Item 4 is to consider our approach to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, which was introduced to the Parliament on 9 November. The Finance Committee is concerned not with the policy implications of legislation but with the financial implications. We would seek to take evidence from any bodies upon which costs will fall and from Scottish Government officials, rather than from ministers. As members are aware, we have a three-level approach to scrutiny of financial memorandums. The paper from our clerk suggests that we adopt level 3 scrutiny in the light of the level of public expenditure that will be associated with the bill. That means that we would take oral evidence from relevant organisations and then produce a report for the lead committee. I suggest that we take oral evidence from Scottish Government officials, Glasgow City Council and the organising committee, Glasgow 2014 Limited.
I am conscious of the controversy over the Olympics. I would not want to make any connection between the bill and London 2012, but there are concerns about the impacts in the wider Scottish context. Off the top of my head, I do not have any idea who might be brought in to provide input into proceedings on it, but if we simply focus on Glasgow because it is Glasgow 2014 we might end up missing a trick.
It might be an idea to include national lottery people to ask them why there has been no contribution from the national lottery, despite its having made substantial contributions to funding the Olympics.
The other suggestion—although it may not exist by 2014—is that we take evidence from sportscotland, which at least ought to give us some insight into the effects of the games on community sport and so on, or into how those effects might be addressed to ensure that they are not diminished.
I remind the committee that we are in danger of getting into policy issues—we are supposed to consider finance. If I read members correctly, you are looking for a wider view to ensure that our debate is informed by problems elsewhere and that we get to the heart of the matter with respect to finance.
It may have been slightly opportunistic, but people in Aberdeen have talked about a 50m swimming pool and training facilities. That is an example of what could be available throughout the country. Could we take evidence, for example from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to give us a view that is wider than that of Glasgow City Council?
I suggest that the clerks give some thought to that. I do not want to stray into policy, but I take your point that we must have as clear a view and as much information as possible about the financial implications. If we have too narrow a view we may miss something. However, we have to be careful from whom we take that wider information, and what that information is.
That is why I would like to hear from the national lottery why—so far—there has been no commitment to help fund the Commonwealth games. That is a financial issue.
It might be useful to call for written evidence. Members could concentrate their thoughts on where we could get information that would supplement and improve what we get from the oral session. In other words, we are looking at the financial problem as a whole. If members have any ideas, they should let the clerks know. At a future meeting, we could consider whether to take written evidence from any of those sources. Is that agreed?
There are specific questions about the lottery but COSLA, sportscotland and so on would be in a position to comment on the financial memorandum. We could invite them to give written evidence.
Yes.
In the case of the national lottery, I suspect that the process would be more interrogative than simply a matter of receiving written evidence.
I would like the national lottery to give oral evidence on why we are not getting funding from it for the Commonwealth games.
I think we are moving into the politics—
The politics of it matters. The Commonwealth games are two years after the Olympics, and there has been no commitment from the national lottery. Substantial amounts of money—money that may well impact on funding for sport elsewhere in Scotland—are going to the Olympics. It is fair to ask why the Commonwealth games are not getting any lottery funding.
Would the committee consider writing to the national lottery to ask such a question?
Liam McArthur is right—we should ask them to come to the committee and answer questions.
I will fulfil Alex Neil's usual role—as he is performing another one at the moment—and offer a compromise. We could ask them to provide written evidence on that specific question, and if the committee is not satisfied with the response, we could invite them to the committee.
Playing the part of Liam, I will accept the compliment.
Do we agree to adopt level 3 scrutiny, as set out in the clerks' paper, with the additional information that the committee has added?
Meeting continued in private until 15:03.