Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 23 April 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S4M-12994, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party

I am happy to open this stage 1 debate on the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

I thank my colleague and predecessor Kenny MacAskill, who brought forward the bill last year. I also thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their work in considering the bill.

I was pleased to note from the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report that it supports the general principles of the bill, in particular the licensing of air weapons. I am grateful to that committee for the manner in which it took evidence at stage 1. It invited a wide range of stakeholders to give evidence in the spirit of drawing out changes that will, in line with the aims of the bill, best improve the relevant licensing regime in Scotland. The evidence and the committee’s report have been extremely valuable in helping the Government to reflect on whether we can make further improvements in particular areas, and the committee will have seen my response to its report.

I am pleased to be able to update the wider Parliament by providing an overview of the bill, which is in four parts. Part 1, which covers air weapons, sets out a new licensing regime for air weapons to be administered by Police Scotland. Part 2, which covers alcohol licensing, amends the existing licensing regime for alcohol licensing that is included in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. Part 3, which deals with civic licensing, amends the existing licensing regimes included in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Finally, part 4 sets out general provisions.

I will look at air weapons first. The licensing of air weapons has been on our agenda for quite some time. Our 2007 manifesto set out plans to tackle that, and we reiterated that aim in our 2011 manifesto. Following the Calman commission’s report in 2009, responsibility for the regulation of most air weapons was devolved in the Scotland Act 2012. Kenny MacAskill introduced the bill having chaired a firearms consultative panel of experts and carried out a wider consultation on the principles of licensing.

The aim has been to set out a regime that parallels existing firearms legislation where appropriate and is therefore familiar to the police and to shooters, but which is relatively light touch in its practical application.

The Local Government and Regeneration Committee suggested a few amendments in its stage 1 report. I have already responded to those recommendations, but I would like to mention a couple of the most prominent issues.

The first relates to Police Scotland and the need to smooth the transition workload for the work that it will undertake for the introduction of the licensing. Officials are still discussing that with the police to ensure that the impact of the new regime is minimised as far as possible. We are considering whether that is best achieved by way of an amendment at stage 2 or through regulations under the bill.

The second issue is the proposal to add some form of identifier mark to air weapons to support the certificate system. The Scottish firearms consultative panel agreed at a very early stage that it would be appropriate to license a person rather than the gun itself, and continuing discussions with stakeholders, including Police Scotland and the Gun Trade Association, confirm that there is little or no support for a proposal to mark weapons individually. Such a move would place immense additional burdens on the police, the trade and shooters while doing little to help tackle criminal misuse of air weapons. As a result, I do not intend to lodge at stage 2 amendments to introduce an identifier mark.

On the bill’s alcohol licensing provisions, it was made clear in the consultation that people do not want a root-and-branch review of alcohol licensing legislation. However, certain areas are not working as effectively as they should be and, instead of proposing a radical overhaul of the regime, the bill examines those areas to find ways to improve the existing system. For example, the bill will take forward a commitment made in the 2011 Scottish National Party manifesto and create new offences of giving alcohol or making it available to a child or young person for consumption in a public place. That will allow Police Scotland to address the problem of the drinking dens where vulnerable young people can congregate to share alcohol.

The bill introduces a fit-and-proper test for both premises and personal licence applications, and licensing boards will also be able to consider spent offences. Those changes have been widely called for and will assist licensing boards in ensuring that only those who are fully appropriate can hold such a licence.

With regard to licensing board practice, we have clarified that an overprovision assessment can relate to an entire board area and can take account of licensing hours. We have also considered statements of licensing policy. Despite some very good practice at board level, such statements often fail to have the strategic impact that we had hoped, and as a result we are amending policy statements to ensure that they align better with local government elections. Such a move will encourage a new board to take stock, gather evidence and set a policy statement that reflects its own views and aspirations.

The bill contains a number of fairly technical amendments. For example, it amends the final licensing objective to include young people alongside children. The distinction between “children” and “young persons” can create difficulties for licensing boards in dealing with issues relating to young persons and can mean that issues involving 16 and 17-year-olds cannot be considered in relation to the protecting children objective. The amendment in the bill ensures that licensing boards have the power to consider such issues as part of the licensing objectives. There are also a number of provisions that should be welcomed by the trade, such as the removal of the five-year ban on reapplying for failure to render a personal licence refresher training certificate and the imposition of a duty on boards to report on their income and expenditure.

The bill improves the effectiveness of civic licensing regimes with a variety of reforms across a wide range of areas. For example, the bill will tighten up the licensing of metal dealers to ensure more effective regulation of the industry and to make it more difficult for metal thieves to dispose of stolen metal. It will deliver that objective by ensuring that all dealers are licensed, banning the use of cash as a payment for scrap, tightening record-keeping arrangements and requiring proper identification of customers.

The bill will allow communities to have a greater say over whether lap dancing takes place in their areas by giving local licensing authorities the power to control the number of licences for sexual entertainment venues in particular localities. Central to that proposal is the belief that local communities should be able to exercise appropriate control and regulate sexual entertainment venues that operate within their areas. Local licensing authorities are best placed to reflect the views of the communities that they serve and to determine whether sexual entertainment establishments should be authorised and under what conditions.

The bill simplifies the licensing of theatres by merging it with the public entertainment licensing regime, which will allow some theatres that currently have two licences to operate with a single licence. In addition, the new licensing regime will be more flexible, in that it will replace mandatory licensing with a discretionary system that will allow local licensing authorities to exempt smaller theatres if they so choose.

The bill also aims to bring greater consistency between and within taxi licensing regimes and private hire car licensing regimes. Local authorities are responsible for the taxi and private hire car licensing regimes. They have discretion in applying a local regime that best meets the specific requirements of their local area and can take account of the views of customers and the trade. In general, that local process works well, but we are aware that there have been a number of concerns about the taxi and private hire car licensing regimes for some time. Those concerns were highlighted by stakeholders during informal discussions and were further reinforced during the public consultation exercise.

Specific provisions in the bill include the power to refuse to grant private hire car licences on grounds of overprovision; the extension of driver testing to allow testing of private hire car drivers; and the removal of the contract exemptions from the licensing and regulation of taxis and private hire cars, which will bring hire cars that are used on contracts into the regime.

In part, the provisions acknowledge that, in parts of the country, taxis, private hire cars and contract hire cars are essentially operating in a very similar market. Some of the distinctions that have been made between their modes of operation—for example, the distinction between pre-booked cars and vehicles that use ranks or can be hailed—have been blurred as a result of changes in technology.

In addition to the amendments to specific regimes that are covered by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the bill includes provisions that will have effect across the licensing parts of the 1982 act, the aim of which is to create greater consistency and clarity in the licensing regime.

The bill includes a number of provisions that are aimed at improving the operation of all civic government licensing regimes and clarifying compliance with the European Union services directive. Specific provisions include giving the Scottish ministers the power to make provision for the procedure to be followed at or in connection with hearings.

The bill introduces a new role—that of civic licensing standards officer. Civic licensing standards officers will have broadly the same powers and duties that authorised officers have under the 1982 act, but they will have specific functions in relation to providing information and guidance, checking compliance, providing mediation and taking appropriate action on perceived breaches of conditions to a licence that has been provided under the 1982 act.

I have set out the Government’s thinking on some of the key areas of what is a wide-ranging bill. I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues and to working with the committee as we continue with the bill’s passage through Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. The Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill is an important and necessary piece of proposed legislation.

Before I embark on discussing the core of our deliberations, I will take a moment to set out the key role that licensing plays in Scotland. Licensing assists in preserving public order and safety, reducing crime and advancing public health. I will return to those objectives later, as they were the backdrop to our scrutiny and are fundamental to the recommendations that we made in our report.

Although we recognise the importance of those objectives, few of us consider the relevance of licensing to our daily lives. For those we spoke to, licensing is about their livelihoods, the services that they use and the activities in which they take part. The bill is wide ranging and deals with the complexities of licensing various activities, such as owning or using an air weapon, selling and purchasing alcohol, operating taxis or private hire cars, dealing in scrap metal, holding public entertainment events and running sexual entertainment venues.

Some obvious headline stories emerged from the bill—for example, the creation of two new licensing regimes: one for air weapons and the other for sexual entertainment venues. Both those aims are praiseworthy, but they are not the only stories that we uncovered. I will focus members’ attention on the other, perhaps less immediately obvious, parts of the bill—on topics that I and my colleagues believe are equally worthy of prominence in the debate and which perhaps have a wider impact on those living and working in modern Scotland. Modernity is another key theme that I will explore.

I will talk about how the committee set about the task of scrutinising this diverse bill. The bill was introduced in May last year, which afforded us time over the summer months to issue our call for evidence, which closed at the end of September and received 146 responses. The responses came from a wide section of stakeholder groups such as local authorities, drug and alcohol partnerships, equality organisations, energy and transport providers and the police, to name but a few. We also heard from a wide range of interested individuals.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I understand that, when the committee undertook its scrutiny, Police Scotland was able to give statistics on airgun crime from April to July 2014, but that the figures for the year up to April 2014, unlike those for all previous years, had not been published and had been delayed until autumn this year. Did that give the committee any difficulties in having up-to-date information?

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

We had information and data from a number of years about air weapons offences. We are all far too aware of the deaths and injuries that have taken place and the maiming of animals that has gone on across the country. That information gave us a good guide and is why I and the committee think that the air weapons licensing regime should be put in place.

As I said, we heard from a wide range of individuals and took a wide range of evidence. I thank all those who responded for the part that they played in helping us to examine the bill’s proposals.

Committee members had the opportunity to inform ourselves on the constituent subject areas. We held a number of informal meetings with academics, industry representatives and licensing experts to aid our understanding. I thank former committee members Mark McDonald, Stuart McMillan and Anne McTaggart for their work in exploring the various strands. They put in a huge amount of effort in doing so. While thanking members past, I will also mention the new committee members, as it was Clare Adamson, Cara Hilton and Willie Coffey who picked up the baton and carried it to the finishing line. We held nine themed evidence sessions and heard from the cabinet secretary, culminating in our stage 1 report being unanimously agreed to and published.

Before I move on to the specifics of our scrutiny and recommendations, I will say a little about the committee’s engagement activities. Engagement is a key priority for our committee. We have had close to 4,000 new engagements with ordinary people, over and above the well-kent faces. Many hold views on local government, and people need to be encouraged to share those views with us. Engagement is a long-term relationship in which trust is earned.

We published a promoted Facebook post on taxis and private hire cars in the Highland area because a gap had been identified in the information that we had and we needed to seek further views. That post was shared by 56 people. Our YouTube video on taxis and private hire cars was also a success; it amassed close to 1,000 views, which demonstrates the public’s level of interest in the topic. Comments that we received fed directly into our thinking on the bill proposals.

Responses to our video suggested that, in the minds of users, taxis and private hire cars are to all intents and purposes the same. One of our principal recommendations is that the Scottish Government should consider a full review of all aspects of taxi and hire car licensing because, if a licensing system was being designed now, it would—in our opinion—be implemented differently.

Our experience of engagement has shown us that, to be successful, engagement has to be well targeted, relevant and accessible. People have to feel that they are being listened to, and the value of their comments needs to be demonstrated. Only then will we encourage the quieter voices to enter the discussion.

I preface my comments on our findings by saying that we support moves to license air weapons and to have a separate licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues. We have made a few recommendations on how to improve those proposed regimes, although others may like to comment on those aspects.

I will concentrate on some of our key recommendations concerning the alcohol, taxi and private hire car, and metal dealer provisions. The alcohol provisions in part 2 of the bill contain a number of proposals, but I shall focus on two areas—determining overprovision of alcohol and alcohol licensing objectives. Our recommendations on those areas explicitly link to the overriding objectives of advancing public health and preserving public order and safety.

