Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Item 4 is day 2 of consideration of amendments at stage 2 of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill. Members have in front of them a copy of the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments for debate. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon. As the committee has other agenda items that it needs to get through, I will bring consideration of amendments to an end at around 12.45, by which time I hope that we will have reached the end of section 9. We hope to get there today and have a short meeting next week.
Section 7—Occasional licences: modification of mandatory conditions
Amendment 18, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 19 and 20.
This technical change responds to a point that was made by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Amendments 18 to 20 will have the effect that regulations made under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to modify mandatory conditions of occasional licences will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That will ensure consistency with the power in the 2005 act to make regulations in respect of mandatory conditions of premises licences, which is already subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
I move amendment 18.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8—Off-sales: sale of alcohol to under-21s etc
Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 22.
An alcohol licensing regime that did not have a public health objective would these days seem very incomplete, but the novel nature of that objective in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 might be hampering its effective use. Those involved in the licensing process fully understand the crime prevention objective and the role that we expect the police to play in providing information and opinion to assist boards in their decision-making responsibilities. The police role in licensing is long standing and familiar to boards and the licensed trade.
However, it appears that boards are having more difficulty working with the public health objective. We are therefore seeking to provide assistance through this group of amendments that will amend the 2005 act. Amendments 21 and 22, which have been welcomed by directors of public health, seek to increase the role of health boards in the licensing system. The amendments will require licensing boards to consult the relevant health board about licensing policy statements and overprovision assessments and will require licensing boards to notify the relevant health board of applications for premises licenses and major variations. They will also require a member of each local licensing forum to be nominated by a health board. That will help the health board’s voice to become a natural part of alcohol licensing, which will help to develop the cultural shift in Scotland that I know we all support.
I was interested to note that other parties commented that licensing boards should give increased attention to matters of public health. I consider that amendments 21 and 22 are an important step towards embedding public health considerations in the licensing process.
I move amendment 21.
If section 8 is deleted later, which I will move an amendment to do, how will amendment 21 be affected? In addition, why does amendment 21 seek to amend a section on the sale of alcohol to under-21s?
The amendments will bring in a new section after section 9, so I am not sure that the deletion of section 8 would impinge on that. Perhaps we can get some clarification of the technicalities of that before we get to the debate on section 8.
I am just slightly concerned that if my amendment is agreed to, I will undermine something on which I agree with you, which is the involvement of health boards and the support of the public health interest.
I will let my legal advisors discuss that point with me.
I have been told that Richard Simpson is right: if his amendment is agreed to, it will remove the amendments that we are dealing with now.
Only amendment 21, I take it; not amendment 22.
Yes.
That does not really answer my question as to why amendment 21 would amend a section that deals with the sale of alcohol to under-21s. Why has it been placed there and not separately?
Because it relates to the detrimental impact assessment, which is pertinent to the amendments on under-21s.
Okay.
Are you okay with that—or at least with that explanation?
Yes.
I welcome the extension in relation to amendment 22. While the cabinet secretary has not yet moved amendment 22, I understand that it can be debated, so I seek clarification on it. I am slightly puzzled by subsection (4) of the new section that amendment 22 would insert. Licensing boards will benefit by having health boards comment on policy. However, subsection (4) relates to the notification of application-specific matters. Whereas I can see a health board having information that it can use to comment on policy, I am less clear as to how a health board will have information that will be application and premises specific. Can the cabinet secretary help me with that?
Obviously, a health board’s view on, for example, overprovision assessments would be important, so notification about a particular application and a health board’s view on the effect of that application on public health issues would be important.
I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but perhaps I did not express what I meant very well. Amendment 22 goes through various sections of the 2005 act. I wholly understand that the health board will be well placed to contribute with respect to overprovision and formulating policy, but I am less clear that, in relation to section 21(1) of the 2005 act, which is on notification of an application, a health board would be well placed to have information that would allow it to comment on a specific application.
That is a policy decision that we made. It is fair to say that we do not expect health boards to comment as a matter of course on every single application that is made. Nevertheless, we thought that, if a particular application in a particular local context would give rise to public health considerations, it would be important for the health board to be able to make those views known by being notified of the application. That is the intention behind the proposal. The aim is simply to ensure that the health board voice is heard in all aspects of licensing and the licensing regime.
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
Abstentions
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 0, Abstentions 5.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 31, in the name of Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendment 32.
Amendments 31 and 32 would ensure that the age at which young people can buy alcohol remains at 18. It would be unfair if young people were able to consume alcohol only in a bar or restaurant, and could not buy a bottle of wine to have at home while they watch television. We are all aware that binge drinking is a problem for some young people, but that cannot be tackled by discriminating against all young people, even in a specific area. We are also convinced by the evidence that young people under the age of 18 currently access alcohol and that those who are under 21 would not be deterred from accessing it.
Kathy Klas of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario highlighted as one consequence of having alcohol licensing jurisdictions that border one another and have varying purchase ages the tendency for customer migration in the specific restricted age bracket. On US states that border Ontario, she said:
“Consumers have migrated across borders when legal drinking ages have varied. There are often influxes into Ontario locations of young drinkers and inexperienced drinkers from jurisdictions with higher legal drinking ages. Some might say that that encourages excessive or irresponsible consumption. In turn, we have found that people have migrated outside Ontario to bordering jurisdictions in which the legal drinking age is 18.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 23 March 2010; c 3016.]
The legal drinking age in Ontario is 19.
Tom Roberts referred to an alcohol policy event that Children 1st had recently held with young people. He said that young people felt stigmatised by approaches to alcohol policy that focused purely on their age group and confirmed that Children 1st did not support a change in the off-sales purchase age. Chief Constable Pat Shearer of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland expressed support for the provision in the bill, but cautioned:
“I would not say that it was a significant tool.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 17 March 2010; c 2985.]
Effectively, it could penalise law-abiding young people.
