Hansard

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

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all those areas of licensing and trying to come up with improvements—often by adding to previous legislation that is outdated—is the best way to make legislation.

The policy memorandum states:

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

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

The committee’s report states:

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Edinburgh Council said that

“continued amendment of the Act is not helpful”,

and one of the council’s officers told the committee that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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