I will give a little background on overprovision. Licensing policy statements must contain a statement as to whether there is overprovision of licensed premises in any locality in a licensing board’s area. The bill would change the definition of overprovision to enable licensing boards to consider licensed hours as well as the number and capacity of licensed premises. It would also clarify that the whole of a board’s area can be classed as a locality for the purposes of carrying out the assessment. Trade bodies firmly opposed those changes and questioned their proportionality. On the other hand, the police, health boards and alcohol and drug partnerships strongly supported the changes. We support the latter group and would go further in efforts to reduce the harm that alcohol can cause to some.

On licensing statements, we heard suggestions that professional organisers abuse the occasional licence system to evade the requirements for fully licensed premises and that such events add to the overprovision of alcohol in an area. A similar concern was raised about members clubs. Alcohol Focus Scotland observed that, in the Borders,

“22% of all licensed premises are members’ clubs.”

We therefore recommend that club licences and occasional licences must be included when licensing boards assess provision.

Given the overwhelming evidence that we received of harm and links to disorder from overconsumption, we also recommend that an additional licensing objective be added to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to include the reduction of alcohol consumption.

We spoke to a number of organisations and individuals involved in the taxi and private hire car trade and to those who license it. Changes in the market from the advent of hire car booking apps must take place in a framework that recognises the fundamental principle that licensed drivers in licensed vehicles are the ones who folk can safely use. We want to ensure that the public know that when they call, hail or use an app to get a car, they are entering a licensed vehicle with a licensed driver. Further reasons for licensing include the delivery of an accessible, reliable and affordable service to customers while preventing opportunities for criminal activity. Police Scotland told us that regulation

“ensures that legitimate business thrives and provides opportunity to prevent organised crime groups from gaining a foothold in this industry.”

Licensing of metal dealers is extremely important. Metal theft is not a victimless crime and we have heard that it not only costs people a great deal of money but has created dangers. We must ensure that the maximum penalty for breaching licensing conditions is uprated from the current sum of £5,000.

I hope that my speech provided a flavour of the range of issues that the committee encountered in scrutinising the bill and that it set out some of the areas of the bill that we wish to be strengthened. Licensing is important to the lives of us all: it keeps us safe, cares for our health and reduces the opportunity for crime in our communities. I commend the committee’s stage 1 report to the Parliament.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

Labour supports the principles that are set out in the policy memorandum to the bill. We will support the bill at stage 1 today, and we are keen to work with the Government to agree any stage 2 amendments that we think can improve the bill as it progresses to stage 3.

I put on record our thanks to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its work in scrutinising what is a lengthy and complex bill with many different parts, all of which are important in their own right. I wonder whether lumping together all those areas of licensing and trying to come up with improvements—often by adding to previous legislation that is outdated—is the best way to make legislation.

The policy memorandum states:

“The principal policy objectives of this Bill are to strengthen and improve aspects of locally led alcohol and civic government licensing in order to preserve public order and safety, reduce crime, and to advance public health. This is being achieved through reforms to the existing systems to alcohol licensing, taxi and private hire car licensing, metal dealer licensing and; giving local communities a new power to regulate sexual entertainment venues in their areas.”

In the time that I have available this afternoon, I cannot possibly cover everything that has been packed into the bill, but it is worth drawing to members’ attention some of the views that arose in the evidence that the committee received.

The committee’s report states:

“The Bill is what could be described as a ‘pick and mix’”.

I am not sure that that is the best way to deal with all the matters that the Government wants to address, and I believe that a future Government will have to return to some aspects of the bill sooner rather than later.

The minister told the committee that he had no plans to review the 1982 act fundamentally, as it was reviewed only about 10 years ago and found to be fit for purpose. However, the practitioners, who are out there on the front line dealing with the legislation daily, had something different to say.

The Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland licensing group said:

“We would re-iterate that the Act is now 30 years old and it is becoming increasingly difficult to address modern business activity within the structure of the Act.”

The City of Edinburgh Council said that

“continued amendment of the Act is not helpful”, and one of the council’s officers told the committee that

“the 1982 act has probably passed its sell-by date.”

Glasgow City Council agreed, and one of its officials told the committee that

“Any change would have to be substantial. I am teetering on the brink of saying that I do not think that enough amendments could be made to the bill to address the issues. The fundamental issue is that the 1982 act has been in place for more than 30 years. It has served its purpose; it has had its time. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, in line with the 2005 act, and to set out an entirely different framework for how we approach licensing”.

I suggest to the minister that he should look again at the evidence that was given on those provisions of the bill. The Glasgow City Council official suggested that

“Parliament would have to go right back to the beginning and start again with the 1982 act, so that it could pass legislation that is fit for purpose in a modern Scotland.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 18 February 2015; c 2, 6.]

I know that the SNP has a majority and can pass what it wants, but it is important that we get it right. Too many voices are suggesting that we cannot keep amending 30-year-old legislation if we are to do what is best for Scotland, and I would want to take up that issue with the minister.

I move on to the proposals for air weapons. As the committee’s report said, there are two camps on the proposals: those for and those against. Labour will support the proposals and the principle of the policy memorandum, which we believe the bill achieves, to recognise the need to protect and reassure the public in a way that is proportionate and practical. I am pleased to note that the Government supports many of the points that the committee made and will make sure that there is plenty of publicity in the lead-up to the legislation coming into effect and that those who no longer need an airgun are encouraged to hand in those weapons. As I said, we have heard the arguments from both sides of the debate, but for me the evidence shows clearly that the legislation is the right thing to do.

We believe that the introduction of a licence for sexual entertainment venues is necessary, as no adequate regulation is in place. The bill will empower local authorities to determine whether such venues can operate in their areas, which is a step in the right direction. Representations have been made and the committee has made specific recommendations that I hope will be implemented at stage 2.

We will want to explore with the Government other concerns and possible amendments for stage 2 that have been raised by groups such as Zero Tolerance, which include the issue of not allowing under-18s to work in such venues. The committee looked at that and I know that the minister did not think that the bill could address it, but we would like further discussion with him about that. The fact that the bill does not provide for a fit-and-proper-person test for a licensee of a sexual entertainment venue has been raised as an issue, and we would welcome further discussion of that.

There is no provision in the bill to restrict the signage and advertising of sexual entertainment venues. Again, we would like further discussion of that. There is no provision for community consultation on the granting of sexual entertainment venue licences. In line with the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which the committee looked at, we should explore that area further.

There is no provision in the bill on licensing fees. There is a view that they should be much higher than those for running a venue that is open to all sections of society, such as a cafe or a pub. Many English and Welsh local authorities have imposed high fees since their new sexual entertainment venue regime came into force. For example, Birmingham City Council charges more than £6,200 for a sexual entertainment venue licence, whereas a skin-piercing licence costs £87, and Manchester City Council charges £4,425 for a sexual entertainment venue licence, whereas a cafe licence starts from around £100. The argument has been made that we should look again at the cost of licences and at whether sexual entertainment venues should pay a higher licensing fee.

The bill does not require a licensing policy statement; that is discretionary. We would prefer it to be mandatory, so that a licensing committee could make a public statement about its intentions for the licensing of sexual entertainment venues and its understanding of the wider policy environment in which they operate. Again, we would like to discuss that with the minister. I hope that we can have a dialogue with him on all those matters over the coming weeks.

On the changes to the licensing of taxis, we heard evidence from taxi operators, the Scottish Taxi Federation and licensing boards, all of which were fairly positive about the proposals. I have written to operators in my constituency and will meet them soon to get their take on where we are at.

The bill’s scrap metal proposals will bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, which is important, as there are no borders when it comes to the theft of such materials. Metal thefts threaten public safety and cause a huge amount of disruption to the energy supply, transport, communication and other industries that people rely on. Labour supports the bill’s proposals on that issue.

I have highlighted certain issues and I hope that we can all work together to strengthen aspects of the bill at stages 2 and 3. I hope that the minister will consider the fairly overwhelming evidence from practitioners on the 1982 act.

Photo of Cameron Buchanan Cameron Buchanan Conservative

The Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill covers a wide range of matters. As such, consideration of a broad range of principles is required, and I will touch on some of them.

Before I venture into the specific details, I will first set out two overarching principles that underpin our position. The first is that legislation should be passed only when it is considered to be good government, not just when it is thought by some to be good politics. Secondly, legislation should be targeted. Law-abiding people should not find themselves caught under a legislative net just because it is politically expedient for the Government to impose obligations.

The area of the bill concerning airguns—or “air weapons”, as the Government wants to call them—raises concerns both in principle and in practice. The bill seems partly to be about looking tough, rather than sensibly tackling pressing issues. Indeed, crimes involving airguns fell by 75 per cent between 2006 and 2013—a figure that surely indicates that the problem of misuse is receding rather than growing. No doubt some people will want to intervene at this point to say that criminal misuse of airguns should be tackled whether or not those levels are falling. I absolutely agree on that point, but making a big show of requiring the licensing of all airguns is not a sensible way of going about it. It may gather less attention, but better enforcement of existing legislation would be a targeted and better act of government.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

Does Mr Buchanan recognise that we are talking not about the licensing of individual weapons but about the licensing of individuals, and that, in the course of the committee’s deliberations, we heard about cases of maimings? We heard about a serious incident in Durham, and there have of course been deaths in the past. Does he not think that individuals who have those weapons should have to be licensed before they can get them?

Photo of Cameron Buchanan Cameron Buchanan Conservative

Is there any evidence that licensing will reduce those instances? I am not sure about that. Some people will want to intervene but, at any rate, criminal misuse of airguns should be tackled whether or not the levels of misuse are falling. As I said, I agree with the point, but making a show of licensing all airguns is not a sensible way of going about it. It may gather less attention, but better enforcement of existing legislation would be a targeted and better act of government.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

The member has again fallen into the same trap about the licensing of individual weapons. We are not talking about the licensing of each individual weapon; we are talking about the licensing of people who own those weapons. We have to get that right.

Photo of Cameron Buchanan Cameron Buchanan Conservative

Yes, I know that—thank you very much.

Making everyone who wants to own or use an airgun apply for a licence is certainly not targeted. Why should innocent users who want to shoot for sport be forced to go through a cumbersome licensing process that charges for the privilege? I for one consider that, when there is a problem, a Government should seek to address it without imposing itself unnecessarily. Lazily casting the legislative net over every current and potential airgun user certainly breaches that principle, which is particularly worrying when the problem in question is confined to a tiny minority of users.

Furthermore, a vast new airgun licensing regime would bring practical difficulties. We estimate that, at the moment, there are around 500,000 airguns in Scotland, which are untraceable to all intents and purposes. For Police Scotland to license and track them would be very difficult—although I know that that is not proposed—and the people who are using those airguns will go under cover.

This question is crucial: is it in the public’s best interests to invest police time and resources on licensing airguns—or licensing people to use airguns—when Police Scotland increasingly faces budgetary constraints and pressures on its staffing infrastructure? Most people would think not.

I move on to the alcohol licensing provisions. First, I agree that overconsumption of alcohol is a very serious problem, which must be addressed. I also think that it is useful to clarify the licensing boards’ powers so as to avoid confusion or uncertainty in future. However, it is important that aspiring small business owners do not face unnecessary barriers to entry that their competitors do not have to face.

On a similar note, I remain concerned about licensing authorities’ potential power to refuse to grant a licence for a private hire vehicle on the grounds of overprovision. That is anti-competitive and simply not in the best interests of the people whom we should be helping: the consumers. Greater provision of private hire vehicles would allow more people to access that form of transport than ever before. However, this Government proposes to erect barriers to entry that would block consumer benefits, as well as prevent the creation of jobs in an expanding industry.