12:00
The Scottish Government has pointed to the success of pilot projects such as the under-21 alcohol purchase ban that was introduced in 2008 in Armadale in West Lothian, where I have worked, in which alcohol off-sales to people under 21 were banned on Friday and Saturday nights. However, I am not convinced that the findings of the research in any way justify a policy that could disadvantage many young people in Scotland. Investigations of the impact of the Armadale project have shown that even if the ban was responsible for a reduced number of calls to the police about youth disorder, the reduction was minimal, with five calls in the week before the trial and four during it. Moreover, it cannot be shown that any of the project’s impacts was directly attributable to alcohol-purchasing restrictions rather than to the increased focus on disorder by the authorities for the project’s duration. Indeed, the Royal Statistical Society has branded the statistics as “insignificant” and “disappointing”. Finally, with regard to the Stenhousemuir pilot, Chief Inspector Bob Beaton, who led the experiment, was reported in The Scotsman of 2 October 2008 as saying:
“It’s difficult to separate the strands to say which have been most successful.”
I cannot remember whether it was in evidence to the committee or whether we were told about it privately, but the committee heard about a programme in St Neots in Cambridgeshire that achieved a proven track record over a period of time. It did not involve legislation; instead, the community collaborated with all agencies, the industry and retailers on what seems to have been a highly successful model. I am genuinely concerned that if the model in the bill were promoted in Castlemilk but not in the surrounding areas, there would be a high chance that people would simply move across the city. I do not want to single out Castlemilk but, having worked in the area and seen some of its problems, I believe that it would be one of the areas where the provisions in the bill would be applied.
If an under-21 can drink in a pub, they should be able to buy off-sales alcohol. After all, they should not be discriminated in this way, given that they are old enough to fight for their country. The proposal is another example of a rather poor tool that will punish the responsible and well-behaved because of the irresponsible and badly behaved. We need a rapier to deal with these antisocial problems, not a club.
An off-licence that persists in selling to young people under 18 should have its licence removed. The fact is that increasing to 21 the age at which someone can buy from licensed premises will not deter those who seek to break the law. Indeed, how is it that, as we discovered from a recent parliamentary question, the number of recorded offences of confiscation of alcohol from persons under 18 in Lothian has been zero for the past two years? What are we doing to enforce the existing law?
Finally, when we took evidence from Young Scot and the National Union of Students, both promoted responsible consumption and neither supported section 8. As a result, I propose that section 8 be removed.
I move amendment 31.
In addition, I point out that the Subordinate Legislation Committee, of which Ian McKee and I are members, expressed concern
“that the Scottish Government could offer no further justification for seeking such a broad power. From the evidence received, it is clear to the Committee that the provision is intended to address a specific issue; that is, to impose conditions restricting the purchase of alcohol at off-sale premises for people aged under 21. In this context, the Committee is not convinced that an order-making power is required to achieve this policy objective. Should the Scottish Government wish to pursue this policy, the Committee considers that a specific amendment to the 2005 Act would be a more appropriate means of implementation.”
Given those comments, I suggest to the committee and the cabinet secretary that any such changes to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 should be made through primary legislation, not through regulations.
Members may be aware that there was a six-month trial of a 21 limit in the Stenhousemuir and Larbert area of my constituency. The mechanism proved to be an effective way of tackling a specific problem of underage drinking in the area. Over the six-month period, there was a significant reduction in antisocial behaviour, violence and a variety of other criminal activities that had often been associated with drunken behaviour. It was a voluntary scheme that local off-licence owners could opt into. All but two off-licences in the area opted into the scheme, which they found to be valuable and helpful.
I recognise that such schemes are not necessarily a significant tool in dealing with the issue—no one would suggest that they are—but we should not take what could be a useful tool at a particular time out of the box so that it is not available to be utilised.
It is often suggested that such schemes inevitably create displacement, but that did not happen during the six-month trial in the Stenhousemuir and Larbert area. In addition, it is often stated that benefits were gained in that area of my constituency because of a significant increase in police resources in the community, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, people such as Bob Beaton can confirm that one consequence of the scheme was that some of the officers who normally covered Larbert and Stenhousemuir were, because of the reduction in the number of problems that were reported to them, redeployed to other areas, where they were involved in other activities.
I understand that some members have reservations about applying such a policy at national level, but we should give local licensing boards the opportunity to use the tool when they see fit, on the basis of local circumstances, for a period of time. The evidence from the longest trial of the policy in Scotland demonstrates that it can be an effective tool for dealing with some issues relating to alcohol misuse.
It is worth putting on record a point that the Scottish Grocers Federation made:
“Banning the sale of alcohol in off sales to under 21’s is counter-intuitive to other Government legislation which permits an 18 year old to sell alcohol, obtain a personal licence as a designated premises manager”
and
“train others to sell alcohol responsibly”.
I seek clarity from Richard Simpson on the issue. Can he confirm clearly that his amendments 31 and 32 will create a consistent approach to the purchase of alcohol by young people in Scotland aged over 18 in both on-sales and off-sales?
Richard Simpson will answer the question when he winds up.
I have consistently opposed the proposition that we should attempt at national level to increase the purchasing age from 18 to 21 for off-sales. I understand that the Government has changed its position to allow more local discretion in the matter. However, I am still concerned about how the distinction will be made. Mary Scanlon makes the point that there is a curious inconsistency—if a person cannot consume the product, it is difficult to understand why they should be responsible for managing it.
Michael Matheson makes a reasonable case for allowing local discretion, up to a point, but I am not sure how we would measure the success of the policy and ensure that it was working. The fundamental issues behind the problem—namely, discounting and cheap offers—are great attractions that distort the marketplace. The bill seeks to address those issues. There is much more evidence on the attractiveness of such offers than on the behavioural patterns of people aged 18 to 21. I will support Dr Simpson’s amendments 31 and 32.
I support what Michael Matheson said, so I will not repeat his points. I would also have been concerned if the proposal was that there should be a blanket ban on people between the ages of 18 and 21 buying alcohol in off-licences throughout Scotland, but that is not what is now proposed. We are talking about a specific tool for a specific situation, so the anomalies that have been pointed out—for example, an 18-year-old being able to sell alcohol but not purchase it—will not arise in most of the country.
