 Welcome to the fifth meeting in 2015 of the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which I'm pleased to say is being translated for user of British Sign Language. I welcome our BSL interpreters, Shona Dixon, Paul Belmonti. Before we start our formal proceedings, I would like to remind everyone to help our BSL interpreters by speaking clearly and not too quickly, which something should really apply to me as well, I suppose, and keeping questions short and concise, and allowing a short pause after the last speaker has finished. Could I please remind everyone present to turn off any mobile phones, tablets or other electronic devices? We have received apologies this morning from Gavin Brown, who is unwell. Our first item of business this morning is to decide whether to take item 9 in private. Are members agreed? Members have indicated their agreement. Our next item of business is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy on the land and buildings transaction tax, addition and modification of relief's Scotland Order 2014. The Cabinet Secretary has joined for this item by David Curruchy, Neil Ferguson and John St Clair of the Scottish Government. I'd like to invite the Cabinet Secretary to make an opening statement explaining the instrument and our mind. I am not to move the motion at this point. Thank you, Cymru. The UK stamp duty land tax legislation includes a number of miscellaneous reliefs that apply only in relation to specific organisations or types of property. The purpose of this order is to include in our LBTT legislation five similar miscellaneous reliefs using the power in section 273A of the Land and Buildings Transactions Act Scotland Act 2013. The five reliefs are, first, friendly societies relief, which provides relief from LBTT where two or more registered friendly societies amalgamate. Secondly, building societies relief, which provides relief where two or more building societies amalgamate. Thirdly, visiting forces and international military headquarters relief, which provides relief for land transactions involving the building or enlarging of barracks or camps for a visiting force facilitating the training of a visiting force or promoting the health or efficiency of a visiting force. Fourthly, relief for property accepted in satisfaction of tax under section 11A of the National Heritage Act 1980, which extends to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A land transaction entered into by any museum, art gallery, library or other similar institution is relieved from stamp duty land tax where property is offered to HMRC by a taxpayer in respect of tax. The property may be transferred to one of a range of heritage bodies. Some government-sponsored cultural and heritage bodies in Scotland do have powers to acquire land or buildings. That includes acquiring as acceptances in respect and, usually, requires the specific agreement of ministers. If LBTT was to be incurred by culture and heritage bodies in such cases, any acceptance of land or buildings in lieu would result in a liability on the part of the accepting body to pay LBTT on the acquisition. That would in fact be a charge on the public purse. This relief from LBTT, which is an equivalent provision to that, which is currently in place for SDOT, has therefore been added to avoid that outcome. Fifthly, lighthouse relief under section 221 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which extends to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A land transaction is relieved from SDOT if it is entered into by or under the direction of the general lighthouse authorities, including the commissioners of northern lighthouses who oversee the lighthouse infrastructure in Scotland for the purpose of carrying on services funded through the general lighthouse fund. The Northern Lighthouse Board has confirmed that, given the widely distributed network of lighthouses and the need for regular changes to reflect changes in shipping traffic to ensure the continued safety of navigation, it has a regular number of land transactions and that will carry on into the future. On rarer occasions, the board may be directed by the Secretary of State to undertake activity that may require such transactions. That relief has therefore been included in LBTT to deal with such circumstances. Finally, convener, the order also makes two amendments to existing reliefs within the LBTT act. In support of crofting in Scotland, it provides full relief from LBTT for transactions involving the crofting community right to buy, under which two or more crofts are bought, rather than the partial effect that is available under SDOT. The order also makes a minor but crucial amendment to the relief for certain acquisitions by registered social landlords to ensure that, if any one of the conditions is satisfied, the relief is available. Thank you very much for that opening statement, cabinet secretary. I have no questions or to see if any colleagues around the table have any questions. Malcolm? Just about the community crofting right to buy, it is really just for clarification. So are you saying that you only get partial relief for one property but you get full relief for more than one property? Is that different from stamp duty land tax? I am just trying to clarify the position. If that is the case, why have you decided to give full relief for multiple purchases? It is full relief, and the justification for that is to remove a particular obstacle that may influence the particular judgment that has been arrived at, as to whether or not to exercise the right to buy or not to assist that process. I just wanted clarification on the visiting forces in international military headquarters relief. Can you give an example of circumstances where any of you or me might buy land? The only circumstance that I can consider is where there may be a military exercise under way that may be planned and taken forward over a sustained period of time. There are no further questions from members of the committee. We therefore move to the debate on the motion. I invite the cabinet secretary formally to move motion S4M12186. The committee will now publish a short report to the Parliament setting out a decision on the order. The next item of business is to take evidence again from the cabinet secretary on this occasion on three pieces of subordinate legislation relating to the land and billions transaction tax and one concerning the landfill tax. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. I will explain the purpose of each of the three instruments that are all subject to the negative procedure in turn. The LBTT administration regulations 2014, the main purpose of this instrument is to allow taxpayers who are unable to quantify their land and buildings transaction tax liability when the price they are paying is either uncertain or is dependent on a contingency to apply to the further payment of tax in the same situations as they would currently apply for deferment from UK stamp duty land tax. The regulations set out the framework for such applications and include the decision making process that Revenue Scotland must adhere to, the grounds for refusing an application to defer a tax payment and the arrangements for making tax returns and payments. The regulations also prescribe the evidence that must be provided to Revenue Scotland for the purposes of relief for alternative finance investment bonds. On the Incillary Provision Order 2014, to ensure prompt payment and deliver administrative efficiencies, the LBTT Act requires agents to make a return and pay any tax due before any application to the Registers of Scotland in respect of the land register or books of counselling session can be accepted. Section 43 of the Act creates a link between land registration and payment of LBTT by providing that documents affecting or evidencing a land transaction may not be registered unless a land transaction return has been made and any LBTT due has been paid. The rule has relevance in relation to registers managed and controlled by the keeper, including the books of counselling session, which is a court register. The purpose of the Incillary Provision Order is to introduce a mandatory requirement to submit the appropriate application form when applying for registration in books of counselling session of any deed implementing a notifiable transaction. That will enable the keeper to fulfil the duty in subsection 43, one of the LBTT Act, not to accept an application for registration of documents in the books of counselling session until a tax return and payment have