Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:45 pm on 16 November 2005.
Murray Tosh
Conservative
4:45,
16 November 2005
Group 15 relates to sports grounds and sporting events. Amendment 65, in the name of David Davidson, is the only amendment in the group.
David Davidson
Conservative
Amendment 65 proposes that the Executive should carry out a pilot scheme on the reintroduction of the sale of alcohol at sports grounds in Scotland and should report on the results of that scheme to the Scottish Parliament.
The current ban is damaging our economy. The Scottish Rugby Union believes that the ban contributed to Murrayfield not being given last year's Powergen rugby league challenge cup final, which it is estimated cost the Edinburgh economy £2 million. The ban has served its purpose and it is now time to allow over-18s to purchase alcohol in plastic containers in certain sports grounds. I believe that if we treat people with trust and respect, they will start to behave accordingly.
Sports fans still drink even though they cannot drink at the ground. For example, Murrayfield has a beer tent, which is located just outside the stadium. We acknowledge all the hard work that the police have done to make Scottish football as family friendly as it is, but we do not feel that allowing alcohol to be sold in grounds would harm that work.
A spokesman from Northumbria police said that its policy of allowing the sale of alcohol at St James's Park, which has been in place for the past five to 10 years, is going well and, in fact, has made the control of crowds easier. That is because the police can keep rival fans apart while they are drinking—which they have no control over outside the stadium—and ensure that the drinking environment encourages the fans to relax and enjoy themselves. Sales are restricted to a period that extends from 10 minutes before half time until 10 minutes after half time. If anyone should get drunk, they are removed from the ground, but the high price of season tickets means that fans are careful to ensure that that does not happen to them. It is time for the Executive to move on from a position whereby it allows the people in expensive hospitality boxes to drink while treating the Majority of fans like children. Agreement to amendment 65 would be the first step in that direction. Surely an arrangement that is good enough for Newcastle is good enough for Tynecastle.
I move amendment 65.
Tommy Sheridan
SSP
I must declare an interest as someone who was involved in the 1980 pitch invasion that led to the banning of alcohol at sports grounds. I suppose that I am partly responsible for the ban, although I only wanted to give my scarf to Davie Provan, which I never quite got round to doing.
Amendment 65 is not acceptable. As has been said, in Scotland we have a culture that is not enviable. Getting pissed seems to be part of that culture. We do not seem to have won the battle of ideas or to have defeated the notion that someone who is drinking is more of a man than someone who is not drinking. Sport is an area in which we are trying to promote a form of recreation that does not involve the consumption of alcohol. Why would we want to reintroduce alcohol into sport
Donald Gorrie
Liberal Democrat
The proposition of having a pilot scheme is worth considering. There are obviously some matches at which it would not be appropriate to have alcohol at the ground, but there are others—both football and rugby football—at which allowing alcohol to be consumed at the ground could represent a better way of controlling the drinking. Instead of simply allowing people to get drunk in pubs both on the way to and on the way back from the ground, drinking could be well policed within the ground.
I think that it would be worth trying out a pilot at the grounds of football clubs whose fans have a record of being well behaved and, perhaps, at Murrayfield. If the idea does not work, we will know, but if it works, we could introduce it more generally. A pilot scheme is worth considering on the basis that if it was well run, it could reduce the total amount of drunkenness.
Brian Monteith
Independent
Although I think that Amendment 65 is rather weak and could have gone further, I will support it.
I was astonished to hear that Tommy Sheridan thinks that somehow drink has been separated from sport. Clearly, he is not getting into enough directors' boxes, whether at Murrayfield or any of the football grounds. Alcohol is there—it is just that the punters cannot get it, and I thought that he represented the punters.
The truth is that sport and drink go together; people get tanked up before they go into a ground. Let us have some responsible drinking. We should encourage it in the grounds—with families and with food—where it would be policed. That is what the proposed pilot is about. Members cannot tell me that punters in Newcastle, Carlisle or anywhere else in England are different from punters in Scotland. Let us give punters in Scotland a chance to have a responsible drink. That will change the culture. Members should support amendment 65.
John Swinburne
SSCUP
As one who remembers what the situation in football grounds was like before the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, I recommend to members that they should ignore completely the pilot. We should not bring back
Tom McCabe
Labour
As members know, controls at certain sporting events were introduced in the 1980s for the good reason of public order and safety. Among other things, the controls prevent drink from being consumed in any shape or fashion at designated sports grounds for designated events. The designation of both the sports ground and the event is made by Scottish ministers.