The proposal is to implement the restriction where a problem has been identified by the local police, the local community and the local licensing board. It is a tool to deal with the problem of people whose lives are afflicted by minors becoming intoxicated, which happens in very specific areas of Scotland. The situations with people in Canada or the USA crossing state boundaries, which Richard Simpson talked about, are different, because they involve large areas in which all youngsters between the ages of 18 and 21 are affected. We are talking about small, specific areas of Scotland. If we accept Richard Simpson’s amendments 31 and 32, we will discard what could be a valuable tool in specific circumstances.
I have listened carefully to the debate and, unless my persuasion skills are greater than I think they are, I can predict how the vote will go. However, I want to make the argument, because it is an important one to make.
We listened carefully to the views that were expressed about our original proposal. It was clear that the concept of a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol to people under the age of 21 was not going to attract support. Therefore, in the spirit of consensus that we have adopted throughout the bill process, we modified the proposal.
I continue to believe that there is a place for raising the off-sales age, where appropriate, as part of a range of local measures to address specific local problems. That is why section 8 has the effect of placing a duty on licensing boards to consider whether there is a detrimental impact of the sale of alcohol to those under the age of 21 in all or part of the area that they cover. It also gives chief constables and local licensing forums a role in asking boards to review their detrimental impact assessments. That approach is much more sensitive to local circumstances and it encourages licensing boards to make their own decisions, based firmly on the evidence from their area.
Amendment 31 proposes that licensing boards should not even have to consider whether there is any detrimental impact of off-sales of alcohol to people under 21 in their area. Amendment 32 goes even further, as it would prevent licensing boards from stating in their licensing policy that they would consider restricting the off-sale of alcohol to those under 21, even if their area or part of their area were plagued by antisocial behaviour, underage drinking fuelled by proxy purchasing or alcohol-related harm to young people’s health. The amendments would remove local discretion and deny licensing boards the ability to tackle specific problems in their communities.
Richard Simpson said that if the policy were used by a licensing board in one area, people would simply move to another area to buy drink from off-licences. I believe that that is exactly the kind of thing that a local licensing board would consider as part of its assessment of whether to use the power. Further, when Labour was in government, it rejected strongly—and, in retrospect, rightly—the argument that Richard Simpson has used when it was used in relation to the dispersal powers for the police that were proposed during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Those who opposed that power said that having a dispersal order in one area would simply shift the problem to another. Labour—again, rightly, in retrospect—said that that was not a reason to block giving the police those powers. The same point applies to the powers that we are discussing.
Richard Simpson cited the St Neots project in Cambridgeshire. We were interested in that project, too, and my officials travelled to Cambridgeshire to speak to some of those who were involved in it. The strong message from the young people themselves was that although the initiative had stopped them drinking in public, it had not stopped them drinking, and instead they were drinking in each other’s houses. I am not saying that there is no merit in that approach; I am just saying that it is important to see it in its overall context.
12:15
Richard Simpson also said that we should not characterise the problem of alcohol misuse as being all about young people, and I agree with him. Throughout this debate, we have striven to ensure that we did not do that. However, that should not blind us to the important fact that the consumption of alcohol by underage drinkers in unsupervised settings is associated with increased drunkenness and a risk of increased harm. Not only does it cause societal and community problems, it puts the young people themselves at greater risk. That is why the proposals deliberately apply to off-sales. They would not prevent people between the ages of 18 and 21 from consuming alcohol responsibly in a more controlled on-sales environment.
This is not an untried approach. Comment has been made about the pilots that have been run in Scotland, and I accept that there is a limit to the evidence that we have in that regard, although some of it is encouraging, as far as it goes. However, we have international examples to consider as well. In Sweden, the purchase age for beverages over a certain alcohol strength is 20, but restaurants and bars can serve alcohol to those aged 18 and over. In Norway, the minimum age to purchase spirits in shops is 20, but it is 18 for all other purchases. We have considered evidence from other countries, including a review of 132 studies that found strong evidence that increasing the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 can have substantial effects on youth drinking and alcohol-related harm, often for well after young people have reached the legal drinking age.
We need to take this issue seriously. We are not proposing a blanket approach. Michael Matheson put it extremely well when he described the proposal as another tool in the box for local licensing boards. One of the strong arguments that members of all parties have made in the context of some other aspects of the bill is that we should not see any particular initiative as a magic bullet. We need a strong package of measures. The initiative that we are discussing is simply another tool in the box—it is just one part of a package of measures.
There is a great need for us to take this issue seriously. In 2007-8, more than 2,000 individuals under the age of 20 were discharged from general hospitals with an alcohol-related diagnosis. That is serious. I am not suggesting that the proposal will solve that problem outright, but I believe that placing a duty on local licensing boards to consider whether there is any detrimental impact of off-sales of alcohol to people under the age of 21 is an important part of the package. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendments 31 and 32.
Helen Eadie referred to a distinction between primary and secondary legislation. With the greatest of respect, I think that she might have been talking about another section of the bill. All of the proposals that we are discussing at the moment are in primary legislation.
Finally, I point out that, if Richard Simpson’s amendments are agreed to, amendment 21, which we dealt with earlier, will fall, as it relates specifically to the detrimental impact assessment, which is being introduced only to deal with the issue of the off-sale of alcohol to those under the age of 21. However, amendment 22, which allows the health board voice to be heard in the wider array of the process, will not be affected by Richard Simpson’s amendments 31 and 32.
I thank the cabinet secretary for a cogent exposition of the situation. She said many things with which I do not disagree. We know the extent of the problem and what the difficulties are; I just do not think that the proposal is the right approach or the right solution.
The cabinet secretary says that the St Neots project was considered and that youngsters said that they drink in each other’s houses. In response to that, I say that we will never be able to stop that. However, the important point about the St Neots experiment was that it reduced all the problems to which Michael Matheson referred. The community safety issue and the issue of people gathering together to drink, sometimes to excess, were dealt with. There was significant improvement in the crime situation in the community.
I would like to be able to give Mary Scanlon a guarantee that my two amendments—to delete section 8 and to insert a presumption against prohibition—will do what she said should be done. However, I suspect that we will not be able to stop voluntary agreements of the sort that occurred in Stenhousemuir. If the community comes together and decides to take action, not at the instigation of the licensing board and not with the licensing board implementing a prohibition, we will not be able to stop that. I accept that a mechanism is available if a community agrees to that. However, I return to the fact that my reading of the situation is that all the other measures, such as community support, youth workers and diversion, are of much greater importance and can be implemented without legislation.
