Item 5 is to determine our approach to scrutiny of the financial memorandum to the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill. The paper from the clerk suggests that we might wish to adopt level 3 scrutiny and that we seek written evidence from all local authorities, the business organisations that are noted in the FM and other business organisations. On the basis of the written evidence received, the deputy convener and I will decide on additional witnesses for oral evidence, if members are content with that. Are members content with the arrangements as set out in the paper?
The financial memorandum refers specifically to "health costs" and "crime costs". Should we not invite written evidence from health boards and the police? I am happy for the clerks to think of appropriate witnesses. I do not think that we necessarily have to write to every single police force.
Does that have the committee's agreement?
Members indicated agreement.
With that addition, are members content with the arrangements as set out in the paper?
Another thought just came into my head—it was a moment of inspiration. A University of Sheffield study informed a lot of this. Would it be worth inviting an academic who was involved in the study to give evidence?
We think that that could be done.
I do not know what the correct way to deal with this is, but I have to say that I was astonished when I read the financial memorandum. I think that the clerk gave this as a fact in the paper. At the bottom of page 2—[Interruption.]
You are hitting the microphone with your papers.
I do not know from whom we can get written evidence about this, but it is stated as a fact that the policy will result in costs to the Scottish Administration due to a reduction in alcohol duty and VAT from reduced sales of alcohol. I raised the point with John Swinney informally, but I think that we need to get written evidence from the Government on that. I am quite astonished, because the issue did not arise when the smoking ban came in—there was no question of reduced cigarette sales resulting in a cost to the Scottish Executive. It is astonishing to me that the financial memorandum was ever agreed to by ministers. I do not really know what the statement is based on—or rather, I know what it is based on, but it cannot be right, because it did not happen with the smoking ban.
I am assured that we will be taking evidence on that and you will be able to pose that question to the appropriate Government minister. You can pursue that issue.
Malcolm Chisholm raises exactly the same point that we wrestled with regarding the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, if I recall correctly. It relates to the statement of funding policy and to decisions of the devolved Administrations having an impact on the UK Treasury. I remember that we, or perhaps the Justice Committee, sought clarity on whether the clause in "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy" would be invoked, and I think that that was in vain. However, it would be helpful to seek clarity from the Treasury on whether it will seek to apply the relevant provisions under the statement of funding policy if the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill is enacted.
I suggest that we write to the minister in charge of the bill, seeking clarification.
But the decision will not be taken by a Scottish minister; it will be taken by a UK Treasury minister under the statement of funding policy, so we should write to the Treasury.
The costs of the policy have been accepted by the Scottish Government as a fact; otherwise, they would not be mentioned in the financial memorandum. That is what I am surprised about.
We are seeking clarification. We can still write to the minister, pointing out the matter that Derek Brownlee has just raised.
We need clarity from the minister as to why he says that those costs are a certainty but we also need clarity from the UK Treasury. We might find that they are not reading from the same page. The decision in this instance is made by the Treasury, so we should write to the Treasury for clarification.
Yes, we can do that, and we will await a response. With those alterations, which the clerks have noted, are the arrangements as set out in the paper before us agreed?
Members indicated agreement.