been made. The transitional provisions order 2014 relates to LBTT as, when it becomes chargeable, the commencement date will be set in a commencement order made by Scottish ministers under subsection 72 of the LBTT Act. SDOT will be disapplied in Scotland on a date to be appointed by the Treasury under subsection 294 of the Scotland Act 2012. That order defines the commencement date for LBTT by reference to the day after the date to be appointed by the Treasury under those provisions. Subsection 295 of the Scotland Act 2012 makes provision for certain land transactions to which SDOT will continue to apply, namely a land transaction for which the contract for the transaction was entered into or was substantially performed prior to Royal Ascent of the Scotland Act 2012 on 1 May 2012. Section 296 makes provisioning for certain land transactions to which SDOT will no longer apply, for instance, whether there has been an asignation or sub-sale in a contract entered into prior to 1 May 2012. The purpose of the order is to make provisioning for certain transactions that began under SDOT but have an effective date on or after commencement of LBTT. The intention is to ensure, firstly, that through the transitional period where SDOT is disapplied in Scotland and LBTT is introduced, such transactions are not taxed twice by both SDOT and land and buildings transaction tax but are subject to one of the taxes. Secondly, to ensure that if the outcome of the Scotland Act provisions is that no tax would be payable, it is payable under LBTT if it would otherwise have been payable under SDOT. The order makes provision to achieve those intentions for 13 different types of land transactions or arrangements involving land transactions. Thank you very much for that, cabinet secretary. Colleagues are on the table of any questions. Welcome. In the consultation, three respondents asked whether guidance would be issued to address a perceived lack of detail regarding the information to be provided in a deferment application. The policy note confirms that Revenue Scotland will publish such guidance in due course. How long will it be until this information is made publicly available? It will succeed in the February. Questions from the committee. I would like to thank the witnesses this morning, and I will call on a one-minute recess to allow the witnesses to leave. Have we not still got landfill tax to do you come here? Oh yes, you are absolutely right. I am afraid that there is a mistake in my briefing that says that you are going to leave at this moment, and it does say that we should consider it after you have left, so my assumption was that you were actually going to leave, but we will go through landfill tax first. Apologies for that. Yes. Can you speak to the landfill tax then? Apologies. Thank you, convener. The regulations use powers on both landfill tax Scotland at 2014, and the Revenue Scotland tax powers at 2014 to provide a number of provisions relating to registration, accounting credits, the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund and rules for the weighing of waste. The regulations formed a significant part of the Scottish Government's consultation paper on second legislation for Scottish landfill tax published in May 2014. We also received feedback on the proposals from a number of consultation events held over the course of the year. Landfill operators will be able to register with Revenue Scotland from 16 February 2015. They must do so within 30 days of their intention to carry out landfill activities. The regulations also make provision to allow the landfill operator to create any inaccuracy or make changes to their details. A landfill operator's first accounting period begins on the day that they become registered. Tax returns should be submitted along with any payment of tax no later than 44 days after the end of each accounting period. In recognition of points raised in the consultation process, we increased that from 30 days in recognition that aligning tax accounting periods with environmental reporting periods return could result in transitional cash flow issues for some operators. The regulations provide for a tax credit system, and so far as a person who is paid or is liable to pay tax may be entitled to credit, providing prescribed conditions are fulfilled. The credit provisions cover three areas, bad debts, removing material for reuse and recycling, and the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund. I will focus on the regulations that establish a Scottish Landfill Communities Fund, which provides funding for community or environmental projects in recognition of the disseminity experienced in the vicinity of landfill sites. I have already made Parliament aware of my intention to introduce a proposed enhancement to the tax credit arrangements under which the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund will operate. As we landfill less, it is inevitable that less money will be available to the fund in the coming years. Increases in the credit cap will not offset the expected decline in tax revenues caused by the amount of material going to landfill. I have ensured that the regulatory approach is appropriate for capping administration costs at a maximum of 10 per cent to ensure that as large a proportion of contributions as possible goes to project expenditure. The 10 mile radius rule that is applied to the UK fund is a matter of much debate. I believe that community's most effectible landfill should benefit most from the fund. I also recognise that under current arrangements, those that suffer from the transportation and transfer of waste going to landfill are ineligible unless they live near a landfill site. The regulations also provide that projects near a transfer station will be eligible to apply to the fund. The objectives of the fund are set out in the regulations. During the consultation, a significant number of stakeholders observed that including waste prevention was a logical addition to the community reuse and recycling objective. There was also support for including sites of archaeological interest to the objective, allowing funds to be spent on historical buildings, provided that the sites are accessible to the public and within the vicinity of the landfill site. Those proposals have been incorporated in the list of objectives for the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund. A contribution and any income derived must be spent on approved objective of the fund within the two years of the original contribution that has been made. Work is continuing with stakeholders, SEPA and with the other regulator of the UK fund, Entrust, to ensure that processes are in place to establish the landfill community's fund. As part of the consultation, we propose changing the way waste is weighed for determining tax when entering a landfill site. Under the existing system, a landfill operator can apply to discount the water content of waste in certain circumstances, for example, where water has been used to damp down waste to reduce dust. The proposal in our consultation was to exclude water discount provisions in the Scottish Landfill Tax. The main reason for that was that the arrangements can be quite complex and can allow for tax evasion, whereas liquid waste are banned from landfill. Stakeholders identified concerns around health and safety waste tourism, and it would put Scottish business at a competitive disadvantage. In the light of those arguments, I have introduced provisions that are discounting tax due on non-naturally occurring water from waste deposits along the lines of the UK discount. You mentioned the discussions on going regarding the establishment of the landfill community's fund, which is at present administered on a UK-wide basis by Entrust. Do you have any indication as to when you expect that to take effect? Obviously, a number of organisations derive funding through landfill community's fund and are waiting to see the successor arrangements that the Scottish Government envisages. I would want that to be in place for the first of April. Thank you very much for that, cabinet secretary. There is a one-minute break while our witnesses leave, and then we will go on to consider those negative instruments. I will restart the session. Our next item of business is to consider the negative instruments, on which we have just heard evidence. I would like to ask members if they have any comments that they wish to report on the instruments that members have no comments to make. Moving swiftly on, the next item on our agenda is consideration of the