The cabinet secretary rightly says that we have big and significant problems with underage drinking. Later, we will consider test and proxy purchasing, which are important in dealing with under 18s. However, that is not relevant to the issue that we are considering. At the end of the day, the bill as it stands is discriminatory and the basic approach is wrong. Someone who is 21 and six months might create just as much trouble as someone who is 18 years and a day, so going on the basis of age is a false premise. I will therefore press amendment 31.
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
After section 8
Amendment 32 moved—[Dr Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Section 9—Premises licences: variation of conditions
Amendment 49, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 49 relates to variations and appeals. It would allow a premises licence holder whose licensed premises are subject to a proposed variation a right to be heard and to put any arguments against the imposition of the variation, in whole or in part, before the licensing board makes such a variation. The Law Society of Scotland is concerned that a variation under proposed new section 27A(1) of the 2005 act, as will be inserted by section 9(1) of the bill, will apply to all licensed premises without the licence holder being afforded the right to be heard. It is also concerned that licence holders are not afforded the right to appeal against a decision to vary. The Law Society is of the view that a suitable mechanism must be put in place to afford protection to premises licence holders who object to a variation being made under the new provision and that it is essential that a proper appeals procedure be introduced.
I move amendment 49.
I agree with the principles of Mary Scanlon’s amendment 49. It is important that a safeguard be put in place for businesses to ensure that their voice is heard before a licence condition is imposed. We have concerns, however, that the amendment has technical deficiencies. In particular, we need to be sure that it will work alongside the various licensing procedures that have been put in place by the 2005 act and the various orders and regulations that have been made under it.
In that light, I ask Mary Scanlon to accept my assurance that we will examine the amendment carefully and work with her to lodge amendments at stage 3 that will deal with the issue in a technically competent way. With that assurance, I ask her to seek to withdraw amendment 49.
I am delighted with the cabinet secretary’s response. I accept the fact that there are technical difficulties, and I accept her assurance that they will be examined and further amendments lodged at stage 3. In light of that, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 49.
Amendment 49, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 22 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 23, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Scotland has a rich tradition of events and festivals, which are good for our communities and our tourism industry. Many of those events can sell alcohol through the use of occasional licences, which give a fair, flexible and low-cost option for our hospitality and entertainment sectors as well as for local community groups who might want to cater for one-off events. There is nothing wrong with any of that.
Licensing boards and the police have brought to our attention the fact that some applicants are seeking to use the occasional licence process to apply for consecutive occasional licences as an alternative to a premises licence. That effectively allows them to circumvent parts of the licensing regime, including overprovision assessments and the mandatory requirements to train staff.
Of course, we do not want to remove the flexibility in the licensing system that occasional licences give because they benefit those who run and attend one-off events. However, the use of occasional licences as a way of getting around having a premises licence deprives communities of the opportunity to comment on applications, it deprives licensing boards of the opportunity to make considered decisions on new applications, and it reduces the opportunity to ensure that appropriate action is taken when premises are badly run.
Amendment 23 provides that licensing boards must not grant occasional licences if it would exceed the occasional licence limit. The occasional licence limit for voluntary organisations is the limit that is already provided for in the 2005 act. In other cases, the occasional licence limit will be set in regulations. Ministers are not required to make regulations setting an occasional licence limit, but should the use of occasional licences as a spurious substitute for premises licences become more widespread, we want to be able to consider what restrictions would be appropriate while protecting legitimate use of occasional licences.
I move amendment 23.
I am minded to support amendment 23, but the point has been raised with me that local organisations such as village halls enjoy the flexibility that they have at the moment. Has any consideration been given to the likely impact on small rural village halls of the limit on the number and duration of licences?
The intention of amendment 23 is not to affect the kind of organisation that Mary Scanlon has mentioned. We are talking about shops, pubs and commercial organisations that should be applying for premises licences but are trying to circumvent what goes with that by repeated use of occasional licences. We are absolutely clear that we do not want to take away the ability of community groups or one-off events to get occasional licences, but we do not want the system to be abused and used as a get-out-of-jail-free card in the licensing regime. I hope that that reassures Mary Scanlon.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment 51, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 51 relates to convictions and licence reviews, and seeks to allow the police discretion about whether a conviction is sufficiently important to justify a premises licence review hearing with all that that entails.
Amendment 51 intends to remove what appears to be an unintended or typographical problem in section 44 of the 2005 act.
12:30
There are many applicants for and holders of premises licences who have many businesses throughout the United Kingdom, who will inevitably incur convictions on occasions. Those are often related to health and safety legislation and may not be significant in regard either to the premises licence holder or to other licensed premises. Nevertheless, there is a requirement in Scotland to advise every board under which the premises licence holder holds a premises licence of any such conviction. The premises licence holder or court advises relevant boards of any conviction. Each board must advise its chief constable, who either tells the board that he cannot confirm that the offence is not relevant or who confirms the offence and may then not recommend a variation, suspension or revocation of the premises licences in that board area.
However, if a board receives from the appropriate chief constable a notice under section 47(4)(b) of the 2005 act, it is obliged to propose a premises licence review in respect of the premises licence holder, regardless of the nature of the conviction. Some organisations have claimed that that is wasteful of resource for all concerned and that a reasonable exercise of discretion would mean that only matters of relevance would be heard by a board. Examples of that could include breaches of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, the Gaming Act 1968, the Food Safety Act 1990 or the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 rather than offences such as speeding. Amendment 51 would mean that a review hearing would require to be held only when the chief constable recommended it: it would not be initiated automatically.
It is fairly obvious that I did not write the amendment. It has been produced by an organisation in the hospitality industry.
I ask you to move the amendment, which you say is not in your own words.
I move amendment 51.
Does anyone wish to enter the fray?
The situation that Mary Scanlon seeks to address is the result not of a typographical error, but of a policy intention. I am afraid that I do not agree with her amendments and I will set out the reasons for that.
