Scottish Parliament, 16 November 2005

337 contributions from 36 members. The official report.

Official Report 16 November 2005

Time for Reflection

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The first item of business is time for reflection. Our leader today is Mr Mohammed Tufail Shaheen of the Islamic Centre in Glasgow, who is also the president of the charity Glasgow the Caring City.

Business Motions

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-3581, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move decision time today to 5.30 pm. I invite anyone who wishes to oppose the motion to press their request-to-speak button.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees under Rule 11.2.4 of the Standing Orders that Decision Time on Wednesday 16 November 2005 shall begin at 5.30 pm.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It appears from my screen that Donald Gorrie has asked to speak, but I am informed that it is a mistake—thank goodness for that.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I was trying to speak.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I beg your pardon—your name came on to the screen and then went off.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

There seems to be a lot of interest in the amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Bill that are in group 5. I wonder whether the Parliament might agree to extend the time for that group by half an hour to enable adequate discussion of what I understand to be various amendments.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It would not be appropriate to do that at this stage, but there is the potential for a motion to be moved at the relevant point in proceedings. The occupant of the chair will be alert to the pressure to speak and, if necessary, the power that you describe might be invoked.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees under Rule 11.2.4 of the Standing Orders that Decision Time on Wednesday 16 November 2005 shall begin at 5.30 pm.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-3580, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised programme of business for this afternoon.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 16 November 2005— Wednesday 16 November 2005 delete,

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - Debate on the subject of S2M-3507 Colin Fox: Scotland's Social Housing Provision and insert,

5.30 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - Debate on the subject of S2M-3507 Colin Fox: Scotland's Social Housing Provision.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-3583, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Would this be a more appropriate moment to propose that 30 minutes be added to the time for group 5 amendments?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No. The guidance that I gave earlier was that we must wait until we are at that stage in proceedings. A motion without notice should be put to the occupant of the chair at that point. We would indicate at that stage whether such a proposal was necessary and what time period might be appropriate.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated (each time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended, other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called, or otherwise not in progress):

Groups 1 to 4 - 25 minutes Groups 5 to 8 - 55 minutes Groups 9 to 11 - 1 hour and 15 minutes Groups 12 to 15 - 2 hours Groups 16 to 19 - 2 hours and 25 minutes Groups 20 to 22 - 2 hours and 40 minutes.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We now move to the stage 3 proceedings of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. I begin with the standard announcements about the procedures to be followed. We will deal with the amendments and then move to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the amendments stage, members require to have the bill, the marshalled list—

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Please allow me to finish, Mr Arbuckle.

Members should also have a supplementary sheet with amendments in the name of Andrew Arbuckle, a second supplement with an amendment in the name of Frank McAveety, a third supplement with an amendment in the name of Andrew Arbuckle, and the list of groupings. The amendments in the supplements are the manuscript amendments, which are in addition to those previously published together with the groupings.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am certainly aware of the original manuscript amendments that Andrew Arbuckle lodged, because everyone received them by e-mail. I also have a copy of Frank McAveety's manuscript amendment. However, I have not received a further piece of paper with another Andrew Arbuckle amendment on it. It will be interesting to see what further twists and turns will arise on this day of chaos.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The other manuscript amendment in the name of Andrew Arbuckle is to "Leave out section 60A". It is now available at the back of the chamber, so members will have a copy of it within seconds if they care to acquire it.

On Bruce Crawford's point of order, members are aware that, under rule 9.10.6 of standing orders, the Presiding Officer has the power to select manuscript amendments. The Presiding Officers never discuss individual decisions, and I trust that members will appreciate that I am not going to change that rule now.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I have no desire to challenge your comments on the Presiding Officer's power to select particular amendments and not to give his reasons for doing so, I wonder whether you will reflect on the amount of notice that it is appropriate for the Presiding Officer to give members of the Parliament so that they have the chance to determine what amendments they will have to face.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As members are aware, the manuscript amendment provision arises in exceptional circumstances. Today, the chair's judgment is that circumstances have been sufficiently exceptional to justify the acceptance of manuscript amendments. Beyond that comment we do not ever go.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have said that the manuscript amendment that we have not yet seen has been accepted because of exceptional circumstances. Given that all these matters have been debated by Parliament for months, will you give us further information on how these circumstances can conceivably be described as exceptional? Will Parliament get any guidance on the matter? If it is not entitled to any such guidance, is there not a risk that a refusal at the last hour to give it on this matter might bring this place into disrepute?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, Mr Ewing, that is not the case. I have now given the advice twice and I refer members to my two previous rulings. There is nothing more to be said on the matter, other than to point out that, as is our practice after every stage 3 debate, the Presiding Officers will of course reflect on today's business in the light of its conclusion.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a different point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you please inform the chamber exactly which group this particular manuscript amendment from Andrew Arbuckle will appear in and which amendments it will appear between?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It will appear in group 5 and will be taken immediately after amendment 64 is disposed of. That is a perfectly reasonable point to make and I am happy to give that information.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the Parliament's six years, this is the most shambolic meeting that we have had on a very important piece of legislation. Given the rulings that you have just made on the manuscript amendments, is it in order for you to suspend the meeting for at least 15 minutes or so to allow members to get hold of them and get them in the order in which they are being discussed? This is supposed to be a serious legislative chamber, but it is shambolic. I should also say that it is a disgrace for the Executive to criticise others on their presentation of legislation when it is in such a shambles itself at the last minute.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You will appreciate that it is not for me to rule on your latter point, which was political. It is in order to ask me to suspend the meeting, because that is within my power. However, as I have read this one-line manuscript amendment and have indicated when the vote will be taken to ensure that all principals involved in the debate are perfectly clear about that, I do not consider it necessary to suspend. As the clock is now ticking, I would like to get into the debate on the amendments. The next run of points of order will be on extending the time to accommodate the time that we are currently losing.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to Mr Ewing's point of order, I, unfortunately, missed the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments to the bill. Given that the amendment that I wished to submit referred to an area that was debated by the Local Government and Transport Committee at stages 1 and 2, I felt that my own circumstances were not exceptional and that, therefore, my amendment would not be accepted as a manuscript amendment. Yet I see in front of me three amendments, two on paper and the other subsumed somewhere within the groupings, which are not in my view exceptional. How could you rule that those amendments were lodged in exceptional circumstances when you have denied the right to lodge amendments to other members who missed the deadline?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Maxwell, I did not deny you the right to lodge your amendment because, by your own admission, you did not lodge it. The judgment that your amendment was not sufficiently exceptional to merit being lodged as a manuscript amendment was yours and I support you in that judgment. The judgments on the amendments that have been accepted were taken by the Presiding Officer and I support his judgment as well.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

For the purposes of clarity, Presiding Officer, could you indicate to the chamber exactly which pieces of paper we should now have?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You should have the marshalled list, the list of groupings, the bill itself, the supplement containing five Andrew Arbuckle amendments, a second supplement containing an amendment by Frank McAveety, and a third supplement—the supplement under discussion, which has been taken late in the day—containing the amendment in the name of Andrew Arbuckle that I read out earlier and which is available at the back of the chamber. All the necessary documentation is therefore present.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I think that the five amendments in the name of Andrew Arbuckle that you mentioned are included in the marshalled list, at page 13.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The clerk advises me that they are not. As we all have them—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The answer, Mr Smith, is that the five amendments are shown in the groupings. There is, as I have said—and this is now the third time that I have said it—a supplementary sheet in the chamber—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I propose a five-minute suspension until the sheet in question is produced.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I understand that the text of the two manuscript amendments that were accepted today is now available at the back of the chamber. I think that one was already available, but the second one—the McAveety one—should now be in everyone's possession. The text of the five amendments in the name of Andrew Arbuckle appeared in the Business Bulletin on Monday and were approved yesterday, so members should have them. I believe that the text of all the amendments is now available.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Members will agree that in view of the bill's importance to the people of Scotland and the Parliament, what has gone on so far today does a disservice to the people of Scotland. It has not been a good advertisement for the way in which we conduct our business. I ask that the Presiding Officers and the Executive reflect maturely on how we got to this state of affairs, so that we are never in this situation again.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have already indicated that the Presiding Officers will discuss these proceedings at our next routine meeting. I am sure that the Executive will reflect on what has happened in its time and in its own way. Other people may wish to reflect too.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is a serious point of order.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am grateful for that.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I did not give you notice earlier—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Just make the point of order, please, Mr Crawford.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are now half an hour behind. If we agree still to finish at half past five, we will be unable to adhere to the original timings. The timings motion is no longer applicable. We need another process to deal with the situation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have discussed with the lead member—who, I believe, discussed it with the Minister for Parliamentary Business—the fact that we will need to adjust the timings as the day goes on. You can safely leave that in our hands.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The first group of amendments is on licensing standards officers' powers of entry and inspection. Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Concerns were raised by the national licensing forum about licensing standards officers' access to information and documents under section 15. It felt that, as drafted, the powers are too great and might allow LSOs to access documents and other articles that are not directly relevant to the running of the licensed premises. We therefore agreed to consider further how LSO powers might be limited.

