Rhywogiadu'r fry o bobl yn deillol eur o gweithio. Las o w Layton Smemawr. Fod ap glyfod yn ei fanolaith a la enthwydd gunfaithfaith yn gdewch i fynd i ½. Nid gael betr, gwlad yr aelod yn ôl i obeld — dyfodod yn gweithreduait r meinen owe i BÜNDNIS 90 ynghylch— faint y gwirionedd ti'n iddo fel deimlo. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Air Weapons Licensing and Licensing Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendments that members should have, the bill as amended at stage 2 is SP Bill 49A. The marshaled list is SP Bill 49AML. The groupings is SP Bill 49AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period then for the voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call that group. Members should now please refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, Air Weapons Requirements for Grant or Renewal of an Air Weapon Certificate and I call amendment 1 in the name of Alex Ferguson, group with amendments 2, 3 and 4. I point out that if amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 3 and 4 due to a preemption. Alex Ferguson, please move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing the amendments to be brought back at this stage. They were put forward at stage 2, but we believe that they are worthy of further consideration, and I'm grateful to the Presiding Officers for permitting that to happen. Presiding Officer, the purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is really quite simple. It is to save unnecessary bureaucracy, unnecessary expense and unnecessary use of police officers' valuable time, surely three worthy aims. As we know, there are an estimated 500,000 air weapons in Scotland and therefore presumably at least 300,000 people who own them, each and every one of whom will have to undergo a process of being approved for and obtaining an air weapon certificate. That's a pretty monumental task in anybody's book, but when it's to be carried out by Police Scotland, who are currently in the process of reducing Scotland's specialist resource of civilian firearms officers from a already miserly 34 to the almost unbelievably no number of 14, one has to query whether that task is achievable. Even if it is, I have to question its necessity. The statistical data on recorded crimes and offences, when they were eventually published not that long ago, showed that air gun crime is at the second lowest level of the last decade, a 73% reduction from its peak. Therefore, it does seem to me that if the purpose of this regime is to reduce air gun crime, and if you want to find the perfect example of taking a large sledgehammer to crack, a fairly small nut you need to look no further than this proposal. On top of that, I haven't spoken to a single person engaged in this debate or discussion who seriously believes that a licensing regime in itself is going to do anything to actually reduce air gun crime. Too many air guns will simply drop off the radar once this bill comes into force for that to be the case, and those who do drop off the radar I would suggest are unlikely to fall into the hands of people who are immediately going to rush to ensure that they have the necessary permit to hold one. However, the bill is clearly going to be passed today, and I accept that entirely. In order to reduce the bureaucracy and expense and time involved, I would urge the Government to accept amendments 1 and 2. They would simply mean that existing and future holders of shotgun licences and firearm certificates would not be required to undergo a further process in order to possess an air gun. If nothing else, this would reduce the number having to be processed by some 40,000 people. More importantly, I think that if you are already deemed to be a fit and proper person to hold either and to own either a rifle or a shotgun, both infinitely more dangerous weapons than any air gun, then it is surely disproportionate beyond belief to require such a person to undergo yet another process and further expense in order to possess an air weapon as well. My amendments would save time, money and precious police resources. If amendments 1 and 2 are unacceptable to the Government, then I offer amendments 3 and 4, as a less satisfactory but nonetheless simpler compromise than the bill as it is published. What is not to like, Presiding Officer? I move amendment 1 in my name. I have had no prior notification that members wish to contribute to any of the groups this afternoon. However, I accept that members may press a request to speak. That being the case, I will try to call them, but I must ask for brevity of contributions. Elaine Murray to be followed by Liam MacArthur. I apologise, Presiding Officer. I did not realise that we had to notify in advance for speaking on amendments. Ms Murray, excuse me a moment. You do not have to notify in advance, but however it does mean that if we run out of time then I cannot call members because the timings are based on what we know. Can I say that the countryside alliance have contacted us about that? I have also had a couple of constituents contacting me about their concerns in regard of people who already have a firearms licence that should be allowed to have an air weapons licence. I resist those amendments. The firearms regulations differ from the bill, but if somebody has one firearm, they do not automatically get allowed to have another firearm, another lethal weapon. The fact that somebody has a license for a firearm should not necessarily allow them to automatically be entitled to have another lethal weapon without showing that there is good reason for having an air weapon. I therefore resist the idea that, because you have a license for one firearm, you should be allowed to have any amount of air weapons without having to prove that you have a good reason for having them. The bill provides for some factors to be examined quite rightly, but I believe that the chief constable should be satisfied that there is a good reason for holding a lethal weapon, which is what an air gun is. The air guns of this size and power are lethal weapons, and people should have a good reason for having them. When I understand why farmers may feel that they are being, in particular, they tend to have a shotgun licence and therefore should be allowed to have an air weapons licence. However, that is not just about the farming community, it is about the whole community in Scotland. I think that it is important that the bill stays as it is and is not amended. The second group of amendments, first of all, I think that putting must for me, actually I think that me is normally the normal terminology in legislation anyway, but it is just another way of trying to do the same thing, and I would resist all four amendments in Alex Ferguson's name. Many thanks, Liam McArthur, briefly please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Obviously, the minister will be aware of the concerns expressed by my colleague, Tower of Scottish Stage 1, in terms of the proportionality and indeed the effectiveness of the bill as it currently stands. I very much welcome the fact that Alex Ferguson has succeeded in bringing forward these amendments. I think that from my own experience, Police Scotland is indeed struggling to cope with the workload pressures already involved in administering shotgun licences. I think that the provisions put forward by Alex Ferguson will at least offer some opportunity to make the bill a bit more proportionate and ease some of those workload pressures on Police Scotland, and therefore I am happy to lend them my support. Many thanks. Cabinet Secretary, please. Presiding Officer, Mr Ferguson has tabled a group of amendments that would fundamentally change the way in which we and the police intend to approach the licensing of air weapons under this new legislation. The amendment reflects some of the objections that we have heard to the principles of air weapons licensing. Those objections were expressed by some of the sharing representatives on our expert consultive panel and by others who responded to our public consultation in early 2013. The committee heard similar views during the first evidence session on the bill on November last year and again at stage 2 when Mr Cameron lodged these amendments. However, as I said at stage 2, we believe that the measures and tests that are set out in part 1 of the bill achieve our aim of establishing a familiar, proportionate and practical licensing regime for air weapons. Amendment 1 and the consequential amendment 2 seek to provide an automatic exemption from the need for an air weapon certificate to any person who already holds a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate issued by the police under the Firearms Act 1968. We did look at that as a potential exemption from the licensing requirements when we first developed the legislation. However, we rejected the option for several reasons. Under the Firearms Act 1968, for example, the tests for the grant of a firearms or shotgun certificate are different. The tests for granting shotgun certificates is less stringent. There is no fit and proper person test, and the onus is on the police to demonstrate the absence of a good reason rather than an applicant having to show good reason. We do not think that this is a right approach to the licensing of firearms, including air weapons. Firearms, shotguns and air weapons are used for different purposes and in different circumstances, as was explained clearly by the police when they gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. It does not necessarily follow that someone who has a legitimate reason for requiring a powerful rifle, for example, will also have a good reason for requiring an air weapon. The bill gives us a chance to set out proper provision to regulate air weapons in a modern Scotland. We believe that applicants should be required to demonstrate that they have a reasonable and proper use for those guns and that they can be entrusted to use them responsibly and safely. Amendment 3 and 4—I just finished a point that I want to make first—amendments 3 and 4 offer an alternative to the first two amendments in the group. They would require the chief constable to consider any applicant who holds a firearm or shotgun certificate to automatically meet the requirement to grant an air weapon certificate without any further inquiry. Again, we believe that accepting those amendments would undermine the fundamental principle behind a licensing regime and tests set out within it. Having said all of that, we have been clear that the new licensing regime should not place undue burdens on the police or applicants. That is why we have already made provision in section 5-2 to allow the chief constable to take as satisfied the test that a person is fit to be entrusted with an air weapon and that they are not prohibited from possessing firearms under the Firearms 1968 act if they already hold a firearms or shotgun certificate. We also make provision in section 9 of the bill to allow the alignment of air weapon certificates with those for firearms and shotguns. Coterminus certificates already exist to align firearms and shotgun licences. That addition of the air weapon will mean that all certificates fall to be renewed on the same date, reducing the burden on the applicant and also on the licensing authority. The fee for a Coterminus air weapon certificate application will, as a result, be set at a lower level than that of a full application, as the police will be able to conduct all their inquiries at the same time. I believe that those measures go a significant way towards the aim set out by Mr Ferguson's amendments and without compromising our overall objective of setting an adequate and fair test for the granting of certificates. I am happy to give way to Liam McArthur. I am very grateful to the minister. I have listened very carefully to the points that he has made and I think that he has gone some way to addressing some of those concerns around burden. Clearly, Police Scotland is struggling at the moment to deal with the workload pressures that it has in operating the gun licensing provisions. What he has set out, I do not believe, will be satisfactory in addressing concerns of the additional workload. What reassurances can he give that Police Scotland is geared up to deal with the workload pressures that are clearly going to come as a result of this bill? If the member considered the evidence that was given by Police Scotland to the local government and regeneration committee, it outlined the way in which gun certificates are dealt with. There is a peak and a trough of them. We are timing the introduction of the provision around air weapons licensing to fit into the period when there is a lower level of firearms and shotgun certificates that require renewal. Police Scotland is confident that it can manage that as it moves forward, including with the introduction of its new database that is dealing with all of this, to do it in a smooth and in a proportionate and reasonable way. I am confident, given the assurances that it provides, that we can take that forward. On that basis, I encourage Parliament to reject amendments 1 to 4 that are being proposed by Mr Ferguson. Many thanks. I now invite Alex Ferguson to wind up and indicate please if you intend to press or withdraw. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I am grateful to members for their contributions. I would say to Elaine Murray that this is not just about the farming community, though obviously she and I and other members will have received representations from the farming community, but I do not think that this is just about the farming community. By any means, there are all sorts of people who I think will feel that this extra burden placed upon them is as unnecessary as it is, I believe, still disproportionate. I do think that this is a disproportionate measure to be bringing in. The Cabinet Secretary understandably said that the applicant has to show good reason for possessing a shotgun rather than the other way round, as currently exists in the firearms licensing regime. However, at the end of the day, a decision still has to be taken by police officers or enforcement officers as to whether or not that good reason is good enough. I still think that there is a burden being placed on the police. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is aware, but I am reliably informed and I will be coming back to this later this afternoon, that there is already quite a heavy backlog of shotgun certificate and firearms licence applications that Police Scotland are failing to keep up with at the moment. However much you try to bring the processes together, I cannot see that this new process is going to be anything other than a very heavy burden upon them when I think that most of us would believe that Police Scotland officers have better things to do. We have made the arguments. I accept that we are where we are, but I am going to press this amendment. I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. The amendments have been pressed, and therefore the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage, then the Parliament is suspended for five minutes. Thereafter, there will be a 32nd division. The division on amendment 1, this is a 32nd division. Could members please cast their votes now? The result of the vote on amendment 1 is yes, 19, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 2, in the name of Alex Ferguson, already debated with amendment 1. I remind members that, if amendment 2 is agreed to, then I cannot call amendments 3 and 4 due to a preemption. I ask Alex Ferguson to move or not to move? Not to move, Presiding Officer. I now call amendment 3, in the name of Alex Ferguson, already debated with amendment 1. I ask Alex Ferguson to move or not to move. The question then is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. This is a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 3 is yes, 19, no, 98. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 4, in the name of Alex Ferguson, already debated with amendment 1. I ask Alex Ferguson to move or not to move. The question then is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 4 is yes, 19, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 2, alcohol licensing, licensing objectives, and I call amendment 5, in the name of Patrick Harvie, group with amendments 6 and 7, and I invite Patrick Harvie to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group. I was prompted to introduce those amendments following the recent decision in relation to the arches venue in Glasgow. Members will be aware of the press coverage of the decision by the Glasgow licensing board to revoke the arches ability to operate past midnight, effectively closing it as a club venue with the consequent eventuality that the jobs have been lost, but also the cultural value of that venue has been lost to Glasgow and to Scotland. Members, I am sure, will be aware of the nearly 40,000 members of the public who signed a petition calling for that licensing board decision to be reversed. Order, please. Could we hear the member? Members will be aware of the 40,000 or so—not at the moment, thank you—the 40,000 or so members of the public who called for that decision to be reversed, and also the open letter signed by more than 400 leading names in Scotland—not at the moment, thank you—nearly 400 members of the arts community in Glasgow. Our main concern is that we are not satisfied that full consideration has been given to the potentially catastrophic impact that this decision will have on the cultural life of Scotland. It went on to look at the social as well as cultural benefit of the venue. Thousands of people from all over the country come together at the arches at weekends, and it is widely regarded by leading professionals as one of the best venues in the world. Later on, they say that a key venue at the centre of Glasgow's remarkable cultural renaissance of the past 25 years, the artist's importance to the future of the cultural life of Scotland, cannot be overstated. Having discussed the situation with colleagues who serve on licensing boards, I think that there are two issues that my amendments are intended to address. First of all, that the existing licence objectives focus on the harm that can be done in terms of crime and disorder, public safety and nuisance, impact on public health and protecting children from harm. Those are important factors, and licensing boards should take them into account, but there are positive factors as well that can come from licensing venues, from the cultural and social benefit that venues give to a community. Those factors should be taken into account. My first amendment in this group introduces an additional licensing objective of promoting social and cultural life. I agree with the member for giving way. I mean, I just wonder if he's arguing that a venue that is causing problems should be closed if it's a standalone venue, but a venue that is causing problems should be allowed to stay open if it's linked to an arts venue. I'm arguing that our approach to licensing should take a holistic look at all the impacts of a decision, not only at some of the impacts of a decision. The second two amendments in this group address a second concern that discussions with colleagues on licensing boards threw up, that they often feel drawn to make a decision purely about one venue in particular, rather than about the wider impact. In that instance, we look at the harm that has come from recreational drugs. Most people who went to the arches to go out clubbing use recreational drugs, for most of them that was a licensed legal recreational drug alcohol, and most of us use it as well. Recreational drugs pose a risk of harm, and we should be taking that seriously. However, the idea that by closing a venue like the arches, which has a long-standing record of being one of the most progressive, enlightened and responsible venues in relation to illegal drugs, reporting issues to the police, making sure that there are medical facilities on-site when someone gets into trouble, and training their staff well. The idea that by closing a venue, people who use illegal recreational drugs when they go out clubbing will instead go to the library or to a poetry reading is nonsense. What that will do is mean that people use the same drugs in less responsible, less experienced venues. Let's not kid ourselves that there aren't already many clubs—not just in Glasgow but elsewhere—who, if they find drugs on the premises, will not report it to the police but will flush them. Let's not pretend that there are not irresponsible venues out there. By taking this approach to licensing, we risk increasing the incentive for that irresponsible type of behaviour. Those second two amendments in this group ask purely that we balance the decision about an individual premises with a wider impact on the community. Those two amendments, I hope, would take a different approach. If there's time, I'll give way to Sandra White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I hear exactly what Partick Harvie is saying, but to be precise, we're talking about one venue but operating in two different ways. What you're basically saying, similar to what John Mason has said, surely it would have been better to, basically, you've got the Arches nightclub, which they say the money's there pays for the cultural part of it. Obviously we're sorry about anyone losing jobs, but surely the best way forward would have been to give monies to the cultural part rather than what you're saying just now in regards to if a venue is safe to use drugs. Then that's all right as a cultural and social venue. What about all the other social venues who don't participate in what you're saying just now? The argument for additional arts funding to try and salvage some of the Arches business model is still on the table, but the case I'm making with amendments 6 and 7 in this group are not the same as amendment 5. Amendment 5 is about cultural and social life as a licensing objective, but in the second two amendments in this group, I would make the same case with a purely commercial club venue that had no artistic element as part of its business model. If you have a responsible venue that behaves well, trains its staff and provides medical facilities, do we really think that we're improving public safety by closing down a venue like that and ensuring that its customers will go elsewhere to a less experienced or less responsible venue? I don't think that this is an appropriate way to leave the alcohol licensing regime mopping up the harm that is done by irrational drug laws in this country, and I move amendment 5 in my name, Presiding Officer. Despite the fact that the Parliament agreed a timetabling motion, it is now clear from the number of members that are requesting to speak that the agreed time will not be sufficient. Therefore, under rule 9.8.5A, I am mended to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 15 minutes. The question is that the time limit by which the debate on groups 1 to 3 must end be extended by 15 minutes. Are we all agreed? We are. That will in turn extend the time limit for subsequent groups. Can I also notify the chamber that the clock in the chamber was reset in error? The time used in debate on amendments began at 2.32pm. The timetable for consideration of amendments will be taken, therefore, from that time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do appreciate the concerns that the member is raising and recognise us about the regrettable closure of the arches in Glasgow. I think that there is a discussion to be had about how licensing boards operate, the proportionate policing of Glasgow's club scene, and the responsibility of licensed premises to meet public safety demands. We have not had much time to consider those amendments, but I am not convinced that this piece of legislation is the way to deal with those issues. However, we may need to have this debate at another time, but it should not be rushed, and it would need to include full consultation with all interested parties. Thank you, I call Sandra White, to be followed by Cameron Bray-Cannon. One of the issues that I raise is the definition of social and cultural life. I understand the arches and I have explained before about the cultural part of the arches, but I have real concerns in regard to the amendment in the definition of social and cultural life. How do you define that? I know exactly what Patrick Harvie has said about the arches, but there are other forms of cultural life.  I have a real worry that that will go against everything that I have put forward in the bill. Like Clare Baker, we should perhaps be looking at a further definition and a further debate on it, but I do not think that, at the latest stage, we should use that as a proper channel to go through. Brief contributions, please. Cameron Bray-Cannon is to be followed by Ken Mackintosh. Regarding amendment 5, I could understand the desire to promote social, sexual and activities, but does Patrick Harvie not consider that the aim of promoting social and cultural life is already achieved by adhering to the existing license objectives on the public's behalf? I think it is worth remembering that licensing objectives are intended to protect the public and this should remain their core purpose. I also appreciate the principles behind amendment 6 and 7 but have concerns about their implementation. The objectives are meant to protect the public from particular problems and license decisions should respond to these when necessary. The key phrase, I think, is where necessary. Local issues should be responded to locally. Could Patrick Harvie therefore confirm whether the intention of these amendments is to clarify the board's responsibility for its whole area or rather to encourage restrictions to be applied across the whole board area, even when many parts of it will not have pressing licensing issues? As somebody has said, it is hard not to be sympathetic with Mr Harvie's amendment, but I do not think that this is either the time or the place to debate them. I also want to express my sympathy for the motivation that Patrick Harvie for bringing the amendments today. I know that it is an issue. The future of the archers is one that has been raised by colleagues in our benches, including Drew Smith and Claire Baker. However, there are two arguments that I would put to Mr Harvie. One is that changing the legislation governing licensing to introduce a whole new objective of promoting social and cultural life is a fairly significant development, and one at the very least deserves fuller consideration. The second point, a related one, is that it is not generally good practice to introduce new proposals such as this at stage 3. Civic licensing is already a very complicated area. The civic government in Scotland has been amended many, many times, so I would urge Mr Harvie having made his point to withdraw this amendment. I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for taking us through his amendments. The licensing objectives represent the value in which the Scottish alcohol licensing system is based, and they are central to the way in which licensing boards carry out their functions under the 2005 act. The current licensing objectives contained within the 2005 act are preventing crime and disorder, securing public safety, preventing public nuisance, protecting and improving public health, and lastly protecting children from harm, which by virtue of section 41 of the bill will soon include protecting young persons too. Mr Harvie's proposed objective to promote social and cultural life sits very uneasily within an act whose purpose is for the regulation of the sale of alcohol. It is difficult to see how it could operate and practice for licensing boards, the trade and the public. I am concerned that, while laudable, we should not be charging licensing boards with the promotion of social and cultural life. The existing licensing objectives concern themselves with mitigating the ill effects of alcohol. However, the proposed new objective does not have that same concern as its primary aim. I am sure that we all expect boards to take decisive action to address alcohol misuse. The amendment has the potential to create difficulties for licensing boards on deciding which of the objectives should be deemed more important than the other when considering an individual case and deterring them from taking the sorts of decisions that we would expect them to take. I do not believe that the legislation concerning the regulation of the sale of alcohol is the appropriate means by which to consider the promotion of social and cultural life in Scotland. In addition to that, I am of the view that the promotion of social and cultural life in Scotland is also not dependent upon the sale and consumption of alcohol. As such, I do not believe that this should become one of the licensing objectives in the 2005 act. Therefore, I ask Mr Harvie to withdraw those amendments, which, if passed, would undermine the entire alcohol licensing regime and all that it sets out to achieve. Many thanks. I now invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate please if he intend to press or withdraw. In relation to one of the final comments, the idea that this undermines everything that the licensing regime sets out to achieve is a wee bit of hyperbole there. The amendment 5 in any regard is intended to broaden what we seek to achieve with the licensing regime. The cabinet secretary says that the regulation of the sale of alcohol is not the place for the promotion of cultural life in Scotland. If that is the case, it is certainly not the place either for the promotion of the objectives of our country's drug laws. Whether you support or oppose our current drug laws, the fact is that the impact of incidents of illegal drug use was a critical issue that led to the licensing board's decision. Once again, I cannot accept the argument that moving recreational drug use from one venue to another increases public safety. Certainly not if we are moving it from a responsible, well-trained venue to others, which are less so. I give way to Mr Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to Mr Harvie, but one of the concerns of the licensing board had to deal with in the specific case of the arches was concern from the police. How would the amendments that he proposes lead to a situation where the licensing board would be in a position to disregard those police concerns that were at the root of the decision that they had to take around the arches? Patrick Harvie. I would not want any licensing board in Scotland to disregard the concerns of the police, but I would want what one member called proportionate policing. Clare Baker used the phrase proportionate policing. Is it really proportionate? Is it even intelligent to send out a signal to other club venues in Glasgow or elsewhere that if they report incidents to the police instead of covering them up, they will be putting their licence at risk? That is what we will risk doing at the moment, is sending out a signal that irresponsible behaviour is less likely to lead to a licence being put at risk. Several members have pointed out that the amendment is coming late, and I freely admit that. Some members will feel that it is too big a change to move at stage three. That was a response that I felt was necessary to recent events and to challenge the idea that we only focus on the harm. We would be quite wrong to ignore the harm that is done with licensing at the sale of alcohol, but we are also wrong to fail to acknowledge the good that is done from licensing responsible well-trained venues and supporting them to operate, even when there are problems, because those problems may be better dealt with on those premises than on others. I will press amendment 5, but whether members vote for it or not, I really think that we have an issue here that requires further debate and a recognition that we have been shying away from some problems and pretending that our current approach to licensing solves them when it manifestly does not. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 5 is, as follows, yes, nine, no, 109. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 6 in the name of Patrick Harvie, who is already debated with amendment 5, and I ask Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The question then is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palms is not agreed. There will be a division. The 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 6 is, yes, nine, no, 109. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 7 in the name of Patrick Harvie, who is already debated with amendment 5, and I ask Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Question then is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 7 is, yes, nine, no, 109. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. That brings us to group 3, alcohol licensing over provision, and I call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group with amendments 9, 10 and 11, and I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 8. Please and speak to all amendments in the group. I move the amendment in my name. The amendments in this group are minor technical amendments concerning over provision. Section 7 of the 2005 act places a duty on licensing boards to make an assessment of over provision of licensed premises in any locality within their area, and to subsequently include a statement regarding that in their licensing policy objective statement. That allows boards to consider the unique circumstances of their area, including to stick localities within it and deciding whether, based on local need, it is appropriate to restrict access to alcohol through limits on new licences, licences of a particular type or variations of existing licences within the entire area or identified part of it. It is important that the over provision assessment is an effective and robust tool for licensing boards. In respect of the over provision grounds for refusal, for a premises licence or for a major variation of a premises licence, our amendment to the bill at stage 2 had made the wording of the 2005 act more concise. Those technical amendments have been brought forward at stage 3 responding to concerns raised by stakeholders that our stage 2 amendment had in reality made the wording overly brief. On following consideration, we agreed that more detail at section 23.5e of the 2005 act, refusal of premises licence on grounds of over provision and section 35d of the 2005 act, refusal to vary premises licence on the grounds of over provision, will clarify interpretation. That is why we have brought forward those technical amendments to rectify that so that the updated section 23.5e and 35d of the 2005 act are clearer to the reader of the legislation. I ask the Parliament to support those amendments. I have no further request to speak, cabinet secretary. Do you need to wind up on this? Question 9 is that amendment 8 be agreed to. I will agree. We are. I call amendments 9, 10 and 11 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 9 to 11 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 9 to 11? Since no member objects, the question then is that amendments 9 to 11 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 4, alcohol licensing, annual functions report and I call amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendment 13 and ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 12 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 12. I gave a commitment to the local government and regeneration committee at stage 2 to bring forward this amendment that will impose a new duty on licensing boards to prepare and publish an annual report on the exercising of their functions. This amendment addresses a concern first raised by Alcohol Focus Scotland and others and supported by the local government and regeneration committee about the need for licensing boards to provide greater clarity about how they carry out their business. John Wilson brought forward a non-government amendment at stage 2 to oblige licensing boards to lodge annual reports on the exercise of their function. The government is sympathetic to the views expressed during the bill process and I am grateful to John Wilson for agreeing to withdraw his own amendment at stage 2 to allow my officials to carry out some informal stakeholder engagement before bringing forward this government amendment. Section 55 of the bill already imposes a duty on licensing boards to produce an annual financial report. This additional amendment imposes a further duty on boards to prepare and publish an annual report on the exercise of their functions no later than three months after the end of each financial year. The amendment set out what generally should be included in the report and what board should have regard to in its compilations. It also allows licensing boards to publish a combined financial and functions report if they so wish. To ensure that the reports remain as effective and useful as possible, this amendment also provides Scottish ministers with the power to make further provision about the annual reports using secondary legislation. We would expect to consult on the most effective and proportionate format and content before laying secondary legislation is required. Those annual reports will ensure increased accountability and transparency from licensing boards so that the public can see how they go about their business. I ask Parliament to support the amendments this afternoon. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking on board the amendments that I put forward on my name based on discussions with alcohol-focused Scotland and welcomed the decision by the cabinet secretary to bring forward the amendments today. I look forward to the amendments being passed. Cabinet secretary, do you wish to wind up? Thank you. In which case the question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 13 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 12 and I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Thank you. Question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group five, alcohol licensing, registered alcohol, premises, licences and personal licences and I call amendment 14 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson in a group on its own and I ask Dr Richard Simpson to move and speak to amendment 14 please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was not a member of this committee but I observed the information at stage 1 and the evidence that was given by a number of people in respect of information that is available to the public. This amendment will create a national alcohol licensing register, ensuring that communities will have access to comprehensive information on licensing licences premises, which will help their participation in the licensing process, particularly in relation to over provision. Ensuring that data at a licensing board level is collated in a uniform manner and then published centrally, preferably with access on a ward or small databases, could ensure a much more accessible form of information to local communities. While licensing boards currently have to keep a public licensing register, Alcohol Focus Scotland was recently able to locate only 16 such publicly available registers, covering 19 of the 40 licensing board areas. The form and content of the information provided within those registers is highly available and not all the registers are available electronically. Alcohol licensing registers are potentially a valuable tool for communities and other stakeholders to make use of in order to support their involvement in the licensing process, but there is a need to consider the form in which they are produced to ensure that they are accessible and as helpful as possible. Currently, there is a national register for tobacco outlets in Scotland, which is available online and can be searched by local authority area, by postcode and by type of premises. Mapping tools such as that produced by the Lambeth Council or the new website showing alcohol and tobacco outlet density for small neighbourhood alias across Scotland, created in partnership between the Centre for Research and Environment, Society and Health, Cresce at the University of Edinburgh and Glasgow University, Alcohol Focus Scotland and Nash Scotland offer other examples of possible approaches. The evidence given by Dr Neave Short from Cresce at stage 1 said that one of the most striking things in documentation that the committee set out was the very small number of applications that were refused. Only 21 licences were refused, whereas 347 were granted in 2011-12. 12 were refused and 332 were granted in 2012-13. I think that this in part shows the difficulties for local authorities in looking at licensing and fulfilling licensing objectives. The data is not available at a small local level. The data was available in such variable form that it took Cresce nine months to clear and cleanse the data before they could put it into a research paper. The paper, which has now been published and members may wish to look at, does show the relationship between the density of licences, the over-provision indeed, and the alcohol problems in different areas. It is a huge disappointment that communities have been unable to challenge over provision largely because they have been unable to actually get access to data. Total board area data and small area data is vital and my men will allow the minister to make provision for a national register completed by the boards. This will not overburden licences but will require the boards to produce information in a specific form publishable on the web. 143A will ensure that the information to be recorded will not only include the number of personal licences but could include the actual data on the sales areas, the linear sales areas for off licences and the number of drinking places available and on licences. I move the amendment to my name. I welcome the cabinet secretary's addressing the problem faced by individual licences holders in this group who failed to renew their licences on time. I understand that the section of the bill will be enacted swiftly and I would be grateful if he, the cabinet secretary, could publicise now and indeed widely thereafter this welcome change. I am grateful to Richard Simpson for bringing forward this amendment and I am sympathetic to the views that he has expressed. I am however concerned that this is not an issue that I believe that is appropriate to introduce at this stage in the bill. This is not an issue that has been brought before the local government and regeneration committee nor has it been subject to detailed financial consideration. For example, I understand that a similar service in relation to e-planning has caused several million pounds to set up. I am also concerned that the amendment as lodged is unworkable as it incorrectly places a burden on licensing authorities to provide information when, in fact, information required is held by licensing boards. I would however like to assure the chamber that the Scottish Government is alert to those issues and that there is already work in hand to go some way to addressing them. You will be aware that Government amendment 12, which has been pressed for by public health bodies, such as Alcohol Focus Scotland, will impose a duty on licensing boards to report on the exercise of their functions and provide considerable information on the licences held, including occasional licences. We intend to consult widely to ensure that those reports are as useful as they can be without imposing an undue burden on licensing boards. Furthermore, Police Scotland is already well advanced in rolling out their national in-keeper database. As the Police are a statutory consultee, that means that licensing boards will be provided with information from this national database. Finally, the Scottish Government is already working with a wide range of partner organisations to develop a business case in relation to a national online licensing solution. Initial work has led to a wider scope at being developed looking beyond just alcohol licensing to cover the civic regime and beyond, including central government licensing regimes. I am sure that all members are aware that the Scottish Government resources are limited, so I do not believe that it is entirely right that, rather than hastily commit to a specific project, it is instead better that a major project like this is subject to proper scoping and cost-benefit analysis. That would allow us to assess the widest possible benefits to stakeholders while also effectively using the resources that the Scottish Government, local authority and others have in this area. Therefore, I ask Richard Simpson to withdraw his amendment on the basis that the Scottish Government has already worked under way in order to develop an action plan for the delivery of a national licensing solution. I invite Dr Richard Simpson to wind up and indicate if he intends to press or withdraw. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I think that under section 12.6 it will be possible for the minister to ensure that the form and required contents of reports under the annual functions report amendment, which we have just passed, would allow him to do much of what I am asking for. As I understand his intervention, that will be the case. It is essential that, if small communities are going to participate fully in seeking to prevent over-provision, they will have that information. I urge them to pursue the development work that is already referred to as rapidly as possible and to ensure that we have an electronic system that allows proper access. On the basis of those reassurances, I will withdraw my amendment. Thank you very much. Dr Simpson seeks to withdraw amendment 14. Does any member object? No member objects, therefore amendment 14 is withdrawn. That brings us to group 6, private hire cars over provision, and I call amendment 15 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendment 16. I invite Cameron Buchanan to move amendment 15 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. These amendments would make it clear that a licensing authority must prove that there is or would be over provision if they wish to refuse a private car hire license application solely on the grounds of over provision. I consider strongly that refusing a private hire car license solely on the grounds of over provision is anti-competitive and would hurt consumers, jobs and indeed the local economy. In the interests of compromise, I have well in this approach to ensure that such refusals are kept in cases where over provision is certain. Refusals due to over provision would be against the public's best interests for four reasons. Firstly, restricting the supply of private hire vehicles would limit the ability of consumers to choose between different services and select their preferred option. This choice is crucial to increasing and maintaining standards of service in the industry. Secondly, preventing new entrants would prevent prices from going as low as they could in a less restricted market, since expanded supply of private hire vehicles would bring down prices and make private transport a more affordable option for all the consumers. Thirdly, experience elsewhere has shown that these lower prices would allow more people than before to make frequent use of private transport. This can be a great convenience and it would be a loss to the Scottish public if they were denied the same opening up of travel options as in other places. Finally, it is apparent that determining that a locality is over provided would prevent economic growth and job creation. If someone wishes to start work as a private hire vehicle driver, a licensing authority shouldn't stand in the way of this just because other drivers have already entered the market and do not want competition for fares. For this reason, the amendments aim to provide some measure of protection against unfair licensing refusals by ensuring that authorities can only refuse licences solely on the grounds of over-provision where it is certain. I therefore move amendment 15. It is clear from Mr Buchanan's comments that he clearly believes that a competitive free market trumps every other consideration before this Parliament. I urge colleagues to resist the amendments before us. He suggests that we want to replace a licensing authority's judgment that they are satisfied about over-provision with proof that there is over-provision. The point is that this was debated by the committee at stage 2. At that stage, I think that Mr Buchanan asked them to remove the amendment altogether. The Scottish Government agreed to commission for other guidance that was accepted by the committee, and I would ask Mr Buchanan to accept the committee's judgment on this matter. I am grateful to Mr Buchanan for explaining amendment 15. Section 60 of the bill would allow a licensing authority to refuse a private hire car licence where they are satisfied that it would result in there being an over-provision of private hire cars. I remain of the view that an optional over-provision test in relation to private hire cars is a useful addition to the taxi and private hire car licensing regime. There are already appropriate checks and balances in place for those unhappy with the decision that a licensing authority has made. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 of the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982 provides that, where a private hire car driver licence is refused, the applicant can require the licensing authority to provide reasons for that refusal and can appeal the decision to a sheriff's court. If during any appeal hearing the licensing authority is unable to demonstrate that they have reasonably reached their decision, the sheriff can uphold the appeal and remit the case back to the authority to reconsider or reverse the original decision of the licensing authority. I am concerned that this amendment would create uncertainty in the mind of licensing authorities and deter them from considering an over-provision test in relation to private hire cars. I think that it would be wrong to take away or discourage use of this potential tool from licensing authorities. An over-provision test would allow licensing authorities to ensure that those entering the private hire car trade can have the expectation of making a reasonable income and reduce the temptation for private hire car drivers to attempt to operate in illegal competition with taxis. I therefore ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 15 and 16. Thank you. Can I now invite Cameron Buchanan to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw, please? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I've listened to the arguments on both sides and I actually would like to please press my amendment. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 15 is, yes, 14. No, 102. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 16 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 15, and I ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not to move. Not moved. The member has not moved, in which case we turn to group 7, testing of private hire car drivers and to call amendment 17 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, in a group on its own, and to ask Cameron Buchanan to move and speak to amendment 17, please. This amendment would prevent licensing authorities from requiring testing of the navigational knowledge of applicants for a private hire driver licence, but would allow other forms of background checks or testing. Satellite navigation now allows drivers to efficiently navigate without extensive knowledge of roads, which make requiring a knowledge test an unnecessary barrier to employment and growth in the industry. Furthermore, restricted competition would act against the interests of consumers. I take by keeping— Audre, please. We need to hear the member. Furthermore, restricted competition would act against the interests of consumers by keeping prices higher than they should be. Some people may prefer the possibility to pay a little extra to be driven by some with extensive local knowledge, who doesn't need to use a satellite navigation system, but these people are free to choose a taxi instead of private hire vehicle. The point is that passengers should be free to choose for themselves which type of private transport to opt for, and the Government shouldn't allow that choice to be taken away from them. We should allow the market to reflect customers' preferences by letting them make their own decisions, rather than allow licensing authorities to dictate what sort of taxi industry there should be. I recall that the Minister argued at stage 2 that the testing provision should provide licensing authorities with discretion, and tests could cover issues such as customer care and disability awareness, so that private services can meet the needs of customers. I do recognise these points and expect that he would welcome the amendment 17 that retains that discretion and would allow such tests to take place, including checks to allay any fears of criminal backgrounds, which I think is very important. The point is that allowing knowledge testing of all drivers is distinct, as it will primarily be a method of shielding incumbents from the competitive effects of a technological change. Customers' preferences for knowledge or technologies should be left to the customers to decide, and testing should only be introduced where it is in the consumers' best interests. I believe that amendment 17 strikes the appropriate balance, and therefore I urge members to act on behalf of consumers by supporting amendment 17. I move amendment 17. I am grateful to Camden Buchanan for explaining amendment 17. I am mindful of the concerns that he has raised that creating too high a barrier to entry to the private higher-car trade is not desirable. That is why the ability to test private higher-car drivers has deliberately been drafted in a flexible manner. It is at the discretion of the local licensing authority to determine whether to test and what to test. We are also happy to make that point that any test should be proportionate and necessary within the guidance that accompanies the legislation. Accordingly, where the local authority does not see that there is any requirement for a knowledge test of any style to be taken forward for private higher-car drivers, then they are not required to do so. However, I suspect that many passengers would quite rightly expect that a private higher-car driver had a reasonable knowledge of the area and how to get about it. It is right to give local licensing authorities the ability to test it. I remain of the view that it is the licensing authority that is best placed to decide if any test concerning private higher-car drivers should occur and what that test should involve. Therefore, I ask Camden Buchanan to withdraw his amendment. Thank you. I invite Camden Buchanan to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I do sense some sympathy from my point of view, but in view of this, I would still like to press my amendment, please. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 17 is, yes, 14. No, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 8, notice of sexual entertainment venue licence application. I call amendment 18 in the name of the cabinet secretary and the group on its own. I ask the cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 18, please. Amendment 18 is an important measure in supporting community engagement in the licensing of sexual entertainment. That is an issue that was raised by Kara Hilton at stage 2, and I undertook that time to bring forward an amendment at stage 3. Whilst the current process already allows for robust notification procedures with requirement for both newspaper advertising and notices to be publicly displayed, I think that there are advantages in requiring specific notification to particular bodies who will have an interest in the licensing of sexual entertainment venues. There is a practical advantage in ensuring that important stakeholders such as Violence Against Women Partnerships and Community Councils are notified of applications early on so that they have sufficient time to consider applications and make such representations to the authority as they consider appropriate. That is also an advantage in that it will send a very clear message that those groups that are identified as appropriate to receive copies of the application, such as violence against women partnerships and community groups, are at the heart of the licensing process. Rather than identifying particular bodies in primary legislation, my preference is for each local authority to identify which organisations within their area should be notified of those applications as their best place to make that judgement. However, the statutory guidance that will follow the bill will indicate the types of bodies and organisations that should be considered. My intention is that that will certainly include bodies such as Violence Against Women Partnerships and the local authorities will have to take that guidance into consideration when compiling their list of recipients. Local authorities will also have to have regard to their section entertainment venues' licensing policy statement and the full range of objectives set out in that document. I move amendment 18. Thank you Cabinet Secretary. I have no other request to speak. Do you wish to add anything further? In which case the question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group nine, sexual entertainment venues' access of persons under 18, and I call amendment 22 in the name of Kara Hilton, group with amendment 19. I point out that if amendment 22 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19 as there is a preemption, and I ask Kara Hilton to move amendment 22 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking Zero Tolerance Trust for working with me on this amendment and the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People, who has given this amendment in support. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent under-18s from working in sexual entertainment venues. My amendment removes the option of young people being employed in these venues at any time and will ensure that sexual entertainment venues cannot be accessed by children and young people at any time. While I recognise that amendment 19 in the name of Michael Matheson does seek to clarify the circumstances in which young people may enter sexual entertainment venues and obliges operators to provide a reasonable excuse, I do not accept that this provides sufficient safeguards. When I tabled this same amendment at stage 2, there was some debate about the employment rights, for example of an apprentice plumber attending a job at a sexual entertainment venue. The reality is that this affects very few young people, but there are significant risks to a large number of young people if the bill proceeds as it is currently drafted. Zero Tolerance Trust has argued that allowing under-18s to be employed in sexual entertainment venues in essence creates a groomer's charter, allowing venues to employ teenage girls to work as cleaners or in office roles, and then to persuade or subplay coerce them to become performers when they reach 18. I think that this is a real concern for vulnerable young women such as care leavers or women living with poverty or disadvantage. Even if sexual entertainment is not taking place, a young person working in one of these venues will be exposed to sexually explicit materials and could be at risk of sexual exploitation being propositioned for sex and being exposed to an industry that damages women to an environment in which sexual entertainment is normalised, leading a vulnerable young person to come to the view that sexual entertainment is an acceptable form of employment for them. The Children's Commissioner, Tam Bailey, has said that the approach that has been taken in this bill towards young people being employed in sexual entertainment venues appears in direct contradiction to a range of key Scottish Government policies and legislation, including getting it right for every child and the Children and Young People's Act. I think that if we are serious about an equal Scotland and if we are serious about tackling domestic abuse and violence, if we really want to make Scotland the best place to grow up for girls, then the Scottish Government has got to be consistent. Michael Matheson's amendment, while well-intentioned, has to quote Tam Bailey again, the potential to create more difficulties than it solves. The use of the word reasonable leaves it way open to wider interpretation. I think that this could be to the detriment of young people and will put more young people at risk. It is already the case that no under 18-year-old can work in a sex shop under any circumstance. I think that the provision should apply to those venues too. My amendment would allow that to happen. I believe that my amendment is in the best interests of children and young people right across Scotland. I would urge the Scottish Government and members to listen to the views of the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People. The views of groups such as Barnadol Scotland, Zero Tolerance Trust, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid support my amendment. I move the amendment in my name. I now call Cameron McAnon to speak to amendment 19 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to speak to amendment 19 and 22. They both follow the issues that have been highlighted by the Children's Commissioner ahead of the stage 1 debate and subsequently pursued by Zero Tolerance Scotland. Each concerns the position of young people in relation to sexual entertainment venues. A particular concern is that a young person could be employed in such a venue, for example, as a cleaner and then find themselves being drawn into becoming a dancer. I agreed to consider this matter further and bring forward an appropriate Government amendment at stage 3. We have always made clear that the intention of the bill is