I assume, from Mary Scanlon’s introduction, that there is absolutely no disagreement about the proposal that a licensing board should review a premises licence when the police recommend that the licence be varied, suspended or revoked following a licence holder or, in some cases, a connected person being convicted of a relevant offence or a foreign offence. The issue arises when relevant convictions come to light in relation to legislation on matters such as smoking, breastfeeding or health and safety, when the police might not consider it appropriate for them to make a specific recommendation on the variation, suspension or revocation of a premises licence.
Should the licensing board, notwithstanding that, still have the ability, in the circumstances of such convictions, to review the licence? My view is that the absence of a recommendation from the police should not prevent a licensing board from being able to review the licence if it thinks that it is appropriate to do so. It is about local discretion for licensing boards. The board would then be able to hold a hearing and take any action that it considered appropriate or, indeed, take no action. For example, when there is a conviction in relation to smoking, the police might not consider that it merits a recommendation. Nevertheless, in the view of a licensing board, it might make it appropriate to vary the conditions in the licence relating to child access. There are some good reasons why the licensing board should retain its local discretion.
Some large commercial outfits—some supermarkets, for example—are looking at the current situation legally as a way of not having to notify licensing boards about health and safety breaches. I do not think that we would want to encourage that. Therefore, I ask Mary Scanlon to seek to withdraw amendment 51 on the basis of what I have said. If she presses it, I ask members to vote against it.
The cabinet secretary’s response has been very helpful. As I said, amendment 51 was lodged on behalf of an organisation. Part of scrutinising the bill is to seek clarity on issues around which there may be ambiguity or misunderstanding among outside organisations. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. I am pleased with the clarification that has been given and seek to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 51, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 52, in the name of Richard Simpson, is in a group on its own.
With amendment 52, I am attempting to do on alcohol what the Parliament did on tobacco. I am not completely happy with the progress on detection of underage purchasing or of proxy purchasing. Earlier, I mentioned some of the elements that were coming through in reports.
It is not for us, as parliamentarians, merely to express concern; it is for people to say whether they are happy about what is happening in their locality. It is they who will make a judgment on that, and that should be the case. Through amendment 52, I want to ensure that licensing boards have to publish a general plan and a report on the implementation of that plan so that people will be able to see for themselves whether a determined effort is being made to tackle underage drinking.
It has been suggested that amendment 52 would interfere with the independence of licensing boards, which I do not accept. It has also been suggested in the letter that we received from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that the amendment would result in the police being instructed on the detail of operational matters. If that is the case, I would seek to lodge a further amendment at stage 3, but my reading of amendment 52 is that it does not seek to tell the police precisely how to undertake a programme to reduce underage drinking; it simply provides that there should be such a programme. It would be for the licensing board and the police to come to a conclusion on what and how many activities to undertake in respect of underage purchasing and proxy purchasing.
Too often, we cannot find out exactly what is going on. It is not good enough that we cannot get the answers that we need, so amendment 52 would give us an opportunity to do so. However, I note the concerns that ACPOS has expressed, particularly its concern that the Government has failed to acknowledge the loophole in section 105 of the 2005 act, whereby an adult can buy alcohol for and provide it to a person under 18 in a public place without the adult or the child or young person committing an offence.
The fact that responsible retailers are applying a barcode to the items of alcohol that they sell will enable those items to be traced back effectively to determine who carried out the purchase. That, along with an amendment to make an offence the passing on to an under-18 of alcohol that is then consumed in a public place, should perhaps be considered. I realise that amendment 52 would not do that, but I hope that the Government or a member of the committee might consider lodging such an amendment at stage 3 to tackle the concerns of ACPOS.
I move amendment 52.
I would like to speak in support of amendment 52. The BMA has supplied information, in which it says quite strongly that it would like the committee to support the amendment. Its view is that the existing age restrictions on the purchase of alcohol are clearly not enforced, because children as young as 13 report drinking alcohol on a regular basis. It has also told us that the recent Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey data suggest that children can access alcohol easily. The most common sources of alcohol are reported to be friends, relatives, shops and off-licences. Even though children as young as 15 report buying alcohol for their own consumption, prosecution rates for underage drinking and, more important, for selling alcohol to underage children are low. The BMA says that it would welcome stricter enforcement of age restrictions, particularly for off-sales.
I have a lot of sympathy for the thrust of Richard Simpson’s amendment. He said that we are interfering with licensing boards, but the 2005 act already sets out a framework for the kind of matters that a licensing board should properly consider in drawing up its policy. There are clearly issues about the policy statements and how they address the very real issue of underage drinking. Regardless of whether the wording is absolutely right, the thrust of seeking to have that as part of the policy statement seems worthy of support. I was not entirely sure whether it should have been in section 6 or section 12, but I am not going to pursue that, because I failed to lodge my own amendment. I support the principle of where Richard Simpson is trying to get to.
I perhaps have a slightly stronger view than ACPOS. I am not at all comfortable with the chief constable being responsible for the policy. There is a real distinction between chief constables and the police giving evidence to licensing boards, supplying information and commenting, and their actually being part of the process of preparing a policy that ultimately is the responsibility of the licensing board, not the chief constable. It goes beyond the chief constable just being associated with the process. ACPOS says in its letter that it is inappropriate for the chief constable or his representative to be engaged in the process. I think that the chief constable could technically end up being responsible for the policy, which is wrong.
I hope that the cabinet secretary is also minded to support the general thrust of amendment 52, but I think that the wording requires to be considered before we get to stage 3.
I will pick up where Ross Finnie left off. There is a fair amount of common ground in this discussion. We certainly recognise strongly the need for effective enforcement of existing laws. Test purchasing has been one of the early successes of the 2005 act. There is no doubt that even better enforcement of the law is an integral part of our overall approach to tackling the problems with alcohol. We will certainly continue to support the police and licensing boards in that task as much as we can.