Currently, under section 15(1), LSOs could exercise their powers of entry and inspection for the purpose of determining whether the activities in a licensed premises in their area are being carried out in accordance with the premises licence, the licensing objectives and any other requirements of the act. Amendment 7 will limit that remit; it provides for the reference to the licensing objectives to be removed, which will effectively narrow the powers of LSOs and prevent them from requesting documents that have only a tenuous link to the running of the premises. That should give the national licensing forum and the licensed trade greater comfort that LSOs may not abuse their position to put unnecessary pressure on licensees.

I move amendment 7.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 2 is on licensed hours for off-sales and on-sales. Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 19, 27 and 49.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Executive amendments 8, 19, 27 and 49 are technical and provide clarification that hybrid premises that offer both on-sales and off-sales services could have different hours for the different services.

I move amendment 8.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 3 is on antisocial behaviour reports in relation to premises licence applications. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10 and 11.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

At stage 2, the Local Government and Transport Committee accepted three amendments from Paul Martin that will place a mandatory duty on the police to submit to the licensing board a report on all premises that apply for a premises licence, detailing antisocial behaviour, or complaints about such behaviour, that has taken place on or in the vicinity of the premises. The Executive agreed to consider further whether the provision needed to be amended at stage 3. I confirm that, although we are broadly content with it, we now believe, as a result of consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, that the police should be required to submit details of activity over only the previous 12 months, which is the period during which any relevant antisocial behaviour is likely to have taken place. An open-ended or longer period would place too great a burden on police resources. The one-year restriction will prevent the police from wasting time trawling through irrelevant historical records. Executive amendments 9, 10 and 11 will deliver that policy.

I move amendment 9.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I welcome amendments 9, 10 and 11 and the principle that every community will now be guaranteed that the police will be legally required to provide antisocial activity reports that relate to licensed premises in their community. The measure was introduced in response to concerns that the Ruchazie strategy group raised with me. I am sure that that group and many other community groups and representatives throughout Scotland will welcome the fact that the information will be provided. I commend the minister for the amendments.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I feel as if I should first apologise to you, Presiding Officer, for causing a stushie. However, when we come to my amendment, we will find that it will simplify life for everybody. I am sure that it will receive widespread support.

Section 20 is important, as it sets out the procedures for notifying local communities of applications for premises licences. However, I have concerns about the amendments that were made at stage 2 that will require chief constables to compile reports on antisocial behaviour that has occurred in or in the vicinity of premises. Antisocial behaviour is not a problem that applies equally or in the same way in all parts of the country. Some licence applications will be from premises where antisocial behaviour is a major problem, whereas, in many cases, that will not be an issue.

Given that about 19,000 applications will have to be dealt with in an 18-month period, I am concerned that the measure will lead to a significant burden on the police. I do not want police officers to spend more time in police stations writing antisocial behaviour reports and wading through paperwork when they should be on the streets tackling such behaviour. We must be careful not to undo the good work that has been done to free up police time through court reforms. I ask the minister to give the Parliament an assurance that that will not happen and that the police will have enough flexibility to avoid problems with workload and red tape.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I seek reassurance from the minister that directions will be given to the police and licensing boards to ensure that the standard of reporting is consistent. With some incidents that relate to pubs or other licensed premises, it is clear that the licensee carries some responsibility, but other incidents in the environs of pubs are reported on the basis that the pubs were not involved. I would be grateful for reassurance on the issue of consistency in reporting standards.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I support the amendments. I recently met the divisional commander in Hamilton, who told me that the reforms are exactly what he needs to ensure that the action that the police take on the ground impacts on those who sell drink to the people, particularly young people, who are involved in antisocial behaviour. I hope that we can learn from the good practice in Q division and spread it across the country.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

One of the core principles of the bill is supposed to be that it empowers communities. If communities are to be empowered and given the opportunity to oppose applications for premises licences, they should have the evidence base when an application goes to a board. They will have that evidence base only if they have the police reports, which are an independent verification of any problems. That is why the amendments must be supported. The 12-month limit is a sensible suggestion and I disagree with what Andrew Arbuckle said about the danger of an administrative dog's breakfast. I hope that the provisions lead to genuine empowerment of communities to be able properly to object to the granting of licences in areas where they should not be granted.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome Tommy Sheridan's support for the amendments that were made at stage 2 and for our proposal to reduce the period to 12 months. Advice from police is that antisocial behaviour can sometimes move on; it is therefore appropriate to look back over 12 months only.

Mr Arbuckle should take some comfort from the fact that the Executive does not envisage the proposals imposing too much of a bureaucratic burden on police. We would expect the police to put forward a consistent report to licensing boards when antisocial behaviour is identified as being associated with individual premises. Where such behaviour has not been identified, we would expect the police to develop a tick-box system that would allow them to have a consistent approach in reporting that back, too.

The focus of the amendments is to ensure that, when the police deliver reports of evidence of antisocial behaviour, they do so consistently and fully, so that the board is made fully aware of the views of the police on those matters. That feeds in to any objections that the community might have, because the community will at least be able to point to the police's view in regard to those matters.

I would be only too willing to support Karen Gillon's notion that we should spread best practice, as identified in her constituency. I would be pleased to discuss further with her how we might do that.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendments 10 and 11 moved—[George Lyon]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 4 is on persons entitled to object to premises licence applications. Amendment 58, in the name of Bruce Crawford, is grouped with amendment 59.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Executive's policy memorandum states that one of the bill's aims is to establish a more inclusive system for all those who have an interest. The Scottish National Party supports that aim, as do amendments 58 and 59. However, the bill seems to open the door to all and sundry and does not meet the Executive's stated aim of a more inclusive system for those who have an interest.

When the Local Government and Transport Committee took oral evidence on the matter, only one source supported the Executive's position. However, we received evidence from seven sources that thought that the bill had been drawn too widely. I signed up to the committee's report but, having considered the evidence more closely, I think that that was the wrong thing to do in that respect.

The views contrary to the Executive's came from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, the licensing boards of West Lothian Council and Glasgow City Council, the Law Society of Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Beer and Pub Association. A contrary view was also expressed by Sheriff Principal Nicholson, who said:

"I have to say that I have considerable reservations about the wisdom of opening the door to potential objectors to such an extent. Suppose, for example, that there were to be an application for a premises licence in, say, Edinburgh or Glasgow. Suppose then that there is a Free Church minister in Stornoway who is a fervent and committed prohibitionist in relation to the sale and consumption of alcohol, and he decides to object to the application in question. Because of his genuinely held views it cannot really be said that his objection is frivolous or vexatious. But, is it really sensible that he should be heard in opposition to an application for a grant of a licence in Glasgow or Edinburgh?"

I am sure that other members were copied into correspondence from Gordon Millar, who was a member of the Nicholson committee. He, too, said that he did not support the Executive on the widely drawn nature of the bill.

I hope that, in drawing up my amendments, I have dealt successfully with the concerns that were raised at stage 2 by some of my colleagues on the Local Government and Transport Committee. I submit that amendments 58 and 59 fit the aims that are outlined in the policy memorandum better than the bill does as it stands.

I move amendment 58.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Amendments 58 and 59 in the name of Bruce Crawford seek to narrow the definition of those who can object to and make representations on applications for premises licences by reintroducing similar restrictions to those that were imposed under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. That would be a major step backwards.

Bruce Crawford would leave it to boards to determine which people would be sufficiently affected by a licence application and so entitled to object. However, the requirement to determine that in each case would put considerable resource pressures on boards. Crucially, also, the amendments would introduce considerable uncertainty into the process for the licensed trade and local communities, which could never be completely clear in advance about their right to object.

The Local Government and Transport Committee recognises the benefit of the Executive's approach in its stage 1 report. We do not believe that the administrative inconvenience of handling more objections can be set against the benefits to communities of being able to make their views known. The Executive's proposals will allow any person to object. That is coupled with a power to reject frivolous and vexatious objections—the example that Mr Crawford gave would indeed be a frivolous and vexatious objection. Our proposals will implement a system in relation to licensing that has been running successfully for more than 20 years under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

Our proposals put our communities first; they require systems that encourage people to put their views forward on issues that are of great concern to them. I ask Bruce Crawford also to put communities in Scotland first and to withdraw amendment 58.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Davidson, you were very late in pressing your button. Ordinarily, members are expected to press their buttons before the minister responds to the debate. However, I will allow you a brief comment.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Thank you. I support Bruce Crawford's amendments, because they would apply to those communities "that may be affected"; they would not limit decisions to boards. The minister is leaving the matter open to interpretation in pursuing his line. What does he mean by "frivolous", for example? We need clarity in our laws and Mr Crawford's amendments provide for clear and understandable definitions.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to respond to the minister's accusation that I want to put additional work on the system. Gordon Millar—a former member of the Nicholson committee—says:

"However, I believe that the current wording is simply too broad and will add unnecessary expense and bureaucracy to the licensing system for no appreciable benefit. This has been recognised by the Executive itself which gives Boards the powers to rule out objections they feel are 'frivolous or vexatious'. I believe the Executive's position in allowing a large number of objections which it knows will be ruled incompetent is tantamount to fastening the stable door after it has allowed the horse to bolt".

I could not have put it better myself. I will press the amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division. As members are aware, in accordance with standing orders, we must now have a five-minute suspension while the division bell is rung.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We will now proceed with the division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 73, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 58 disagreed to.

