Licensing (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3437, in the name of George Lyon, that the Parliament agrees that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. At the conclusion of the debate, will the division bell be rung or will we proceed straight to the vote?
I understand that it has been agreed by the business managers that it will not be necessary to ring the division bell. Therefore, it will not happen.
I thank all those who have contributed to the development of the bill. I thank my predecessor Tavish Scott, who led the bill on introduction and through a successful stage 2, and the Local Government and Transport Committee for its thorough scrutiny of the bill, culminating in its detailed stage 1 report. I hope that the committee will recognise that we have worked hard to address its concerns and comments. We responded with a number of amendments and I hope that everyone will agree that we have worked together to try to strengthen the bill.
Although there have been disagreements—notably today—I am confident that there is a strong consensus throughout most of the parties in favour of what we are trying to achieve through the bill. I thank all those who responded to the consultations that were undertaken by the Scottish Executive and the Parliament, particularly members of the licensed trade organisations and others who have offered their time freely and consistently over the past three years, with the aim of ensuring a better end product for us all. I certainly enjoyed some hospitality and interesting experiences as I engaged with the various trade organisations. I listened to the concerns that they had about various matters, because when the bill is voted through, the trade, customers and communities have to live with the consequences of what we decide.
I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
Hear, hear.
I thought that would please some members.
In the short period for which I have been responsible for licensing, I have been committed to taking forward this reform and I remain so. I believe that Scotland deserves a licensing system that meets both the needs and the expectations of our society today. I am sure that everyone here agrees.
The new licensing system that we are proposing will contribute to a safer and stronger Scotland for all of us, by helping to break the link between excessive drinking and crime, and will lay a foundation for and support our wider agenda of tackling the problems that are associated with underage and binge drinking.
The bill introduces a system that will support and protect responsible traders and their communities. Licensing boards and the police will be empowered to deal with those who abuse the system. That will provide strong protection for those who are affected by the problems that are associated with alcohol misuse, whether local residents, police or the licensed trade.
The bill sets a foundation for what we want to achieve. It will not tackle all the problems in isolation and it would be unrealistic to expect that. It is just one part of the devolved Government's commitment to tackling the problems that are caused by the Scottish attitude to alcohol.
We are also working on much wider fronts, through the plan for action on alcohol and the measures that we have taken against antisocial behaviour. Of course, successful outcomes will be dependent on licensing boards exercising their powers in an appropriate way. As part of the implementation of the new regime, boards will be provided with guidance to ensure they act in a strong and consistent manner.
I was disappointed that the Parliament was not willing to trust boards in the entirety of the decision making that we had intended for them. Boards will be able to deal with problems as and when they arise and, importantly, for the first time, they will be able to take swift and effective action against anyone who breaches their licence conditions or fails to act in accordance with the five overarching licence objectives that are set out in the bill. Restating those objectives—which are at the very heart of the system—is worth while, and I am sure that my colleague Tom McCabe will dwell on them in his winding-up speech. The licensing objectives are to prevent crime and disorder, to secure public safety, to prevent public nuisance, to protect and improve public health, and to protect children from harm. I hope that all members have signed up to those principles.
The local discretion that boards will be given will be balanced by two things—a clear and effective mandatory national framework and local communities' empowerment to comment on policies and to object to licences. Communities being firmly involved in the process of granting licences and boards having to take account of local communities are important principles. Even after a licence has been granted, communities will still have the power to ask boards to review it if there are unforeseen problems.
Enforcement is important. Of course, a system can be successful only if it includes an effective and robust monitoring and enforcement system that encourages those who manage it, and such a system is provided for in the bill.
The bill sets out important new powers to tackle binge drinking and irresponsible promotions. All of us have seen and recognise the problems that result from binge drinking in our constituencies and the potentially harmful effects of such irresponsible behaviour on the health of individuals are well documented.
The bill also focuses on protecting children and tackling underage drinking. Most of us understand that it is preferable for young people to be introduced to alcohol by their parents in a responsible and gradual way, but the availability of alcohol to children and the growing amount of evidence that children who are sometimes as young as 12 or 13 are drinking regularly and often to excess is a concern.
