Opening hours

How did the bill to liberalise the arrangements for the sale of alcohol end up by reducing the time periods during which alcohol may be sold by off-licences and supermarkets? You start with the principle that opening hours for both pubs and off-licences should be a matter for local licensing boards but that those boards should have more powers to resist or amend licensing applications in the light of local circumstances. This was the agreed Executive line, a line that was held until yesterday throughout the Committee stages of the bill. And this line was maintained even in yesterday's debates insofar as it was applied to pubs, which will now in theory be able to open at any time of the day or night - subject of course to the decision of the local licensing board. But certain Labour and SNP backbenchers would not recognise a principle if it sat up and bit them on the nose. And Labour Ministers, instead of sticking to the principle underlying the bill, caved in. Hence the unseemly Dutch auction over the last 48 hours to reduce the hours during which off-licences and supermarkets would be able to sell alcohol. The end result is that we will in future only be able to buy booze in supermarkets and off-licences during the hours between 10 am and 10 pm.

Was this outcome the subject of consultation with the licenced and/or retail trade? No - off-licences will now need to postpone opening in the morning until 10 am, while supermarkets will need to cordon off their booze departments until that time.

Was this outcome the subject of consultation with local authorities? No - but the powers of local licensing boards to adjust opening times to suit local circumstances are now heavily circumscribed.

Was this a rational considered choice by Parliament? No, it was a hastily cobbled-together fix. Given the confusion of yesterday's debate, it is not even clear that MSPs knew what they were voting for.

Altogether a poor show. Here is part of the Minister's speech on the relevant group of amendments:

"Mr McCabe:
Bristow Muldoon's amendments 12A, 17A, 24A, 64, 66 and 67 will introduce a new package in relation to licence applications for off-sales. They will, in effect, prevent boards from granting premises licences that would allow off-sales between 10 pm and 3 am. Boards will also be required to take into account the effect that the off-sales hours that are proposed in the application might have on antisocial behaviour. Frank McAveety's amendment 64A would amend the proposals by further restricting off-sales hours by preventing off-sales premises from opening between 10 pm and 10 am.
Bruce Crawford's amendment 63 seeks to amend section 60A of the bill, which was inserted at stage 2 and reintroduces statutorily permitted opening hours for off-sales of 8 am until 11 pm. The amendment would require off-sales to close at 10 pm. Andrew Arbuckle seeks to rely on the provisions of the bill as it was introduced...
Members have a number of options; for example, they could disagree to all the amendments and leave the bill as it stands, including Bruce Crawford's amendments that were passed at stage 2. As I said, statutorily permitted opening hours between 8 am and 11 pm for off-sales would therefore be reintroduced.
Alternatively, members could choose Bristow Muldoon's proposal, which would require off-sales to close between 10 pm and 3 am. They could support what he has proposed with the additional safeguard that Frank McAveety has proposed, which would require closure between 10 pm and 10 am. That would be a move from the current position and would surprise the licensed trade. However, I hope that the trade would understand the concerns that members have expressed about the difficulties that communities face as a result of the behaviour that is exhibited when people consume excess alcohol.
I want to make it absolutely clear that if members wish to introduce closure from 10 pm to 10 am—which Frank McAveety has proposed—they must vote for Bristow Muldoon's amendment 64 and for Frank McAveety's amendment 64A. As I said, Andrew Arbuckle has also lodged an amendment, which relies on the existing provisions of the bill to provide the protections that we seek."