Amendment 59 not moved.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 5 is on off-sales hours and other grounds for refusal of licence. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 12A, 17, 17A, 24, 24A, 63, 64, 64A, 83 and 67. Amendment 64A is a manuscript amendment and is being accepted under rule 9.10.6, as was established earlier. The text is in the second supplement to the marshalled list of amendments.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Bristow Muldoon's amendments 12A, 17A, 24A, 64, 66 and 67 will introduce a new package in relation to licence applications for off-sales. They will, in effect, prevent boards from granting premises licences that would allow off-sales between 10 pm and 3 am. Boards will also be required to take into account the effect that the off-sales hours that are proposed in the application might have on antisocial behaviour. Frank McAveety's amendment 64A would amend the proposals by further restricting off-sales hours by preventing off-sales premises from opening between 10 pm and 10 am.

Bruce Crawford's amendment 63 seeks to amend section 60A of the bill, which was inserted at stage 2 and reintroduces statutorily permitted opening hours for off-sales of 8 am until 11 pm. The amendment would require off-sales to close at 10 pm. Andrew Arbuckle seeks to rely on the provisions of the bill as it was introduced.

Opening hours in Scotland must be decided in the best interests of our communities. There has to be a balance between a strong national framework and local decisions that can reflect the realities on the ground. The bill will create a new framework and a new kind of licensing board that will have to work to a comprehensive set of obligations. The issue is complex, so the bill creates new protections and will involve the public far more comprehensively than has been the case at any time in the past.

There will be a statutory duty on boards to assess every application against the five tests of the national licensing objectives. It is worth hearing what those five tests are. An application will be judged against its capacity to create crime and disorder; against its capacity in relation to public safety; against its capacity in relation to public nuisance; against how it might affect, protect or improve public health; and against how it would protect children from harm. A further test will be the statutory duty on boards to consider the effects of off-sales hours on antisocial behaviour. There will be an obligation on the police to produce a report on their view of how any application would impact on antisocial behaviour. In addition, there will for the first time be a power that licensing boards have asked for for many years: they will have the capacity to refuse an off-sales licence on the grounds of over-provision or of premises simply not being suitable.

A crucial part of the bill is that communities will have a clear say, which they never had before. Anyone will be able to object to a licence application and if a licence is granted and problems arise, they will be able to seek a licence review in short order.

For the first time, local licensing forums will be involved in drawing up the local licensing standards, which will be the guiding principles against which any local board will have to consider an application.

As part of the implementation of the bill, the Executive will produce regulations that will require boards to complete a standard form that will document their findings against each of the five tests. When they have documented their findings, they will be required to publish them, and the general public throughout Scotland will be able immediately to judge the criteria and the way in which the board assessed the criteria before it passed any application. Therefore, communities will know the rationale behind decisions and will immediately be able to comment on them.

The bill contains numerous comprehensive safeguards, procedures and penalties that will deal with the problems that are caused by alcohol. Dealing with those problems has always been at the heart of our policy and it remains so to this day. Comments about large numbers of off-sales shops opening at 3am and the resultant increased disorder in the streets are misleading and distorting. People who make such comments have not thought about the package of reforms in its totality, but for objective consideration of the bill they must do so—members must consider the entire package of reforms before they make a decision on any concerns that they have.

I said earlier and I say again that I am a Lanarkshire member and am proud to represent the Executive. I would not stand here—indeed, the Executive would not allow me to do so—advocating proposals that would cause the deterioration of situations in communities in which people are challenged by the behaviour that results from alcohol consumption. The bill will offer new protections and communities will be better for it.

That said, it is of course Parliament's right to consider the position and to decide whether additional safeguards are required. Members have a number of options; for example, they could disagree to all the amendments and leave the bill as it stands, including Bruce Crawford's amendments that were passed at stage 2. As I said, statutorily permitted opening hours between 8 am and 11 pm for off-sales would therefore be reintroduced.

Alternatively, members could choose Bristow Muldoon's proposal, which would require off-sales to close between 10 pm and 3 am. They could support what he has proposed with the additional safeguard that Frank McAveety has proposed, which would require closure between 10 pm and 10 am. That would be a move from the current position and would surprise the licensed trade. However, I hope that the trade would understand the concerns that members have expressed about the difficulties that communities face as a result of the behaviour that is exhibited when people consume excess alcohol.

I want to make it absolutely clear that if members wish to introduce closure from 10 pm to 10 am—which Frank McAveety has proposed—they must vote for Bristow Muldoon's amendment 64 and for Frank McAveety's amendment 64A. As I said, Andrew Arbuckle has also lodged an amendment, which relies on the existing provisions of the bill to provide the protections that we seek.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister give way?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

No, I will not. I am about to wind up.

We believe that the strength of the bill—taken in its totality, with all the protections that I have outlined—offers new and comprehensive protections to communities, which will address situations that many communities are simply sick of. The bill will create a new type of licensing board and it will mean that people in Scotland will have a greater say than ever in licence applications.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister give way?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I have already said that I will not.

Executive amendments 12, 17 and 24 are technical amendments that will clarify the relationships between different provisions in the bill that relate to the grounds for refusal of an application by the licensing board.

I move amendment 12.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

When I lodged amendment 12A, I did not expect it to attract the attention that it has generated. [ Laughter. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Some parliamentarians must take a look at how they behave. The queue of Scottish National Party members who stood up to disrupt the start of the meeting will bring the Parliament into disrepute. Members who continually seek to disrupt the Parliament should realise that the news clippings will show only one member, not five.

First, I want to deal with amendments 12A, 17A and 24A, which are technical amendments that will merely link section 60A to other aspects of the bill. They are consequential to the main amendment, which is amendment 64.

Amendment 64 has been subject to mischievous misrepresentation by Mr Crawford and some of the media, as Mr McCabe said. If amendment 64 were agreed to without being amended by Frank McAveety's amendment 64A, there is no question but that few—if any—licensed premises would open for off-sales purposes at 3 o'clock in the morning. The purpose of amendment 64 is to enable some flexibility for licensing boards to allow some shops that already open at 6 o'clock in the morning to sell alcohol products to shift workers at the same time as they buy the rest of their messages. That is the perfectly reasonable suggestion that has been put forward.

The question of whether the time should have been 3 o'clock or some other time is a matter for debate; however, the vast majority of on-licence premises would be closed at the time when amendment 64 would allow on-sales to start again. Therefore, even if an application were granted, its impact on antisocial behaviour would be minimal. In fact, amendment 64 places a requirement on any licensing board to take full cognisance of the potential impact on antisocial behaviour before it grants such a licence. If there is the prospect of antisocial behaviour, the licence should be declined.

It is clear that colleagues in different parties have concerns about the degree of flexibility that amendment 64 would allow. Frank McAveety's amendment 64A tinkers slightly with amendment 64: it is an amendment that I will support. I hope that members will vote first for amendment 64A and secondly for amendment 64, as amended.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

A serious point of order, Mr Crawford.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Bristow Muldoon rightly mentions the voting process, to which we will come shortly. Can you confirm for us exactly what the voting procedure will be with regard to the amendments?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Amendment 64 will be moved, then amendment 64A will be moved and voted on. We will then vote on amendment 64.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

That was a perfectly fair question for Mr Crawford to ask, but he timed it deliberately to interrupt me. He could quite easily have asked that question at the end of the debate.

In the passage of the bill, the members who have strengthened the bill and who have taken cognisance of what people are saying to us about the consequences of antisocial behaviour on our communities and the link with alcohol have been Labour members. Several members moved amendments at stage 2, including Paul Martin and Michael McMahon, which were opposed or criticised by the SNP. The SNP is merely posturing in order to be seen to have a stance against antisocial behaviour that its actions prove it does not have.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will Bristow Muldoon tell Parliament about the demand from communities in his constituency for off-sales premises to be opened at 3 o'clock in the morning?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Mr Swinney obviously did not listen to the opening part of my speech, when I said that if amendment 64 were agreed to, very few off-licences in Scotland would open at that time of the morning. Mr Swinney should pay attention to the whole of a member's speech before intervening.

I turn, finally, to our colleagues in the coalition: the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats' position of wanting no opening hours for off-licences specified in the bill is perplexing, given that only a couple of days ago I received through the excellent "Gallery News" service a press release by the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman at Westminster, Mark Oaten, which said:

"The tide of public opinion has turned against 24-hour drinking.

Judges, doctors and many senior police have repeatedly warned the Government against this course of action. Even the Home Office have launched an advertising campaign to crack down on drunk and disorderly conduct."

That exposes opportunism on the Liberal Democrats' part. [Interruption.]

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

It is clear that the only party that stands up—[ Interruption. ]

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

The only party that stands up for communities that are under siege from antisocial behaviour is the Labour Party.

I move amendment 12A.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Bruce Crawford to speak to amendment 63 and the other amendments in the group and I ask the rest of you to be quiet, please.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One of my colleagues just said as an aside that entertainment like this cannot be bought. I was thinking more of ferrets and sacks.

Bristow Muldoon's speech was astonishing; I will deal with some of the detail in a minute. When I consider that some of his colleagues on the Local Government and Transport Committee, such as Michael McMahon and Paul Martin, were critical of my attempt to restrict off-licences at stage 2, some of the arguments that Bristow Muldoon makes are astonishingly puerile.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Let me make some room first.

I wish that somebody would tell me the Executive's position, because I have heard no comment about an Executive line.