I sincerely hope that everyone shares the Executive's commitment and ambition to tackle the problems that I have described. I am confident that the bill will make a considerable difference to ordinary people's lives and that it will put in place a licensing system in which all of us can have confidence.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I say to the minister and to the Executive that the exchanges in the Local Government and Transport Committee during the bill's progress led to many valuable lessons being learned on both sides, and that the bill was improved as a result of those discussions. However, there are issues that I want to raise to ensure that they are recorded in the Official Report.
First, I want to consider the national licensing forum and the way in which it was established and people appointed to it. No one can doubt that the forum has created considerable difficulties for the trade, particularly the on-licence trade. People do not feel that they are adequately represented on the forum, so I hope that the minister will re-examine the matter at some stage. There is an opportunity to make the forum more inclusive.
I accept Mr Crawford's point, but I also hope that he acknowledges the undertakings that I gave him during stage 2. Appointees to the national licensing forum are there to provide their personal knowledge in order that the forum can develop policy. I stated that once the two-year period is complete, ministers will decide on the forum's continuation and new members will be appointed. Issues that Mr Crawford has raised to do with representation can be addressed then.
I fully accept what the minister says about what he told me at stage 2, but the real issue now for the trade is that it needs to be in the door and able to influence the process when the new information, guidance and material are issued to the licensing boards. However, the trade does not feel that it is part of the process in the way that it should be. That matter needs to be re-examined.
There are also issues to do with licensing standards officers that must be considered in the future. How much will licensing standards officers cost the trade? At the end of the day, all the costs will be passed on to the trade. We have not worked up as good a position on that as we might. Licensing standards officers will be involved in mediation and enforcement, where required, but how many will we have per local authority, what will be their job description—what are they actually going to do—and what will be the real costs that the industry will have to bear? We must find ways to ensure that those costs are kept to a minimum.
There are several issues that I would like to touch on, but I have only five minutes. I will, therefore, return to some of the fundamentals in the bill, which are of real concern. As far as the Scottish National Party is concerned, those concerns relate to the off-licence trade. We saw what happened earlier as the Executive tried to dig itself out of one hole but appeared to fall into another. We have a workable solution, however, in amendment 64A, which was lodged by Frank McAveety. I am pleased to say that the Executive has adopted the position of the SNP in that regard and will be a lot more restrictive in respect of the operation of off-licences.
Brian Monteith spoke about what is happening in England; however, the information that he has is not the same as the information that I have. I am told that about 700 premises, including supermarkets, have been granted 24-hour licences and that the figure will soon be 900 premises. The real issue is the culture that is created through extension of licensing hours. About 200,000 premises have applied for extensions because of that culture.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his last minute.
Does Bruce Crawford agree that 1,000 premises in England getting 24-hour licenses would be the equivalent of 100 premises in Scotland getting those licences, which is unacceptable and would create an unacceptable culture?
Very quickly.
I accept the member's point.
The issue of 24-hour opening is a fundamental stumbling block to the SNP's being able to support the bill. We had hoped to persuade the Executive of the error of its ways on 24-hour opening: all the statistics prove that it is not the right direction in which to go. We are fundamentally opposed to 24-hour opening—or opening for 23 hours and 59 minutes, to be pedantic. The SNP cannot support the bill, even though it has some good bits, because of the Executive's intransigence on that matter.
It might be helpful if I say before I call the next member that the debate is heavily oversubscribed. We will not be able to call everyone who wants to do so to speak, and those who are called should make their comments as brief as possible in the interests of other members.
I thank the clerks and the committees for their work in dealing with the bill on its way through the committee stages. However, we have problems with the bill, the trade has problems with the bill and many genuinely responsible people in Scotland have problems with the bill. Most important is that the bill does not sufficiently address the problems of underage drinking and the youth overindulgence that leads to antisocial behaviour. The ministers have produced what appears to be a bit of a guddle. The Labour party is split, there is a split between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party and so on. That was not a good start for the final stage of any bill.
I am not convinced that the bill will deal with the problem of underage drinking, which is an enormous problem in Scotland. I will not repeat the statistics.
I ask Mr Davidson to expand on the measures that he thinks should have been in the bill to deal with underage drinking.
I tried to have a responsible discussion when I joined the Local Government and Transport Committee. The fundamental issue is that we do not support the principle of making alcohol available 24 hours a day in the way that has been discussed and which could occur under the bill.
