Chamber and committees

The proposal that the Fraser of Allander Institute has developed for Alcohol Focus Scotland is that the money would be ring fenced for drug and alcohol partnerships, or at least for health and social care partnerships. There would be some element of ring fencing to ensure that the money goes into prevention, treatment and so on that are specifically related to the harms caused by alcohol and tobacco.

At the moment, the value to retailers of minimum unit pricing is about £30 million a year. I think that it surprises quite a lot of people when they find out that the additional amount that is paid as a result of MUP does not go back to the public sector or the health service but is retained by the retailers. Given that we are talking about health-harming products that have not only a significant impact on people’s lives—that should be the focus today—but a really significant cost to the health service, is it not only fair to have a consequential levy or surcharge, or however it is phrased? That is particularly the case given that, at the moment, with MUP not being in place in the rest of the UK, retailers in Scotland pocket an additional £30 million a year as a result of MUP that they would not get otherwise? The proposal is that that money—we could set it at a rate that generates about that amount—goes back into the health service.

I think that it is from Alcohol Focus Scotland.

My question is for David Lott. I will pick up on the convener’s question about university reserves. The University of Glasgow’s reserves come to £1 billion but it does not have £1 billion in cash; its reserves are not liquid and a lot of it is in the form of properties. The University of Edinburgh has reserves of about £2.7 billion, which is the largest of any university. A billion pounds of that is cash, although £1.7 billion is largely the university’s property portfolio. Where a public institution has such substantial cash reserves—more than the Scottish Government has been allowed to have in its reserves, historically—do you acknowledge the challenge in providing even more public funding to that institution?

I acknowledge that no other university is in that position and that you are here to represent the whole sector, but has there been discussion in the sector that the inequality of reserves makes taking a blanket approach to public funding that bit more challenging?

It is about alcohol and tobacco—that is, it is about health-harming products. I would know—I wrote that line of the budget. It is a tax on the retailers of alcohol and tobacco, which I think is pretty timely today, given that we have the excess alcohol death figures showing that almost 1,300 people in Scotland died of alcohol-related conditions in the past year.

In the first instance, I am confused about your position that you should have known about the proposal before the budget announcement. Obviously, we have different views on the policy, which is fine, and I would understand your position more if the announcement had been about the introduction of the policy, but it was not; it was a commitment to explore whether the policy should be reintroduced. I am aware, through the answers to written questions, that you have subsequently been engaged in that process, as have others from the business sector and alcohol harm reduction charities as well as health experts and so on.

What I am struggling with is that you apparently have a problem with the fact that, at the budget, it was announced that, without your being informed ahead of Parliament, there would be a consultation and that a policy would be explored. If it had been confirmation that the policy was going to be implemented, I would completely understand that, as policies should not be implemented without consultation, but it was not that. The announcement was just to say, “We are going to consult.” You have subsequently been consulted, as per the Government’s commitment to engage with business. I am struggling to understand what the issue is.

Do you have any concerns that the scheme, as it currently stands, benefits not only small businesses? The Scottish Parliament information centre estimates that shooting estates get between £3 million and £5 million-worth of relief each year from the small business bonus scheme, but most people would not regard shooting estates as small businesses. Is there a need to refine the scheme to ensure that it does what it says on the tin and is a relief scheme for small businesses?

That is a fair point. I would like to expand on that in a huge amount of depth, but I have questions for other witnesses as well. I may come back to that later, if that is okay.

David Lonsdale, your initial point of complaint about the public health levy was, essentially, that the retail sector felt blindsided by it being included in the budget. I want to explore that a bit more. The language in the budget was simply a commitment to consult on its possible reintroduction. Is your position that either the retail consortium or the sector more broadly should have been informed in advance that that would be in the budget—that is, that they should have been informed before Parliament that there would be a consultation?

I checked and that figure of £30 million came from Alcohol Focus Scotland.

I would love to go into more depth about that, but I am conscious of how much time I have taken up. My final question is for Vicky Manson. Does the FSB have any thoughts about the small business bonus scheme as it is currently constructed? Is it fulfilling its objectives or would you like to see reforms to the scheme?

I absolutely agree that investigation is required first, but the issue is that the SFC has the power neither to investigate nor to take action.

That would be useful. Thanks.

On a different point, you will be aware that during her recent appearance at the committee on behalf of the SFC, Karen Watt mentioned that she had sent some proposals to yourself or to the Government on reforms of Scottish Funding Council’s powers and the options available to it. That was in response to a question that I asked about action that the SFC could take when colleges were not meeting the specific points in the agreements that they had reached.

My specific concern was about fair work and the situation where a college was not meeting the fair work obligations in its outcome agreement, for example. Until now, the SFC has not ever taken action against a college that has failed to meet its fair work obligations. In part of her response, Ms Watt indicated that there is a lack of appropriate powers for the SFC and that the options available to it are somewhat blunt. Can you tell us a little bit more about the proposals that it has sent to you, how they fit in with the wider reform programme that you are looking at, and how that will be taken forward?

I have one final question, if that is okay with the convener.

Minister, you and I have recently been playing ping-pong with written questions about the issue of pay for college principals and whether that should align with the framework for the pay of chief executives, because those principals are the only equivalents in the public sector who do not align with that framework.

One of your answers to me said that although it is not for the Scottish Government to determine principals’ pay,

“The Scottish Government does however, expect that pay arrangements for senior staff ensure value for money, affordability and sustainability in the longer term.”

I responded by asking whether the Scottish Government believes that all senior staff pay within the college sector meets those objectives at the moment, and your answer to that was to refer me to your previous answer, which, with respect, is not an answer.

Will you take the opportunity now to clarify that, bearing in mind that some college principals in Scotland have remuneration packages that are far in excess of that of the First Minister? Do all college principals’ salary and remuneration packages at the moment meet your standards for value for money, affordability and sustainability in the long term?