I congratulate my colleagues on the Local Government and Transport Committee, who supported my successful amendment 5 at stage 2 to prevent off-licence premises from opening between 11 pm and 8 am the following morning. On reflection, I should have taken a more cautious approach and recognised the situation on the ground. That is why I have lodged amendment 63, which would require off-licences to close at 10 pm. I guess that we have some agreement with Bristow Muldoon on that, because our proposed closing times are the same, but we have a long way to go on opening times in the morning. We disagree on the time at which to prevent sales of alcohol from off-licences in the morning and we cannot support Bristow Muldoon's proposed time of 3 am. That would create problems in some of our communities.

It is simply not credible or sustainable for Bristow Muldoon to argue the position that he took at the Local Government and Transport Committee and then to come along today and argue his current position. In taking his current position, he has shattered any coalition of good will towards the bill. Surely he must realise that amendment 64 does not match his rhetoric or the criteria that he set for himself at stage 2. I will remind him what he said:

"It would concern me if people who have already consumed an amount of alcohol were to come out of a nightclub at two or three o'clock in the morning and have the opportunity to purchase more alcohol to consume in the streets. That might put greater pressure on our public services and communities."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 27 September 2005; c 2909.]

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do so with pleasure.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Has Bruce Crawford reached the end of amendment 64? Subsection (5) says:

"in considering whether the granting of the application would be inconsistent with any of the licensing objectives, the Board must ... consider the effect ... which the off-sales hours proposed ... would have on the occurrence of antisocial behaviour."

If a nightclub were adjacent to off-sales premises, the application would be refused.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why create the possibility that that situation will arise?

I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on some of his proposed provisions. Some of the stuff on antisocial behaviour orders is quite imaginative; it represents good use of an amendment and it will strengthen the bill. I do not support the opening of off-licences at 3 o'clock in the morning, although I support some of what Bristow Muldoon proposes. That is my view, if it is any consolation to him. I know that his own arguments have returned to undermine fatally his position. It is not credible for the member to support a cogent amendment at stage 2, as he did, and to move a completely contradictory amendment today that flies in the face of his own logic.

My views on the issue have strengthened since stage 2. The evidence that we are gathering from England, which is a bit ahead of us on the issue, shows that 80 to 90 per cent of bars and clubs that already open until 2 am have been granted licences to extend their operating hours for anything between one and five hours. That means that in some places they close their doors at 7 am. According to Tuesday's edition of The Times,

"Nine out of ten late-night clubs and bars will be able to stay open until dawn".

That is the prospect that faces us if Andrew Arbuckle gets his way today. He is, in effect, trying to reintroduce 24-hour opening.

When people spill out on to the streets of our towns and cities, those who want to will be able to purchase more alcohol from an off-licence, to add to their already inebriated state. You can be absolutely certain that, if one supermarket gets its nose in the door, others will seek to do the same and will start to claim that there is unfair competition. I cannot believe that Parliament is allowing supermarkets to decide its position and policy. That cannot be the way forward.

The Scottish Grocers Federation, which represents many small operators of off-licences in Scotland, stated:

"We have argued from day one that we do not want (a) 24 hour licensing, (b) variations in licensing hours from board to board, and (c) a system which could allow out-of-town superstores to open 24 hours but at the same time inhibit local shops from opening beyond the specified time".

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Mr Crawford take an intervention?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

George Lyon's colleague Jeremy Purvis rose first, so I will take an intervention from him.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Does the member support in principle devolution from Parliament to communities and licensing boards? If so, how many boards does he estimate would take the irresponsible approach that he just described? Would any boards operate properly, as we would expect them to do?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The whole purpose of Parliament is to set parameters and frameworks for people to implement in our communities. That is the job that we are doing and that the minister is doing. However, the minister has not followed the example of his colleagues at Westminster, who voted against 24-hour opening.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the member is aware, there is a presumption against 24-hour opening in the bill, which is completely different from the Westminster legislation. Unlike the Westminster legislation, the bill makes provision for licensing standards officers. It also requires local licensing boards, when they set hours, to take into account antisocial behaviour reports from the police. Is the member saying that he does not trust local elected members to decide what is appropriate for their communities? That is what he is arguing.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am afraid that many of George Lyon's Labour colleagues in the Scottish Executive are arguing that. I am arguing that we in Parliament should set the framework and conditions that would protect Scotland from antisocial behaviour and the difficult health situations that alcohol brings. That is our job. If the minister gets his way, we will open a Pandora's box and there will be even more problems on Scotland's streets and towns.

Bristow Muldoon is right to say that we must do all that we can to protect Scotland's communities from the antisocial behaviour that results from too much alcohol. I support some of the provisions in amendment 64, but much of it is just additional warm words. As the minister said, the licensing principles already establish much of what is contained in the amendment.

We do not need to look far to find the real problem that is associated with alcohol in Scotland. This week the statistics for alcohol-related conditions and discharges from Parliament were published. [Laughter.] I meant to say discharges from hospitals—although we may need a few glasses once the debate is finished. In 1997-98, there were 36,221 discharges, but in 2004-05, there were 51,000. There has been an increase in alcohol-related discharges of 15,000—an uplift of 41 per cent. That is the background to the debate.

My main concern about today's debate is that Parliament is in danger of sending out mixed messages. The Executive says, "We've been consistent all along, unlike SNP members." On the one hand, the Executive and Parliament say, "We've got to get tough on crime and deal with the booze culture", but on the other, the Executive proposes 24-hour opening.

As far as the shenanigans of earlier today are concerned, I cannot understand why the Executive has allowed itself to get into such a situation at this late juncture—it is chaos. To people outside, it must look like panic and that can only be embarrassing for the Executive. Unfortunately, it is also embarrassing for Parliament, which the Executive has brought into disrepute because of how it has handled proceedings this afternoon. It has been a boorach. Parliament is built on a former brewery site and there is an expression about organising a proverbial something or other in a brewery; the Executive has not managed to do that on this occasion and should hang its head in shame.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am reminded of a line from "Macbeth":

"it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

I thank Bruce Crawford who reached Shakespearian proportions in his contribution this afternoon. However, he is more of a Shakespearian clown than a tragedy.

Those of us who represent parts of Glasgow that are affected by the effects of alcohol do not underestimate the personal tragedies that are caused by alcohol misuse. Many of us, and probably some of us in this chamber, can testify from family circumstances to the impact on families and individuals of misuse of alcohol. One need only look to my constituency and the statistics that relate to levels of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in young children as well as the levels of violence connected with consumption of alcohol, primarily by young males.

I recognise the contribution by the Executive and members of the Local Government and Transport Committee to grappling with the difficult issue of how to find a more modern approach to licensing, but at the same time to respond to the difficulties that are thrown up by misunderstandings about the misuse of alcohol, or access to alcohol that could be used inappropriately. Those difficulties are reflected differently depending on whether one is in Glasgow city centre or other parts of Glasgow.

My constituency has such problems in substantial quantities. It also borders Glasgow city centre and is therefore affected by the clubbing culture. People must reflect on that impact. I attend a meeting in my constituency every month at the Alcoholics Anonymous office in the Saltmarket. One need only step out into the Saltmarket to see how misuse of alcohol can affect individuals and communities. The principles in that AA meeting are that people should maintain awareness and consider available information to try to make rational decisions about what they do with their lives. That strikes me as a metaphor for what the Parliament needs to do this afternoon. I am not particularly bothered about who said what in committee meetings. I am not bothered about the nuances of debate that members have grappled with—those are the difficulties that members face at stages 1 and 2. Today we are at stage 3, so central to our consideration must be this question: What is in the interests of the wider public?

Having listened to the debate and seen developments in the past 48 hours, I believe that my amendment 64A will deliver the best of both worlds. The amendment reflects the need for stronger and more modern licensing legislation. More important, we need to ensure that we do not make it easier to create loopholes for people to exploit.

As far as I understand it, the former licensing situation was that no opening hours were defined. Licensing boards had to reflect that in their observations about access to alcohol sales. Bruce Crawford stated in committee and through lodging amendment 63 that specific hours must be determined. However, I am not prepared—neither should any member, irrespective of his or her position—to be held to a Dutch auction when it comes to opening times. An essential part of an auction is the setting of a reserve price—the reserve price here is what is in the best interests of the communities that we serve.

My proposal in amendment 64A will set licensed hours for off-sales not at 11 in the evening until 10 in the evening, as has been suggested, but at 10 in the morning until 10 in the evening. That should strike a reasonable balance with the new guidelines for, and principles of, this reform of licensing.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Frank McAveety said that there should be no Dutch auction on licensing hours. Is he therefore minded to support Andrew Arbuckle's amendment 83, which seeks to leave the matter up to local licensing authorities? This is about devolution and about letting people make local decisions instead of the national Parliament making those decisions for them.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

We can get too caught up in the debate over local and national decision making. My principle objective is to find an approach that best reflects the consensus in the wider public. We, as parliamentarians, are asked to make such decisions; indeed, when the National Union of Miners criticised Nye Bevan for taking a different position from it on an issue, he said, "I owe you my judgment." This afternoon, we are giving the people our judgment on the most appropriate approach to licensing.

It is important to point out that the issue raises difficulties for members of all political parties and none. However, I end by quoting from an Official Report of the Local Government and Transport Committee's stage 2 consideration of the bill. One committee member said:

"Do we allow flexibility to impact on the greater good? The core hours of closing that I suggest are for the greater good, even though people will be denied some flexibility. We must make the decision. We must come down on one side of the fence or the other."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 27 September 2005; c 2911.]