The mechanism to allow licensing authorities to require knowledge tests for drivers of private hire vehicles has a similar effect. I do not think that knowledge tests are necessary with the advent of TomTom, Garmin and satellite navigation. Furthermore, regulatory barriers to entry will restrict the industry’s growth, which will cost jobs and act against consumers’ interests. I will always maintain that Government should support innovation and refuse to protect vested interests from fair competition that they find inconvenient.

Having said all that, I am in agreement with some areas of the bill. The removal of the requirement for metal dealerships to hold metal for 48 hours before processing it is a welcome example of Government stepping back and removing costly regulation. On a visit to William Waugh scrap metal recyclers in Granton, I saw the large amount of space—and therefore expense—required to comply with that law. The provisions prohibiting payment in cash will also help to increase transparency, which will be beneficial provided that the definitions are clear.

As for the provisions on theatres, they may bring increased flexibility and consistency across the licensing of public entertainment venues, which would be welcome.

In a bill of so many parts, of which some are sensible, it would have been beneficial if the bill had been divided into two, as Alex Rowley stated.

It is clear that the bill will need to be amended substantially at the next legislative stage. As a result, I will lodge amendments at stage 2 that will seek to apply the principle of sensible, targeted government throughout the bill. Accordingly, I hope that the debate will draw out into the open the key areas of the bill in which work is still needed. I have touched on some aspects; my colleagues may come on to others.

On some aspects, such as the licensing of airguns, a considerable change in policy is required. However, I reiterate my view that some of the bill’s provisions appear to be sensible. From that position, I will seek to amend the bill to make its overall impact targeted, beneficial and fair.

The Scottish Conservatives will abstain when voting at decision time.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

As the committee convener mentioned, I came somewhat late to the bill, having joined the committee in November last year. However, I pay tribute to the many witnesses who contributed to the stage 1 proceedings whether by appearing before the committee or providing written evidence. I also thank the many organisations and stakeholders that submitted briefings for today’s proceedings.

It has been mentioned that the bill is broad and diverse, and that many topics fall within its remit. I suspect that I will not be able to cover all the areas in the bill, although I hope to link them because my main concern is about safety. Every committee member and everyone in the chamber wants to see safer and healthier communities. I am sure that we all agree that that is the outcome that we would want from the intended changes.

I thought that there was more consensus on the committee. I am surprised that the Conservatives have chosen to abstain in the vote, because all committee members agreed the stage 1 report. Indeed, there did not seem to be much contention about it at the time.

Photo of Cameron Buchanan Cameron Buchanan Conservative

Unfortunately, due to my relatively limited parliamentary experience, I did not realise the full implications of my acquiescence at stage 1, which was why I agreed to the bill.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

Thank you for that explanation, Mr Buchanan.

Alex Rowley talked about the bill’s complexity and said that bringing together so many items was a mistake. His point reminded me of an old joke about a traveller who, when seeking directions from a local, was met with the response, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here.” We are here. We do not have a blank sheet of paper. We must work within the constraints, the capacities and the existing law in this place and at the local government level. How the Government has presented the bill is possibly the only way forward to address the serious issues in it.

Despite some of the comments that have been made this afternoon, I think that the bill proposes a proportionate and reasonable approach to airgun licensing. We cannot forget where it has come from. Few of us will forget the two-year-old boy, Andrew Morton, who was killed in Glasgow, or his parents’ campaign to have the issue of airgun licensing addressed in Scotland. I believe that that campaign was a nominee for, if not the winner of, one of the press awards in the year following Andrew’s death. Individual tragic cases such as that, which show that the system is completely inadequate to protect our communities, have driven us to where we are at the moment.

We now have the right balance between protecting communities and allowing the legitimate use of shooting in a safe environment to continue. We have taken evidence from scouting organisations, from people who work with airguns in their day-to-day lives, and from apprentices, and the bill strikes the right balance for what is in the best interests of our communities.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I totally agree that the type of crime to which Clare Adamson referred is utterly unacceptable in any society, but can she tell me what evidence she heard at the committee that suggests that a regime to license the people who own airguns would prevent that sort of crime? I simply cannot find that sort of evidence.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

I was at the committee when the police gave evidence and spoke of their frustration at their inability to address airguns in premises where they suspected that other crimes had been committed. Whether that is domestic abuse, drug crime or any other kind of crime in our community, the inability to do anything about airguns being present in those areas is a concern, so I found the police evidence compelling.

The Scottish firearms consultative panel estimates that there are 500,000 air weapons currently in circulation in Scotland. One of them is in my loft and has been for the past 20 years, and I believe that that is the case with most such weapons. They have been bought for recreational use at some point. My husband and his father were both scout leaders and used the gun to train scouts, but nonetheless the weapon remains in circulation. The amnesty period, and the opportunity for people to hand in weapons that are no longer in use, will make our communities safer.

I am running out of time, but I want to turn to metal dealers, metal theft and what that means to our communities. I represent the Auchengeich area of Moodiesburn and was appalled that, after all the fundraising that had been done by the local community and miners there to make a memorial to the Auchengeich disaster of 1959, the memorial was stolen within a matter of weeks. That was a real emotional blow to the community and one that was felt by everyone from an industrial background in the Lanarkshire area. The memorial was replaced, thanks to a generous donation from a local businessman, but when things affect our built heritage, our memorials, the fabric of our communities and our historic buildings, it has a detrimental effect that cannot be measured—whether it is the theft of lead from a church roof, the destruction of an historic building or indeed the theft of memorials, which is happening more and more.

We must look at the often disproportionate impact on the economy of an area where the value of the metal theft is as nothing to the disruption to infrastructure such as telecommunications or rail and road infrastructure. I am glad that that is being addressed in the bill.

I am not sure whether I have much time left, Presiding Officer.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

I shall just mention the taxi app situation. There was a lot of talk about the changes in technology and, as a technologist, I was interested in that. Only last week, there was a case of alleged crime in Edinburgh, in which a young woman got into what she thought was a private hire car and was taken away and sexually assaulted. When we put safety at the very heart of what we are doing, we should look to the opportunities of apps, some of which provide a picture of the driver and the licence of the car that is picking someone up, as well as tracking the journey. Although such apps are seen as a threat in some areas, I think that there is a great opportunity to improve safety, which will be driven by the market.

Photo of Cara Hilton Cara Hilton Labour

I add my thanks to everyone who has contributed to getting the bill to this stage and who has provided us with excellent evidence and briefings. Like Clare Adamson, I am new to the committee—I joined in January—so I missed some of the evidence that was received.

As Alex Rowley said, Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1 but, as he also pointed out, the bill is so wide ranging that it might have been more effective to have several smaller bills rather than tagging everything together.

I intend to focus on section 68 of the bill, which I believe needs to be strengthened considerably. In his briefing for today’s debate, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Tam Baillie, has drawn our attention to the fact that the bill as drafted would allow children under the age of 18 to work in sexual entertainment venues, as long as there is no actual entertainment taking place at the time. Zero Tolerance has expressed serious concerns about the provision and has warned that it could create a groomers charter, allowing venues to employ teenage girls to work as cleaners, for example, and to then persuade them to become dancers when they reach 18. It also highlights the fact that many of those venues screen pornography in the background, which gives rise to concerns about child protection.

During stage 1 evidence, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice advised that those issues could not be addressed within the scope of the bill, but Zero Tolerance and the Commissioner for Children and Young People disagree. I share the view that no child under the age of 18 should be allowed to work in or attend a sexual entertainment venue in any capacity. I hope that the Scottish Government will look again at this area to see how we can protect young people more.

In respect of the proposed regime, although there is no doubt that sticking to the status quo simply is not an option, and Scottish Labour supports change in principle, we need to consider carefully whether the bill could have unintended consequences. There is a real risk that, in licensing these venues, the Scottish Government could end up normalising a harmful form of sexual exploitation. As Zero Tolerance pointed out in its briefing note for today’s debate,

“if we are to move beyond women’s value and worth being located in their bodies and their perceived sexual attractiveness, we need to move beyond seeing sexual entertainment venues as normal and harmless.”

That view is echoed by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, who has said that the idea that children could be working in these venues and exposed to degrading images of women simply does not sit well with the Scottish Government’s strategy, equally safe, to end violence against women and girls. The strategy rightly places at its heart recognition of the links between discrimination, objectification and violence against women. It aspires to

“create a strong and flourishing Scotland where all individuals are equally safe and respected”.

However, normalising such venues risks sending out the wrong message to young people and especially to young girls. We only need to look at the customer reviews of the venues to get a real flavour of the lack of respect that the clientele have for the women who work there.

There is a risk that, by regulating the sector, we could end up expanding an industry that is harmful to women and is especially harmful to our children, undermining all the work that has been done to address unequal power relationships, tackle gender stereotypes and achieve true gender equality. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be favourable to the section being amended at stage 2.

Sticking to the theme of protecting children and young people from harmful sexual images, another area in which I believe that the bill could go much further is in the restriction of the display of harmful sexualised content in areas where children could see it, such as on supermarket shelves. I would like to highlight the fantastic girl guides campaign, girls matter, which is aimed at ensuring that the issues that matter to girls are addressed in the 2015 general election campaign. Although in recent months we have spent many an hour arguing about full fiscal autonomy and about which of us is the most anti austerity, the girls matter campaign calls for politicians to take action on the issues that really matter to children and young girls. One of the key issues on which it asks politicians of all parties to take action is children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content in the media.

Photo of Cara Hilton Cara Hilton Labour

I have no time, sorry.

The issue is absolutely vital, because the campaign’s research has found that 75 per cent of girls and young women aged 11 to 21 and 48 per cent of seven to 10-year-olds believe that there are too many images of naked or nearly naked women in the media; that the majority of young girls—almost 60 per cent—have experienced sexual harassment at school, college or work in the past year; and that a staggering 40 per cent of them say that they sometimes feel ashamed of how they look and that they do not take part in fun activities like sport because they are self-conscious. Given the images that girls are exposed to on a daily basis, on YouTube, in music videos and in magazines and newspapers, is it any wonder that so many of them feel pressure to conform to ideals that are often unachievable?

That does not just undermine girls’ self-esteem; the harsh reality is that the way that women are portrayed in the media and at such venues entrenches gender inequality and the unequal power relationships that are at the root of abuse and violence against women and girls. I do not want my six-year-old daughter to grow up in a Scotland where women are viewed as sexualised objects or where women are judged on how they look. I want my daughter to grow up in a society in which gender is no barrier to success and where every child is treated as equal. It is time that we started to take responsibility for making sure that the images of women and young girls that are portrayed in the media are realistic, and we have the opportunity to do that here and now, in the bill.

We could make it an offence to knowingly display harmful sexualised content on the front pages of magazines and newspapers that are within children’s sight. I intend to submit amendments on such a measure at stage 2. The bill also gives us scope to put in place restrictions on signage advertising sexual entertainment venues. The cabinet secretary referred to that in his letter to the committee, and I hope that we can make progress on the issue.

We all aspire to a Scotland in which equality is not just an aspiration but a reality, and we should use the powers in the bill to make that happen. Let us show that girls really do matter and ensure that their voices are heard. We must do all that we can in the bill to tackle the exploitation of women and girls wherever and whenever it takes place.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I have indicated that there is a little bit of time in hand for interventions. It is, of course, up to members whether they want to take interventions. However, I suggest that, if they do not, they should try to stick to their six minutes.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I apologise for being a minute late at the start of proceedings. I have no good reason at all for that; my legs just did not get me here quickly enough.

I have some sympathy with the cabinet secretary in respect of his responsibilities for licensing. I had responsibility for a licensing bill back in 2005, and I recall that the best advice that I received on how to understand the extent of the problem of overprovision as part of the issues that the Government was dealing with was very simple. It came from the most senior civil servant in the department and it was to spend as much time as I could in the bars of Glasgow and Edinburgh at 1 o’clock on a Saturday night. That was not exactly the advice that I expected to get from a senior civil servant, but I nevertheless considered it very carefully.