Against that background, I have some sympathy for Richard Simpson’s argument. However, we have discussed this matter with the police and licensing boards and we consider that amendment 52 as framed raises a number of questions that have not been sufficiently ironed out and thought through. To be fair, Richard Simpson has rehearsed some of those arguments. Given the role of licensing boards in initiating and deciding on reviews of premises licenses, there is a view that it is not appropriate for them also to be involved in formulating a programme of activity that includes their agreeing how police powers are to be exercised.
We also have concerns about how appropriate it is for the local licensing forums to be consulted on the exercise of police powers. I will not quote the ACPOS letter, because all members have seen it, but ACPOS obviously has serious concerns about amendment 52.
The deployment of operational tools by the police, such as test purchasing, bottle marking and seizure programmes should and must remain the choice and responsibility of the police. Often the police carry out such operations on an intelligence-led basis. Their attention to particular premises might stem from representations from the public or from other information about underage drinking in a particular area. Such a targeted approach ensures the best use of resources.
I agree that local licensing forums should be supplied with information on police action and its effects. I know that the police also support that position, as they are willing participants in the local licensing forums.
I am confident that as the new act beds in, licensing boards and the police will continue to develop their roles and will continue to use the powers that they have to their full extent. I am not convinced that amendment 52, in its current form, is helpful in ensuring that local licensing forums are properly informed and consulted. However, in light of the debate that we have had, and given the concerns that we have about the position of licensing boards in the process, but acknowledging the need for local forums to operate from an informed position, I am happy to offer Richard Simpson some assistance in developing an alternative amendment for stage 3. On that basis I ask him to seek to withdraw amendment 52.
12:45
Richard Simpson also mentioned the comment in the letter from ACPOS on the subject of proxy sales, and particularly its concerns about section 105 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. I should say for the record that the Government shares the concerns of ACPOS in that regard. We lodged a stage 2 amendment on the issue but, in a perfectly legitimate decision, it was deemed to be outwith the scope of the bill. We will look at how we can address the concern that ACPOS raised.
I am comfortable with what the cabinet secretary has said and the debate that we have had on the issue. I think that we are all of the same mind. It is a question of how we do it. I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on drafting a more appropriate amendment, and on that basis I seek to withdraw amendment 52.
Amendment 52, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 53, in the name of Richard Simpson, is in a group on its own.
Members will know that I have asked a number of parliamentary questions on the subject of a national licensing forum. The gist of the replies was that the Scottish Government had no objection if COSLA wanted to set up a national licensing forum, but the Government would not do that and would certainly not pay for it. Until we received a letter from it in the past few days, COSLA had been silent on the issue, but it is understandable that it has now expressed concerns about both the costs and the reporting requirements.
The licensing forums are an important part of the delivery system of the 2005 act. I believe that they are still not working perfectly, although it is early days. Their membership, for example, is quite variable, and Young Scot and others have drawn attention to the fact that young people are still not represented on quite a number of the forums. The national licensing forum that is proposed by amendment 53 would put us in a position to look at the functioning of the 2005 act where that is problematic. The national forum would give advice to the forums themselves, the local community and the Government.
Next, we come to the issue of the public health interest. We will deal with that separately, but the general question of availability could be supported by the national licensing forum. Its job would be to collate and provide information and disseminate best practice either from existing collected data or from research. I accept that we do not want to impose an unnecessary burden on either the forums or the licensing boards by requiring them to collect enormous amounts of new data, but they should examine the data that the forums collect on such things as the number of licences that are suspended or cancelled, the way in which availability and other policies of individual boards vary, and the effect of those policies over time. They could also support the local forums in other ways. They could learn from best practice in individual forums and spread that out. Their job would be not to dictate but to provide the local forums, the boards and the Parliament with information.
COSLA has criticised the proposed membership in my amendment, but it is designed to ensure that all groups are represented so that, if any of them anywhere in the country feel that they are not receiving a hearing locally, the issues can be considered and raised for debate. I have suggested that the national licensing forum should be able to commission research to fill in gaps in knowledge and to provide the best advice.
As far as the burden is concerned, the national licensing forum should also be able to advise on the minimum appropriate data set that needs to be collected. On funding, I hope that we could seek, through the social responsibility levy if we choose to agree to it, a method by which funds could be recouped. That approach would avoid placing an additional cost burden on COSLA.
I move amendment 53.
I have a question before I ask other members to comment. Proposed new section 9A(4)(i) of the 2005 act mentions the Scottish Consumer Council. Is that still its name?
It is now Consumer Focus Scotland.
So that is erroneous. Do other members have comments?
I agree that, in some cases, the local forums that were established under the 2005 act are not functioning as well as they might, but I am not persuaded that the remedy for their malfunction is to create a national licensing forum. I am bound to say that, although I understand that it is important to get the local forums to work, the amendment has the slight sense of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I originally believed—and I share COSLA’s belief as now expressed in its letter—that it will create an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy in the forums.
There is also wording in the amendment that seems to interpose the national forum above local forums and to give it some supervisory role or overview of licensing boards. Amendment 53 would give a different thrust to how the forums will be run, and it seems to strike against having local boards and forums. Those who are appointed to forums or elected to boards are the proper people to carry out the duties. We might not agree with them, as many do not agree with what we do, but they are, like us, elected for the purpose. Amendment 53 is therefore slightly overburdensome and, in its present form, I cannot support it.
I also have doubts about amendment 53. I fully understand why Richard Simpson lodged it, but I also have a gut feeling against the establishment of yet another quango, especially as, within a short space of time, the people who have suggested establishing another quango will probably be attacking the Government for having too many quangos.
I am bit concerned about the detail in relation to young people and how they are chosen, and whether it is right to discriminate in favour of them when it was wrong to discriminate against them. How would they be chosen and appointed?
My main objection to amendment 53, however, comes in the proposed new section 9A(6). Proposed new section 9A(6)(b) says that the national licensing forum may
“carry out or commission such research in connection with its functions as it considers appropriate”
and proposed new section 9A(6)(a) says that those functions could be about
“health issues ... relating to the consumption of alcohol”.
That is a huge, open-ended commitment that could require a substantial amount of finance. A body that is commissioning and carrying out research into health issues in relation to alcohol could mean huge expense. We are running the risk of setting up a big body where there is not enough money to allow it to carry out the functions that we are asking it to carry out. It seems foolish to be establishing it in the first place.