That comment was made not by a Labour committee member, but by Bruce Crawford. He is right to say that

"We must come down on one side of the fence or the other."

I think that amendment 64A will do so appropriately.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the time limit for the debate on groups 5 to 8.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the debate on Groups 5 to 8 be extended by 20 minutes.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Given that 12—now 13—members want to speak in the debate on group 5, I cannot call all of them. I shall call one member from each party who has pressed their request-to-speak button. I warn them that they will get a very tight two minutes.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 83 seeks to delete section 60A. I do not intend to speak to the technical amendments in the group, as I agree with them.

One very strong Liberal principle that runs through the bill is that, on certain matters, the centre does not know best; ministers do not know best; and members of this Parliament do not know best. The Liberal Democrats contend that the important principle behind the bill is that communities and locally elected councillors know best.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I have evidence that suggests that some local boards do not want this flexibility or window of opportunity. Does the member acknowledge that some boards want the 10 am to 10 pm period for licensing hours to be mandatory?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I assure Paul Martin that the licensing board members in my area to whom I have spoken are all in favour of the bill and want to take over responsibility for dealing with the issue.

Scotland is a diverse country and a one-size-fits-all policy on licensing is not appropriate. Issues about alcohol sales in Glasgow are not the same as those, for example, in Newburgh in Fife or in Aberdeenshire. I say to Frank McAveety that it is not correct to impose the Glasgow solution on the rest of the country.

The bill follows the principle that local people know best.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the member accept that people the length and breadth of Scotland struggle with alcoholism and alcohol abuse? Giving them access to alcohol during his suggested hours would be simply irresponsible and would increase and exacerbate people's problems.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I refer the member to the minister's comments that strengthening the bill's provisions will prevent certain problems. I think that everyone in the chamber accepts that drink is linked to health problems; however, the bill addresses all those issues.

It is perverse to say that although local people appear to know best for on-sales, they need to be told what to do for off-sales. That is why the Liberal Democrats lodged amendment 83, to return the principle of local decision making for off-sales to the bill. Members have referred to the fact that the safeguard of off-sales licence decisions will still apply to on-sales and that antisocial behaviour must be taken into account by the new licensing boards. Local views must be sought; objections must be heard and considered; local licensing forums will be able to hold boards to account for their decisions; licensing standards officers will have powers to inspect and to enforce licences; and I can confirm to Bruce Crawford that there is a statutory presumption against 24-hour drinking. The minister has, rightly, pointed to all those additional safeguards in the bill.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Arbuckle give way?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

The only thing that the minister has stopped short of saying is, "I support Andrew Arbuckle's amendment," but perhaps that will come. I hope so.

In considering any off-sales applications, boards must have regard to all the safeguards and must consider whether accepting such an application would be detrimental to the bill's objectives regarding crime and disorder, securing public safety, preventing public nuisance, protecting and improving public health and protecting children from harm.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will Mr Arbuckle give way?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

It is simply scaremongering to suggest that, in the face of those safeguards and conditions, communities, represented by democratically elected members, would take decisions to open off-sales at all hours throughout the country.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Arbuckle, you should sum up now.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I lodged amendment 83, for no restrictive hours to be set by legislation, because that was the original intention of the Scottish Executive.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It should still be.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Indeed, it is the current position of the Scottish Executive. Amendment 83 is in stark contrast to the amendments in the names of Frank McAveety, Bruce Crawford and Bristow Muldoon, whose message to their councillor colleagues is to look them in the eye and tell them when they go back to their constituencies, "We don't trust you." I point out to Bristow Muldoon—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Arbuckle, you need to finish now.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Right. Just one minute.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No, Mr Arbuckle. I am speaking English. You will finish now.

Of the 13 members who wish to speak, I intend to call five: Bill Aitken, Stewart Maxwell, Tommy Sheridan, Wendy Alexander and Jeremy Purvis. I shall give them one minute each.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Let me make it quite clear what the debate is about. In Scotland, we have serious problems of drink abuse and serious problems of violence and disorder, yet the Executive has introduced a bill to extend the availability of drink. We have witnessed the ludicrous situation of Bristow Muldoon lodging amendment 12A in an effort to extend that availability even further and, at the end of the day, we have found ourselves in an even more shambolic situation, with Frank McAveety having been persuaded to lodge yet another amendment. The only part of the cabaret that is missing is Jack McConnell getting up on his feet to say that all that is to be forgotten about and that we are going back to stage 1.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have 50 seconds, Mr Aitken.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I beg your pardon?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Let me make it quite clear what my party's intentions are. We simply cannot have a situation in which we extend the availability of drink from the pub to the club to the off-sales, leading to disorder in the streets. We will not support the Executive's motion to accept the bill as it stands. We will have to accept Bristow Muldoon's ludicrous amendment, because it will then be tempered by amendment 64A in the name of Frank McAveety, so that is what we shall do.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Thank you, Mr Aitken. I call Mr Maxwell.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the level of interest in this group of amendments, surely the Parliament should be entitled to some extra time to have a proper debate on the matter.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We already have an extra 20 minutes.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am suggesting that a motion be moved to extend the time further for a proper debate.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am prepared to move a motion to extend for another 20 minutes.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Members are entitled to move such a motion, but the maximum time that I have to spare is 10 minutes, for the rest of the whole debate, up to the end of group 8.

Be very careful what you are doing, Mr Lyon. If you wish to move to extend by those 10 minutes, you have the right to do that and I shall put the question on that. However, I have already extended the debate by 20 minutes and we are now using part of that time to have this dialogue. I appreciate what you are doing, but the timing is extremely tight. I have done the best that I can.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I think that the Parliament would like to have some extra time.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the debate on Groups 5 to 8 be extended by a further 10 minutes.—[George Lyon.]

Motion agreed to.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Do I have one minute or two?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome all the safeguards that the minister mentioned at the beginning. For example, he spoke about how communities' views could be taken into account but, frankly, that is not the point. The fundamental point, in my view, is that there would still be a presumption—not against 24-hour opening, but in favour of extended opening. The best safeguard against that is to specify the hours in the bill. If the establishments in question were not open, there would be no problem and, if there were no problem, there would be no need to create ways in which to police it. It seems nonsensical to create a problem and then to create rules about how to police it.

Since 1980, there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of off-sales licences in this country. Is it true that the people of East Renfrewshire are happy that in the past eight years there has been a 28 per cent increase in the number of off-sales in their area? Perhaps Andrew Arbuckle can answer that. In Inverclyde, there has been a 22 per cent increase and, in Renfrewshire, the figure has increased by 12.5 per cent.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be winding up.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The people do not want those off-sales. Even though they fight them all the time, local licensing boards are allowing them; they are allowing more drink to be available. Frankly, Andrew Arbuckle's idea of 24-hour extended opening is nonsense.

I say to Bristow Muldoon that allowing alcohol to be sold at 3 o'clock in the morning is ludicrous. That is the proposal that is made in amendment 64 and it is complete and utter nonsense. Does Bristow Muldoon want the Asda in his community to be able to sell alcohol from 3 am? If he does, he should stand up and tell—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You need to finish now.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The only problem that I have with Frank McAveety's amendment 64A is that it was lodged so late that we did not have a proper opportunity to consider it. I will support amendment 64A because I think that it is the proper way to go. My only problem is that subsection (4) of the section that amendment 64 seeks to insert means that Scottish ministers would have the power to amend those times at a later date. I do not support the times being amended in regulations at some later date.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

This is a mess, which the Labour Party has created. It would be helpful if Paul Martin and Michael McMahon were to admit—because it seems that Bristow Muldoon is getting pushed into the breach—that they were wrong to oppose Bruce Crawford's amendment at stage 2.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will Tommy Sheridan confirm that the hours that he proposed for off-sales—a closing time of 11 pm and an opening time of 8 am—were the hours that Bruce Crawford proposed?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

If Paul Martin has lost his memory, that is fine, but Bruce Crawford will confirm that I suggested to him that he should propose a 9 pm closing time. However, given that the amendment that Bruce Crawford had lodged was better than the Executive's open-ended proposal, I supported his amendment.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

One minute.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I will now support the proposal for a 10 pm closing time, because it is better than the original proposal. I will support Frank McAveety's amendment for a 10 am opening time, because I think that that is better than an 8 am opening time.

Paul Martin and Michael McMahon talked a good game about sticking up for communities on the availability of alcohol and off-licence opening hours, but when it came to the committee's consideration of the bill, they voted with the Executive and against the communities. That is the reality of the situation. Now we are in a mess because Bristow Muldoon has obviously been leaned on to back the Executive. If Paul Martin and Michael McMahon had been consistent from the start, we would have been able to provide communities with some safeguards as far as the consumption of alcohol was concerned. That is why I hope that, at the end of the day, regardless of the route that we have to follow, we end up with a 10 pm closing time and a 10 am opening time. That would be the best defence for our communities.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I support Frank McAveety's amendment 64A.

I doubt that any one of my 50,000 constituents in Paisley will care about the media feeding frenzy tomorrow or the media's momentary spasm of excitement. They will care about what the Parliament has done. The truth is that the Executive has unquestionably taken a lead on antisocial behaviour.