I also spent a lot of time with a Strathclyde Police division looking at what happened at 3 am on a Sunday morning and how it dealt with that. I still recall in some detail the night that I was out with that division. The incidents were few and far between. When we went back to the police headquarters for the briefing after the evening to look at how the division had handled various incidents, to review what had happened and to discuss where it knew there were and were not flashpoints, it was interesting to reflect on the number of incidents that had taken place. In some ways, nothing changes in Scotland. We are still dealing with such things.

I heard the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks about making an overprovision assessment across an entire board area. In passing, it strikes me that that will create significant issues. I am sure that the committee will reflect on that at stage 2. I recall some of the debate from some years back, and the trade certainly will reflect on that.

I have sympathy with the argument that Alex Rowley made on the bill being, in effect, a consolidated one. I seem to recall Westminster always being criticised for producing consolidated bills for Scotland. We seem to do quite a lot of that in Edinburgh nowadays.

There is some merit in the argument that a number of members across the chamber have put forward that something as clear-cut as air weapons deserves a piece of legislation in its own right. The licensing aspects that the cabinet secretary has introduced clearly have a common theme and there is a common area of responsibility. There could have been tidier legislation by dealing with matters in that way, not least for the reasons that Mr Rowley gave. There are arguments about the lengths of some of the regimes that have been in place and how they should be assessed.

I want to make some remarks on the air weapons licensing proposals, particularly from a rural perspective. I do not think that anyone disputes that there are problems with the ownership and inappropriate use of airguns. I believe—and the evidence supports this—that there are a greater number of such incidents in urban Scotland than there are in rural and island areas. However, in justifying the bill’s proposals, the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice and, indeed, the previous Cabinet Secretary for Justice have quite rightly mentioned well-publicised incidents in which young children have been hurt by the completely wrong use of an airgun. Those cases are appalling and have rightly been condemned, but they have also been prosecuted through the laws of Scotland that we already have. That point has to be borne in mind.

The question, therefore, is whether the proposed introduction of blanket restrictions will have a significant impact on individuals and practices that currently present absolutely no risk to public safety. That fact should be taken into account in any careful consideration of this matter. Moreover, as I understand it, these measures will not be much of a deterrent—if any deterrent at all—to those who are intent on acting irresponsibly. The cabinet secretary might say that the same argument could apply to many things, and he would be right; however, I think that when we bandy about terms such as “proportionality”—as we always do in these kinds of debates—there is a requirement on us all to make a judgment on these matters instead of jumping to the highest or lowest common denominator, depending on how you view a particular argument.

There is a greater risk for Government with regard to the licensing regime. I understand from experts that low-powered airguns would be subject to a higher level of restriction than double-barrelled 12-bore shotguns and even smooth-bore cannon. I am not arguing that there will be a sudden upsurge in the use of smooth-bore cannon but, as the evidence to the committee during its consideration of the bill and indeed to members in recent days suggests, it could be argued that, as a result of the bill, individuals might be allowed to trade up to more powerful weapons. That would be a perverse and bad outcome that neither I nor the Government would want.

I appreciate that the Government is under pressure to act. Ministers are always under pressure to do something in response to an incident, particularly the kind of tragic incident that has happened in the past, but Government is also about making a hard assessment of alternatives. I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to consider two things. First—and I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary mentioned this, but it was certainly mentioned by other members—it is thought that there are 500,000 airguns in Scotland, and an amnesty would take an awful lot of them out of circulation. Indeed, Clare Adamson, who is no longer in the chamber, told us that there is still a gun in the loft of her family home. I am sure that there are many such cases across Scotland, and an amnesty would, as in other circumstances, be a positive way of reducing the sheer number of guns in Scotland.

Secondly, I strongly advocate educating young people about firearms. The PlayStation and online games that my boys play invariably involve guns, and our national news is dominated at the moment not just by politics but by reports of people drowning in the Mediterranean while trying to escape from Libya, where there is no rule of law, only the rule of the gun. There is no doubt that young people are influenced by what they see on television, by the reporting of such events and by what they read online, and I believe that parents and schools absolutely have a responsibility to talk about guns and the reality of what they can mean.

The Government is rightly concerned about public safety, but the crime statistics suggest that the number of incidents involving air weapons is small and falling. Indeed, the evidence to the committee was very clear about that. I could contrast that situation, as others have, with knife crime, which is running at significantly higher levels. No one is suggesting that we should license the possession of kitchen knives—that would plainly be ludicrous—but the fact is that it is easier to buy any kind of blade. As a crofter in Shetland put it to me the other day, more murders happen as a result of knife crime than will ever happen as a result of airguns, and I ask the Government to bear that proportionality argument in mind in introducing this licensing legislation.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and the attention that it has paid to all the submissions, including mine, in what has been an arduous and at times emotional task. The committee has taken evidence on air weapons, the supply of alcohol, taxi licences, metal theft and sexual entertainment venues, and I thank the clerks for the work that they have carried out for the committee and for me as part of the process.

I am not a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee but, for many years now, I have taken an interest in the effects of the sexual entertainment industry on women and girls and the wider public’s perception of the matter, particularly men’s perception of women as a result of exploitation, and I welcome the fact that the regulation of venues such as lap-dancing clubs that offer sexual entertainment has been included in the bill. In 2005, the Government of the time—in which, as Tavish Scott has just pointed out, he was a minister—set up a working group on adult entertainment following concerns that were expressed about the lack of controls on adult entertainment activity.

The working group recommended that sexual entertainment should be regulated, but no such regulation was introduced. In 2010, I sought to amend the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill to that effect. Although my amendment was supported by the Scottish Government at stage 3 of that bill’s consideration, the Parliament did not agree to it. To say that I was disappointed is an understatement.

Undeterred, I have continued to pursue the issue, and I thank the Scottish Government for incorporating that amendment, which has been worked on since 2010, into this bill. I welcome the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s comments on that and other issues. I am very pleased that such so-called entertainment is to be regulated and licensed. Mairi Millar of Glasgow City Council said:

“it strikes me that we have licensing legislation and regulations to cover everything from window cleaning to selling burgers from a van or selling chewing gum at 3 o’clock in the morning under late hours catering regulations, but adult entertainment activity is currently not regulated.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 14 January 2015; c 17.]

I could not put it better myself. I think that it is high time that such activity was regulated.

I was struck by some of the examples that other members have given in relation to the licensing of adult entertainment, and I want to give a couple of examples of my own. Not far from here, a lady who works in an adult entertainment venue was attacked while she was walking along the street with her child. The person by whom she was accosted and attacked was someone who had been a customer in that venue. It was disgraceful that she was attacked in that way while she was going about her local business. What does that say about such venues?

I have also been contacted by women who work for corporate businesses who have been denied promotion because they refused to take to sexual entertainment premises corporate clients who had flown in or come up from other areas. Sexual entertainment venues must be regulated, not only because of the effect that they have on how women are perceived, which other members have commented on, but because, as Elaine Murray said, it is not the case that they are good for attracting businesses. It is disgraceful that women in corporate companies are being discriminated against because they will not take clients to such premises.

I turn to some of the recommendations that the committee made in its report, particularly on the issue of having an appropriate number of sexual entertainment venues and of whether to have a discretionary or a mandatory regime. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide guidance to licensing authorities on what constitutes an appropriate number of venues, as the committee recommended. I note the committee’s recommendation that the licensing of sexual entertainment venues should be mandatory, but my original proposal, which the Scottish Government has incorporated in the bill, was for an opt-in system. It is a fact that only four or five local authorities operate such entertainment licences. The Scottish Government has indicated that it thinks that an opt-in system that gives local authorities a choice is sufficient. I agree with Elaine Murray’s view that local authorities are best placed to decide just how many licences they should have in their area.

A number of other issues have been raised, such as that of under-18s working in such clubs. I do not know what kind of work they would be doing, or whether it would be against EU regulations to prevent people between the ages of 16 and 18 from being able to work as cleaners or whatever in such premises. I would like that to be looked at, because it is important to consider the people who hang about in such clubs, whether within or outwith working hours. I also want to raise the issue of a fit and proper person. Both those issues should be looked at.

On the recommendation that there be a single body to deal with SEVs, as I will refer to them, alcohol and advertising, I am worried that if we went down that road, it might take longer to set up a new regulatory body and to legislate for that. I think that we have waited long enough for legislation to tackle sexual entertainment, which objectifies women. I am concerned that, if we went down that road, everything might have to be thrown out and we might need to start again. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could pick up on that or it could be looked at at stage 2.

Certainly, the bill is a step forward. Everybody has said that they will support the bill and I hope that it makes it through stages 2 and 3. We must ensure that women are no longer objectified by this form of so-called sexual entertainment.

Photo of Jayne Baxter Jayne Baxter Labour

The bill is wide ranging and far reaching, and it is important that it is subject to scrupulous scrutiny in the Parliament. The scale of the bill’s ambition, however, leads me to believe that it would have been far better if it had been divided into smaller parts, so that each area could have been scrutinised as closely as possible. The provisions in the bill could easily have formed the larger part of several bills. When the Scottish Government considers issues of this significance in future, it should deal with them in discrete bills, to ensure that the Parliament’s legislation is as robust and effective as possible.

The licensing of the ownership of air weapons is a hugely important topic. I am sure each of us can recall the tragic cases that have been in the news over the years of air weapons leading to deaths and serious injuries. The approach adopted in the bill is therefore to be broadly supported. It is important that we keep in mind that there are some, albeit very limited, reasons for people to own and use air weapons. Shooting sports are as legitimate as any other and we should avoid stigmatising people who choose to participate in them. We must, however, remember that air weapons are weapons. We cannot allow further tragedies to take place across Scotland involving air weapons. I am pleased that there is cross-party agreement on this topic—or at least there was until today’s debate. I hope that we can get that cross-party agreement back.

As the committee noted, it is important that there is a well-funded and well-implemented publicity campaign across the country to ensure that all those affected by the changes that are contained in this long and fairly technical bill are aware of the implications of the new regime. Many people own an air weapon and no other form of firearm and might therefore be unaware of the conditions for applying for and holding a firearms certificate.

We would all agree that the current regime for the regulation of adult entertainment venues is inadequate. The question that is central to the bill is whether it goes far enough. I agree entirely with the principle of leaving to local authorities the last word on whether an adult entertainment venue receives a licence. As a former councillor, I believe that it is important that democratic accountability on a ward level combined with councillors’ experience in making various quasi-judicial decisions is utilised in relation to such venues. Local authorities currently can decide only whether an adult entertainment venue is permitted a licence for the provision of alcohol. It is only proper that local authorities are empowered to evaluate whether such venues should be allowed in the first place. I endorse Elaine Murray’s comments about extending that power to cover other sorts of venues such as betting shops and perhaps payday loan shops.

There are those who would like the bill to go much further, and those voices should be heard in the bill’s future stages. The bill deals with an important moral question and we should strive to ensure that those with strong feelings on the topic are able to put forward their case. We should also examine the apparent loophole regarding holding fewer than four events of an adult nature a year. If the legislation can be circumvented with such ease, it is hardly worth implementing in the first place.

I turn to the bill’s proposed changes to alcohol licensing. The abuse of alcohol is an enormous problem right across the country. Scottish Government-funded research has estimated that the costs of alcohol misuse in Scotland are somewhere between £2,883 million and £5,396 million per year. It is imperative, therefore, that our licensing scheme is appropriate, robust and effective. The bill seeks to amend fairly old legislation. It would have been preferable for the Scottish Government to introduce a less piecemeal and more fundamental set of reforms for alcohol licensing in Scotland. We should look more broadly at how effective the current regime is across the country. Future Governments will have to examine the issue in a more fundamental way, sooner or later.