The bill does not address the problems of the trade. It presumes that the on-sales trade is where all the problems must be solved, but does nothing much about off-sales, although the police and social workers tell us that that is where the bulk of the problem lies. We supported Frank McAveety's sensible amendment 64A. We have to take a responsible stance.
We must draw a line in the sand and say that enough is enough. We must deal with the problems in society, which do not all arise from on-sales premises. Stiffening up the rules for on-sales premises is fine to a point, but it is almost restrictive of trade and does not offer choice. However, the bill does not deal with the fundamental issue of how young people in our society get their hands on alcohol. I will not go through all sorts of statistics because I do not see much in the bill that will do anything about changing that culture.
My proposition for sports grounds was based on the arguments that have been used in other parts of the United Kingdom. Some problem matches occur; I have no difficulty with their being dealt with through agreements between chief constables, licensing boards and the owners and managers of grounds. I tried to persuade the Local Government and Transport Committee to accept an amendment to that effect, but it chose not to accept it. I thank the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business for accepting my amendment to increase the size of local licensing forums, because that will improve democracy and accountability.
The licensing standards officers issues are unclear. Their role is not spelled out in the bill; it does not define clearly what they will do. That is policy being made on the hoof.
The bill contains some good measures, but we cannot support it. The Executive could have done better.
The response of the two Opposition parties to the bill is disappointing, because the Executive and Parliament have taken on board at stage 3 most of the issues that the Local Government and Transport Committee and other members raised.
The bill will establish a licensing system that is fit for the 21st century. That system will be built on five basic principles: preventing crime and disorder; securing public safety; preventing public nuisance; protecting and improving public health; and protecting children from harm. It is unfortunate that much of the debate today has concentrated on the small number of remaining contentious issues, but the bill has many positive aspects that most parties can unite behind.
First, everybody acknowledges that the licensed trade plays an important role in many people's social lives. Responsible drinking can be part of a healthy and enjoyable social life. Alcohol production is a major employment sector and one of our largest export industries. However, we must also acknowledge the undoubtedly negative role that alcohol plays in our society in relation to crime and disorder and Scotland's overall poor health record.
The bill tries to achieve the right balance between people's ability and right to consume a legal product and the industry's right to pursue its business, and the societal problems to which I referred. Among the measures that will achieve that balance are the enhanced rights for individuals and community groups to make representations to licensing boards about decisions on licences, the improvement to how licensing boards can define and deal with overprovision, and the introduction of licensing standards officers, who will ensure compliance with licence conditions. The bill will enhance the quality of licensed premises throughout Scotland and will require licensees who intend to allow children in their premises to meet higher standards in their facilities.
The bill seeks to address binge drinking through new controls on irresponsible promotions and will introduce a considerable number of tighter measures to tackle underage sales. I was particularly disappointed that David Davidson criticised that aspect of the bill, but came up with no alternative ideas.
I commend my colleagues Paul Martin and Michael McMahon for lodging several important amendments that addressed concerns about antisocial behaviour and which closed loopholes in the existing legislation.
I will talk finally about opening hours for off-licences, which took up much of today's debate. Some of the misrepresentation on that issue damaged the concept of the new consensual politics in which Parliament was envisaged to engage. Without reopening that debate, I give due credit to my colleague Frank McAveety, who managed in a short speech to engage the support of his old sparring partner, Tommy Sheridan, as well as that of the Tories and the SNP, for the position that Labour advanced. Perhaps the new politics is not dead.
The bill as amended strikes a sensible balance between competing priorities and objectives and gives Scotland a licensing system that will be fit for the 21st century.
We have made a lot of progress as a result of the bill. When I asked questions about licensing during the first year of Parliament, I was told that there was no intention to do anything about it. The pressure that a number of people within and outwith Parliament brought to bear persuaded the Executive to set up the Nicholson committee, which produced a good report that was the foundation of the bill.
The fundamental point is that there should be local democratic decision making. I accept that we are placing a lot of weight on licensing boards. We must really stiffen their sinews and improve their intelligence and so on so that they can respond to local opinion and so control licensing.