The first issue that was raised with the Executive was that underaged youngsters are being sold drink; that issue has been dealt with. The next issue was the problem of oversupply; that issue has also been dealt with. The amendments in group 5 tackle the third issue, which is the potential availability of alcohol at all hours.

Tommy Sheridan is one of those fashionable people who say that the Scottish Parliament is overwhipped, too partisan and without any independent thinking. I say to him that today's debate demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament listens to its communities. We also have an Executive that listens to its members—they are a Parliament and an Executive of which the nation can be proud. I say to Opposition members, whether they are the bluest Tory or the deepest Green, that the people of Scotland are asking them to examine the issues in conscience and without regard to partisanship. Opposition members diminish themselves when they play politics.

Tommy Sheridan should not be puzzled by Labour's decision today. He should know that Keir Hardie stood in North Lanarkshire on a platform that promised three things. He said that we should bring in home rule—we have done that—and proportional representation, which is being brought about. The third part of his platform was temperance and therein lies the issue. The responsible licensed trade in Scotland will have no difficulty with the amendments in group 5; only the irresponsible licensed trade will face difficulty.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

We have had Nye Bevan and now Keir Hardie has been mentioned. Nye Bevan may well have said that he owed people his judgment. I say to the communities that I represent that they will not only have my view, but that I will fight in this place for them to have power.

Members have misrepresented my Liberal Democrat colleagues in England. They are campaigning for the bill at Westminster to be more like the bill in Scotland. Why is the bill that the Executive introduced, on which we have been working for three years, so good? Because it responds to the concerns of local communities about the weaknesses of the present licensing boards. The bill strengthens not only the boards, but the voice of the communities that are represented on them. It strengthens communities' ability to police the decisions of the licensing boards.

I do not support the attempt to reduce the discretion of licensing boards. Does Bruce Crawford believe in local government—in devolution from this place to local communities? He does not. When I asked him whether he believes that any boards will be responsible, his reply showed that he believes that none of them will be responsible. We believe that they will be.

I ask all members of the Executive—ministers and back benchers—to support the Executive position. That position has been consistent, not only during the passage of the bill but over the past three years. The bill will be a good act, but only if we respect local communities, their elected representatives, their voice and their power.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister has two minutes.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I will assist you in that regard, Presiding Officer.

Many members have expressed sincerely held views. Not for the first time, Mr Aitken enjoyed distorting the position but that has come to be expected. I have explained the bill's provisions, what protections it offers to our local communities and the way in which we are creating new licensing boards that will have far more substantial powers.

The provisions offer substantial protection to our communities. However, I accept that Parliament may wish to adopt another route. The debate has reflected very real concerns, which, in my view, were articulated in a way that reflects well on the chamber. It is for the Parliament to consider the various options that have been placed before it; members will vote accordingly when the time comes.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Much of the debate has misrepresented the bill. It is a good bill and many of its measures will achieve the aims that are set out in the explanatory notes to the bill.

The Local Government and Transport Committee took cognisance of the degree of liberalisation that was proposed for the off-trade and agreed that the measure did not sit well with the concerns of the communities that we represent. As a result, Bruce Crawford lodged his amendment 186. All committee members should note that the amendment in my name, with its proposal for a maximum period of 19 hours, is closer to the committee's unanimously agreed recommendation for a maximum period of 18 hours. The members who are criticising my position endorsed it at an earlier stage.

However, at this stage, Mr McAveety's amendment 64A makes perfect sense. I will press amendment 12A, but I do so on the basis that I will also support Mr McAveety's amendment 64A.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 12A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 106, Against 12, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12A agreed to.

Amendment 12, as amended, agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 6 is on the duty to notify the licensing board of conviction. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 18 and 36.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Amendment 13 seeks to correct an inconsistency between the procedures for applying for personal and premises licences. It replicates for premises licence applicants the requirement under section 66 for personal licence applicants to notify the licensing board of any convictions that they have obtained for relevant or foreign offences while a licence application is pending. Amendments 18 and 36 are consequential technical amendments that will ensure drafting consistency.

I move amendment 13.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 7 is on licence conditions for late-opening premises. Amendment 6, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 60.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Scottish ministers will by regulation prescribe further conditions that licensing boards must impose if they grant a premises licence that falls within proposed section 25(2B). Under amendment 6, mandatory conditions will be placed upon any premise whose operating plan specifies that it will open until 1 am or later.

The background to amendment 6 is that the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 differentiates between pubs and clubs and allows a different type of licence to be issued. While there is a need to modernise our laws and recognise the variety of different pubs and clubs, there is a danger that the new law will increase the number of pubs that will qualify for late opening. Glasgow nightclub forum and the SLTA expressed serious concerns about the impact of more licensed premises being open later; in particular, they are concerned about the removal of the distinction between pubs and clubs, which they do not believe is helpful.

Many clubs that provide entertainment along with the sale of alcohol have already invested heavily in measures to increase public safety. Clubs tend to open later in the evening and close early in the morning. There is a worry that, if more pubs were to open later, more competition would be created, which would open up the possibility of further drink price wars. It would not be helpful if clubs were to start opening earlier in the evening to recoup their losses, thereby undermining the bill's objectives.

Any premises that seek to take advantage of late opening should have to conform to certain mandatory conditions that are based on the bill's principles of ensuring public safety, tackling excessive alcohol consumption, controlling public order and reducing violence. Under the compromise that the SLTA and the nightclub forum support, the Executive would set mandatory conditions that would apply to all premises that open after 1 am. Further consultation would be needed on the mandatory conditions, which is why amendment 6 does not specify them—they would be for discussion at a later date.

I believe that the mandatory conditions should relate to violence-reduction measures, drugs policies and public safety. The provision of closed-circuit television systems, staff who have the know-how to operate them and stewards who are first-aid trained are essential mandatory conditions. The later that licensed premises sell drink, the more the need for public safety measures. If a person collapses in a pub, whether through excessive alcohol consumption or simply because they are ill, staff should be trained to respond to the emergency. Pubs and clubs that want to profit from the sale of alcohol early in the morning should be prepared to invest in such measures, under the principles that I mentioned. That would be a great contribution to a safer Scotland.

I put on record my support for the best bar none awards, which took place yesterday in my constituency and which are about raising public safety standards in pubs and clubs. In the interests of cross-party co-operation, I thank Bruce Crawford and Paul Martin for their support for amendment 6. I look forward to hearing a positive response from George Lyon.

I move amendment 6.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We all agree with Pauline McNeill about the need for standards, security and first-aid training. However, for amendment 6 to have any real purpose—and given that we are at stage 3—she should have ensured that it contained a fuller explanation of the conditions that she talked about.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does David Davidson accept that, if Pauline McNeill had provided a list of potential mandatory conditions, members from all parties would have been enabled to pick holes in the amendment? Does he accept that it is better to go through the process of consultation on what the mandatory conditions should be to allow us to reach a measure of agreement, rather than find that the amendment is sunk today?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The licensing boards, in considering working standards and licence conditions, can use their discretion to deal with the matter. I am happy for boards to have that discretion, given the overall guidance that will come through the bill. We all accept the principles that Pauline McNeill talked about, but exactly what amendment 6 attempts to achieve is not clear. Frankly, we cannot support it, because of the lack of detail. We have already had a lot of arguments about fine-print details and we cannot just skirt past this one.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

We have no hesitation in supporting amendment 6, but with the proviso that there will be detailed and comprehensive consultation about the type and range of conditions that are proposed before any new measures are introduced and that the proposals will come to Parliament for further full debate and discussion. I invite the minister to state explicitly that that will be the case. I understand that amendment 6 will apply only to premises that are open after 1 am. The purpose is to seek to ensure as far as possible that order and safety are preserved. Training of stewards, first-aid training and CCTV cameras are examples of measures that we may consider appropriate.

I point out to the Tories that the SLTA supports the measure, perhaps because it does not want licensing boards throughout Scotland to set different standards. People will want to know what the standards are throughout Scotland. That is why the SNP supports amendment 6, which will further protect the public against the dangers and excesses of alcohol.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It has always been the Executive's intention to provide in regulations a set of discretionary licensing conditions for late-opening premises that licensing boards can draw on as appropriate. The conditions that were proposed by a majority of members of the expert reference group, which have been published, were supported by the Executive. We consider that discretionary conditions are more appropriate given the range of premises that may open late in the evening and given the need to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on smaller establishments.

Amendments 6 and 60, in the name of Pauline McNeill, would require ministers to introduce by regulations a set of mandatory licence conditions that would apply to all premises that open after 1 o'clock in the morning. Pauline McNeill emphasised the importance of maintaining a minimum standard for the purposes of protecting individuals and the community and reducing risks of crime and nuisance. That is also the Executive's approach to regulation of the late-night economy.

We believe that it is right to focus on the need to ensure public safety rather than on arguments that seek to impose artificial and unnecessary distinctions between the pub and nightclub sectors. We will support Pauline McNeill's amendments on the basis that the mandatory conditions that are to be introduced should focus on public safety. The conditions should also be proportionate and avoid the imposition of burdens on smaller businesses that have no public order problems.

I assure Parliament that we will consult the industry fully and seek agreement on draft regulations before the instrument is laid before Parliament.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Minister, you must finish now.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is important that we take a light touch. We will put in place mandatory conditions that are appropriate and proportionate and which meet the needs of public safety and tackling crime.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I cannot give Pauline McNeill any time to respond to the debate.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 8 is minor amendments. Amendment 14, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 15, 16, 30, 31 and 32.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Executive amendments 14, 15, 16, 30, 31 and 32 are technical amendments.

