Item 3 is to consider our approach to the scrutiny of the financial memorandum to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. Due to the time when the bill was introduced, the clerk's paper was marked as "to follow" on the agenda and was issued on Friday. Members will see from the paper that level 3 scrutiny has been proposed. That means that we would take oral evidence from affected bodies and then from the Scottish Government's bill team. We would also seek written evidence from relevant parties. Do members agree that we should conduct level 3 scrutiny?
Yes, but I would like to make an observation. The bill is called the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, but I understand that it will not include a whole set of licensing provisions, which will be taken forward under secondary legislation. Substantial financial commitments may or may not be attached to those provisions, but it would be remiss if they were not considered by the committee. I am not aware that a financial memorandum should be considered with secondary legislation. There is a scrutiny issue. Can we go back to the Government and tell it that its chosen method of including some licensing provisions in secondary legislation is unhelpful and lacks the transparency that the committee would want in scrutinising all the financial implications for the consolidated fund?
Do you wish to press that? We can certainly write to the Government, but doing so would delay a decision on level 3 scrutiny.
I am not suggesting that we should have a delay. I think that we should carry out level 3 scrutiny. The question is whether we can scrutinise everything that lies at the heart of the proposals.
We should go ahead with level 3 scrutiny. Perhaps our letter should be more to request an explanation of why it was decided to use such a route. We will have the opportunity to examine that decision at some stage.
I have been informed that the committee can consider the consequences of financial regulations if it wishes to do so.
We should resolve to do that as well as to inquire why the approach that has been taken has been taken.
Does Derek Brownlee wish to press a point?
I am less convinced that the issue of why such an approach has been taken is one for the Finance Committee. The Justice Committee will probably ask about that. Provided that we have access to the same level of information on the measures that will not be included in the bill as we would have had if they had been included in it, we will at least be allowed to do the financial scrutiny. We should simply try to get a confirmation from the Government that it will provide us with the same level of detail to allow us to probe the proposals to the same extent as if they had been in the primary legislation. That would allow us to do our part. Obviously, the Justice Committee will take a view on the appropriateness of the policy decisions.
On the basis of what has just been said, can we proceed with level 3 scrutiny? We will get a response from the Government.
Do members agree that we should seek written evidence from all local authorities?
Do members agree that we should invite two local authorities to give oral evidence?
Do members want to suggest which local authorities should give oral evidence?
We should wait and see what evidence comes in and what the issues are.
We would normally try to balance urban and rural authorities. Do members wish to see what evidence comes in and then take a decision?
We do not want to take oral evidence from somebody who has not put a lot of thought into their written evidence. Things might come out of the written evidence that we want to explore more.
Okay. That approach will not delay us.
We should take that approach as long as it does not delay us.
I agree with that.
And the heavens opened.
I am sorry—I was talking about Jackie Baillie's point. No—I agree with Linda Fabiani. However, certain council functions will be relevant to certain aspects of the bill. Some functions will be within licensing boards and some will probably be within community justice authorities. Therefore, we should invite a couple of community justice authorities as well.
We do not have them in Dundee.
There are community justice authorities everywhere. Dundee City Council will be part of one.
I will consider your suggestion and its practicalities. Do members agree that we should await the evidence and then decide which authorities to invite?
Do members wish to suggest any other bodies from which to seek written evidence?
No.
As previously agreed, we will now move into private session to discuss our review of the budget process.
Meeting continued in private until 15:05.