We must change the culture. A bill cannot do that, but it may contribute. In particular, we must get a firm grip on underage drinking. There are one or two measures in the bill that will help, but we must probably do more about the problem.
There was discussion of 24-hour and 18-hour licensing. A person who asked any decent licensing board for a licence for 23 hours and 59 minutes would promptly be shown the door.
The way amendments appeared, how the debate proceeded and the time limits to which we were subject showed that we need to take a very serious look at our procedures prior to and during stage 3. I hope that members will co-operate in re-examining that subject.
I would like to clarify the position regarding the division bell. The bell will be rung at 5 past 6 and at 10 past 6, in advance of decision time, which has been moved. Business will not be suspended during that period.
Tommy Sheridan accused me earlier of talking a good game. I note that neither Tommy Sheridan nor any of his colleagues are here to talk any game.
I make no apologies for the talking that I have done on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the party that I represent and my constituents. As a result of the amendments to which Parliament has agreed, there will be a legal requirement for antisocial behaviour reports to be provided. That is an important measure. As a former licensing board member in Glasgow, I know that a large number of people appeared before licensing boards to be advised that there was no police report, despite the fact that there was antisocial behaviour in local communities. That has been confirmed by representations that I have received. I welcome Bill Aitken's point about the need for consistency in reporting.
I also welcome the fact that, in partnership with Andrew Arbuckle, we have agreed to an amendment that ensures that a sentencing option of up to three months in prison will be applicable to people who sell alcohol to under-18s. Selling alcohol to under-18s is the most appalling act that people can carry out against communities and we must deal with it. The amendment will deal with some antisocial elements.
I turn finally to the issue of licensing hours. There is a famous political saying that we are where we are. There was development on the bill. I started with the view that we should allow boards to develop their own positions, but I was persuaded informally by board members that they welcome an inflexible approach, because they could otherwise be subject to challenges from applicants' legal representatives. The fact that there will be fixed hours from 10 am to 10 pm will assist boards to deal with the issues that they face.
I commend the Executive on an important piece of legislation that will make a difference in communities.
I agree that the bill should be a balancing act between the right of the law-abiding majority to enjoy a peaceful, quiet drink and the right of the same law-abiding majority to be protected from the minority who abuse alcohol and behave in an antisocial manner. That is why I am especially pleased by the changes that have been made to and the restrictions that have been placed on off-sales' opening hours. That was the right way to go. However, I am equally disappointed by the decision that the Executive and others took to vote down restrictions on on-sales. Effectively, it will be possible for pubs and other places to open for 24 hours.
My view is that we have gone far enough in liberalising our laws on access to alcohol and I would prefer us to go no further. I have a simple and clear reason for holding that view, and that is the international evidence on what happens when alcohol is made more widely available. The amount of alcohol abuse increases, as does the suffering that individuals, families, communities and society have to endure. Alcohol abuse drains the resources of our health service and our justice system. Members who do not believe me should visit a city centre on a Saturday night or visit a hospital ward and ask the staff what happens.
Exceptional circumstances were mentioned several times, but is the Celtic Connections festival an exceptional circumstance, given that it is on for three weeks? The world cup is on for four weeks. Is that an exceptional circumstance? The number of premises open for extended hours has crept up. In 1980, there were 358 deaths in which an alcohol-related condition was recorded as the underlying cause of death. In 2003, there were 1,353 such deaths. That represents a 278 per cent increase in a generation. That is what happens when we liberalise licensing laws.
In 2004, the World Health Organisation published a document called "What are the most effective and cost-effective interventions in alcohol control?". It states:
"There is substantial evidence showing that an increase in alcohol prices reduces consumption and the level of alcohol-related problems … In addition, stricter controls on the availability of alcohol, especially via a minimum legal purchasing age, government monopoly of retail sales, restrictions on sales times and regulations of the number of distribution outlets are effective interventions."
You must finish now, Mr Maxwell.
Evidence from around the world shows what works, but we are too cowardly to accept it.
I will not and, in conscience, I cannot vote for the liberalisation of drinking in Scotland. Drinking causes misery throughout the country. The changes will cause more misery and I will not support them.