I, too, understand why Richard Simpson lodged the amendment. Despite what we have said about age, it is important to give local licensing boards the appropriate degree of local discretion and the ability to take local action.
I wonder whether it is necessary to have a national licensing forum. Richard Simpson talked about collating, providing and sharing best practice, but I wonder why we need an organisation to do that, given that we have 32 licensing boards in a country the size of Scotland that could work together with better collaboration to share best practice. Along with other members, we have been looking at reducing the number of quangos in Scotland to reduce the cost of public services, so from that point of view, I and my party are not in favour of creating another quango.
Has Richard Simpson done any research into the likely cost of the proposed organisation? Our difficulty is that a national licensing forum is not in the financial memorandum, and we did not take evidence on it at stage 1. I think that I agree with Ian McKee that it does not just appear to be cumbersome. I fear that, as an organisation, a national licensing forum could be hugely bureaucratic. So, although I understand the principle behind amendment 53, I will not support it.
As Mary Scanlon rightly pointed out, as parliamentarians we receive many representations from external organisations and have to take cognisance of some of their wishes in this process. We have received submissions supporting the proposals, particularly from Alcohol Focus Scotland, which has advocated the creation of a licensing forum since its establishment several years ago. In June 2010, the regulatory review group recommended the introduction of a higher level alcohol and licensing forum to examine the more strategic and longer term issues around fees, for example.
Alcohol Focus Scotland, I and others believe that, as well as monitoring the implementation and on-going performance of and other issues in relation to licensing legislation and beyond, a national licensing forum would be particularly useful in providing a focus for local licensing forums to raise issues that emerge in local areas. After all, we should keep it in mind that we are not always seeking a top-down approach for organisations and that we also want them to share information and understand emerging issues. As a result, the forum would not only work like a commission and monitor the operation of legislation, but ensure that we engage with our local licensing boards.
I am not aware that that kind of engagement process is going on in Scotland. My husband serves on a licensing board and the only information that I get is via him or the newspapers. That is simply not adequate. We need a more structured approach to a serious issue that we need to have regard to, which is why I am very happy to support Richard Simpson’s proposal. I say to Mary Scanlon and Ian McKee that I agree that we should not have a million—or even hundreds—of quangos, but some things in life are so important that they require this kind of forum, which, as I have pointed out, will also have an advisory function. We need to get rid of quangos that are not important; this forum does not need to be a quango, if that is the right name—it could be a commission, for example—but it is important that Scotland has an arm’s-length, independent body that can share and facilitate the sharing of information.
I was just thinking of breakfast at the Eadies and all those discussions about the role of licensing boards. It sounds exciting.
It is pillow talk, convener.
Too much information! The day wears on.
It was about this time last week that you started talking about being married to Ross Finnie, convener. A pattern is emerging to these meetings.
Richard Simpson’s amendment 53 seeks to establish a national licensing forum. I am compelled to remind members that there used to be such a forum and that it was abolished by the previous Administration in early 2007. Dr Simpson was not in the Parliament at the time, so he cannot take responsibility for the move, but in light of that recent decision the amendment seems rather odd.
Since that decision, those charged with making the 2005 act work have been rising to the challenge and acting in the best interests of their communities. It is true to say that some are still finding their feet, which is inevitable given the major change that was the 2005 act, but the police and the licensing standards officers, in particular, have organised themselves in a way that allows them to share good practice and find common solutions to problems. For example, the Scottish Government is represented on the ACPOS licensing group and we attend meetings of the national licensing standards officers liaison group. We also have very good links with stakeholders, including licensing boards, licensing lawyers and the licensed trade, which has allowed us to have frank and helpful discussions that have led to improvements to the 2005 act.
13:00
I agree with those around the table who have said that we should encourage the sharing of best practice. Obviously, licensing boards deal with their own local situations, but many problems are common throughout Scotland. As a result, it is important to encourage the spirit of joint working, and I certainly do not depart from that view, but a national forum has to be something that licensing boards want. They have to take the initiative on it rather than have it foisted upon them. It needs to be authoritative and impartial rather than a disparate collection of industry representatives with competing and conflicting views; it must be efficient; and it must not replicate work that has already been undertaken elsewhere. With the greatest of respect to Richard Simpson and his intentions, I simply do not think that amendment 53 will achieve that. Organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and licensing boards themselves should establish and drive a national forum and we have said that the Scottish Government is willing to engage fully with any efforts in that direction.
We are also keen to avoid establishing a new statutory national public body, which, as members have pointed out, would involve both set-up costs and annual running costs that have not been estimated. I have very real concerns that establishing the forum as a new public body will result in an increase in public body numbers and incur the cost and bureaucracy of a ministerial appointments process in appointing the chair and members. As Mary Scanlon and others have said, such a measure runs counter to our efforts to slimline and simplify the public sector landscape and reduce the number of quangos. The amendment also seems unnecessarily restrictive in relation to the membership of forums and, as I said, I am concerned about the potential to replicate some work that is already under way.
I have absolutely no difficulty with encouraging licensing boards to work together, but I do not believe that creating a new statutory non-departmental public body, quango or call it what you will, and all the bureaucracy that goes with it, is the right approach. I remain firmly of the view that a national forum has to be developed and owned by those whose responsibility is to make the licensing regime work on a day-to-day basis and not imposed on them by the Parliament or Government.
As a result, I ask Richard Simpson to consider withdrawing the amendment. If he presses it, I ask the committee to reject it.
Without rehearsing all the arguments, I simply make the important point that Alcohol Focus Scotland, which was involved in the initial training and the regulatory review group felt that such a move was appropriate. For two years—since Kenny MacAskill gave his answer that if such a body was needed COSLA should set it up—I have waited patiently for some response in that respect. I am genuinely concerned—not about uniformity of local practice, because I do not think that that is what we are seeking—but about ensuring the spread of best practice and the identification of particular issues. Issues such as Glasgow licensing board’s difficulty in preventing the extension of sales areas in supermarkets need a forum in which they can be discussed and debated and a method of tackling the problem can be suggested. I simply do not think that we have that at the moment.