The remainder of the bill deals with a series of highly specific forms of licensing. I return to my previous point that the bill is far too broad for us to properly scrutinise all its provisions, but I will briefly mention two key elements of the remainder of the bill.

The taxi licensing scheme has always been predicated on the idea that taxis have a significant business advantage, as they are able to accept bookings on the spot. However, that benefit has been reduced by the near-universal use of mobile phones. It is widely accepted that most journeys of this nature are now pre-booked. It appears that that trend is set to continue with the advent of taxi-booking mobile phone apps.

Those technological advances call into question the entire approach that has been adopted for the licensing of taxis in Scotland. Recognising that, however, we can still say that the specific provisions that are contained in the bill are acceptable and should be approved by the Parliament.

The proposed changes to the regulation of scrap metal dealing also seem sensible. They are very similar to the approach that has been adopted in England, which seems to work well. With that in mind, I see no reason to oppose the changes that the bill proposes.

All in all, the bill seems acceptable in principle. As it is technical and applies to many specialist groups, it is important that the Scottish Government listens closely to the concerns and advice of experts in the relevant fields, campaigners and businesses affected by the proposed changes. The Law Society of Scotland in particular has raised several concerns regarding various aspects of the legislation. The Scottish Government should pay close attention to those concerns and amend the legislation accordingly.

The bill deals with several key topics. It is important that we get the level of regulation on them right. Additionally, it is important that we ensure that when such questions are considered in the future, we are able to consider them in greater detail and, where appropriate, in separate legislation.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

I call Stewart Stevenson, to be followed by John Wilson. You have a generous six minutes.

Photo of John Wilson John Wilson Independent

I come to the debate as the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s deputy convener. I sat through many committee evidence sessions, and pay tribute to our witnesses as well as to the many individuals who made submissions during our stage 1 consideration of the bill.

Like other members, I will talk about the sections that I think are of importance, which is not to say that every section is not important.

On air weapons, which, in part, lend their name to the bill, this Parliament has only been able to legislate in the area following the transfer of powers under section 10 of the Scotland Act 2012. It took too long to give Parliament that legal competence.

When the bill talks about air weapons, it is not talking about all air weapons, as we do not have the competence to license all air weapons. The power to license certain air weapons will continue to be held by the UK Government. Those weapons are defined as handguns that can fire above six foot pounds and rifles that can discharge at 12 foot pounds. We must ensure that, when we roll out the legislation, individuals are aware of the distinction that exists between air weapons, that those that are seen to be “specially dangerous” will still come under Westminster’s jurisdiction, and that we will have the right to regulate and legislate on and to license only air weapons that are below those limits.

We must also bear in mind the committee’s discussions on the cost of licensing—the individual, not the weapon; the committee convener quite rightly said that we are not licensing weapons. Firearms and shotguns are registered because they have registration marks, but air weapons do not have such marks. Firearms and shotguns must be registered by the licence holder against a certificate. Under the licensing regime in the bill, it is the individual who will be licensed, not the air weapon that they hold.

On the suggested fees, there has been discussion about what someone would be charged to become a licence holder. Westminster is considering the fee for a firearm or shotgun licence, which currently sits at £50, and I am sure that it will return to the issue after 7 May. However, the figure that is being quoted for a firearm licence is £88, and for a shotgun licence it is £79.50.

We must bear that in mind when we talk about potential full cost recovery in relation to a licensing regime for air weapons. As Tavish Scott said, we must not encourage individuals to look at the cost of licensing an air weapon at £80 and think that they could instead apply for a shotgun licence at £79.50, or a firearm licence at £88. The trading-up debate is there. Individuals who may have a licence, and who may be appropriate people to hold one, could trade up to hold a firearm or a shotgun rather than holding an air weapon.

A number of members have commented on the estimated 500,000 air weapons that are currently located in Scotland, which is something that we really need to address. We need to find a way of reducing that number. If we cannot reduce it, we need to find a way of introducing a licensing regime that does not clash with the peaks and troughs of the shotgun and firearms licensing that is currently taking place. We would hate to see the introduction of air weapons licensing coming at the peak of the licensing period for shotguns and firearms. The Police Scotland evidence indicated that there were peaks and troughs in relation to such licensing.

Those are the issues that we need to address, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has taken on board a number of the issues that the committee raised about air weapons.

The licensing of adult entertainment venues has been adequately covered by a number of members. I welcome the opportunity to consider the amendments that will be lodged and I will consider them with interest when they come before the committee.

I will talk about scrap metal dealers, because there is an issue there. Other members have mentioned the risks to life and health that are posed by people who steal scrap metal to sell on. We looked at fines, and the convener mentioned the £5,000 fine that can be imposed on somebody who is caught stealing scrap metal. The difficulty is that the overall cost of the damage that is done by some of the thefts that take place is far greater than that. We heard evidence from one of the power companies, which estimated that the damage could cost in the region of £40 million over a period of time—not including the costs to individual households and communities. The maximum fine at the moment is only £5,000, and it would be appropriate to make fines or penalties commensurate with the overall damage that is caused by those thefts.

Clare Adamson mentioned the Auchengeich miners’ memorial, which was stolen. I was at the unveiling with the First Minister and other MSPs, and fortunately for that community, the sculptor had not destroyed the mould from which he had produced the sculpture, so he was able to replace the sculpture and we had a second unveiling. The difficulty is that many communities throughout Scotland do not have such an opportunity when thefts take place, because they do not have the original moulds and cannot reproduce sculptures or other items that have been stolen.

We have started the process. I hope that, when the committee considers the stage 2 amendments, we can get to a piece of legislation that will be not only meaningful but future proofed against developments in relation to issues concerning taxis, private hire cars, apps and various other things that will need to be considered.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We now move to the closing speeches. I call Alex Fergusson.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I am happy to be concluding the debate for the Scottish Conservatives, although, like other members, I am not a member of any of the committees that have been involved with the bill.

I have to say that I find myself somewhat perplexed by the bill and by the general principles that we have been debating this afternoon. As Cameron Buchanan noted in opening the debate for the Conservatives, there is a great deal in the bill that we welcome, even if we believe that some provisions might require modest amendment at later stages. I particularly welcome part 2, on alcohol licensing, for instance—I know that the issue is close to your heart, Presiding Officer—and I also welcome the sections that deal with scrap metal licensing.

However, we have a real sticking point when it comes to the Government’s proposals on air weapon licensing, and it is on that aspect of the bill that I will concentrate, given that it is the single reason why we are unable to support the general principles at decision time. I dearly wish that, as Alex Rowley and Tavish Scott have said, part 1 had been in a separate bill. However, we are where we are on that front.

I want to make one thing clear at the outset: whatever our views are on part 1, gun crime—any gun crime—is utterly abhorrent, whether it be carried out against human, pet, wild animal or bird. That is something on which everyone in the chamber can agree. We on the Conservative benches will always support robust enforcement of existing or additional legislation where there is an unequivocal evidence base that it will be effective in achieving its aims. However, I cannot find evidence that that will be the case in this instance.

Let us not forget that, as has been said, between 2006-07, when there were 683 offences involving air weapons, and 2012-13, when there were 171, there has been a drop of 75 per cent in reported incidents involving air weapons. Colin Keir mentioned a debate on the subject that took place in 2007 and said that the Conservatives’ position had not moved since then. That is not true. On the basis of those figures, our position has actually hardened, because it seems to me that a drop of 75 per cent is quite significant. In fact, it is a significant reduction in anyone’s language and it is, presumably, the result of the successful implementation of existing legislation and also of increased education initiatives by the Scottish Government and shooting organisations, for which they are to be commended. That is proof, if proof were needed, that the carrot often works better than the stick. Of course, on occasions such as this, they can also work well together.

On the subject of annual figures, I am concerned, as I said in an earlier intervention, that the most recent air weapon offence statistics—those for 2013-14—are not available. They should have been published in November 2014 but, apparently due to difficulties in collecting the data, they will not now be published until October this year, which is almost a year late and is certainly too late for them to inform this debate. A cynic—not me, but a cynic—might wonder why they cannot be produced by Police Scotland this year, while the bill is under consideration, when they have been produced regularly in previous years, and especially as Police Scotland was apparently able to quote figures from April to July 2014 in evidence. It seems to me that something is not quite right there, and it does not do this debate any favours.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

As Alex Fergusson has pointed out, we have moved to a new policing regime, with Police Scotland instead of the previous eight forces.

As the start of his speech, Mr Fergusson said that he would support a separate bill, but would not support part 1 of this bill, which deals with the subject. What would be different in that separate bill from the proposed legislation on air weapons in this bill that would make him support that one but not this one?

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I think that I am being misquoted, because I did not say that I would support a separate bill; I said that there should be a separate bill. What I do not like about this aggregated bill is that, at the end of the day, if this sticking point remains in place, we will have to vote against the bill. That would be a great pity, because there is so much of it that we believe is good. If there had been a separate bill, we could have disassociated ourselves from it and supported the parts of this bill that we agree with.

Whatever the figures that are not available turn out to be, there is no evidence at all that I can find that a licensing system will reduce crime. Indeed, if the possession of an airgun without a licence becomes a crime, the bill can only increase the crime statistics, which is surely the very opposite of what the Government intends.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I suggest to the member that no one cares about the statistics, whether they are up or down. We care about what happens on the ground and improving public safety.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

The point that I am trying to make is that I cannot find anything in the proposed regime that will improve public safety. I will come back to that later. Mr Stevenson’s intervention has brilliantly made me lose my place. It was well timed.

I now come to the practicalities of introducing the licence. The British Association of Shooting and Conservation—and, indeed, other shooting organisations on whose behalf it was speaking—has pointed out that, at the moment, it can take up to nine months to process a shotgun or firearms licence. Police Scotland is in the process of reducing the number of civilian licensing officers from 34 to 14, so it will have to train up police officers who, I presume, will be taken off the beat in order to fill the gap. Their task will then be to cope with the demand created by owners of some 500,000 air weapons wanting to obtain a licence. All those weapons, less the ones that will be surrendered during any amnesty period, are untraceable anyway, as airguns do not have unique identification numbers—and the cabinet secretary is right not to try to introduce such a system. The Law Society helpfully pointed out the difficulties of the situation, and I can only wish the police good luck with it when the bill is passed. It can only create a mountain of extra work and bureaucracy for an already overstretched police force, with no measurable impact on airgun crime. I therefore find myself asking what all this is for.

I do not think that the bill is about public benefit, despite Alex Rowley’s arguments, to which I listened very carefully. They were convincing in many ways, although I am afraid that they did not convince me. Tens of thousands of people will be caught up in a licensing scheme that will involve an incalculable number of inquiry officer visits to applicants’ homes for the purposes of verification and which has an indicative cost of at least £85 per application. That huge public expense is going to be incurred for no calculable public benefit or reduction in crime, and a new regulatory infrastructure will be required to oversee the system.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must conclude, please.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I think that part 1 targets the wrong people, as future offenders will not be those who have obtained a licence. It will do nothing to preserve public safety, as the Law Society points out in its submission, in which it highlights the real possibility that many untraceable air weapons will simply disappear into the wrong hands as and when a licensing scheme is introduced. In addition, Police Scotland’s infrastructure is ill equipped and underresourced to do what it will be asked to do.

The cabinet secretary strikes me as a sensible man—I told him that I would be nice about him. He has seen sense on corroboration; I hold on to the hope that he will see sense on this as well.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

There has been a lot of consensus in the debate, as there was in the committee. On all sides of the chamber, there is a willingness to see the bill go forward and be passed. I hope that we can work together over the coming weeks and that the minister will give an indication in his summing up that he is willing to work with the various groups that have put forward different arguments today so that we can find a way to continue that consensus.

The consensus broke down because of the Conservative Party’s view on air weapons, which I do not agree with. Elaine Murray pointed out that the committee was advised that 84 offences had been committed over a period. Representations were also received from animal welfare organisations and other organisations that highlighted the issues that can arise around air weapons. As Elaine Murray said, at the end of the day they are weapons. I am therefore supportive of that part of the bill and the Labour Party will support it.