It has been an interesting afternoon. There is a lot that I can support in the bill and a lot that I am comfortable with. We all acknowledge that alcohol causes significant problems in Scotland, but our debate had an uncomfortably puritanical tone. Journalists who are keen to fill the Sunday supplements recently described the Greens as the new puritans, although personally I would be far more comfortable to recast ourselves as the new hedonists. Many MSPs—I will not say most—will spend part of the evening in a licensed premises. They will be in a pub or a bar or at a reception. I wonder how many of them will discuss, over a glass of wine or beer, the need to protect the public from alcohol.
We should address the issues of responsibility. People use the term "responsible drinking", but I prefer to place responsibility firmly and squarely with the corporate sphere. When our drinking culture began its transition towards chain pubs and mega-pubs, global companies gained a huge amount of power. Jeremy Purvis was the first to mention power and the desire to empower local communities, but it is the corporate giants who have the power at the moment. The popularity of lager is a direct result of heavy marketing. Lager is quicker and easier to drink and the corporate giants decided that promoting lager would enable them to sell more alcohol.
Responsible selling should be a priority as well as responsible drinking. I regret that the bill does not go down that route and I also regret that it does not place power firmly with local communities, as Andrew Arbuckle wanted. I would have supported that. On balance, the bill contains enough good stuff for the Greens to support it tonight.
I have long supported the reform of our licensing laws and I support most of the bill that is before us today. However, I want to put on the record my considerable concerns about the tone of much of today's debate and about some of the outcomes.
For about five years we have been having, on the whole, a considered and informed debate about our licensing laws. However, it will not go unnoticed that, in the last few minutes of the decision-making process, key decisions were governed not by the rational and measured approach of much of the debate that has led up to today, but by an eleventh hour bidding war that was governed more by raw party-politicking on all sides than by evidence or thoughtful and mature reflection. We will be judged accordingly on that.
We must address certain procedural issues. In that respect, I wholly support Donald Gorrie's comment that we have to look again at how we deal with decision making at stage 3. Moreover, we need to consider various political issues. The combination of poor procedures, poor politicking and indeed poor politics is a recipe for poor law.
We have made a substantial shift on opening hours at the 11th hour. The minister said earlier that that will come as a surprise to the licensed trade; I suspect that the changes will also come as a surprise to the public. I wonder whether, in his closing remarks, the minister will tell us how many licensed premises will be affected by the change and how he will find out—retrospectively, as it might well be—what impact it will have.
I share some members' concerns that changing the culture is a much more complex process than has been suggested and I worry that we have detracted from what could be a considered debate. If we are to earn the public's respect, I hope that in future we will work to do better.
We move to wind-up speeches. I call Andrew Arbuckle. Mr Arbuckle, you have a tight four minutes.
The mark of any new legislation is whether it improves our society, and I am confident that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill will achieve that aim.
The bill will allow local flexibility in dealing with licensing, with locally elected boards bearing the responsibility for delivering appropriate licensing decisions. Devolving such decision making is a courageous and correct step, although I am sorry that the Parliament felt unable to support fully the devolution of decisions on off-sales premises.
There is no denying that Scotland has had a troubled relationship with alcohol. For centuries, it has featured highly in our society and, as members have acknowledged, it has cost many millions of pounds in dealing with health problems and untold sums in human misery.
Today, the important issues are how we live and deal with alcohol and how we improve our society and our country's health, which is why it has been necessary to move away from the old Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. With this new legislation, the public will get a far more professional approach to dealing with local licensing issues.
Unfortunately, a few members today have tried to get headlines out of the possibility of 24-hour licensed drinking hot spots and the accompanying problems of people drinking too much alcohol. I say to those members that they should read the legislation and not try to write headlines. The bill says:
"The Licensing Board must refuse the application unless … there are exceptional circumstances."
I am happy that the locally elected licensing board will determine the opening hours of on-sales premises. It is not right for the Government to issue a diktat on what are or are not the most appropriate licensing hours for premises. After all, we do not know local circumstances, local work patterns or the many social factors that will contribute to the licensing boards' decisions. As a result, our legislation should not be prescriptive.
I particularly welcome the establishment of local licensing forums, which will play a significant role in local democracy by keeping members in contact with local views.