community charged debt Scotland bill at stage 2. For this item, we are joined by Marko Biagi, the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, who is accompanied by Lauren Glyn, Katrina Graham, Laura Barry and Colin Brown of the Scottish Government. I would like to welcome you to the committee. I know that it is your first time at the finance committee. I hope that it will not be your last. I would like to invite the minister to make an opening statement if he wishes. Thank you for that slight air of threat to your welcome. That is not just my first time in front of the finance committee. That is my first time in front of any committee in my capacity as minister, setting aside the Scottish Youth Parliament that once grilled me very, very effectively on education policy. I hope that this experience will be perhaps a little bit smoother. I would like to welcome the finance committee report that was published. It was very helpful. The committee raised a number of points, and the cabinet secretary and deputy First Minister has already responded to those points by letter. This session is focusing more on the content of the bill itself. For an opening statement, I would just like to reiterate the Government's thinking as to why the bill is drafted as it is. Our overriding concern was that local authorities might use the information gathered from voter registration to pursue outstanding poll tax debt. We wanted to make crystal clear that local authorities were absolved of any obligations that they felt they had to collect poll tax debt. We wanted to make sure that the legislation itself was simple, straightforward and unambiguous. We decided therefore to take the approach of extinguishing the liability for the debt. Had the legislation been phrased differently, for example, making it illegal for local authorities to collect poll tax debt, that might have caused difficulties for the local authorities had payment arrangements not being cancelled by the debtor. We also wanted to ensure that local authorities had sufficient warning of the extinguishing of the liabilities so that the existing payment arrangements could be closed down. Section 2, the interpretation section, shows the associated liabilities, which are also extinguished by the bill, are many and various. They include interest charges and fines, all of which were imposed as part of the process for collecting poll tax. If Parliament passes the bill, all of those liabilities will be extinguished with effect from Sunday past. That not only lifts a burden from the debtor but also from local authorities, letting them concentrate, as some of them have told the committee, on breaking the cycle of debt. Getting rid of this historic debt will help to do that. Thank you very much for that opening statement. No amendments have been lodged, but we are obliged to the reach section and the long title and agree formally to each. Standing orders allows us to put a single question when groups of sections are to be considered consecutively, and that is what I propose to do. First, the question is that sections 1 to 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members are agreed. Secondly, the question is that the long title be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the community charge debt Scotland bill. The Parliament has agreed that stage 3 proceedings will take place on Thursday 19 February. Because of the recess week, that means that the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments is 4.30 pm on Friday 6 February. Amendments can be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team. I thank the minister. I have a five-minute break to allow him and his officials to leave and to give members a natural break and allow the next witnesses to come into the committee. Thank you very much. I will now reconvene the session. Our next item of business is to take evidence on the British Sign Language Scotland bills, financial memorandum from Mark Griffin MSP and Joanna Hardy of the Parliament's non-governmental bills unit. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite Mr Griffin to make an opening statement. Good to be at the finance committee this morning. The bill, as it stands, would introduce the responsibility of the Government to produce a national plan on British Sign Language and to promote the use of British Sign Language in public life in Scotland. I think that there has been a gap in provision in Scotland where people who use BSL are the main language. They do not have the opportunity to learn any other language, and the bill should start making improvements in the recognition of that language and the culture of the language and access to services. I am happy to take any questions on the financial memorandum that you have in front of you. Thank you very much for that. I know that you have not been to the finance committee before, so generally what will happen is that I will ask you some opening questions and then I will open the session up to colleagues around the table, and we will take it from there. The first question is about the overall cost estimates. Paragraph 11 of the financial memorandum points out that the cost estimates provided involve such large margins of uncertainty. What we have got is the cost variances of several million pounds on an annualised basis. Your view is that this should be funded fully by the Scottish Government? At first glance, a £6 million estimate at the top of the range does seem like a large amount of money, but it should be noted that that is across 117 public bodies. That figure has spread over five years and, with the Government's suggested amendments, that would probably be spread over a period of seven years and spread right across those public bodies. I think that the Scottish Government has already committed to £2 million of funding, so that leaves a gap of £4 million that would need to be made up. Some public bodies, in response to your call for evidence, have said that they would be able to absorb the costs of the bill within their own budget, but ultimately it will be a decision for Government and ministers as to whether they choose to provide any additional funding over the £2 million that they have committed? The issue would be that, if the Scottish Government was not able or indeed willing to fully fund as you have suggested, the east-loading council says that there is a risk of plans having no substance because local authorities are not in a position to allocate new monies to new activity and do not themselves say that BSL should be championed over other inclusive means of communication. How would you respond to those concerns? I think that that gets to the heart of the reason for the bill. Postcode provision of services across Scotland in the bill would aim to have the Government set out their priorities for BSL through a national plan and for public authorities to draft their own plans and report to the Parliament on the progress that would allow BSL users and all of our constituencies to scrutinise what public bodies are doing. As I said at the start, British Sign Language is, for many people, the only language that they will ever know. It is not another minority language where people have the opportunity to learn English or Gaelic or any other language. For most, it is the only language that they will ever know and ever learn. I think that there is a responsibility on public bodies to recognise that and provide the level of service that you or I would expect in English. Midlothian Council says that the FFM assumes a planning process very specifically for BSL, rather than incorporating BSL issues into other strategic planning streams associated with inclusion, disability and equality, in particular work associated with the implementation of C here. There are a number of other organisations that have similar concerns. I understand what you are saying about BSL being obviously unique to, for example, sport languages, but what about their concerns that Midlothian has that this by implication detracks from some of the things that they are doing already, for example, as they have already said in terms of the C here implementation? That is a view that they are able to take. I take a different view in that I do not see British Sign Language as a disability issue. British Sign Language is a language. It is a culture in its own right. For me, I do not think that when people consider it their language and their culture that we should ask people to define themselves as disabled, to be honest, I think that you would have a big fight on your hands if you were to try