I move amendment 14.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[George Lyon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[George Lyon].

Amendment 17A moved—[Bristow Muldoon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 17, as amended, agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before we move to group 9, I remind members that we must stick to our timetable from now on as we have no further scope to extend the debate on amendments. Members should know that, in addition to the amendments in groups 9 and 11 that we are about to debate, we need to vote on a number of amendments that have already been debated. We have 20 minutes in total to get from group 9 to the end of group 11.

Group 9 is on reports by licensing standards officers in relation to occasional licence applications. Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 21, 21A, 22, 23, 25 and 26.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

This debate should be relatively short.

The bill sets out a short procedure for the determination and grant of occasional licences that allow events to take place outwith licensed premises. This is the first time that a procedure for occasional licence has been set out, and as such licences may be requested at short notice we wish to keep the procedure as uncomplicated as possible. However, since the police will be asked for their comments, it also makes sense to require applications for occasional licences to be notified to the licensing standards officer to give that officer the opportunity to submit a report to the licensing board. A report to the board is not mandatory from either the police or LSOs, but it could be made as and when necessary. LSOs may have local knowledge that would be entirely relevant to the application.

Amendment 20 requires applications to be notified to an LSO. Amendment 21 gives an LSO power to make reports within 21 days of receipt of notice. Amendment 25 requires licensing boards to have regard to any report submitted by an LSO in respect of an application for an occasional licence when considering whether any of the grounds for refusal applies. Amendment 26 ensures that notification of the determination of the application is given to an LSO. Amendments 22 and 23 are consequential.

Bruce Crawford's amendment 21A seeks to reduce the time within which an LSO may submit a report to a board from 21 days to 10 days. It is important that an LSO is given sufficient time to collate all the information relevant to the applicant. Ten days, as proposed by Bruce Crawford, seems to be an unnecessary restriction on an LSO. A 21-day timescale is more reasonable—and, more important—it is in line with the time given to the police to respond on the matter.

Given those assurances, I ask Bruce Crawford to consider not moving his amendment.

I move amendment 20.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I find it difficult to withdraw from the position in the amendment. Why? Because occasional licences by their nature are sought by a licensed premises owner in a very short time. Usually, an event or function will come along that requires an owner to get a licence as soon as possible. To allow businesses in those circumstances to operate within the occasional licence framework, we need to ensure that the licensee can get the go-ahead—or otherwise—from the licensing board.

Twenty-one days will add almost a month to the process of informing the licensing standards officer of the issue and of replying to the licensing board. All I seek is to help the licensed trade. It does have to apply for occasional licences, but it requires a quick turnaround, and 21 days is too long.

The minister is right to say that the police should be asked for their comments. However, a report would come from the police only if they had particular concerns, whereas the LSO has a right on every occasion, and that gives me concern.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have some sympathy with the minister's position on this one, because we have yet to see how the roll-out of the LSOs will work and what resources they will have. Also, the police rules say 21 days; if an LSO responds in 10 days without the police having made their comments, no decision will be made. The two response times should be parallel.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I wish to clarify the matter for Bruce Crawford. LSOs are in exactly the same position as the police: they do not necessarily have to respond. Therefore, his argument on turnaround is equally applicable to the police. I suggest that the right approach is to put the police and the LSO response times on the same footing—21 days. I hope that Bruce Crawford will not move his amendment.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendment 21 moved—[George Lyon].

Amendment 21A not moved.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 10 is on extended hours applications. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 29, 33 to 35, 39, 40, 48 and 55.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Further to discussions with the licensed trade, we gave a commitment at stage 2 to lodge an amendment to provide a procedure for occasional licence extensions to be made to licensed hours for one-off and special events. Such events are, by their nature, unpredictable and cannot therefore be included in operating plans. Amendments 33 to 35 introduce such a procedure. They add to the power that was introduced at stage 2, as set out in section 61A, that allows boards to grant general extensions of hours to all premises, or to a particular category of premises, in response to a special local or national event.

The procedure as we have set it out has been tailored to suit the unpredictable and transitory nature of the need for extended hours. Any application must relate to a special event or occasion to be catered for on the premises, or to a special event of local or national significance. Licensing standards officers and the police will be notified of applications. There will be a requirement for licensing standards officers to submit a report, and the police will have the power to object. A board will have complete discretion as to whether to grant an application, subject to its taking into account any police objections and the licensing standards officer's report, and having regard to the licensing objectives. I consider that our proposals meet the concerns of the licensed trade, and that they ensure that there is no unnecessary bureaucracy involved.

Amendments 29, 39 and 55 are ancillary, and bring the treatment of extended hours applications into line with the treatment of occasional licence applications. Amendments 28, 40 and 48 are consequential.

I move amendment 28.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 11 is on the sale of alcohol for the full duration of licensed hours. Amendment 61, in the name of Bruce Crawford, is the only amendment in the group.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The purpose of amendment 61 is to ensure that licence holders are not required to operate under a regime that does not reflect the reality of operating a business. I hope that everyone will accept the principle that no one would expect every licensee to open for every hour as detailed in their agreed operating plan. We must allow licensees, particularly those in smaller and rural communities to be able to close, on occasions, at an earlier time than is stated in their operating plan.

Imagine the scene. A publican in a small village pub has been opening on Tuesday evenings for a long time, but no one usually turns up after 10 pm on that day. Is it really sensible that we suggest to that person that they continue operating their business until 12 o'clock, as the operating plan says? They would need to absorb greater energy and staffing costs to do that. We should take the side of flexibility in such situations, and allow the publican to deal with the reality that faces him or her. They can stay open and face unnecessary costs, or they can close a bit earlier and stay in business.

I hope that the minister can show me that my amendment is not required, and that other provisions in the bill cover its intention. I hope that it proves to be unnecessary. As far as I can see, the bill is a bit too prescriptive—in this particular regard—and it will force the licensee into an unnecessary straitjacket. Will the minister deal with the matter by issuing guidelines from the national licensing forum?

I move amendment 61.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I support Bruce Crawford on amendment 61. There are such things as road works, as we have seen around the Parliament, which mean that people cannot get access to some licensed premises. There might also be illness in premises. There are terrible fogs, natural disasters and so on. The amendment allows flexibility to deal with such circumstances. It would also allow the licensing board to conduct a review of the arrangements.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am gobsmacked by Bruce Crawford's call to make the bill less prescriptive. I am sure that we will see whether he wishes it to be less prescriptive when it comes to the vote on certain matters later on.

Amendment 61 is not needed. It seeks to remove the requirement to trade during all the hours specified in an operating plan. I made it clear during stage 2 that it is not in our interest to allow the licensed trade to apply to boards to open their premises for the maximum hours that they think the board will agree to, rather than the hours for which they intend to open. That is what has happened down south, because the provision is not in the equivalent bill there.

We do not want to encourage the submission by lawyers of standardised operating plans, which will have been given little thought by applicants; nor do we wish to allow licensees to attempt to block the market to competitors, which could happen.

Bruce Crawford seeks to ensure that licensees are not breaching their operating plan if they fail to open due to unforeseen circumstances, such as illness. I support that. During stage 2 I made a statement for the record to clarify the flexibility inherent in our policy. I reiterate what I said, which underlines the fact that Bruce Crawford's amendment 61 is unnecessary. Operating plans have been introduced to provide a flexible licensing regime. They are there to give the board as clear an idea as possible of how the premises are to be run. They should not, however, be read prescriptively like a conveyancing document, but like a business plan.

In deciding whether there has been a breach, the board must ask whether the licensee is abiding by the business plan. The board must take a commonsense approach and make allowances for holidays, sickness, bereavement and other such normal business factors before calling any breach of the operating plan.

I hope that that clarifies the position for Mr Crawford. On the basis of the assurances that I am giving him, I ask him to consider withdrawing amendment 61, which is unnecessary, given the Executive's intentions on the matter.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will make this as painless as I can. Some of the assurances that the minister gave on this occasion were not delivered as strongly at stage 2. The trade will be much more satisfied with what it has heard today.

Amendment 61, by agreement, withdrawn.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 12 is on the maximum length of licensed hours. Amendment 62, in the name of Bruce Crawford, is the only amendment in the group.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 62 brings us to a point on which we have serious concerns about the Scottish Executive's proposals for modernising Scotland's licensing laws. We must ask ourselves whether Scotland is ready for the ushering in of an era of 24-hour opening.

At stage 2, when I lodged a similar amendment, George Lyon said:

"There is a presumption against 24-hour drinking in the bill, which should help to allay those fears. The bill ensures that 24-hour opening is granted only in exceptional circumstances".—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 27 September 2005; c 2900.]

I accept the minister's contention that a licence to open for 24 hours or longer will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. What else could be concluded from section 60, which, on the subject of applications for licences such that

"if the application were to be granted, the licensed hours in relation to the premises would be such as to allow alcohol to be sold on the premises during a continuous period of 24 hours or more",

says that

"The Licensing Board must refuse the application unless the Board is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which justify allowing the sale of alcohol on the premises during such a period"?

For me, that exposes the argument of Tom McCabe on Radio Scotland this morning, when he said that there is no opportunity for any licensing board anywhere in Scotland to issue a 24-hour licence. I have read out what the document I have says. Either George Lyon or Tom McCabe is wrong; they cannot both be right. I have read the bill and I know that exceptional circumstances exist.