John Wilson talked about fees, and the committee picked up on the point about full cost recovery for the licensing of air weapons. I know that the matter seems still to sit with the UK Government, but the committee picked it up and talked about being able to recover all the costs. It is important that we pick up those points from the report.

In his response to the report, the minister indicated that he is fairly positive about some areas of the report and will pick up some of its recommendations. The committee produced a number of recommendations, so I hope that we can discuss those with the minister in the coming weeks.

Kevin Stewart talked about all the people who gave up their time to give evidence to the committee. It would be good to demonstrate that it is worth while taking the time and trouble to give evidence to Parliament and that the issues in that evidence are being taken on board. I hope that we can pick up some of those issues.

A number of members talked about the proposals for licensing clubs. The Brightcrew decision meant in effect that there was no regulation of sexual entertainment venues. Even those who have said that they would rather that those clubs did not exist welcome some kind of regulation. Some members made the point that local authorities are well placed to make decisions about whether venues in their area should be licensed. At the end of the day, local authorities are held to account by the electorate. Those of us who support the devolution of decision making to the lowest possible level believe that it is right, on an issue as important as this, that local authorities should have the final say. Nevertheless, Cara Hilton and others pointed out that there are still a number of issues that we would like to discuss with the minister. I congratulate Sandra White, who I know has pushed that issue for some time.

On whether young people aged 16 to 18 should be able to work in those venues, I know that there has been an argument about employment law but, again, if the minister is open to it, we can discuss the issues and, hopefully, pick them up and take them forward.

Willie Coffey talked about licensing authorities sharing information about taxi operators. He asked a lot of questions about that in the committee. There is a recommendation on page 55 of the report that there should be more discussion in that regard. I am not sure whether that could be included in an amendment at stage 2 or whether the minister is open to having that dialogue. I would hope that he is and that we could pick that up and move that forward.

Clare Adamson talked about taxi apps and the importance of safety in relation to taxis. She gave the example of a woman who was sexually assaulted after getting into a vehicle that she thought was a private hire car. The committee heard evidence from an academic from the University of Edinburgh who is an expert on taxis, not just in Scotland but throughout the world. His view was that, as soon as the legislation is passed, it could be out of date because of new technologies. I know that Willie Coffey has more expertise in the field of technology, but that part of the bill may have to be considered again in future.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

One of the key things that the bill should achieve is that folk know that they are getting into a licensed vehicle with a licensed driver. That is the essential element in all of this. Whatever we do, technology-wise and so on—in terms of hailing or apping or whatever—the key thing to keep folk secure is to keep that licensed driver and licensed vehicle element in place. We should do everything possible to ensure that that continues.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

I agree entirely with Kevin Stewart.

In his opening speech, Cameron Buchanan wondered whether we were being too heavy handed in treating taxis and private hire cars in a similar way in licensing. However, the evidence does not suggest that. Those who gave evidence to the committee—the taxi operators who operate private hire as well as the Scottish Taxi Federation—all seemed to be fairly positive about, and in favour of, the proposed legislation. I was struck by the pride that the taxi operators took in the quality of training, skills and expertise that they expect their drivers to have, so the proposals were broadly welcomed.

A number of members have said that they would like to consider amendments to a number of areas of the bill, particularly the regulation of sexual entertainment venues, and I ask the minister to indicate that he is willing to meet members who have concerns and want to lodge amendments to see whether we can maintain the consensus that we have had in the debate as we go forward to stages 2 and 3 and pass the bill.

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party

I am grateful to all the members who have contributed to the debate. I have listened carefully to many of their comments and the issues that they raised.

I understand some of the frustrations that members have about the bill being presented with several different component parts to it. That is not unfamiliar and unusual in the Parliament. There are parts of the bill that would be difficult to have as bills on their own because they are limited in nature. However, I acknowledge that the bill acts as a vehicle to make changes that were needed to a number of aspects of legislation, such as the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.

I am also conscious of the point that Tavish Scott made. He has been in the Parliament as long as I have and I do not think that we have gone through a parliamentary session in which some form of licensing legislation was not necessary. Because of circumstances that develop and from which we learn, we have to go back and consider amending the legislation and introducing new regulations to respond to challenges that come up.

However, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, to which Tavish Scott referred, made a significant improvement in the way in which we license premises that sell alcohol. For example, one of the common issues that the police used to raise with me concerned off-licences that were found to be selling alcohol to people who were under 18; they were at risk of losing their licence and they would simply transfer the licence to another family member and continue. Having a premises licence as well as an individual licence closes down the potential for that, so the 2005 act made a significant improvement in how we go about alcohol licensing.

I said to the committee that I understand the calls for a review of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I also said that we should not underestimate the scale of such a review and the work that could be involved in it. My estimation is that it would take several years for that work to be undertaken. Therefore, although I recognise and understand the calls for the review, I caution members on the potential implications of it and the nature of the work that would be involved in it. As I said to the committee, I would be more than happy to come back to it in the autumn having considered the issue in greater detail.

Photo of John Wilson John Wilson Independent

One of the issues that was raised at the committee was how the 1982 act was being applied throughout Scotland and what appeared to be inconsistencies in its application by certain local authorities. It would be useful if the cabinet secretary were to indicate whether he will consider some of the inconsistencies that were identified when we took evidence.

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party

I am always prepared to look at areas where things can be improved. However, the very nature of licensing means that there will always be a level of variation, given the way that individual local authorities take particular matters forward.

Alex Rowley asked about having a discussion about some of the areas in which he and his colleagues believe that the bill could be improved. I am not in favour of deleting any section of the bill—that will disappoint the Conservatives—but I am always open to looking at how we can improve legislation, no matter which side of the chamber the suggestions come from. I am more than happy to engage with Alex Rowley and his colleagues and any other member in the chamber to look at how we can improve this bill.

I turn to the licensing of air weapons. I note the position that the Conservatives have now taken on this matter. Over recent years the number of crimes that have involved a firearm has decreased significantly, and that is positive. Having said that, almost half of all the incidents that involve a firearm involve an air weapon. So, although the number has been dropping, air weapons account for almost half of all the incidents that involve a weapon of a firearm nature.

We have sought to act proportionately in this area. The way in which the licensing regime will operate for air weapons is not the same as the way in which it will operate for firearms and shotguns. It is a much lighter-touch approach, but it will allow the police, as they have said, to prevent an individual from having an air weapon if the police do not believe that they are a suitable individual to have one, or if they do not think that it would be used in an appropriate way. It has been a frustration to the police for some time that individuals who they do not believe should have an air weapon have been able to have one and the police have been powerless to do anything about it. That point was raised by Sandra White.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

Would the cabinet secretary be open to—

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

Can we have Mr Fergusson’s microphone on, please?

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

It might help if Mr Fergusson had put his card in.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

I would have thought that you would have known better, Mr Fergusson.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

So would I, Presiding Officer. You are absolutely right. I apologise.

Is the cabinet secretary open to the suggestion—perhaps this is for a later stage of the bill—that if somebody already holds a shotgun or firearms certificate they would automatically have the right to possess an airgun?

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

You should bring your remarks to a close.

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party

That would help to improve the legislation. I am open to looking at how we can take those matters forward.

The debate has been very useful. We will consider all the points that have been raised, and I will respond to members as positively as I can in order to build on the bill, improve it, make it as suitable as possible, and ensure that we continue to have a range of licensing regimes in Scotland that are fit for purpose.

Photo of Gil Paterson Gil Paterson Scottish National Party

I share all the views that Cara Hilton has expressed with regard to broadcasting explicit scenes or posting them on the internet. Unfortunately, the Parliament does not have any powers to do anything about that.

I am not a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, but the bill appeared, from its title, to be straightforward enough. However, as organisations and constituents starting to contact me ahead of the debate, I realised that the bill is wide ranging in its aims. I applaud the Scottish Government for that and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for the extensive work that it has carried out on the bill at stage 1.

I will focus primarily on two aspects of the bill. First, I will address alcohol licensing, which is part of the larger approach to dealing with our relationship with alcohol and the negative impact that it has on a number of our citizens and communities. Secondly, I will look at the provisions that aim to tackle the increasing problem of metal theft in our country.

As a former member of the Health and Sport Committee, I have been involved in a great deal of evidence taking, including round-table discussions, on the impact of alcohol on Scottish society. The Scottish Government and all parties represented in the chamber are committed to tackling the problem. The impact of alcohol on the health of adults is well documented, but alcohol has an even greater effect on the health of young people. That is why I am pleased that the Scottish Government has announced, in the bill, that it will close the legal loophole that allows adults to purchase alcohol for someone under the age of 18 if the alcohol is then consumed in public. That loophole has encouraged young people to engage in drinking in outdoor drinking dens, which is detrimental to their health and has led to concerns being expressed by people who are afraid of groups of young people, especially if they have been drinking. For the provision to work, however, I advise that the police use their discretion and avoid being overactive in their enforcement, as that would only lead to the drinking dens going underground, which may make them harder to police.

Although there must be a focus on those who purchase alcohol, it is also paramount that, when a licensing board is considering someone’s application to sell alcohol, the board is provided with wide-ranging information to ensure that the applicant passes a fit-and-proper-person test. The test exists in many licensing regimes, and I am pleased that the bill will incorporate it into ours. That will offer some comfort to families across Scotland that those who hold an alcohol licence have been through a vigorous process, that they can be trusted and that their character is “fit and proper” to sell alcohol. Those are positive steps in the campaign to change our relationship with alcohol and I very much welcome the proposals.

As I stated, the second aspect of the bill that I will focus on is the provisions that aim to reduce metal theft. I have been approached by a number of constituents, including those from a religious background, who have raised their concerns over the increasing problem of metal theft and whose establishments have been subject to that crime. Not only does metal theft have a negative effect on those affected but it has a dangerous impact on those who carry out the thefts.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government acknowledges that efforts to reduce metal theft require legislative action. The proposals in the bill offer that action. While it is important to take preventative action to ensure that metal theft does not happen in the first place, it must be made very uncomfortable for the thieves to try to dispose of the stolen metal. If we introduce effective regulation of the metal-dealing industry, it will become more difficult for thieves to dispose of their stolen material.

Genuine metal dealers, who provide a valuable service to the community, and manufacturers will be protected by the legislation because it aims to target the unscrupulous dealers who offer a way for metal thieves to dispose of their stolen goods. It is hoped that, by cutting off that route, metal thieves will be discouraged from stealing in the first place, ensuring that our churches and railways are not despoiled and damaged

I did not focus too long on other aspects of the bill as I am sure that colleagues will do so in greater detail. However, I welcome the Government’s commitment to licensing air weapons. It is one of the most significant parts of the bill. If it protects one child or one animal, I am for it. In the wrong hands, air weapons are a danger to our communities and wild, pet and farm animals. The system proposed in the bill offers measures that are proportionate and practical.

I commend the bill to Parliament.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

I am not a member of any of the committees that have considered the bill and will focus my contribution on three areas.

The first is air weapons. I have no wish to prevent people with a legitimate reason for owning an airgun from being able to do so—I do not think that anyone in Parliament wants airguns to be banned altogether—but it should be recognised that airguns are weapons. They use pneumatic technology. In fact, air weapons were used in hunting and in war in previous centuries, until firearms technology overtook them.

We know that air weapons can kill—Clare Adamson referred to the horrific case of the murder of two-year-old Andrew Morton—but the extent of the misuse of air weapons was revealed by Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson in evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee when he advised that, between April and July 2014, Police Scotland recorded 84 offences specifically involving air weapons. Of those,

“six involved injuries to animals” and

“nine involved injuries to humans—one of which was an attempted murder”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 3 December 2014; c 20-21.]