I accept Mary Scanlon’s point that I have not costed the proposals, but I do not think that they will be particularly expensive. Indeed, the costs could be met from the social responsibility levy without biting into it too much.
I will press amendment 53, convener.
The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 53 disagreed to.
The end, as someone, somewhere once said, is in sight.
Amendment 54, in the name of Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendments 55 and 56.
I lodged amendment 54 mainly to put on record my continuing concern that two issues with regard to the working of the 2005 act are not being fully addressed and that, as evidence to the alcohol commission established by Labour suggested, people are finding it difficult to address.
As we know, the 2005 act contained a couple of unique provisions that are not included in any other act that I know of anywhere else in the world. One provision is that, in exercising its functions, the licensing board should be able to take into account the public health interest. It seems to me that they are finding that extremely difficult, and the purpose of the first part of the amendment is to seek the provision of clear guidance from the Government on what that constitutes, so that licensing boards have a greater ability to use the public health interest, in particular to limit availability.
The second issue is irresponsible drinks promotions. All the debate, discussion and enforcement in respect of licences appears to me to have been in relation to the on-trade. I know that provisions in the bill refer to the off-trade, but I am not convinced that there is a sufficient description of what we could, I think, all agree are irresponsible drinks promotions. For example, in all our debates we have said that supermarkets that sell alcohol as a loss leader are behaving irresponsibly. They tell us clearly that they are doing it not because they want to—in fact, they would rather not do it—but because there is competition between them and they therefore have to do such loss leading to achieve sales. Loss leading to achieve footfall seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility.
My amendments are intended to seek information from the cabinet secretary as to whether she believes that the current legislation fulfils the objectives that we all sought with the 2005 act. If it does, or if guidance should or could be issued that would achieve those objectives, I will withdraw my amendments; otherwise, I will press them.
I move amendment 54.
My understanding is that licensing boards already have the power to issue guidance. Is it the case that licensing boards could be encouraged through collaboration, best practice and so on to take more account of public health issues? Are the amendments necessary? Could more recognition of public health not be achieved within the current guidance?
The evidence that we have received, which is perhaps pertinent to your point, Mary, is that the guidance written to accompany the 2005 act requires to be completely rewritten because it is primarily aimed at the on-sales sector and does not adequately take account of the shift towards home drinking, the fact that the majority of alcohol sold in Scotland is bought from the off-trade sector or the fact that most alcohol bought from the off-trade sector is bought from large supermarkets. The changes in our drinking behaviour need to be more adequately reflected in the licensing legislation and guidance—guidance from the minister as opposed to guidance within the local licensing boards, Mary. Licensing boards require further guidance on how to consider the public health interest. We talked previously about the public health—
We are having a little chat here—forget the rest of you.
Sorry, convener.
I feel that we should leave the room and leave Mary Scanlon and Helen Eadie to their conversation. Never mind—press on.
I am responding, through you, convener, to the points that Mary Scanlon raised and which perhaps dwell in the thoughts of other committee members. I apologise to the convener if there have been any thoughts otherwise. It is important that the public health objective is addressed when a licensing board decides to grant or renew a licence and public health needs to be more of an issue in local licensing decision-making.
I hope that Richard Simpson’s amendment will encourage licensing boards to implement the guidance fully. As MSPs we all know, and we all find it testing at times, that people totally ignore guidance that is issued by ministers. Having said that, it is important to get the message out that we want some clarity in the Government’s guidance on the matter.
I agree with Mary Scanlon that the amendments are unnecessary and do not allow us to do anything on the public health objective that cannot be done currently.
Amendments 54 and 55 require any guidance that is issued under section 142 of the 2005 act to include guidance on the ways in which licensing boards can promote the licensing objective of
“protecting and improving public health”.
As I indicated in relation to an earlier group, I agree with Richard Simpson that the public health objective may be the licensing objective that licensing boards have had most difficulty in applying to their policies and decision-making processes. The committee will be interested to know that Alcohol Focus Scotland is working with licensing boards on the issue. The amendments that we have lodged to enhance the role of health boards will be of assistance in that regard.
We are also in the process of reviewing and revising the guidance that is already issued under section 142 of the 2005 act. Helen Eadie is right to say that the current guidance distinguishes between on-sales and off-sales, but it does so because it reflects current legislation. The purpose of revising it is to ensure that it reflects both the changes that are made by the bill—which, as members are aware, takes away some of the anomalies between on-sales and off-sales—and the changes that were made by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The process of revision is under way. I assure Richard Simpson that we will work with health organisations to ensure that clear and comprehensive guidance is issued in the near future.
Amendments 54 and 56 require any guidance that is issued under section 142 to include guidance on irresponsible promotions as defined in schedules 3 and 4 to the 2005 act. The previous Administration deliberately did not provide guidance on irresponsible promotions—in particular, a list of promotions that would be irresponsible promotions under the 2005 act—in statutory guidance, because it was concerned that that could result in parts of the licensed trade developing new promotions that did not fall within the list of promotions that were set out in the guidance but could still be considered to be irresponsible promotions under the 2005 act. This would have the potential to create a conflict between the guidance and the 2005 act that would not be in the interests of the licensed trade, licensing standards officers or licensing boards.
I tend to the view that the previous Administration’s decision not to issue guidance that included a defined list of promotions constituting responsible promotions was right. It is much better to allow licensing boards to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a promotion is an irresponsible promotion.
I ask Richard Simpson to accept my assurance that revised guidance under section 142 of the 2005 act will include guidance on the application of the public health objective, to note my comments and the reasons that I have given in relation to amendments 54 and 56, to withdraw amendment 54 and not to move amendments 55 and 56.
On the basis of the assurances that we have been given and of the fact that we have got on the record our general feeling that the public health objective is proving difficult to meet, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 54.
Amendment 54, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 55 not moved.
Do you wish to move amendment 56?
I agree not to move the amendment, but I may want to return to the issue to which it relates.
Amendment 56 not moved.
That ends today’s consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary for her attendance. I am afraid that committee members must stay nailed to their chairs.
13:14
Meeting continued in private until 13:18.