It is equally true to state that an application for a licence to remain open for a period of 23 hours and 59 minutes will not be considered to be exceptional and that there is a danger of that number of hours becoming the norm. The same applies to 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23 hours. To all intents and purposes, there is the prospect of 24-hour opening—or opening for 23 hours and 59 minutes, if members want to be pedantic. Such opening could become the norm, because it has not been defined as being the exception.

We do not believe that Scotland is ready for 24-hour opening. Whether we like it or not, we have a bevvy culture, which is extremely unfortunate. Report after report and statistic after statistic shows a depressing picture of how Scotland is failing to get to grips with alcohol abuse. Binge drinking and alcohol abuse by younger people are increasing. Drink-fuelled crime is on the up and ill health that is related to alcohol abuse is getting worse. Media report after media report paints a picture of public policy failure on alcohol abuse.

I realise that I am speaking about a long-term issue. The Scotsman of Tuesday 6 September contained the headline, "Drunken weekend violence hitting frontline policing". The paper quotes the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders police force, Malcolm Dickson, as saying:

"too many police officers are being diverted to deal with evening binge drinking in city centres instead of dealing with ordinary crime."

The paper stated that Mr Dickson also criticised

"government plans to introduce 24-hour drinking, claiming this will add to the stretching of police resources."

It is not only the deputy chief constable who is opposed to 24-hour opening; the Local Government and Transport Committee also opposes it. Paragraph 310 of its stage 1 report states:

"The Committee is not yet convinced that 24 hour drinking is required in Scotland, even in exceptional circumstances ... As things stand, the Committee considers that 18 hours is a more appropriate cut-off point than the 24 hour limit set out in the Bill."

The committee took that view simply because the evidence against 24-hour opening—even in exceptional circumstances—was overwhelming. The trade does not want it: the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and the Scottish Grocers Federation, which represent the trade, are against it. Alcohol Focus Scotland is opposed to it and—perhaps tellingly—so is Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson. In written evidence to the committee, he said that the provisions in section 60

"would not be triggered at all if an applicant were to stipulate an opening period of 23 hours and 59 minutes; but such a period would be likely to be seen as being just as objectionable as a period of precisely 24 hours. Consequently, if this provision is to remain, I would respectfully suggest that the trigger point should be a number of hours just beyond what might normally be regarded as acceptable—say, 18 hours",

as per my amendment 62.

From the First Minister down, the Executive has told us that it is determined to tackle Scotland's booze culture, but the reality is before us. The Executive is prepared to usher in a process to allow 24-hour opening instead of taking a more reasonable and sensible approach. The mixed message that the Executive is sending out can only create greater confusion. On the one hand, it talks tough on antisocial behaviour and binge drinking; on the other hand, it says that people will be able to buy alcohol even more freely in future.

I know that there is widespread concern among members of all parties about 24-hour opening, and that that concern is shared by the country. Today, the Parliament has the opportunity to take a more reasonable and sensible route, and I invite members to support amendment 62.

I move amendment 62.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Justice 2 Committee was the second committee to consider the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. We interviewed community police officers, and our report states:

"Community police officers expressed concern to the Committee about the possible operational impacts of any extension to the current licensed hours. Many rural areas do not have 24 hour cover, and in urban areas, shifts are based around the busiest hours. In general terms, increased flexibility in opening hours was seen as having potential to make policing more difficult."

It is clear from that statement that the possibility of 24-hour opening is not welcomed by the police. As Bruce Crawford has said, it is not welcomed by the trade, and I do not believe that it is welcomed by individuals and communities across Scotland.

The point that the minister made about exceptional circumstances is, frankly, incorrect. When we last liberalised our laws, people said that the only time when extended opening hours would be allowed would be in exceptional circumstances. In the beginning, that was the case—it was the odd game, event or festival. However, currently 90 per cent of premises have extended opening hours; the norm has become to creep towards the maximum. If we pass the bill unamended, the creep towards the 24-hour maximum will be the norm.

The statistics are clear on what happens when licensing hours are extended. In Scotland, in 1999, 15,500 prescriptions were dispensed in the community, excluding in hospitals, for drugs to treat alcohol dependence. By 2003, that figure had grown to 28,500 prescriptions—an increase of 82 per cent in four years. In 2004-05, there were 9,057 discharges from hospital with a diagnosis of alcohol-induced liver disease. That represents an increase of 48 per cent since 2000-01. As we are all aware, in 2002-03, the total annual cost to Scotland of alcohol misuse was £1.125 billion.

As Bruce Crawford said, Scotland is nowhere near ready for 24-hour opening. Nobody wants it. We do not want it. I do not want it, and I will not support it, in all conscience, because of what it will lead to in our communities.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

If members study carefully Bruce Crawford's amendment and the section that it seeks to amend, they will see that the effect would be to allow a pub or club to remain open for 18 continuous hours, from 11 am to 5 am the following morning. Why would anybody or any premises wish to open for longer than that? No one yet has mentioned the staff—the people who would have to work outwith those hours, from 5 am onward. There is surely a gross contradiction in the Executive being prepared to permit 24-hour continuous opening, on the one hand, and banning smoking in public places, on the other hand. That is a complete contradiction that, I suspect, the public will wholly fail to understand.

I agreed with the sentiment that Wendy Alexander expressed about our reflecting the mood of the people who sent us here. I hope that we will all try to do that today. There is no desire for this. There is no appetite or, might I say it, thirst for it. The trade does not want it; the experts do not want it; the public do not want it.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Obviously, I have not got time.

What conceivable reason would there be for the Executive whipping the bill through, as drafted, except the desire to follow Mr Blair and what the Government in England is doing? This is a test of whether Executive members will practise devolution or will follow orders from London and London Labour.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I can give Brian Monteith about a minute.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Having heard all three SNP members, I believe that Bruce Crawford is tilting at windmills. In England, there are some 140,000 licensees. We hear accusations that no one wants 24-hour licensing—neither the trade, nor publicans. Well, let us consider what is happening in England.

How many of the 140,000 licensees in England have applied? Where is the scare story? Where is the rush for licences? Of the 140,000 licensees, 1,000 have applied for 24-hour licences, and even they say that that does not mean that they will open for 24 hours. Bruce Crawford is talking about a restriction on trade. It should be left to licensees to apply for what they want and to local authorities to consult and make decisions. The proposal is about devolution to local authorities instead of a restriction on trade. I suggest that we oppose Bruce Crawford's amendment.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Bruce Crawford is right about one thing: we talk tough on antisocial behaviour and we act tough on it, too, unlike the SNP, given its voting record.

I will restate what I and other ministers have said many times. The Executive is firmly against the practice of routine 24-hour opening. Misinterpretation by various people of the proposals for the new system has led to fears that it would somehow promote 24-hour opening. That is certainly not the case. To add reassurance and to help lay fears to rest, we agreed to put a presumption against 24-hour opening in the bill, and we have done that.

I will clarify the phrase "exceptional circumstances", which is intended to mean only special events and not applications for routine 24-hour opening. We should remind ourselves that the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 also has such a provision. We can assess how often that provision has been used since 1976.

Mr Crawford's view that the provision should cover applications to open premises for more than 18 hours is based on some groups' evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee. The arguments were based partly on the assumption that supermarkets would want to sell alcohol for 24 hours and—importantly—on an incomplete understanding of the differences between the position in Scotland and that in England and Wales. In England and Wales, a presumption in favour of 24-hour opening is considered acceptable, but it is not considered acceptable in Scotland.

I ask members to resist the temptation to consider the issue in isolation. As I have said, the bill is a complete package. When the measure in section 60 is set beside the national conditions, it is clear that no routine 24-hour opening will take place in Scotland. Yes, national opening hours are largely being abolished, but that is intended to allow shorter and longer opening hours, which are founded on a board's local circumstances.

I will make three final points: anyone—including the police—can complain that opening hours for a premises are a problem, which will result in a review; reducing opening hours is one sanction that is open to a board when reviewing a licence; and, ultimately, a licence can be revoked.

Fixing a lower and arbitrary limit on the maximum trading day is simply not the answer. Therefore, I ask Mr Crawford to withdraw his amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Mr Crawford to make a brief response.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Well, well, well. The Executive tells us that it is in favour of measures to stop antisocial behaviour, but it has been dragged—kicking and squabbling—into accepting Frank McAveety's amendment to allow for 12-hour opening of off-licence premises. The message from the Executive is contradictory and hypocritical.

Tom McCabe could at least have been honest enough to admit that the framework of the existing law is entirely different. It is based on a core set of hours, from 11 am to 11 pm, with extensions thereafter. That is not the same as what is in the bill.

Tom McCabe said that no routine 24-hour opening would take place, because the provision applies to exceptional circumstances. I accepted that at the start of my speech. However, opening for 23 hours and 59 minutes will not be exceptional. What do we call such circumstances? Are they exceptional or normal? They would be the opposite of the current situation. It could become normal to grant licences to open for 23 hours and 59 minutes. In my book, that would be 24-hour opening, which we must resist.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 43, Against 76, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 62 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 72, Against 46, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Bristow Muldoon].

Amendment 64A moved—[Mr Frank McAveety].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 64A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 21, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 64A agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 64, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.