-sales premises, give them legal information and address the issue of agents who purchase alcohol for under-age drinkers. Enforcement and licensing officers are an important element in tackling such things.

Do you support the proposal that everyone who is involved with alcohol sales at the point of sale in off-licences should be a personal licence holder or should be certificated by the local authority or by a recognised provider of training in order to undertake sales?

Our position is clear. Everyone who sells alcohol should be trained and accredited to a certain standard. A licensee who has a major responsibility for premises should be trained to a different level than that to which someone who sells alcohol on behalf of that licensee is trained. People should undoubtedly be trained to an agreed and accredited standard.

How can we get an accredited standard? How would training be provided? What certificate should people be accredited with?

We think that the national licensing forum should be the first body to set standards, which could be recognised by various accreditation bodies—the Scottish Qualifications Authority is the first body that springs to mind in that context, but there will be others. There should be a national standard that is approved and applied throughout the country; that would lead to consistency in licensee training, standards of delivery and understanding.

Would payment for that come from fees?

We pay for our own driving licences. Training must be affordable if we want to make it work, but we believe that the licensee should pay for it.

I think that Michael McMahon has a question.

My questions on training and on no proof, no sale have been answered.

I have a comment that relates to Margaret Smith's question. The local courts overturned Aberdeen licensing board's application for a minimum pricing scheme in licensed premises throughout Aberdeen. If we plan to take evidence from outside bodies, we ought to write for clarification of the grounds for the appeal and the court result. Once the courts, rather than trade bodies or the OFT, have taken a view, we must take notice of what is behind that view and the explanations.

The second page of Moray Council on Addiction's submission mentions

"the promotion of responsible drinking through knowledge and education."

Will you expand on that and talk about specific schemes or proposals that could be applied?

The issue goes back to what Jack Law said about training and educating licence holders and staff at the point of sale. Promoting responsible drinking is an educational matter. The MCA probably spends around half of its time educating other professionals and other people in the area. I am not talking about educating licence holders, but there is a process through which people are educated on the dangers and on the sensible use of alcohol.

You mentioned those who provide licences and other professionals. Are there any schemes for the public, and for young people in education and parents in particular?

No. The work is with other health professionals.

The local authority education departments are involved with the greater Glasgow alcohol action team, and health education on alcohol is constantly reviewed and improved through various schemes. Such education should be a major component of all school education and of some youth service education. In greater Glasgow, there are seven community-based alcohol prevention projects—many of which involve young people—that work with a range of different groups in communities. One such project in Easterhouse has done groundbreaking work with young people on social norming campaigns. Young people consider the drinking norms in their groups and, depending on the research, the knowledge is used to publicise positive things about the number of people who do not drink and do not get drunk. Such experimental approaches are being evaluated and we hope to roll them out. A range of things is being done in greater Glasgow.

Comments were made about the cultural aspect of the use of alcohol with food in Italy and other continental countries. Do you have any thoughts on making licensed premises family friendly as a means of changing the culture? Would that be feasible and can you think of ways in which such an approach could be introduced?

In our response to the white paper, we made a number of comments on that. We felt that, as in the bill, it would be good to allow licensed premises to opt in to allowing children entry but that there should be strict standards for the number of hours that children could be permitted in licensed premises, for promotions and for the public health issues about which Jack Law talked, such as drinking behaviour and health messages on drinking. Family-friendly premises should also be no-smoking environments. There is an opportunity to make licensed premises family friendly, but the business of bringing children into them needs to be thought through and monitored carefully. I would make pretty much the same points as those that we made in our response to the white paper.

We must ensure that we understand the effectiveness of alcohol education. Much of the international research on education of young people suggests that it is not effective on its own; it needs to be part of a wider package. Having a licence places a responsibility on the licence holder; part of that responsibility is to ensure that customers can consume alcohol in a safe and friendly environment, which is partly about ensuring child friendliness. We want to encourage environments in which children can participate in the general social experience rather than participate in a drinking experience. That is important, so it is also important to try to ensure that premises are family friendly. That can be achieved through the operating plan that the premises will require if the bill is enacted. If that was used as a way of encouraging licensees to express their intentions to make their premises family friendly, that would be a huge step forward. If that approach was coupled with good and effective training that imbued licensees and bar staff with a sense of responsibility, that would inevitably spill over into the customer's experience in licensed premises, which, if it is worked properly, will be positive.

Is there any provision, whether it is included in the bill or not, that you have not spoken about but which you think would be effective in lessening alcohol abuse?

There are a few issues, which we mentioned in our submission. One such issue concerns the exemption from training for casual staff who have worked for less than four months. We are not clear whether that means less than four months in total or less than four months in each experience in the trade. In fact, we argue that anyone who serves alcohol should be trained—that is the simple way of dealing with the issue—and there can be different levels of training. Casual staff do not need to receive massive input as long as they are clear about certain principles. That is important.

The second issue concerns the provision of licences to voluntary organisations for occasional licensed events. We are concerned that there seems to be no requirement for training in that context, although the maximum number of days for which such occasional licences can be granted is 56 days a year; that is a lot of days—it is more than a day a week. The events that voluntary organisations run tend to be good, because they are often aimed at wider audiences than a small, targeted section of the community—they are about families and wider sections of the community—but there is a risk that, if people at such events are not involved in the educational process and dispense or sell alcohol without understanding what they are doing, all the other provisions on licensing will be undermined.

The other issue concerns trains and planes. It defies logic that we are beginning to think through and apply rigorous rules to static premises but that we do not seem to want to apply those rules to other places where alcohol is sold, particularly trains. I presume that we have all been on train journeys in which alcohol has featured strongly and caused disruption. There are difficulties with the provision of alcohol in such circumstances and those difficulties need to be tackled.

A previous witness spoke about the impact on public services. As we say in our submission, the service infrastructure in the evening and late-night economy is a big concern for us. Although we support the presumption against 24-hour drinking, we do not know what impact that presumption will have on the number of premises in Glasgow that will open later or what the overall impact will be on the city as a whole. As a result, we would like the policy's impact on public health issues in urban centres such as Glasgow to be monitored and evaluated over the long term.

Jack Law touched on the advertising and marketing power of the locations in which certain supermarkets display alcohol. It is not beyond licensing boards to include in plans some sort of restriction on the alcohol or to require that, if it is placed on a layout plan, the alcohol does not move from the planned location. In supermarkets now, the alcohol moves from where it started off to the front door for a big promotion and then moves again. That has a big effect on sales.

That brings us to the end of our questions for this group of witnesses. I thank them very much for their evidence, which has been helpful.

Meeting closed at 17:47.