Air weapons are often implicated in criminal activity. Almost half of firearms-related offences involve air weapons. They are frequently used in attacks on domestic and wild animals. Last year in Dumfries and Galloway, there were reports of a 13-year-old pet cat having to be destroyed after an airgun pellet injured its legs. Air weapons are often used against rabbits, rodents and other animals that are considered to be pests, but they are not always used by people who are trained how to use them properly, so there are cruelty and animal welfare considerations that militate against the continuation of unregulated ownership of air weapons.

I am not sure that I really followed Cameron Buchanan’s argument, but it seems to me that the logical extension of that would be to ban the licensing of firearms. We could apply the same argument to that licensing regime, but I do not imagine anybody particularly wants to reverse the situation.

We need to take air weapons seriously. There are an estimated 500,000 of them in Scotland, which presents a challenge. I understand the argument that the law-abiding, responsible airgun owners who use their guns for legitimate purposes will probably be the first to comply, but law-abiding people are the first to comply with most legislation.

I also appreciate that there are resourcing issues for Police Scotland and that ministers are seeking ways of ameliorating those pressures. The committee made a number of recommendations in that regard.

The committee is right to strongly recommend that there needs to be a comprehensive public information campaign that begins well in advance of the commencement of the licensing regime. That should be about informing owners but it is also an opportunity to change attitudes towards air weapons and make the public realise how dangerous they are and the sort of damage that they can do in the wrong hands.

When I was a child, my father had an air rifle and enjoyed what I understand from the report is known as plinking. He even allowed my sister and me to do it on occasion—probably at some danger to our neighbours, I imagine, in my case. In those days, that sort of ownership and use of airguns was totally acceptable, and he kept the airgun safely locked away. However, that was 40-odd years ago and attitudes need to move on. The dangers of the misuse of air weapons to humans and animals outweigh the argument that anyone who wants to enjoy informal target practice at home should have the right to do so.

I also welcome the long-awaited proposals on measures to deter metal theft, although I agree with the committee that they could be further strengthened.

Back in 2014, Ivor Williamson, the owner of Rosefield Salvage in Dumfries, visited one of my advice surgeries to argue for a ban on all cash payments for metal. He believed that that was the only way to combat illicit trade in metals. Genuine metal dealers such as his company have nothing to fear from a national register for metal dealers in Scotland, for example, or the modernisation of the definition of a metal dealer.

Metal theft inconveniences at the very least, and often endangers lives. I live near the A75 and have noticed that a stretch of the fence there is routinely taken away from a field where children play, where dogs are walked and where there could be a danger from people running on to the road.

My final comments on the bill relate to the proposals for licensing the sexual entertainment industry, prompted by the Court of Session’s opinion in Brightcrew Ltd v City of Glasgow Licensing Board.

I agree with the Scottish Government’s violence against women strategy that commercial sexual exploitation constitutes violence against women and that it is harmful not just to the women who are exploited but to all women because of the attitudes towards women and their bodies that it promotes. I would prefer that no such establishments existed.

I cannot accept the argument that the commercial provision of entertainment providing sexual stimulation is necessary to attract business conventions to a city, as one witness appears to have suggested. In my view, establishments that encourage men to objectify and depersonalise women have no place in a modern and progressive country. I have sympathy with the arguments for an outright ban and that regulation might imply acceptance of the attitudes towards women that such establishments promote. However, I also agree with Zero Tolerance that regulation is better than the current situation.

Local authorities in Scotland have taken different views on the sexual entertainment industry—as they have done on prostitution—so it is perhaps appropriate that such decisions be taken at a local authority level. However, I hope that it will be possible for a local authority that does not wish to allow any such activity to set “the appropriate number” of venues in its area at zero. I hope that many authorities will do so.

I will mention a suggestion that is related to the appropriate number of venues but which is not in the bill. Various members of local authorities have told me that they feel powerless to prevent the proliferation of betting shops and gambling establishments in some communities. That is not part of the bill, but I hope that, at some stage, we will give some consideration to whether local authorities need to have more powers to set appropriate limits for the number of gaming and betting establishments in particular communities.

Photo of Colin Keir Colin Keir Scottish National Party

I am not a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee but I thank it for producing the report, which is welcome.

I will restrict my comments to the sections in part 3 of the bill that relate to taxi and private hire car licensing. In my previous life as an Edinburgh councillor, I was the convener of the regulatory committee. In effect, that made me the spokesman for the then administration on taxi and private hire car licensing.

As the Local Government and Regeneration Committee report points out, the main reason for licensing taxis and private hire cars is that the general public must have confidence in the knowledge that it is safe to get into a vehicle and that there is a fit-and-proper-person behind the wheel. There is also the issue of ensuring that any operating company is not a front for organised crime.

My first television interview on licensing as a local politician some years ago was in relation to an incident where a young lady got into a vehicle thinking that it was a taxi. She was taken by the driver to a secluded spot where she was subjected to a serious sexual assault. That is why I feel so strongly that we must have a robust licensing system. For the most part, the taxi and private hire trade is of a similar mind. If we have such a system, those who have been subjected to such attacks in the past will feel that we as legislators are listening to them and that everyone is safe using taxis and private hire cars at any time.

The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was written at a time when the technology that we know did not exist. No one had thought of mobile phones as we use them today—they were massive in the early days—and certainly nobody had heard of such things as apps.

On booking offices, I absolutely disagree with the comment attributed in paragraph 311 of the report to Audrey Watson of West Lothian licensing board. Although Police Scotland could investigate nationally, in my opinion it is vital that booking offices are local to the licensing authority area or a short distance from the area in which they are licensed to operate. That allows the police or the licensing authority to easily check on driver and vehicle movements. To say, as Audrey Watson suggests, that a booking office did not have to be in Scotland would demand an almost unlimited amount of trust to be placed on a taxi or PHC operator.

Although most operations are professionally run, there have been the odd exceptions over the years. I believe that local licensing authorities should have not only the right to suspend a driver or vehicle or an operator’s licence but, in extreme circumstances, the right to be able to revoke a licence—a right that they do not have just now. I say that because there are examples of unscrupulous operators changing the day-to-day named operating manager or the ownership of an incorporated company while they fight a licence suspension in order to give the impression that there has been a substantive change to the business.

I know that the current convener of the regulatory committee at the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillor Barrie, would be supportive of such a change as he has informed me of his frustrations in combating unprofessional and unsafe practices within a small minority of the taxi and PHC trades in Edinburgh.

In local licensing systems, booking offices are key to public safety and to the ability to access records. That has to be the case for traditionally run taxi and PHC companies but also for those that use apps as a method of communicating with their customers. Indeed, any company—apps based or traditional—should be allowed to operate only if they do so taking cognisance of local conditions set down by the local licensing authority.

I turn to the issue of limiting numbers of vehicles and unmet demand. In my experience, that has been one of the most contentious subjects over many years, particularly here in the city of Edinburgh, and I suspect that it will be again if we decide to extend the right of licensing authorities to limit private hire car numbers.

I have absolutely no objection to the limiting of numbers, having seen the mess that some cities get themselves into with vast numbers of unregulated PHCs or taxis. Oddly enough, the comments made by Mr Buchanan in the debate echo those made in a debate that we had in the city council back in 2007—I have to say that the Conservatives have not changed their view in that time.

I was a supporter of the policy to limit taxi numbers when I was in charge of licensing here in the capital. However, in order to help licensing authorities, an accepted method of calculating unmet demand, which has always been a problem, should be made available and agreed. It has been too easy for those who have had licence applications refused to run off to the sheriff court and make an appeal that is based on there being no real, accepted methodology in place. In a licensing system in which litigation has been frequently used by many, it would make sense to make a more prescriptive change to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for certain circumstances, in order to make things easier for local authorities as well as to keep the cost of licence applications or amendments manageable for applicants.

I welcome the report and say well done to the committee for it. I have no problem in principle with limiting taxi numbers or with the ability to ensure that private hire drivers can be tested if that is done locally in a correct manner. I would also like to see currently exempt drivers and vehicles, such as stretch limousines, brought into the regulated system for safety purposes.

I once again commend the committee not just for its scrutiny of the bill but for opening up the discussion in the report, which has been very useful.

I support the general principles of the bill.

Photo of Willie Coffey Willie Coffey Scottish National Party

I add to those of our Local Government and Regeneration Committee convener, and other members who have spoken so far, my thanks to the many people and organisations who took the time to offer their views and give evidence. I also thank our committee clerking team, who have done a great job in putting together the committee’s report.

The purpose of any licensing system is, of course, to regulate legal activities that have the potential to cause harm to individuals who engage in them and to the wider public who may be affected by them. In this case, we are looking at use of air weapons and at licensing as it relates to taxis, metal dealers and various public entertainment activities. The bill will, rather than regulating ownership, make it an offence to use, possess, purchase or acquire an air weapon without holding a certificate. When an offence is committed, it will be more about who committed the offence than about who owns the weapon that is used.

On air weapons, I am pleased that the Government has accepted the committee’s first recommendation, which is to support a public information campaign that will give the public the information that they need in advance of a certification system’s being put in place. A website and other social media tools will give people information about how to hand in unwanted weapons and about the certification process itself, right through to how they might wish to dispose of a weapon under the new scheme, along with all the appropriate information on fees and timescales. That will be a very important part of engaging with owners and clubs and it will also serve the wider public interest.

The committee also wanted to ensure that the bill will not prevent remote sales to people who live outside Scotland; that recommendation has also been accepted by the Government and I understand that an amendment at stage 2 will facilitate that. It will simply mean that an air weapon can be bought in Scotland and delivered to a registered firearms dealer in England or Wales for collection.

The issue of whether to introduce an air weapon marking and identification system was discussed at some length by the committee, but I see from the Government’s response to that idea that it, Police Scotland and the Gun Trade Association do not think that it is really necessary. Other legislation is in place to deal with criminality involving weapons, so a marking system would not be critical in helping to prove any case that might be brought to court. There is quite a detailed explanation from the Government on that, which I hope clarifies the issue.

One of the key alcohol licensing proposals is the creation of a new offence of supplying alcohol to young people for consumption in a public place. Members will know that although it is currently illegal to buy alcohol on behalf of a child, it is not illegal to buy alcohol to share with a child. The bill will close that loophole by making it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to share alcohol with a person under 18 in a public place. That includes private property, where drinkers may have accessed it illegally. The purpose is to help us to tackle outdoor drinking by children and young people. The proposal has widespread support.

I note the Government’s intention to consider the reintroduction at stage 2 of a fit-and-proper-person test for a person who wishes to hold an alcohol licence. Although there was agreement on that from some of those who gave evidence to the committee, there were also some reservations expressed, mainly with regard to linking the test to the broader licensing objectives and the possibility that that would give rise to further litigation. I hope that consideration of that issue at stage 2 will help us to resolve it one way or the other.

There are a few recommendations that will strengthen the desire for local licensing boards to consult the public, health boards and alcohol and drug partnerships on a variety of issues relating to alcohol. It is hoped that the more informed our boards are, the better will be the decisions that they make. The relevant parts of the committee report, which are supported by the Government, are more about reminding everyone that there is some good experience out there and that there are data to be shared before decisions are ultimately taken.

I have two points to make on the taxi licensing provisions in the bill. One relates to a situation in which a taxi driver who may be the subject of numerous complaints in one authority seeks to obtain a licence in another authority—forgetting, of course, to reveal that he has been the subject of such complaints. The response from the Government says that authorities can already make inquiries on such matters, and that Police Scotland, as a single entity now, should be able to assist. However, Police Scotland may not have such data recorded. I feel that in order to enhance the protection of the public who use taxis—in particular, vulnerable young women—there must be more than an expectation that authorities should try to find out from a neighbouring authority about any complaints that may have been made about an applicant. A Scotland-wide response to the issue is needed: authorities should record all such complaints and other authorities should be able to access that information easily. Anything less than that will do nothing to reduce the risk.