and tell a lot of people who have met over the course of this, developing this bill, who would use BSL that they are disabled, just because you use a different language from most of us around the table, does not take away from your ability to do anything that we can. I have an issue with British Sign Language being classed as a disability or equalities issue. This bill has been clear from the start that this is about a language and the language and culture of British Sign Language. It is unique in that you cannot learn another language. There are some differences with Gaelic Scots or English, but this is about the culture and language aspects rather than any disability aspect. It must have some equalities considerations, because what you are looking for is people who use BSL to the same equal access as other people in Scotland. I am looking for BSL users to have the same access as you or I. If we were contacting our local authority about the education service, they were providing if a BSL parent was wanting to inquire about a service for their child, I would expect them to get that same level of access. The equality of access issue pops up just because of the unique nature of the language and that you cannot learn any other language. You are straying into issues of equality, but I have been trying to keep the focus purely on a language and cultural issue with the added complication that there is most of the time no opportunity to learn any other language. I will open up to colleagues on the table. The Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters has suggested that no costs are provided for ancillary organisations that may be requested to provide information expertise and advice to meet the objectives. There are only about 18 interpreters in Scotland, so one could suggest that there is a real shortage of people. How confident are you that, assuming that the cost issues are addressed in terms of the Scottish Government and local authorities, that other organisations that will not have intended consequences will impact on them and that there will be the resource in terms of people to deliver that? The lack of interpreters is one of the big motivations behind the bill. It is a chicken and egg situation where, if you never address the situation, you are never going to increase the number of interpreters available. If we do nothing, we could carry on with 80 interpreters or a fallen number of interpreters forever. When we consulted on the legislation in Sazled, we had come back in previous consultations and said that they did not expect there to be any financial implications as a result of the bill. I am going to speak to Sazled about their submission today just because there is a slight conflict. Although they might be expected to contribute to local authorities or public bodies consultation, that could have a resource implication for them at the same time. There will also be increased demand for interpreter services and the ability for organisations that provide interpreter services or represent BSL users. There will be an opportunity for them to contract for interpreting work and translation work, so there might be an increase in income to those bodies. The Government has also suggested to streamline some of the work around public bodies plans and whether that can be streamlined to more locality-based consultation or a simpler BSL statement. I am happy to accept those Government amendments to streamline some of those costs that should reduce some of those burdens if there are going to be any on those other organisations. I will now open up the session. The first colleague to ask questions will be Dip's convener, John. I have to confess that this is not an area that I am hugely familiar with, so some of my questions may be on the simple side of things. Just following on from what the convener said, if there is a shortage of interpreter services or people able to interpret it, would that have an impact financially? If there were not enough people, people would not be able to spend the money, even if the money was there, or would there be any danger of inflation that costs go up if everybody is looking for those services? It could be the case that costs for interpreters go up if they realise that there is a market for that sort of demand, but the Government has already started work on a national online translation process. It has that in place for NHS 24, where, if you are a BSL user, you can dial into the online translation service. There are things in development that will reduce some of the translation costs if you are reducing travelling time and things. It goes back to my answer to the convener, though, if you do not do anything about it, you are in a chicken and egg situation in Finland, where they have a similar population to us. They have 750 interpreters in Scotland. We have 80. That is why there is such a big demand on those services. I hope that, if the bill were to pass, the promotion of BSL in public life would increase the number of interpreters who are coming through the system, because they are already overstretched. There are 80 interpreters, and they are serving a population of how many people would only use BSL as a language? It is difficult to say exactly. There is no exact figure. The last census estimated around 13,000 BSL users, but a lot of the BSL organisations would question that figure simply because the census is an exercise carried out in English. For some BSL users, English is not their language and cannot respond to the census figures. Other figures put any level of hearing loss in Scotland at around £1 million, but that ranges right across from mild, severe to profound. With a similar population in Finland, like I said, there are 750 interpreters. Is that all people who have only BSL as a language, or do some of them have another language that they could read English? There is no level of sophistication or detail in the census figures. I could come back to committee with that level of detail if it is there. I can go back to those organisations. One of the points that was made was that the bill does not require the plans that are to be drawn up to be translated into BSL. Is that something that you are looking at or taking on board? That was something that was there purely to keep the costs of the bill down. The Government in their memorandum has suggested an amendment, and I am delighted to see it there that they feel that the plans should be translated into BSL and that they would support that. I am delighted to accept that amendment. Have we got a cost for that bit? The Government has suggested a range of £2,000 to £3,500 per authority. A range of £1,250 to £3,150 per authority to translate the plans into BSL. The Government on that headline is £6 million. The Government has taken that into account. That is not huge money, but that is fair enough. The other suggestion that you referred to was that things could be done locally. Does that mean that several local authorities are working together? The Government has spoken about Dr Allen when I met with him and used the example of Orkney. Having Orkney council, Orkney health board and other authorities responding each responding separately to different consultations and whether there is a possibility to streamline that into a locality, whether that could be a stratclyde region idea, whether it would be a health board area region where public bodies could come together and respond collectively to reduce the burden. I was open to any amendments on that basis. Another question that came up was the question of the cycle about how often or how quickly people need to get the plans and then report on the plans. I think that your legislation is linked to the parliamentary session, whereas the Government was suggesting seven years, which I assume would reduce the cost slightly, but is that too long? The reason that I had linked it to the parliamentary cycle was not for any consideration of the language planning. It was purely related to the political process where I felt that it would be beneficial for the Government of the day to introduce its national plan at the start of a parliamentary session and then report on the progress at the end of the parliamentary session, rather than having an incoming Government report on the performance of a previous Government's policy priorities. My suggestion was purely on that basis, on speaking to the Government and their experience with the Gallic Language Act. It has suggested that the four- or five-year timetable is perhaps a bit tight and a bit short and that, just because they are