to tighten up licensing of sexual entertainment venues, which are to have been treated in more or less the same way as any other licensed premise. That has meant that under 18s could perhaps be collecting glasses or undertaking similar activities whilst the premises are open and the sexual entertainment is taking place, which we do not believe is acceptable. That is why the bill was introduced and made clear that under 18s should never be on the premises while sexual entertainment is taking place. I have now fully considered the concerns raised over the employment of under 18s within such venues. In response, we have brought forward amendment 19. The amendment would remove the provision in the bill that would have permitted a young person to be employed by a sexual entertainment venue. Amendment 22 does likewise, as has been outlined by Cara Hylton. Therefore, both amendments will mean that under 18s should not generally be able to access such venues. However, the Government amendment goes further in protecting the provisions, which has come about as a result of a misunderstanding over how the law works in this area. There has led to some stakeholders confusing the impact of both those amendments, and I hope to set that clear here this afternoon. The Civic Government Scotland Act 1982 includes a provision for a reasonable excuse. That will permit a young person to be in a sexual entertainment venue. Cara Hylton's amendment would simply remove the provision in the bill relating to the employment without addressing the reasonable excuse in the 1982 act and would therefore permit a young person to be in such a venue at any time, including when sexual entertainment is being provided, if that young person has a reasonable excuse. It will be a matter for the courts to determine what might constitute a reasonable excuse. However, the Government's amendment would restrict the availability of this defence of a reasonable excuse to being available only when the sexual entertainment venue was not taking place. That is under amendment 19. No person under 18, whether an employee or otherwise, will be permitted on the premises whilst entertainment is taking place. Only where there is a reasonable excuse for that young person will they be permitted within the premises when no entertainment is taking place. Cara Hylton's amendment does not go this far. Therefore, both the Government's amendment and Cara Hylton's amendment remove the provision in the bill preventing an under 18 to be employed in a sexual entertainment venue. However, Cara Hylton's amendment is less restrictive than the Government's amendment in that it would continue to allow for a reasonable excuse defence to be applied at all times, whereas amendment 19 restricts that defence to only times when sexual entertainment is not taking place. The Government's amendment, I will give way to the member. Liam McArthur. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. He will be aware of the children's commissioner's concerns, specifically in relation to that point where he says that amendment 19 shifts the focus from young people in an employment capacity to young people more generally and goes on to say that it is therefore the possibility that venue owners could find ways for younger children and young people to be legitimately allowed to enter sexual entertainment venues. How would he respond to that very specific concern of the children's commissioner? Unfortunately, the children's commissioner has got the law wrong in this area because of the reasonable excuse provision that is provided for in the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982, which has not been addressed. That is why the Government's amendment is addressing that particular point. The Government's amendment makes it clear that no person under 18 can ever be employed in a sexual entertainment venue. It makes it clear that no under 18 can be on the premises when sexual entertainment is taking place. Finally, it makes it clear that even when sexual entertainment is not taking place and under 18 can only be on the premises if it is shown that there is good reason for them being there. For those reasons, I would ask Parliament to reject amendment 22 and, instead, to support amendment 19, which gives further restrictions to protecting young people. In speaking of support of the powerful words of my colleague Cara Hylton in amendment 22, I would simply draw members' attention to the excellent briefing from the Scotland's Children's Commissioner. Can I suggest that the minister made an argument based on legal advice that it was remarkably unconvincing for me, and he made an argument that we should have reasonable excuse. I have to say that the Children's Commissioner has laid this out very clearly. A very clear argument, he says that he is concerned that a young person working in a sexual entertainment venue is likely to be at increased risk of grooming or exploitation by their employer or those associating with them. He says that even if sexual entertainment is not taking place at the time, the young person is present, it is likely that the environment itself is unsuitable. For example, sexual explicit materials may be in display. He points out that a young person will be working in an environment where sexual entertainment is normalised, and therefore may form a view that sexual entertainment is an acceptable form of employment for them.  It is very difficult to disagree with either the Children's Commissioner's observations or his conclusions, and I urge members to follow the recommendations of the commissioner to support my colleague Cara Hylton and to reject the minister's amendment. Many thanks. I now call on Cara Hylton to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please. I think that there is a real danger that the bill, as it is drafted, could put children and young people at risk of harm. My amendment today will remove the option of any under-18-year-old being employed by a sexual entertainment venue, and it will ensure that these venues cannot be accessed by children under-18-year-olds in any circumstances or at any time. I am not convinced at all by the arguments that have been made by the cabinet secretary. I think that amendment 19 by allowing venues a reasonable excuse—no, I have no time, sorry—a reasonable excuse to allow young people on the premise, I think that it opens up many loopholes that will put young people and especially young women at risk of sexual exploitation. Presiding Officer, those venues are completely unsuitable for young people at any time. Today we have got an opportunity to send out a strong message about the type of Scotland that we want to see, and I want to see a Scotland that protects our children and our young people from harming exploitation and which challenges the objectification of women and girls. I urge the chamber to vote for amendment 22 today and reject amendment 19. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed that there will therefore be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 22 is yes, 33, no, 67. There were 14 abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 19 in the name of the cabinet secretary to move. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. I beg your pardon. Yes, I understood it correctly. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 19 is yes, 84, no, 28. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Now move to group 10 and I call amendment 20 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 28 please. I am pleased to be able to move amendment 20. The Scottish Government strongly believes that the proposed licensing scheme for section entertainment venues is a step forward from the current arrangements. That will allow the local authority to exert greater control over what goes on and is permitted in its area. It has always been envisaged that a local authority that seeks to licence section entertainment in its area will have to undertake a full and proper exercise to reach a determination of how to approach the licensing function. In other words, it will have to adopt a policy with respect to the exercise of its function in relation to licensing section entertainment venues. That amendment formalises that by requiring that a policy statement is prepared and published. It also requires that, in preparing their policy, the authority should focus upon listed objectives. Some of those objectives are traditional licensing issues such as the need to prevent nuisance and crime and protect children and young people from harm. We have also included the objective of reducing violence against women, so it is clear to the local authority that that important issue is at the heart of the licensing regime. Part of the licensing authority's role will be to ensure improved working conditions and a safer environment for the women who work in those venues. The Scottish Government will produce statutory guidance to assist local authorities in developing their policies. Once prepared, the local authority must have regard to its policy statement when exercising its functions in relation to the licensing of sexual entertainment venues. The policy statement will need to be considered when preparing a list of persons or bodies who are to receive copies of licence applications or on deciding to grant such an application. That will ensure that the policy statement is fully embedded into the licensing process. The amendment also lays out the mechanics of how and when the policy statement should be published and reviewed, and I move amendment 20. I thank the cabinet secretary for engaging with myself and with Zero Tolerance Trust in respect of amendment 20 and the earlier amendment 18. I am pleased that the amendment and the earlier amendment reflect many of the issues that I raised during the stage 2 proceedings in respect of both consulting with violence against women partnerships and obliging local authorities to produce a licence and policy statement. The amendment is important because it will ensure that local authorities offering a licence for a sexual entertainment venue are fully considered the wider public policy priorities such as tackling violence against women and protecting young people from harm. There is absolutely no doubt that there needs to be a lot more public scrutiny before those venues are granted licences. The amendment will hopefully ensure more joined-up thinking in our policy at local and national level. I am very happy to offer my support. We move straight to the question. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks, and that brings us to the end of amendments. The next item of business is a debate now on motion number 13606, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request to speak buttons now. I call now on Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. For the purposes of rule 9.1, one of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purports of the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. As members are aware, the Bill sets out a new licensing regime for Air Weapons and Amends the Existing Alcohol Licensing and Civic Licensing regimes. I thank the past and present members of the local government and regeneration committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill over the past 13 months. I am also grateful to the finance committee and the delegated powers and law reform committee for their consideration of the Bill. The local government and regeneration committee invited a wide range of stakeholders to give evidence at stage 1. That evidence, as well as the stage 1 report, which supported the general principles of the Bill, has proven to be extremely valuable in helping the Government to reflect on whether we had the provisions exactly right. The stage 2 committee meeting helped us to further refine the Bill, ensuring that we have a Bill in front of us today that will make a number of significant improvements to the relevant licensing regimes. We have a long-standing commitment to reduce gun crime and the licensing of air weapons has been central to that aim. It featured in our manifesto of 2007 and 2011, and the powers to regularly air weapons were finally devolved to this Parliament in the Scotland Act 2012. We have acted on this new power, consulting widely with experts and the public. Our proposals have not always been universally welcomed, but we believe that they strike the right balance between respecting the interests of those people who shoot legitimately for work, sport, pest control or leisure, and the need to ensure that those who misuse guns do not have access to them. I appreciate the member verifying that the principal purpose of this proposal is to reduce crime involving air weapons, but can he tell me what evidential backup he has to suggest that that measure will reduce gun crime using air weapons, which is already at an almost record low level? The member is correct to say that gun crimes are at almost a record low level. However, in that gun crime, almost half of all the offences involve weapons that are air weapons, and what the member might have noticed from the most recent statistics that were published, in the area where there was an increase in gun crime, it was with air weapons in themselves, so I believe that having a licensing regime will assist us more effectively to make sure that those who are not suitable for having those weapons do not have access to them. The legislation is not a ban on air weapons in Scotland, but those who shoot should not have access to firearms, including those who deliberately or maliciously target property animals or other people will no longer be allowed to have air weapons. That will help to better protect the public from suffering harm at the hands of those who misuse air guns. When publishing the committees at stage 1 report, the convener Kevin Stewart said that there is no doubt that air weapons are dangerous. That is why we welcome plans to introduce a licensing regime. It is a timely and an important piece of work. I certainly welcome and agree with Kevin Stewart's remarks, and I am sure that the majority of members will also agree and support those provisions. Alcohol licensing is a topic of constant interest in this Parliament. This part of the bill is largely focused on quite technical issues. We know that outdoor drinking dens attract vulnerable young people, placing them at immediate and long-term risk. That is why the bill creates offences in relation to the supply of alcohol by adults to children and young people in a public place. That will give the police the power that they require to address the problem of drinking dens. A fit and proper test is being introduced for both premises and personal licences, and licensing boards will also be able to consider spent offences. Those changes were widely called for to ensure that only those who are suitable can hold a licence. We are also clarifying that licensing boards, when considering over provision, may determine that the whole of its area is a single locality. We have also listened to calls for licensing boards to provide greater clarity about how they carry out their business. Therefore, as well as imposing a duty on boards to annually report on their income expenditure, the bill also requires boards to publish an annual report on exercise of their functions. Various members also express concerns about the five-year ban on someone reapplying for a personal licence after they have had their licence revoked for failure to submit a refresher training certificate. We are removing this particular ban, which will come into effect following the day of royal assent. The bill improves the effectiveness of civic licensing regimes with a variety of reforms across a wide range of areas. The bill will deliver and improve the regime for the licensing of metal dealers. That will raise standards within the industry and make it more difficult for metal thefts to convert their proceedings from crime into cash. The bill ensures that all dealers are licensed, bans are use of cash as payment for scrap, titans record keeping arrangements and requires proper identification of customers. It also increases the scope of licensing to capture some important peripheral activities such as door-to-door collectors. It increases penalties for licensing offences and creates a power that will enable the creation of a register of metal dealers. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks for those who have helped to develop the proposals in this regard, particularly the British Metal Recycling Association, who have represented the interests of the many legitimate and reputable scrap metal dealers. The British Transport Police, who have actively led the fight against metal theft in recent years, also allows communities a greater say over whether sexual entertainment, for example lap dancing, takes place in their area by allowing local authorities the power to provide for a licensing regime for such a provision in their area, thereby controlling the number of licences granted for sexual entertainment venues. Central to this is the belief that the voice of local communities should be heard and that local authorities should have a clear influence over whether an activity like sexual entertainment should be taking place within their area. Local authorities are best placed to reflect the views of the communities that they serve and determine whether sexual entertainment establishments should be authorised and also under what conditions. I also welcome the amendments to the bill that reinforce the role that imposes proper control over sexual entertainment venues and how they can assist in tackling violence against women. Although I applaud the role that many individuals and organisations have played in getting us to this particular point, I particularly want to recognise Sandra White, who has worked tirelessly over many years to highlight these issues and to push for the introduction of the licensing regime. The bill also makes a small number of changes in relation to the taxi and private hire car licensing regime. Local authorities are responsible for these hire car licensing regimes. They have discretion in applying a local regime that best meets the specific requirements of their local area and can take account of the view of both customers and trade. In general, the local process works well. Specific provisions in the bill include the power to refuse to grant private hire car licences on the grounds of over-provision, the extension of driver testing to allow testing of private hire car drivers and the removal of the contract exemption to the licensing and regulation of taxis and private hire cars, bringing hire cars used on contract into the licensing regime. The bill also simplifies and improves licensing arrangements, by, for example, providing for the licensing of theatres within the public entertainment licensing regime. I have set out the Government's thinking on some of the key areas within what is a wide-ranging bill, and I move that the Parliament agrees that the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill be passed. Before I call Cara Hilton, I would wish to inform the chamber that, in order to allow everyone to speak in the debate, I have determined that the decision time will take place at 10 past five. I begin by echoing the cabinet secretary's comments and thanking all involved in devoting time and energy to support us in scrutinising the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill. I would like to thank the parliamentary staff for the support that they provided to the local government and regeneration committee during the bill's progress. I joined the committee midway through the process, so I missed out on many of the early evidence sessions, but I would like to place on record my thanks to all those witnesses and interest groups who have engaged with the committee and provided evidence on the wide range of topics covered by the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary for his willingness to work with committee members and MSPs to improve the bill and for engaging and respond constructively to all stakeholders involved. The bill before us today is certainly a bill of many parts—introducing a new licensing regime for air weapons, as well as reforming local authority licensing functions in respect of alcohol, taxi and private hire cars, scrap metal dealers and theatres. The bill also introduces a new licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues. According to the policy memorandum, the aim of the bill is to protect public safety, to preserve public order, to reduce crime and to advance public health. In the stage 2 debate back in April, my colleague Alec Rowley suggested that combining this diverse range of subjects and objectives into one single bill—a bill in itself that is based possibly on outdated legislation—perhaps is not the best way to legislate it. I hope that this is something that the Scottish Government and future Scottish Governments can reflect on in the future. In fact, the committee's original report on the bill stated that the bill is what could be described as a bit of a pick-and-mix, and I think that that sums up the situation pretty well. Scottish Labour will be supporting the bill today, although we obviously certainly do not believe that the bill is perfect. In respect of alcohol licensing, we do think that considerable progress has been made in this area. I was pleased that the amendments that were tabled have been accepted and the reassurance that it was given to Dr Richard Simpson about his amendment that work is under way in that area. We are concerned that some parts of section 68 of the bill, as amended by the Government today, could put children and young people at risk, and I am disappointed that my amendment to totally ban under 18s from sexual entertainment venues has been rejected, despite having the backing of the commissioner for children and young people, Bernardo Scotland's Zero Tolerance Trust, Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government believes that it is acceptable for young people to have access to sexual entertainment venues if owners can come up with a reasonable excuse. I think that this is a direct contradiction to a range of key Scottish Government policies, policies in which Scottish Labour supports, such as getting it right for every child, the Children and Young People's Scotland Act, and I think that it is inconsistent, too, with the Scottish Government's strategy on violence against women. The point that I was making about her amendment and the Government's amendment in relation to under 18s having access to sexual entertainment venues, had we gone with the amendment that she had set out, the reasonable excuse defence could have been used at any time when that venue was being used for sexual entertainment or not being used for sexual entertainment, whereas the Government's amendment bans under 18s from being in the premises and also closes down the use of that reasonable excuse defence so that it cannot be used for a young person to be on the premises when sexual entertainment is taking place. That is the provisions that we now have in the law under this bill. Obviously, that is one interpretation and I am not convinced with those arguments. I tabled that same amendment at stage 2 and I did not hear those arguments then. This is the first time today that I have heard those arguments, so I am a bit doubtful about the validity. I have lost my place now, that is the trouble. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has brought forward positive amendments in this area that will improve notification procedures and require local authorities to fully consider the impact of licensing sexual entertainment venues on local authorities' wider objectives, such as reducing violence against women and protecting children and young people. I hope that that will give local communities a bigger voice in whether those venues can operate in their local areas. The cabinet secretary's amendments in those areas reflect what I was hoping to achieve in my own amendments at stage 2, so that is welcome progress. I hope that we can develop more joined-up policymaking at local and national level in building towards a type of Scotland that we all want to see. The sex industry can never be allowed to operate in a vacuum and our approach needs to reflect the goals of Scotland that all individuals are equally safe and respected, in which all our town centres and city centres are welcoming to all. Until now, this is an industry that has effectively been unregulated. Therefore, while the bill is far from ideal, the new licensing regime that it proposes is certainly better than what we have now. I think that we have to be vigilant in monitoring the new regime. I think that there is a real risk in licensing those venues that the Scottish Government risks normalising what is a harmful form of sexual exploitation, as the Zero Tolerance Trust pointed out in its original evidence to the local government committee. If we are to move beyond women's value and worth being located in their bodies and their perceived sexual attractiveness, we need to move beyond seeing sexual entertainment venues as normal and harmless. We need to challenge a culture where women and girls are viewed and treated as sexualised objects. A failure to send out a clear message on that is a failure to our young people. In respect of taxis and private hire cars, there is absolutely no doubt that this is a rapidly changing industry, and it is vital that the legislation reflects the pace of change. During the committee's evidence sessions, there is certainly real concern about whether the bill would be robust and future-proof enough to protect taxi app companies from bypassing local regimes. I hope that it will be, but only time will tell. I know that the Scottish Taxi Federation was pleased with the assurances that it received from the cabinet secretary, and we all agree that it is vital that there is a level playing field and a fairer deal for all in this sector. In respect of air weapons, Scottish Labour fully supports the proposals in this bill. It is estimated that 500,000 air guns are owned by people right across Scotland. The bill will rightly require anyone who owns one to demonstrate a legitimate reason for having such a weapon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these air weapons are dangerous. The tragic death of two-year-old Andrew Morton 10 years ago and the heartache that his family continue to endure every day highlights the real pressing need to act to prevent future tragedies. Today, half of all firearms offences involve the use of an air weapon, and every single day, our police officers and animal welfare groups have to deal with the consequences of those weapons being misused. The proposals in this bill are very welcome, and they will ensure that Scotland has got a strong and robust air weapons licensing regime. In respect of metal dealers and metal theft, again, the bill's proposals are very welcome and will bring Scotland in line with the rest of the UK. Metal theft is a big issue in many of our communities. It is never a victimless crime, and the provisions in this bill will hopefully strengthen the licensing of metal dealing, reduce metal theft and related criminal activity, which not only inconveniences the public but endangers the public and indeed endangers offenders too. I noticed that I have run out of time, so in conclusion to that, Presiding Officer. The bill is not without its flaws. Many of the proposals that it contains are very welcome, and it is certainly a step in the right direction. Scottish Labour will be supporting the bill to debate today, and I look forward to the rest of the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In opening the debate for Scottish Conservatives, I am very sorry to say that I find myself every bit as perplexed about the bill now as I was at stage 1. The vast majority of it is greatly to be welcomed, particularly the provisions on alcohol licensing, metal dealers and public and sexual entertainment venues. In general, although I think the jury is still out, perhaps on some of the provisions relating the licensing of taxes and private cars, parts 2 and 3 of this bill are broadly to be welcomed, particularly if I may say so from a constituency point of view, the rescinding of the five-year ban in the event of the renewal of a personal licence when that has run out. That is common sense and very practical measure, and I welcome it. Indeed, I think that tightening up of existing licensing provisions are largely sensible, and would, had they been considered on their own, have attracted, undoubtedly, the unanimous support of this chamber. But our problem on these benches, which will come as no surprise to members as with part 1, the new licensing provisions, not please note tightening up of existing ones, the new licensing provisions that relate to the air weapons regime that the Government wishes to introduce. For us, this is a red line issue that also involves an important point of democratic principle, which is that we believe that part 1 of this bill should always have been a separate piece of legislation. During the stage 1 debate, Kevin Stewart intervened on me to ask what might be different in a separate bill that would make me support it. Well, the answer to that is quite possibly nothing, Presiding Officer, but the point is that we could have had a clear debate and decision making processes on a completely new area of licensing provision, while almost certainly unanimously agreeing on a separate bill that covered parts 2 and 3. So we are forced on these benches into a position of being unable to support this bill, despite being very much in agreement with a large part of it, and I want to spend the brief time available to me in trying to explain why we are so opposed to part 1. At stage 1, I raised concern that the most recent statistics on air weapon offences, which should have been published in November 2014, would not be published until October this year, almost a year late. Then, lo and behold, Presiding Officer, they have now been published, and they show that air weapon offences are at their second lowest level in the last decade, 0.06 per cent of all reported crime in Scotland, a drop of 73 per cent from their peak. Against that background, the possessors of the estimated 500,000 air guns in Scotland are to undergo a process to licence them to possess air guns. That process is to be carried out by officers of Police Scotland, not the trained civilian specialist firearms officers whose numbers are being reduced from 34 to 14, as we speak, but by rank and file police officers with no previous experience of weaponry at all and whose training I am very reliably informed is consisting largely of learning about the legislation involved rather than any hands-on weaponry training that might actually help them prepare for the task that they are going to have to undertake. I am equally reliably informed that Police Scotland has a current backlog of over 500 shotgun and firearms licence applications at this point in time, so one can only begin to imagine