Phil Gallie
Conservative
From John Swinburne's contribution, the Minister will know that, as a director of Motherwell Football Club, John Swinburne has open access to alcohol at any matches that Motherwell play. Surely the point is one of discrimination.
Tom McCabe
Labour
Even with the peculiar behaviour that exudes at times from the boardrooms of Scottish football grounds, board members are not yet guilty of fighting one another on the streets.
A decision was taken by ministers in May 2004 to retain the controls, on the grounds that the current arrangements have worked well and that they would continue to play an essential part in reducing drink-related disorder and maintaining public safety in and around designated events and grounds. Any relaxation would be entirely inconsistent with other key Executive policies.
Although the Nicholson committee suggested that a pilot scheme be set up, the suggestion was rejected following Scottish ministers' careful consideration of the arguments for and against the retention of controls. The decision took into account our policies on alcohol misuse, health improvement, combating antisocial behaviour and maintaining public order and safety. We also took regard of the views that were expressed to and by the Nicholson committee and we consulted the police.
I remind members that the controls are very limited and very specific. The alcohol controls that were imposed under the 1980 act do not apply to non-designated events at a designated ground. For example, they do not apply to rugby league and non-international rugby union matches at Murrayfield or to American football at Hampden. As the Heineken cup final is a European rugby union club competition, it is not a designated event.
Local licensing boards also have the discretion to allow the sale of alcohol inside designated sports grounds for non-designated events. Advice from the police to licensing boards now routinely includes an assessment of the risk to public order and safety for each event or category of event. An example of that approach was the decision to
In light of all that information, the obvious dangers and the very good reasons that lay behind the original introduction of the controls, I ask David Davidson to withdraw Amendment 65.
Murray Tosh
Conservative
I call David Davidson to wind up and ask him to do so quickly.
David Davidson
Conservative
I am grateful to those who see some merit in a pilot. If the Minister were to look at the situation down south at rugby matches, club matches and so on, he would see that very few problems arise. The culture has been changed; at certain sporting events, people have shown that they can be responsible.
Perhaps the minister will acknowledge the fact that no difficulty has arisen at some of the non-designated games at which alcohol was available. I accept that real and practical research has to be done on the subject, but that is the reason why I call for a pilot. The issue is not simply one of moving a problem from the pub down the road into the ground; the measure would dilute the existing problem of people coming straight from a public house to a football match, for example. The minister's blanket approach fails to recognise the fact that in parts of the United Kingdom the problem does not exist. Can we not have a pilot to examine it here?
Murray Tosh
Conservative
5:00,
16 November 2005
The question is, that Amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Murray Tosh
Conservative
There will be a Division.
Division number 9
For: Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Canavan, Dennis, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Johnstone, Alex, Leckie, Carolyn, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Campbell, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Allan
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The term "majority" is used in two ways in Parliament. Firstly a Government cannot operate effectively unless it can command a majority in the House of Commons - a majority means winning more than 50% of the votes in a division. Should a Government fail to hold the confidence of the House, it has to hold a General Election. Secondly the term can also be used in an election, where it refers to the margin which the candidate with the most votes has over the candidate coming second. To win a seat a candidate need only have a majority of 1.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The Speaker is an MP who has been elected to act as Chairman during debates in the House of Commons. He or she is responsible for ensuring that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying out of its business are observed. It is the Speaker who calls MPs to speak, and maintains order in the House. He or she acts as the House's representative in its relations with outside bodies and the other elements of Parliament such as the Lords and the Monarch. The Speaker is also responsible for protecting the interests of minorities in the House. He or she must ensure that the holders of an opinion, however unpopular, are allowed to put across their view without undue obstruction. It is also the Speaker who reprimands, on behalf of the House, an MP brought to the Bar of the House. In the case of disobedience the Speaker can 'name' an MP which results in their suspension from the House for a period. The Speaker must be impartial in all matters. He or she is elected by MPs in the House of Commons but then ceases to be involved in party politics. All sides in the House rely on the Speaker's disinterest. Even after retirement a former Speaker will not take part in political issues. Taking on the office means losing close contact with old colleagues and keeping apart from all groups and interests, even avoiding using the House of Commons dining rooms or bars. The Speaker continues as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituent's letters and problems. By tradition other candidates from the major parties do not contest the Speaker's seat at a General Election. The Speakership dates back to 1377 when Sir Thomas Hungerford was appointed to the role. The title Speaker comes from the fact that the Speaker was the official spokesman of the House of Commons to the Monarch. In the early years of the office, several Speakers suffered violent deaths when they presented unwelcome news to the King. Further information can be obtained from factsheet M2 on the UK Parliament website.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