My views on the bill were shaped, initially, by observing how my local councillor colleagues were coping with the inadequacies of the 1976 act and, subsequently, by the many positive and constructive comments that I have heard in my short time on the Local Government and Transport Committee. I have found the largely consensual approach to bringing forward this bill very helpful.
I am sure that Scotland now has legislation that is suitable for the 21st century; that exercises the correct degree of control over alcohol sales; that contains safeguards for wider society; and that does not infringe the freedom of the individual.
This has not been the Parliament's finest hour. Indeed, the Evening Times headline writer showed a remarkable prescience in writing, "Licensing Shambles As MSPs In Disarray Over 3am Opening". Quite frankly, what happened at the start of this afternoon's stage 3 proceedings was little short of a disgrace. If the Executive cannot get its house in order prior to a stage 3 debate, and if it gets itself into all sorts of chaos and mayhem, that is a matter for the Executive, but when it starts inflicting mayhem and chaos on the rest of us, I reserve the right to complain.
Talking of mayhem and chaos, what has been happening over the past couple of weeks in the party to which Mr Aitken belongs?
That is a typical cheap shot from George Lyon, the man who was in charge of the bill and who has reduced this afternoon's parliamentary procedure to a laughing stock—a man who must start looking over his shoulder if his ministerial career is not to come to an abrupt end.
Returning to stage 3, there are some things in the bill with which we agree. In fact, there are quite a number of aspects of it that we regard as totally acceptable and progressive. However, there are a number of things that are not in the bill that should be there.
We all know that underage drinking is a major issue in Scotland. I know from experience and observation that the issue is not about a 17-year-old going into a pub for half a pint, or even a pint of lager. The real problem arises in off-sales, where a small minority of irresponsible shopkeepers are prepared to sell drink to youngsters well below the age of 18, and we see the consequences that befall some of those kids in the streets.
Although I welcome the fact that those committing such an act are now liable to a custodial disposal, I do not anticipate that such a sentence is likely to be imposed all that often. Should we not have included in the legislation—I put the idea forward as a constructive suggestion—ways in which there could be an immediate suspension of the licence where someone is found to have sold drink in such a situation? What concentrates the minds of those involved is the prospect of immediate closure and loss of revenue, so that is what we should be doing.
However, our principal objection is to 24-hour opening and the uncertainties that surround that. How do we define an exceptional circumstance? Is it the world cup final, a local festival or George Lyon's birthday? There is nothing in the bill that enables licensing boards to make a proper, reasoned interpretation. We recognise that we have a problem with the general attitude to drink in Scotland, but the prospect of 24-hour opening will fill many people living in Glasgow with some degree of horror. That is why we were enthusiastic about getting the Executive's coals out of the fire by voting for the two amendments that sought some mitigation of the damage that 24-hour opening could cause.
At the end of the day, however, it has been a total, utter and complete shambles. The Executive failed to introduce a proper bill, it failed in its business management and the minister responsible, George Lyon, should be considering his position.
It is undoubtedly the case that the majority of disorder and violent crime in Scotland is related to the excessive consumption of alcohol, and it is salutary to remind ourselves that, between 1980 and 2003, 3,000 licensed premises—an increase of a fifth—were created in Scotland. As Stewart Maxwell has said, consumption of drink is increasing, and the rise in violent crime concerns the police and concerns us all.
The Scottish National Party's position, as exemplified by what we have said and done, has been entirely consistent throughout. We have argued from the simple standpoint that if we make it possible to have even longer opening hours than our already very long opening hours, that will lead to one of two outcomes: the possibility of more crime or the probability of less crime. I think that it will lead to the former. It must be the former. All the evidence shows that that will be the case. That is why we pursued a consistent position, and that is why the Local Government and Transport Committee's stage 1 report stated:
"As an alternative, the Committee was attracted by the suggestion made by Sheriff Principal Nicholson that 18 hours might be a more appropriate cut-off point."
That was the provenance of the 18-hour provision. It was not something that we picked arbitrarily; it came from the years of work of Sheriff Principal Nicholson and his committee. Members of the Local Government and Transport Committee put in hundreds of hours of work and came to a consensus, but over the past 72 hours the Executive has vacillated and moved from one position to another, to the extent that the minister was not even able to tell us what his position was—he could not tell us of which particular hole he was temporarily the occupant.