experienced with Gallic Language, they think that it is more practical to extend to seven years. Obviously, there is a balance between scrutinising a Government on its own performance, but if the Government advisers have had those issues with the Gallic Language Act, then, again, as with others, I suggest the amendments from the Government. I have been happy to accept that. I think that you had suggested, too, that when subsequent plans were produced, they would cost less, and I think that the suggestion was 30 per cent less, presumably because you are revising something that is there already, which makes some sense, although the counter argument is that, while expectations are going to rise, they are going to become more complex, therefore there would not be a saving. How do you respond to that? It was an anticipation that the first plan to be produced would require the largest amount of work, and that, for the most part, any subsequent plans would be building on that initial plan and also incorporating whatever came out of the performance review. It was an expectation that a large amount of the work that would feed into the second, third and fourth plan would have been done in the performance review, and that was the basis for the reduction in costs. Thank you, convener. I think that most of the ground has been covered, but perhaps I can just create a couple of things. The legislation is that there would be the production of the plan, and that is what all the costing is based on, is based around the production of the plan, is that correct? Colleges Scotland, in their submission, has said that the committee will want to note that, although the requirement is to produce a plan only, the publication of such a plan will almost certainly increase public expectation that would require additional funds in future years. Obviously, that is talking about implementation, because, if you are going to produce a plan, the expectation out there would be that that plan would then be implemented. Can you ask why you did not factor in implementation of the plan in terms of legislation or your costings? I see the bill as enabling and providing a platform for the Government to set out their policy priorities. I could tell you what I think the policy priorities for the BSL community would be in terms of support for a curriculum in BSL in secondary schools and the minimum requirement for BSL teachers of a specific level of qualification. There is a whole range of policy priorities that would improve BSL users' lives, but the bill is given the Government that platform to set out their policy priorities. It will be up to the Government of the day to decide which area they choose to focus on. It is difficult for me to then, with that in mind, choose a particular area that would tie the Government's hands. I think that if we were talking about that, I would focus legislation if it was focusing on education or provision of classes, then the price tag associated with that would mean that it would really need to be a Government bill rather than a private member's bill, to be honest. Your expectation would be the cost of the list about the production of the plan, and then it would be for the assorted public bodies to, in the production of that plan, determine what the cost, etc., would be of implementation and produce their plan accordingly. My question is perhaps not around the financial memorandum in which you should be, but just an observation really, given the Scottish Government's ambition for one-plus-two language plan in primary schools, there are experiments in that happening just now in primary school, but I was in a primary school recently and they've selected BSL as the first language that's for primary one to do BSL, which means that they would do that through and start their second language in primary five. Is that something that you're aware of in the landscape in Scotland just now and that that might be something that's already, that the Government will already be looking at financial implications of introducing one-plus-two? There are pockets of good work going on. Art galleries and museums in Glasgow have translated massive amounts of information into BSL. One of the prisons, I think, is HMP Grampian, have started training all their prison staff in BSL. You've got excellent education facilities like Dingwall academy, which is a centre for BSL. There are pockets of excellent practice going on right across the country. On the issue of education in Dingwall academy, we've made representations on that. That is that pupils are given the opportunity to learn BSL as a subject in first and second year. When they go on to their new national exams, there is no curriculum and no qualification available to secondary pupils in BSL. Also, because of the pressure for qualifications to get a job into college or university, most pupils end up dropping BSL, which is an issue for training that next generation of interpreters and teachers of BSL users to come through. There are pockets of excellent work there, and that is something that I hope that the authority plans would flag up and give the BSL community in their own individual constituencies to then start saying, well, if that has been provided in Dingwall, why can't I get access to that service in Malone area in North Lanarkshire? How long does it take to learn BSL? I mean, there are different levels of qualification in level one, two, three, and going right up, when there are classes available to Harriet Watts, I'm sure you can look into it, but I don't know exactly how long it takes to reach a particular level. Malcolm. The costs are mainly, if not exclusively, about developing and publishing the plan. I mean, is the assumption there that there will be one member of staff who will be doing that for a year, or how did those figures get arrived at in terms of how much it would go? It was a middle management staff working over a period of months. Joanna, are you able to comment on that? We based the estimate on a member of middle management staff working full-time for six months over the period of the plan, so some of that work would come in at the production of the plan, and more work would come in at the end when they're feeding into the performance review. I'm sorry, I haven't looked at the precise wording of your bill. Are there requirements in terms of what's in the plan, or is it left fairly general, in terms of what the plan would include? The national plan would give the direction to public bodies, local authorities, as to the expectation of what should be in their plan. The direction would come from national government. Mark McDonald just touched on the cost of implementation, so you're saying that it's not pertinent to the memorandum. Are you saying that the plan will lead to extra cost, but it's just not pertinent to the bill, or what exactly is behind your statement that it's not pertinent to the memorandum? The bill is purely focused on the requirement of the bill, and the requirement in the bill is that government should produce a national plan, public bodies should produce their own plan, and then at the end of the cycle report on the progress that they've made on implementing their plan. There is no policy direction or particular initiative that is set out in the bill that we would be able to put a price tag against. It will be up to national government and public bodies as to their own priorities for their own individual unique constituencies, as to what they chose to put in their national plan, with a mind to how they themselves would fund it. I'm totally supportive of the bill, but it is quite an interesting position from a point of view of the finance committee and the financial memorandum, because, presumably, your expectation is that, following all those plans, there will be more expenditure, because otherwise the plans, presumably, would just be paper plans that didn't change anything, so would that be a fair assumption? Yes, certainly. Public bodies who drafted a paper plan and then made no effort to implement them, the Government would report on the performance review to Parliament, so constituents would be given their opportunity through their MSP to effectively name and shame public bodies who weren't living up to their own aspirations through their local plans. As I said, there are pockets of excellent work already on-going, and there's no reason why that should be restricted to those individual areas. By getting a national picture of what's going on, it will give BSL users the ability to challenge their local authorities on why they're not getting the