On the less controversial issue of knowledge, I support the committee’s view that the knowledge test should apply to all drivers, regardless of whether the service is a taxi or a private hire car. Members of the public expect, when they get into a car, to be taken somewhere by a driver who actually knows where he is going. I had an unfortunate experience a few years ago when a private hire taxi driver in Edinburgh did not have a clue where Hibernian’s Easter Road football stadium was. I hope that any guidance notes on the bill that are issued by the Government will strongly encourage adoption across the board of the knowledge test.

The Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill will, through its many provisions, strengthen public safety in Scotland and provide opportunities for the public and civic Scotland to engage with their local licensing boards on these very important issues. I am happy to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour

I will speak specifically about section 68 of the bill, which will introduce a licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues such as lap-dancing clubs. I pay tribute to Sandra White for the work that she has done on the issue over the years; I am sure that she is very pleased that the bill has been introduced.

The licensing of such venues became an issue in Inverness, where the licensing committee said that it was powerless to prevent a licence from being granted to a lap-dancing club in the city, despite the violence against women partnership’s warning about the impact that such a venue would have on the area. I therefore welcome the move to empower local authorities to prevent such clubs from opening in our towns and cities.

The Scottish Government’s document, “Equally Safe: Scotland’s strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls”, recognises commercial sexual exploitation, including stripping, lap-dancing and pole dancing, as violence against women. It tells us that

“these activities have been shown to be harmful for the individual women involved and have a negative impact on the position of all women through the objectification of women’s bodies”.

It therefore seems to be a little perverse that we are licensing venues that perpetrate violence against women.

My preferred option would be that we ban all such venues from our country and seek to create an equal society in which women are valued and not sold as commodities. However, the proposed licensing regime is better than the current situation, in which licensing committees feel powerless to prevent such venues from opening. Zero Tolerance tells us that there is

“no place for a highly gendered form of sexual entertainment in Scotland.”

In its briefing, it states that these venues are places where men often seek to buy sex, which means that women are often moved from sexualised entertainment into prostitution.

Such venues also encourage gender inequality, which impacts on all women and, indeed, on our whole society. If we are to live in an equal society, we have to stop such venues operating, because they treat women as commodities to be sold for the sexual pleasure of men. They are not normal entertainment venues, and other countries have none—for example, Iceland. The countries that will not tolerate such forms of entertainment tend to give gender equality a much higher priority than those that do.

The licensing regime must be mandatory. Every venue, regardless of how often it provides adult entertainment, should be subject to the licensing regime. Local authorities must carry out equalities impact assessments on the venues before issuing licenses, taking into account the venues’ impact on the wider society in their local area. I also wish to see violence against women partnerships being statutory consultees when licences are applied for. Local communities must have a say on whether licenses should be granted, and local authorities must be allowed to have a policy of having no venues at all in their area.

Other members have talked about the bill allowing young people under the age of 18 to work in venues at times when sexual entertainment is not taking place. However, there are often in such premises pornographic images that children working there would have access to. Again, Zero Tolerance warns us of the implications of allowing young people to work in such environments and tells us that, in essence, it creates a groomers charter.

Allowing that would also normalise such entertainment and exploitation in the eyes of very young and vulnerable people working there. Young girls would also be vulnerable to being enticed to become sexual entertainers when they turn 18. Any young person working there would be at risk of developing unhealthy attitudes to sexual relationships. I believe that the bill must be amended to protect young people from the exploitative nature of those premises.

The committee received a submission from Child’s Eye Line UK regarding public display of sexualised images to children. I believe that that organisation has a point and that Cara Hilton’s point on that was well made: such images should not be on display publicly. We have the power to ban the display of cigarettes—and are proposing to do so—because they are dangerous and harmful, but so are sexualised images because they impact on gender violence and inequality. The bill provides an opportunity to ban the public display of such images, so I hope that the Government will give that due consideration.

The bill does not have a fit-and-proper-person test for licensees of sexual entertainment venues, although people who apply for liquor licences are subjected to a fit-and-proper-person test. That is surely an oversight, so I hope that the bill will be amended to change that anomaly.

Licensing must also ensure that employment law is adhered to. Women who work in sexual entertainment venues are often charged appearance fees and can be fined, meaning that they can end up earning little or nothing at all. We all agree that we should be implementing the living wage and not promoting zero-hours contracts, and that we should be protecting workers. If we allow those venues to operate, we need to make sure that they are working within the law and that the people who work in them are treated and paid properly. Again, that can be addressed through the licensing regime.

I firmly believe that sexual entertainment venues have no place in a modern equal society, and that we should be banning them rather than licensing them. However, the bill’s provisions are a step in the right direction, and I hope that all local authorities will take the opportunity to refuse all licenses for such venues in their areas.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I think that it is appropriate for me to report, before I start my speech, that I am a member of the Banff Town and County Club, which is a licensed premises such as are referred to in the bill. I do not intend to speak on that part of the bill.

This is an interesting debate. One of the things that we perhaps ought to think about is that the problem of alcohol abuse and licensing and controlling alcohol is hardly new. Christopher Smout, the renowned historian who wrote the book “Century of the Scottish People: 1830-1950”—he is essentially a social historian—spoke of a village in East Lothian that had one public house for every 14 occupants. There were special circumstances: it was a village to which many people came seasonally to work in agriculture. The problem is not exactly a new one.

The problem also existed when the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act 1915 was passed. I have a personal interest in that act, because my father’s cousin was responsible for it. Lloyd George had wanted to ban the sale of alcohol altogether, because of the effect that alcohol had on the munitions factories and the military towns around the UK during the first world war. James Stevenson persuaded the Government that it might be more effective simply to prohibit the sale of immature spirits. That is why whisky is kept in bond for three years. The aim was not to improve the quality of the whisky—although it had that secondary effect—but to restrict its supply, because there was seen to be an issue at that time. The improvement of the brand that is Scotch whisky that flowed from the 1915 act was an incidental benefit for whisky, because it meant that there was no longer poor-quality stuff on the market and whisky could be trusted as a quality product.

We can move forward to the reforms of the 1960s. Before then, there were one or two things to do with licensing in Scotland that we have totally forgotten about. For example, there was the veto poll. Teddy Taylor, the Tory MP for Cathcart for many years, was a very strong exponent of that. I think—subject to confirmation—that Cathcart was the last area in Glasgow where there was a total veto. The population had requisitioned a poll under the appropriate legislation and voted to have no licensed premises in their area. That was the provision that applied after the war, up to the reform in the early 1960s.

A licence granted for sale of alcohol on a Sunday had to be for a hotel. The definition of “hotel” meant that, if someone was going to sell drink on a Sunday, somebody had to be resident in the hotel. Therefore, across Scotland were hotels that advertised seven-day licences that had one room where somebody lived permanently at a discounted rate so that the licence was not discontinued. I happened to know one poor unfortunate, now deceased, called John Dalrymple, who got thrown out of the home that he had lived in for 30 years when the legislation was reformed in the 1960s. We should not imagine that any generation of politicians has been able to identify all the perfect solutions to what is quite a substantial problem.

I admit that I first entered a pub and consumed drink on 21 March 1959. It was in the Register Tap in Edinburgh, following a 3-3 draw in the Calcutta cup at Murrayfield, and there was a need for consolation. Members are probably able to work out that I may not have been fully of age. Indeed, the barman asked me to sit behind the door in case a policeman popped his head round—things were a lot more lax in the old days. The provisions that are before us now are much better. Of course, my grandfather would not have approved at all, because he was a member of the society of Rechabites, who went around trying to get people to sign the pledge. He was against drinking in all its forms.

I used to have an airgun when I was a kid. It was not the kind of airgun that people can get now. It struggled to propel its .177mm lead pellet more than about 30 feet—the guns that we have now are more significant. If I wanted to carry it in a public place, I needed a licence, but that was simply a question of going to the post office, handing over 10 bob and getting one. It was really just a way of recording who had the licences, and it seemed to be utterly pointless.

I commend the policy position that Cara Hilton has taken. I have enormous sympathy for what she expressed regarding sexualisation of the female image. I absolutely agree on that. I caution her, however: she appeared to suggest that she would lodge at stage 2 amendments to do with the media and the internet. They would not, of course, fall within the powers that we have in this Parliament. I thought that it would be useful to spell out why that would be a risky thing to do. When bills are introduced, the Presiding Officer’s office has to say that they are intra vires—in other words, that they are within the powers of the Parliament. As amendments are lodged at stage 2, it is up to the lead committee convener to come to a view. At stage 3, it is up to the Presiding Officer to select—or not to select—amendments.

Of course, we can pass legislation that is ultra vires. However, when it goes for royal assent, if it is judged by the palace’s legal advisers to be ultra vires, royal assent will not be given. It is not simply a matter of the little bit of the bill that is ultra vires being struck out—although it could be at a later date if there is a dispute—because that would cause the whole bill to fall.

Although I utterly sympathise and agree with what has been said, including what was said by Rhoda Grant and others, I simply advise that because there is no policy difference among us, we must be very careful to take good advice. If that advice is that we can do what is proposed, I would be utterly content and I would be behind any such amendments, but we must be very careful on such matters.

It is appropriate that I record our gratitude to Sandra White for her work over a significant period on sexual entertainment venues. She has not been the only person articulating the argument, but she has been the one who has utterly stuck with it. It is to her eternal credit that we see in the bill her not inconsiderably small hand writ large.

I wish the bill every success as it passes through its subsequent stages in Parliament.

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party

Part of the provision that we have put in the bill is that those who hold a shotgun or firearms licence and who also have an air weapon will not have to apply for an air weapons licence until they are applying for a new shotgun or firearms licence when their licence expires. That is the only point at which they would have to apply for it during that process. That is to take away some of the potential burden from them.

I turn to the issue that Mr Fergusson raised around the potential burden on the police in having to deal with all the licences that will be required for air weapons. As the member might be aware, there are significant peaks and troughs in the way in which the police deal with firearms licensing. That point was made by John Wilson in his speech. We are trying to ensure that we introduce the provision on air weapons in that trough when the police are not dealing with a significant amount of firearm or shotgun licences. We are working on that with the police. As I indicated, we are looking at how we can manage that issue through secondary legislation.

The fee for certificates for both shotguns and firearms has increased from £50 as of 6 April. For a firearms certificate, the fee is now £88 and for a shotgun certificate it is £79.50. We have sought to achieve a balance on the issue of the licensing of air weapons. I believe that the bill reflects that.

I turn to the issue of sexual entertainment venues, about which a number of comments have been made. I understand the comments and concerns that have been raised by some members on this issue and the need to make licensing provision on this matter. To her credit, Sandra White has pursued this matter through the Parliament for almost a decade, and we are now making significant progress in this bill to address the concerns that she has raised.

I am very conscious that often, when the Government takes action, there is the accusation that we are taking powers to the centre and making decisions that we should have allowed to be taken locally. In the bill, we are allowing local licensing boards to make the decision, based on local policy. I refer to the point that Rhoda Grant raised. If local licensing boards wish to set a zero figure for sexual entertainment venues, they can do so. There is a process that they will have to go through in justifying that, but the bill allows them to do that should they wish to do so. It gives them the power and allows them to engage with their local community and to reflect on that in their local decision making. I believe that that is the right balance to strike. That gives them the power and the scope to take matters forward.

On under-18s being able to work in sexual entertainment venues when the venues are not operating, I am more than open to looking at where measures can be taken. I am very conscious that there are issues around employment law that we must be careful of, but I am more than happy to look at that issue further. On the working conditions for those in the venues, I am more than happy to look at where provisions could be put—probably in secondary legislation—for licensing boards to take into account those matters, as well.