The disservice that has been done today has not been done by Parliament or by MSPs; frankly, it has been done because there was a split among those who are in charge of the two components of the Executive. That is the reality, and I contend that the impact that that has had on Parliament is such that, as Bruce Crawford said, there has been a boorach. To put that a different way, as Susan Deacon perhaps implied, we have been denied the opportunity of giving proper, full, thorough and lengthy consideration to the various options that were available today. Those options should have been put to the Local Government and Transport Committee.
As the Scottish Licensed Trade News stated, the industry made huge attempts to persuade the civil servants who advise the ministers of the soundness of its case with regard to 20-hour opening. The civil servants said, "No chance"—but there was a chance, so the advice that was given was wrong. That, of course, is the responsibility of the ministers.
In conclusion, there is total conflict, paradox and contradiction in, on the one hand, the Executive's apparent concern for health, which has meant that smoking in public places has been subject to a total ban, and, on the other hand, its passing of legislation that will permit the extension of drinking hours. It is by no means to make a pedantic or a legal point to identify what section 60 says. I am afraid that Mr Arbuckle is wrong, because section 60 makes it clear that any applicant can go for a licence for 22 or 23 hours and the proviso about exceptional circumstances will not apply—it will apply only if the application is for a 24-hour licence. The law will provide no protection against the issuing of such licences. In passing a law that will allow more and more drinking and will create the possibility of more crime being committed, the Executive is making a grievous error. That is why the SNP will be consistent with the position that it has adopted from day one and will vote against the bill.
We have had an in-depth debate on a highly sensitive and important subject, which has touched a raw nerve with many people. Many members have reflected genuine concerns that the communities that they represent have expressed to them. That is one of the reasons why the debate has been a good one. Many of the points that have been made have shown the Parliament in its best light.
However, a number of things have been said as part of an attempt to scaremonger or to cut out political space for political parties. I repeat that the bill will mean that under no circumstances will 24-hour opening be routinely accepted in Scotland. Under no circumstances would I as an individual or on behalf of the Scottish Executive promote a bill that would result in 24-hour opening in Scotland. No matter how much Bruce Crawford and his colleagues try to pretend otherwise, we will continue to make that case. The bill will mean that we are able to point out to people that there is a statute that prevents 24-hour opening in Scotland. It will do that through the regulation and guidance that we will produce. If members want to express a view that one-off events such as the world cup should be outwith the exceptional circumstances, as the minister, I am prepared to listen to that view. However, I want to put it firmly on the record that I will not advance through regulation any possibility that 24-hour opening will become the norm in our society in Scotland.
Will the minister tell the chamber what the Executive's position was—or is—on the issue of devolving to licensing boards the power to make the decision on opening hours?
When I spoke to the member today, I said that the provisions of the bill give ample opportunity for people at the local level to reflect the circumstances in which they find themselves and that the five national conditions are ample safeguards. I entirely respect the right of members of the Parliament to disagree with that; I understand that members may feel that the provisions need to go further.
We have created an entirely new licensing situation in which an entirely new type of licensing board will have to make reference to those five important national licensing conditions. We have created licensing boards that will be obliged to take account of the potential for antisocial behaviour problems in the decisions that they take.
In his speech, David Davidson questioned whether the bill would promote a change in culture. I question how he could possibly ask that, given that he advocated a move away from differential pricing but also advocated the irresponsible promotions that lead to intoxicated people—young and not so young—in our streets, engaging in unacceptable behaviour. How can he say that the bill does not promote a change in culture when, at the same time, he says that he wants such behaviour to continue? Those positions are entirely contradictory.
Susan Deacon asked how many licences would be affected by the change in opening hours. We do not have a national database that shows the differences in the way in which licences are applied at the local level. Clearly, the point is valid; we will get information on the subject.
I cannot stress strongly enough how much of a difference in the licensing regime in Scotland the bill will create or how much more powerful the licensing boards will be at the local level. More important, the bill gives local people a say in a way that has never been the case in the past. We are determined to ensure that the decisions that are taken at the local level reflect the views and concerns of local people. That is a basic tenet of the bill.
I commend the bill to the Parliament. I also commend much of the debate that we have had today. I absolutely respect the right of members to seek further reassurance whenever they feel that that is necessary.