service being provided elsewhere. That concludes my question to the committee, but I'll just get one or two more to ask myself just before we wind up the session. It's on the submission from your local authority in North Lanarkshire. As you've pointed out, you said that the bill does not describe any minimum level of activity beyond the production of a local authority plan, but what North Lanarkshire is saying is that there will be potential additional costs for implementation, as it's just been touched on, and it says that this has not been recognised in FM, again, as we've touched on. However, what North Lanarkshire then goes on to say is that, in relation to education, the training costs for training of teaching staff and teaching resources has not been calculated as the impact of the bill has not been fully explored with an educational context. You're not concerned, though, that because we haven't gone beyond the development of plans itself, that this could be a circumstance whereby hard-pressed local authorities are seeing the best will in the world. We can produce a wonderful plan, but we simply cannot implement what we want to do in rolling this out beyond the plan, making it mean something for people. That will be the responsibility of local authorities. I can't see a local authority producing a wonderful plan with a whole range of outcomes if they know that, financially, they have no intention of backing or supporting any of those outcomes. That would be bad faith in the streaming part of local authorities. When it came to reporting on performance that if an authority had a fantastic national plan and it had done nothing to implement it, that would be something that the new minister for BSL would be rightly raising with that authority and informing Parliament of. You understand what you're saying about naming and shaming and so on, but I'll take the view that, if the resources aren't there, the resources aren't there, even with the best will in the world, figures cannot be put in any additional costs arising in this way because it's not possible to estimate how much additional activity will be generated from the local plans. They say that they are unable to quantify them as unknown. They have said that to provide 24-hour covers, for example, seven days a week from a temperature service, would cost a council over £0.25 million a year alone. There's a situation whereby a concern could be that expectations of the bill will be high, but the local authority's ability to deliver on the ground might be much less than we would like. I can understand the local authority's concern and that they are not able to put a figure on the activities that they might be expected to carry out, but that's because as yet there is no national plan. There's no level of detail of what will be in that national plan and what authorities would be expected to have in their own plan. That would be at the direction of the Government, if the Government had chosen, for example, that 24-hour provision of interpreter services for access to a local authority's service. If they set that out in the national plan and expected all public authorities, I would expect the Government to set out how they themselves intended to fund that service or how they expected local authorities to meet that service. That will be up to the Government of the day to fund their own policy priorities. Are there any further points that you want to raise the committee that maybe we haven't covered that you want to touch on? I don't think so, just to thank the committee for the time this morning. I would like to thank you very much for answering all our questions. That being the end of this particular session, I wonder whether the committee would agree to consider our submission to the lead committee in private at our next meeting. Members have agreed. Thanks very much, Mark. We'll now call off on a five-minute recess to allow a change of our witnesses. Our next item of business is to take evidence on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland bills, financial memorandum, from the Scottish Government bill team. I'd like to welcome to the meeting Quentin Fisher, Ewan Rus, Keith Main, Walter Drummond Murray and Peter Reid. Good morning to you all. Members have copies of the financial memorandum along with all written evidence received. Before we go to questions from myself and the rest of the committee, I would like to invite one of our witnesses to make an opening statement. Who is drawing the short straw? I have. Thank you for introducing us and for inviting us today to offer evidence to the committee. If I may do, I take the opportunity to offer a couple of brief and also broad observations. The bill makes provision in respect of a number of new and existing licensing regimes. Any additional costs associated with the bill should be read against the wider cost to society of the activities that are regulated or indeed of the risks associated with the regulated behaviour. The bill has a number of purposes. It aims to protect public safety by creating a new licensing regime for air weapons. It aims to improve aspects of locally led alcohol and civic government licensing such as those of scrap metal dealers, taxis and private higher cars in order to preserve public order, safety, to reduce crime and to advance public health. It also gives local authorities the power to regulate sectional entertainment venues in the areas so that both the performers and the customers benefit from a safe and regulated environment. The breadth of licensing regimes that are covered means that there is not an insignificant variation in the specific legislative detail and therefore also variation in the financial impact in respect of each of those. I hope that that variation is reflected accurately in the financial memorandum. In keeping with current licensing practice, the bulk of the costs associated with those licensing regimes is ultimately borne by the individuals and organisations that seek to carry out the licence activity. Finally, I believe that it is worth noting that many of the costs identified, particularly in respect of part 3 of the bill—that is the civic licensing provisions—are dependent on future decisions that will be taken at local authority level. Local authority discretion is quite an important principle in all of us. In those instances, we have sought where possible to offer some indication of what those costs might be. We will do our best today to ensure that the answers that we provide will be helpful to you in informing your consideration of the bill. Thank you for that brief opening statement. When I ask a question, you can decide among yourselves who would be the person most appropriate to answer and if there is a follow-up from another colleague, I am quite happy to take that also. I suppose that it would be logical to go through them in part 1, 2 and 3. Let's start with the air weapons. I note that those who hand in unlicensed air weapons will not be entitled to compensation. Obviously, the bill will make it illegal to possess them, but without having a good reason to. Surely, if you do not have any compensation, that is going in itself to suppress a number of people who are entitled to hand those in. A lot of people will think that they are at the back of my garage and I am not going to go at the border of digging it out to take them down at the local police station. What is the thinking behind not compensating people, even a token amount of £20 or something like that, to hand in those weapons? Can I answer that? It is simply by saying that this has been an issue that has been discussed quite a lot in the course of the three or four years that we have been looking at those provisions and working with some of the stakeholders. I understand that it is a concern of people. There have been occasions in the past where changes in firearms law have led to outright prohibition or banning of certain types of guns. For example, in 1997, handguns were effectively prohibited and at that stage the Government of the day offered compensation. In the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill, the Government does not intend to ban air guns as such. What we are seeking to do is ensure that the people who have them are the appropriate people who can have them safely, etc. However, we are not banning guns, so it is open to people to, if they no longer require their guns, our view is that there are an awful lot of guns, as you say, convener, in the backs of garages and things. Over the course of this, lots of people have said to me that we had one of