what additional pressures the air gun licensing regime is going to have on them. Once a licence or permit has been gained, it will not be required to purchase the ammunition for these weapons. That can only result in those holders of air guns who do not actually bother or want to get a licence or permit, and everybody agrees that there will be many of them, having no difficulty at all in obtaining ammunition for them. I might suggest that those most likely to carry out air gun crimes are also those who are probably least likely to bother to get a permit, especially one that costs somewhere in the region of £80, so I am afraid that I do not believe and I do not accept that this new regime will have any impact on crime statistics whatsoever. In speaking to amendments 1 and 2 earlier this afternoon, I suggested that those amendments would reduce bureaucracy expense and unnecessary use of human resources. Had they been accepted, I am sure that they would have had that impact, but they weren't. So what we are left with is a bill that will create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and expense that will take up countless hours of police officers' time to bring in a licensing regime that will do nothing to reduce the minute amount of crime that a miniscule number of air gun owners or possessors currently commit. I repeat what I said earlier that this seems to me to be the perfect example of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that the sledgehammer is being welded by a Scottish Government that preaches the gospel of cutting down on unnecessary red tape, expense and time wasting at every possible opportunity almost defies belief. We do not believe that the sledgehammer will crack the targeted nut anyway. All it will do is place an unnecessary increased burden on thousands of perfectly law-abiding citizens and that is not something that we on these benches can support. We now move to open debate. Four minute speeches. Kevin Stewart to be followed by Elaine Murray please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In April this year, we debated and agreed the general principles of the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. Today we debate the bill and the format is hopefully to be passed. Although there is no formal role for me in this debate as the convener of the local government and regeneration committee, I would like to use some of my time today to share the work of the committee and its effectiveness in realising change. As I pointed out in the stage 1 debate, licensing is an important role to play. It is integral to preserving public order and safety, reducing crime and advancing public health. A key aim of the bill is also to improve the efficiency of the operation of the licensing regimes contributing to the creation of a better regulatory environment for business. The bill is wide-ranging, including the creation of new licensing systems in Scotland for the use of air weapons and the operation of sexual entertainment venues. The bill also amends the existing licensing systems in alcohol sales, scrap metal dealers, taxes and private car cars and public entertainment venues. The importance of those regimes and the objectives that they seek to reinforce cannot be underplayed. Our level of engagement with key stakeholders allowed us to make meaningful changes to the bill, which will improve the effectiveness of the provisions. For example, the bill now enables a sale of air weapons to customers in the rest of Great Britain, requires alcohol licensing boards to publish annual reports outlining how they have contributed to the licensing objectives, empowers licensing authorities to deal with issues connected to advertising of sexual entertainment venues, updates the definition of metal dealers so as to include those who do not buy metal but sell it, more clearly defines the forms of payments to metal dealers and provides the legislative framework for the creation of a national database for metal dealers. The work of the committee has led to some major change in the bill from the start at stage 1. I think that the vast bulk of the work that we have done has been pretty co-operative, but today I think that we have seen where there has been division and mistake because of misunderstandings that there have been. I have to say that I was rather disappointed that a committee member was briefing against colleagues in the press. I will be very interested today to see how some colleagues have voted in certain amendments, particularly on amendment 19. I thank the cabinet secretary for being extremely co-operative in trying to ensure that we get the bill absolutely right. I think that we have, as I said earlier, made great moves in terms of getting it right. I will give you one example, Presiding Officer, and that is in terms of the penalties for metal theft. We believed, as a committee, that they were far too lenient to the proposals that were put originally. Now we see a fine of up to £20,000 and or up to six months in prison. I believe that we have reached that conclusion because of the work of the local government and region generation committee. I believe that the bill now strikes the right balance. It allows both businesses and ordinary folk to go out their lives while seeking to prevent or reduce the harm caused by those who would seek to avoid regulation or carry out criminal acts. The Air Weapons and Licensing Bill is proportionate to the issues being tackled, and that is why I will be voting in favour of the bill at decision time today. Thank you very much. I call Dr Elaine Murray to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has never been the intention of people who support the bill to ban air weapons, but to regulate them. Air weapons can and sadly do kill, and it is wrong that anyone who wants to can keep and use a lethal weapon without any checks on why they have them or whether they can be relied on to use the weapon in a responsible way and for a legitimate purpose. I am pleased that the bill will rectify that situation. Like other members, I was lobbied to exclude people who already hold a firearms licence. As I said earlier, the bill excludes them from some of the licence tests, but not all, and that, in my opinion, is correct. Although a person who has a firearm may well be a suitable person to also have an air gun licence, it may not have a good reason for doing it. It is correct that the chief constable should also be required to ascertain that he has a good reason for having an air weapon. I note the concerns raised in the law society stage 3 briefing that there are around half a million air weapons in Scotland that cannot be properly traced and may be sold off or given away in advance of the legislation coming into force, rather than handed into the police. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary has a strategy to try and encourage people to hand in their weapons rather than possibly give them away and have them circulating illegally in the country. The law society also makes the point in that briefing that the purchase of ammunition is not regulated and that there is no requirement in the bill, for example, to produce the weapon certificate when purchasing ammunition. I suspect that the purchase of ammunition might still be reserved. Perhaps it is just the licensing of air weapons that has been handed over to us, and therefore it was not possible for that to be addressed here, and maybe it is something that needs to be addressed at Westminster. I believe that the regulation of air weapons will protect people, domestic pets and wild animals. It is indeed very difficult to assess the numbers of wild animals that have been injured or killed by air weapons, as they may die in places where their carcasses will never be discovered. I personally, as this is just a personal view, was a bit concerned about an amendment passed at stage 2, which allows young people to use air guns for pest control, because the bill had only permitted young people who are commercial pest controllers who are employed by them to shoot pets. I completely accept that shooting can be a very humane method of pest control in the right hands, but I am a bit concerned by that stage 2 amendment that untrained young people, or indeed even untrained adults, could be using air guns to shoot live animals, potentially causing them significant suffering if the animal is not instantly dispatched. I hope and seek the cabinet secretary's reassurances on whether other legislation such as the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 may provide sufficient protection for wild animals, which may be considered pests. After all, they are still sentient creatures and may suffer badly if untrained individuals are taking potshots at them in the name of pest control. On scrap metal dealers, which I mentioned during the stage 1 briefing, having discussed the bill with a local and very reputable metal dealer, I was pleased to note that the Government at stage 2 introduced amendments to prevent a scrap metal dealer from paying in cash by clarifying that only a bank or building society account may be used when undertaking a sale of metal. I think that that is very welcome. That will help to prevent the theft of scrap metal, which has been a serious problem for some time, all the time, in fact, since metal prices rose and can have serious consequences for public safety and obviously public convenience, too. Amendments were made to record keeping requirements and to establishing a register of metal details, all of which are very welcome and which have been argued for. On the issue of sexual entertainment venues, I think that it is absolutely correct that local government takes responsibility to regulate those, to legislate for those and in conjunction with listening to the views of the local community. I agree that councils are the best people to do this. I also pay tribute to Sandra White and others who have campaigned on this for many years. It is easy to be portrayed as a bit of a killjoy and illiberal when you take those issues on, but it is rightly people in this chamber to recognise that commercial sexual exploitation is indeed a form of violence against women. I thank Kevin Stewart's committee and, indeed, the witnesses for the work that they have carried out on what is, by common consent, a wide-ranging and complex bill. Kara Hilton was right to remind us the committee's own observation that it was a bit of a pick-and-mix bill. I think I have sympathy for the view that it is actually two bills masquerading as one, and I think that Alex Ferguson quite rightly pointed to the implications of that when we come to the final stages in the vote today. The Cabinet Secretary has been his characteristic reasonable and measured self, and I think it is sought to deal with the amendments before us today in that way. Although I am disappointed that there was not a willingness to accept some of the amendments in relation to airguns, and I will turn to that in a minute. However, there is much in this bill that we welcome—part 2 on alcohol licensing, part 3 on civic licensing set-out reforms, with which we strongly agree. I think that Kevin Stewart articulated those very fairly in his observations. If I point to a couple of examples, the closing of the loophole, which means that, although it is illegal to buy alcohol for a child, it is legal to buy alcohol to share with a child in a public place and to create additional record-keeping requirements on scrap metal dealers, including to record the identity of those who sell metal. Those are both very eminently sensible moves, but the fact remains that a great deal of the bill relates to the licensing of air weapons, an issue on which we have consistently voiced our concerns. My colleague, Tavish Scott, did so during the stage 1 debate. Those have, unfortunately, not been adequately addressed in the meantime. There have been opportunities to do so most recently this afternoon, and we welcomed Alex Ferguson's amendments, which sought a practical way ahead on some of those issues, while also lifting the burden on those who are already struggling to manage existing gun licensing requirements, where there is, as Alex Ferguson indicated, a backlog. The Government is rightly concerned about public safety, but crime statistics suggest that the number of incidents involving air weapons is small, and falling evidence to the committee was very clear about that. I do not dispute that problems exist in justifying these proposals current and previous justice secretaries cite well-publicised incidents where young children have been hurt by the inappropriate use of an air gun. Those cases are appalling and have been roundly and rightly condemned, but those cases have also been prosecuted under the laws that we already have. I cannot see the evidence of how the bill will reduce the risk of those happening. At stage 1, Tavish Scott called for a proportionate response to the problem, but the bill that we have before us at this stage does not strike that right balance. The introduction of blanket restrictions will have a significant impact on individuals and practices that present absolutely no risk to public safety without necessarily providing any real deterrent for those intent on acting irresponsibly. Indeed, there is even an argument that it could encourage more people to trade up to more powerful weapons, and it would be interested to know whether the bill has in any way been either island-proofed or rural-proofed as the Government has committed to do. Steps may need to be taken to address inappropriate ownership and use of air guns, but I fear that the proposals in the bill are more a way of allowing ministers to claim that they are taking action than an effective response to any problem that exists. On that basis, and despite our welcome for many of the other aspects contained in the bill, we will not be able to support it when it comes to votes this evening. Many thanks. I call on Sandra White to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I just say that it is a very important bill with metal theft, air weapon licensing, alcohol licensing and, of course, the sexual entertainment venues. I will limit my comments to the sexual entertainment venues part of the bill. I think that many members here in some of our dimensions, and I am grateful for it, the fact that I have been pursuing the licensing of sexual entertainment venues for many, many years, too many years, and I care to think of. I do want to thank the local Government Committee for all the work that it has done on the bill and this particular part of the bill, and also the clerks that I see here tonight for the advice that they have given me, and the help to put forward various amendments, which brings me on to thanking the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for accepting the bill into this particular bill also. Special thanks must go to previous Cabinet Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, who I worked with before in regard to the bill when I brought it to the chamber a number of years ago. Unfortunately, the Opposition voted it down, but we did not give in and we brought it back again. I thank everyone who has helped to bring it forward. However, if I had not been for the previous Cabinet Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, I do not know if we would have got as far as this. I thank everyone that I have mentioned and perhaps others that I have forgotten to mention. A number of people have said basically about the sexual entertainment and licences, obviously lap dancing clubs. It is something that, in my particular area, I represent Glasgow city centre part of that. Many people have come to me in that respect regarding the proliferation of lap dancing clubs in the city centre of Glasgow, and it was decided that it would be local authorities, and it is absolutely right. It cannot be a mandatory licensing. It must be for local authorities to represent the people in their authority. I thank Councillor Coleman of Glasgow city council, who gave me enormous help and enormous advice and support as well, pushing through this part of the bill. It is absolutely fantastic that all the work that went on from everyone concerned that we now come tonight at 10 past five to realise that lap dancing sexual entertainment licences will, particularly if the local authority wishes to be done in their area, they will be done in their particular area. That is why I think it is called empowering local people, not just local authorities but empowering local communities if they wish not to have this type of entertainment. Others have said, and I have long said myself, that it is a form of violence against women. I have already mentioned some of the examples that I have had of people being in these types of establishments. All I can say is that it is a really good piece of legislation that has come forward from this Scottish Parliament tonight. I know that there are lots of people there within community councils, not just women's groups throughout not just Glasgow but Scotland also, who very much welcome this piece of legislation. The thought that women can be objectified in the way of lap dancing and people paying for that type of thing will be long gone when this legislation comes forward. It is something that I have said not just myself but others have worked on for many, many years and I do give my thanks to everyone who has helped me to bring this forward and look forward to 10 past five tonight. We can finally say yes to supporting this bill and this particular piece of legislation. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome many of the changes brought about by this bill, although I think that in due course there will need to be a more fundamental revision of the 1982 act. Now, just taking the different areas and their guns, I accept, as Alex Ferguson says, that this is not going to eliminate the problem totally, but I do believe, as with firearms legislation, that it will make a significant difference. I think that it is right that it does parallel firearms legislation because the reality is that air guns cause a great deal of harm to people, to pets and to wild animals. Therefore, it is absolutely right to have a fit and proper person test and people should have to have a reasonable and proper use for such weapons. In terms of alcohol, I know that this is an issue that comes up very frequently at community councils. I think that there is some good progress from this bill as well. Again, the fit and proper person test for premises and personal licence applications is a good measure. I think that the renewed focus also reinforced focus on over-provision so that that can relate to the whole board area. I think that Richard Simpson made an important point in his amendment that for communities to be able to object meaningfully and realistically to over-provision, they have to have the information which is why he wanted to have a national register. That was not passed. In fact, he withdrew the amendment because some defect was pointed out in it, but he referred in his wind-up speech to section 12 subsection 6, which relates to the amendment today on annual reports. I think that it is possible through that subsection to provide that information that Richard Simpson was seeking. I think that the minister, the cabinet secretary, accepted that and I hope that he will keep Parliament informed about progress on that. Scrap metal briefly. Again, I think that everybody welcomes this. We know that there is a problem with metal theft, so anything that makes it more difficult to dispose of the metal has to be a good thing.  The provisions in the original bill about empowering local authorities and giving them the power to say no is correct and widely welcomed, but we should pay tribute to Cara Hilton and Zero Tolerance for the way in which they have developed a policy in partnership with the minister to a large extent over the past few weeks. That has resulted in the amendment today on a statement of policy required by local authorities. That statement of policy should also take the wider policy context into account, so that is a welcome progress today. Also, the need to specifically notify particular local bodies. Again, that would include community councils and violence against women partnerships and others, following the statutory guidance that was announced by the cabinet secretary today. The main problem in this area today was the debate around amendment 19 versus amendment 22. We all had very strong briefings from the Children's Commissioner. Obviously, we had previous briefings from Zero Tolerance, which were very influential and emphasised in the way in which sexual entertainment was an example of the objectification of women and the sexual exploitation of women and, therefore, intrinsically undesirable. I think that people will understand why we supported Cara Hilton's amendment in terms of nobody under 18. I think that we did have a problem when the cabinet secretary introduced a whole lot of new arguments that had not been presented at stage 2. If that was a new amendment from Cara Hilton, of course we would not be able to complain. However, amendment 22 was introduced by Cara Hilton at stage 2, and there was not one word of the explanation that we have had today. It was absolutely impossible for us to assess what the cabinet secretary was saying. Obviously, we stuck with amendment 19, along with Zero Tolerance and the Children's Commissioner. Many thanks. I know Colin John Wilson, after which we will move the closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I first take this opportunity to welcome the discussion and debate on what clearly are very important issues for Scotland? The health and security of all those within Scotland is of the utmost concern, and this bill has created important discussion around those issues. I welcome, put on record, my welcome to the cabinet secretary. He is willing to listen to and act on the discussions that took place both within the committee and elsewhere, particularly at stage 2, and his acceptance of some of the clear issues that are being raised by external organisations. I also put on record my thanks to the many organisations that came and gave evidence to the committee and individuals who responded to the call for evidence. Without that evidence, some of the issues that have been discussed today may not have been discussed, because we might have lost those in the debate. However, the bill itself covers a number of areas that members have indicated, such as air weapons, alcohol licensing, taxi and private hire cars, metal dealers, licensing public entertainment venues and licensing sexual entertainment venues. Some of the debates that took place both at stage 1 and stage 2 have been lost in today's debate because we covered those issues and dealt with those issues in a consensual manner. Particularly, things such as licensing of public entertainment venues were accepted and adopted by all concern, because there was a confusion between the sexual entertainment venues and licensing and how that might impact on public entertainment venues. There have been some issues dealt with there. On the metal dealers' debate, we clearly heard the evidence in the committee about the cost of metal theft in Scotland. Some of the evidence we heard, one witness indicated in written evidence that it could be anything up to £40 million to cost in Scotland for the metal theft that was taking place. I am glad that the fines have been increased to take account of the issues that have been raised, because clearly we are not dealing with or targeting those who are seriously involved in metal theft. Hopefully, those fines will help to tear some of those characters and safeguard communities throughout Scotland and our infrastructure. To concentrate on air weapons, there are issues about the interpretation of air weapons licensing. I have heard a number of representations from the air soft community that are concerned about how the changes in the legislation may affect them. It will be incumbent on the cabinet secretary and guidance and regulation in the future to ensure that the communities around those air soft issues are clear about what is covered within the licensing regime, because there are issues about the strength of the weapon being used. The issues being raised are the advances in technology that are taking place, particularly in the air soft area, which mean that some of those weapons may soon become covered by the air weapons licensing that we are proposing today. I welcome the discussions that have taken place, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has been so consensual. There have been areas—I think that amendment 22 and amendment 19 are one of those areas—where the committee did, at stage 2, go into some discussion about the relevant issues around that and the impact that certain provisions might have in the legislation in terms of employment, access to sexual entertainment venues. It is quite clear, and I am glad that the cabinet secretary brought forward an amendment today that, although the majority in the chamber have accepted, there is still much debate to be held out with the chamber. I will support the bill as presented at stage 3 today, Presiding Officer, and look forward to the implementation of that bill. If it needs to be worked on in the future, I look forward to the opportunity to do that. The air weapons and licensing bill has drawn out areas of both consensus and contention, as today's debate has shown. As I have commented before, legislation should be passed only when it is targeted and effectively acts in the public's best interests. Where this has been the case, such as with metal dealers, it seems to me that the bill would improve matters. We have heard all over how we have the support of most metal dealers and also of our committee. It is, however, apparent that the aim of protecting people from unnecessary or unhelpful Government intervention has not been applied throughout the bill. As a result, the Scottish Conservatives really do not believe that it is the best interest in the people in Scotland. A guiding principle throughout our consideration in the bill has been that law-abiding people should not find themselves unnecessarily caught under legislative net, just because it is easier or politically expedient for the Government to impose wide-reaching obligations. The provisions regarding air weapons are a case in point. Misuse of air weapons is confined to a tiny minority of users as recently published statistics on recorded... Certainly. I thank Mr Buchanan for giving way, and we recognise that there are a small minority of abusers of those weapons, but those weapons and the use of by abusers has led to the deaths of people in this country, including, as has been mentioned previously, Andrew Morton. Surely it is right to act to ensure that we do not have any more deaths or any other injuries by making sure that we have the right licensing regime in place. Cameron Buchanan. Thank you. What evidence do we have that a licensing regime is going to prevent deaths? I really cannot see it. I do not think it is going to make any... I think these people go undercover. Let Mr Buchanan carry on. A guiding principle has been that law-abiding people try. The provisions regarding air weapons are a case in point. Misuse of air weapons is confined to, I think, a tiny minority of users as recently published statistics on recorded crimes for 2013 and 2014 have confirmed. On a side note, it is very welcome that the Scottish Government finally changes its initial decision to wish-hold publication of this data until well after today's debate. A targeted response to this small number of crimes involving air weapons would be to focus on better enforcement of existing laws, but this bill instead imposes an extensive and costly licensing process upon users. Furthermore, I think it is difficult to see how these provisions could be in the public's best interest regarding security when Police Scotland's already pressured resources could be invested instead in tackling crimes more prevalent than the 0.06% involving air weapons. The administration of air weapons licensing would involve a disproportionately large commitment, as we have heard from my colleague here, of the police's resources, which may threaten the public's security achieved through police operations in other areas. These major concerns imply themselves that the bill does not adhere to the principles of targeted and effective government, a position that I think that is reinforced by provisions relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicle market. There are legitimate concerns that drivers of private hire vehicles should have background checks and understand the needs of various passengers in order to protect consumers. An appropriate solution would be, I think, to allow only these tests, yet the bill would also permit the knowledge test to be required of all private hire drivers, despite the option to use perfectly adequate satellite navigation. This overreaching of the testing provisions combined with the power of licensing authorities to refuse to grant a licence for a private hire vehicle solely on the grounds of overprovision has the effect that the bill does not act in the public's best interests. Experience elsewhere has indicated that an expanded supply of private hire vehicles would bring lower prices and, in doing so, allow more people to afford regular use of private transport. Such a development would clearly be in the public's interests, yet the unnecessary testing provisions and anti-competitive ability to refuse licences on the grounds of overprovision would stand as barriers against its progress. This would plainly not be in the Scottish consumer's best interests. There are some aspects of this bill that we agree with and could be beneficial. The problem is that they are better with this bill of so many parts that include aspects that we cannot agree with. The welcome provisions include those relating to metal dealerships as well as some sensible reforms to theatre and section entertainment. However, our principles are not loose commitment that we wish to see fulfilled some of the time. To feel able to support the bill, it must be focused throughout on genuine improvements on behalf of the Scottish public, and it certainly should not violate the principles of targeted and effective government. According to the Scottish Conservatives, regrettably we are voting against the Air Weapons and Licency Bill. I thank not just all the members present for their contribution to today's debate, but extending our appreciation to all those outwith Parliament who have taken the time to give evidence to help us to shape the legislation. I'd like to give a particular thanks to members of the local government and regeneration committee, to their clerks, and indeed to the minister and his bill team for taking a constructive approach to the bill. The bill itself encompasses anodomics of policy objectives, but it is not without criticism, but overall is undoubtedly the stronger as a result of parliamentary scrutiny and amendment. In f