those when I was a kid that it was in the loft or somewhere that I had not seen it for years. A lot of low-value, old air weapons that have never been used are quite possibly broken or no longer in a fit state for use. It is open to people to hand those to the police when they will be putting arrangements in place for that to sell them on through private sales or through registered firearms dealers or to make other arrangements, pass them on to other users or whatever. However, ministers' policy has always been that, because this is not a ban, and because we are talking broadly about a quite high number of what we think are low-value weapons, that compensation would not be part of those arrangements. No, I was just thinking more as an incentive to get them out of circulation. I mean, clearly, if you have to compensate people, you get more out of circulation for people who no longer have an interest in using them than you would otherwise, but I will move on, because the issue that was quite touched on was that the new system will not be unduly burdensome. That, of course, is hotly contested. The FFM suggests that it costs the process on a new-year weapons application of around £85.55. It is a remarkably precise figure, but one that is obviously contested by some of the people who have given our submissions. For example, the British Association for Shooting and Conversation and Conservation. I will try not to use acronyms where possible. I quote that the cost that will be associated with introduction will be very high and huge as is eruptive to already overstretched firearms license administrations in Scotland. The Scottish Air Rifle and Pistol Association talk about the fact that 98 per cent of people, according to yourselves, will be dealt with without the need to further inquire, but they say that that is incredibly misleading, because half the folk who actually use those weapons are for informal targets shooting their own gardens, which, of course, is not something that we want to see because of the safety impact. They basically completely refute the financial assumptions that have been made by the bill and are suggesting that the average cost will be significantly higher. They talk about almost £120. If you can talk us through how you come to this 98 per cent figure and, indeed, applications do not require visits and so on, how you come to this £85.55 figure? If I can take the 98 per cent point first, it is a figure that we have arrived at in discussion with Police Scotland, who will be the licensing authority. The air weapons provisions and the whole process of applying for and licensing people to have air weapons is based around the existing firearms regime for high-powered rifles, shotguns and so on. The aim has been to provide a fairly light-touch approach to air weapons, recognising that they are not generally as dangerous as more high-powered guns. It is a relatively high-level, sorry, a relatively light-touch system for licensing the weapons themselves. In talking to Police Scotland, we have discussed a lot about how they would do that. We accept their point, and it is our view that there are some 60 to 65,000 existing certificate holders for other types of firearms. Many of them will also have air weapons and will be brought into the new regime. Obviously, the security issues have been looked at in licensing them and providing certificates for those holders. A large number of people will be taken out of the system already. For those who are new applicants, it is a relatively light touch. Police Scotland has said to us that a disclosure style of arrangement where they will look at an applicant will check basic criminal history systems, etc. Should suffice for the majority of applicants, that has been the view of Police Scotland throughout. Police Scotland therefore believes that a 2 per cent full home visit and security check is the right level. Obviously, as a new system comes in, that may vary a little bit over the piece. That is the view that we have taken, and therefore we worked up the figures on that basis. The figures themselves—I agree that I looked at it again in the last couple of weeks, obviously—85.55 is very accurate. We used figures that have been used by colleagues down south for the Home Office and from the Association of Chief Police Officers, who have done a lot of work over the last couple of years in looking at the costs of processing existing firearms applications, etc. A lot of the figures that we have adopted with their agreement for work that has been done for a working group in that context. That takes account of processing times, the type of staff who are doing different bits of work, etc. The calculations behind 85.55 pretty much reflect that work that is done. That has led the Home Office to consult recently on an increase in firearms fees more generally as a result of the work in that working group, and therefore we have continued to adopt that. If I can say so, the British Association BASC—sorry, I will just fall into those acronyms—and SARPA, the Scottish Air Rifles and Pistols Association are aware of that work, and in fact BASC were part of the working group that agreed those figures in the working group down south. There are always differences in how we treat those, and I understand BASC's concerns and the impact on its members, but we think that there is a generally accepted basis for the background workings behind those figures, which we will review as we come further into the year and start to look at fee levels as well. Imagine more than 2 per cent of the population about a criminal record, so it seems a bit odd that it is such a low figure. It is quite burdensome, even if it is going to be £85. Your law-abiding citizen will grudgingly apply for that, I imagine, but the folk who you are most worried about in relation to the legislation, there is no going to bother, are they? Paying £85 to get it licensed, all you are going to do is impact adversely on your shooting clubs and all, than your members, etc. There will be an impact on shooting clubs and members, absolutely. That is part and parcel of the licensing system, but existing firearms and shotgun owners will pay a certificate, but it is currently £50 for five years. We have not set a fee level yet for air weapons, but the fee reflects the work that has to be done by Police Scotland in order to ensure that the right people have air weapons and that, therefore, the Police Scotland can help to protect public safety through that way. If it is £50, £60, £70 over five years, that is a relatively small price when compared to membership of a club or the amount that somebody will pay for some other interest, for example. I accept what you say that there is going to be a core of people who will just say, we will hide our guns, we are not going to get involved in this licensing system. It is part and parcel of the implementation, and we have to make sure that we are getting the message out and that there is provision in the financial memorandum for a media campaign. We have had the verbal agreement of the shooting organisations, for example, to help us to get that message out, but we need to get it out to the wider community to make sure that people know that there is a requirement in future to licence their guns. If people choose not to licence those weapons, they are committing an offence and the Police will deal with that appropriately. Over time, it will help the Police to identify air weapons that are in circulation with people who should not have them, and there are provisions elsewhere in the bill that will then allow for the courts to order the forfeiture of those or to deal with them appropriately. If there is half a million weapons in circulation and you are talking about between 10,000 and 30,000 applications, to me that means that between 94 and 98 per cent of people are only going to bother getting them licensed. The SARPA has basically said that a more realistic licence number between 100 and 150,000 applications, even then that would be a maximum of 30 per cent of people who appear to have those weapons. Most people still blank the legislation, but those who do apply, but the cost of this will be millions of pounds. How is this actually going to deliver on what the bill is actually proposing in terms of enhanced and improved safety? When we are talking about only small minorities, are people actually according to your own figures going to actually get these guns licensed? I cannot remember the paragraphs in the memorandum, but what we have done is that the 500,000 air weapons estimate is one that is generally accepted around the table of the working group that we have had as potentially the number of air weapons that have been out there and are potentially out there in Scotland. In actual fact, we expect that a lot of them will simply be handed in because they are old, broken and unwanted. A lot of them will be sold on. Many people who own guns of any sort, but air weapons included, will have a number of different guns possibly because they have upgraded over the years, possibly because they do different types of shooting. By the time that we come down through those assumptions, it is how we get to, in the financial memorandum, potentially 40,000 existing firearms certificate holders and air weapons certificates in future. The 20,000 estimate is brand new applicants to the system who have not got more powerful firearms but who will come in and seek a certificate for the air weapon or multiple air weapons that they hold. It will be one certificate and a person can hold one, two or any number of air weapons on that certificate. I am just going to ask one more question this year because, obviously, there are other parts of the bill, and colleagues also want to come in. The FFM states that the estimated maximum additional enforcement testing and reporting costs to be incurred by Police Scotland are amounting £90,000 per annum, which is an estimated £500 cases per year at £180 a case. However, the BASC question where the figure implied that Police expected to see 500 weapons as a result of non-compliance and asked how that figure compared with an estimated 50 to 100 summary prosecutions quoted in the FFM, so there appears to be a wee bit of an anomaly there. Again, what we are looking at is the line between the existing regime and the new regime. The 500 tests that are sent against Police Scotland costs is an estimate based on the number of actual weapons that might have to be tested and there would be brand new tests. In fact, Police Scotland may well be finding—this is one of the benefits of the provisions in the bill—in investigating other crimes or other complaints. In the course of that, it finds air weapons in a property or whatever. In the current regime, it would not be able to take them from the point at which the bill provisions come into force. The Police would be able to seize them and test them, but that would be part and parcel of another investigation. For example, if they go into a property because of a domestic complaint or for anti-social behaviour or whatever, there will already be a prosecution going on because of those other complaints. Alongside that, if air weapons are seized, there will be 500 tests. The 500 tests are on potentially the number of air weapons that could be taken in those sort of investigations, but they may only become 50 to 100 prosecutions—brand new prosecutions simply for an air weapons licensing offence. There are already, in the existing firearms legislation as well, offences related to air weapons. For example, if somebody fires an air weapon beyond the boundaries of their own premises, or if somebody is carrying an air weapon in the street, those are already offences. What we are looking at is that, in the licensing, there will be a number of new licensing-related offences that sit alongside existing investigations and existing prosecutions. That was the last one, but I just want to mention one other thing. How many appeals would you expect from people who have been refused licenses and what would be the cost of that? Appeals, I have to say, I looked at the evidence and we do not have, in the financial memorandum at the moment, a specific provision for appeals, and I apologise about that. I will look at that again. I think that on the basis of criminal prosecutions, and we expect a relatively small number of brand new ones, at the time the thinking was that that will lead to a very low number of potential criminal appeals. The other discussion at the time, I understand the point that is being made by the British Association that there will be potentially a number of appeals against refusal of a certificate or against revocations. I have to say that, in the existing firearms regime, the people who apply generally are people who are known in the system and are known to the police and our existing firearms owners. There is a very small number of refusals, around about 1 per cent, of applications that are refused in each year on the last statistics that we have. As our system rolls out, that will be something that will look to the place that will provide advice. It is very difficult to estimate the number of appeals at the moment, but it is something that we will have to be aware of and perhaps revisit. I am also conscious, too, that there is a whole new sheriff appeals court system coming into play with the new legislation last year, so we have to look at how that will work through the system as well. It is difficult to say at the moment that ministers and officials are hoping that we are not looking at a lot of appeals because of a light-touch system that we do not expect to be a lot of. I am going to move on now to alcohol licensing. Will I spend less time in the next two sections, not least because I have taken 20 minutes? As I said, I want colleagues to come in. In terms of alcohol licensing, Western Martinshire Council and their evidence has said that the legislation sets a maximum fee that licensing boards can charge, but even though ours is charging the maximum fee, we incur an annual deficit of almost £89,000. Glasgow City Council said that it should be noted that it is difficult if not impossible for bodies to print or erase fees to account the Scottish Government's proposals. South Lanarkshire Council says that Council does not currently have the funding in place to meet those proposals. Surely all this regime is going to add significant burdens to local authorities? Proposals in the bill are a broad mix, and they are derived from suggestions that were floating about among stakeholders and came from the consultation exercise. The idea was to finesse and improve the existing legislation, but the idea was not to impose substantial additional burdens on local licensing boards. On that basis, we felt that it was reasonable to say that we felt that the cost would be broadly neutral. In relation to the fees, there was detailed work carried out on reviewing the fees, and although we would be sympathetic to the idea of amending the existing limits on the licensing fees, having carried out the work, we got a very scant response from the local authorities, and we really felt that we did not, at that time, have enough information of which to base increase on the fees level. However, by inserting a statutory duty on local authorities to report on the income and expenditure, that will give us a basis to understand all the local authorities' costs and expenditure and in time to raise fees if it is felt to be appropriate. Certainly one of the main findings coming out of the fees review was that the current occasional licence fee of £10 was felt to be insufficient, and certainly that is something that we feel that we could move on without extensive further work, and it is something that we would be working to move on fairly soon to increase the occasional licence fee. Thank you for that. I mean, COSLA, looking at the actual reports that are going to be produced, have said that there are concerns at the introduction of a duty for boards to publish a financial report maybe administratively difficult for local authorities, depending on current accounting procedures. COSLA recognises that this increase is transparency and provides evidence for any future fee increases. However, SCC has gone on to add that there are particular concerns about the fee for occasional licence that has not been reviewed, and that the current fee was already insufficient to cover the cost of work involved in processing applications. Yes, the current fee is £10. It is set within secondary legislation, so that is something that we could increase outwith the scope of this bill. Thank you for that. I want to allow colleagues in, but I want to touch on civic licensing. The FFM says that the bill will give local authorities a power to refuse to grant private higher car licences on the grounds of over provision. The Scottish Taxi Federation has said that the financial memorandum had, and I quote, "...got things badly wrong and questioned how the financial memorandum's estimate had been reached stating that no suitable methodology or measuring tool existed at present, and indeed they go on to say that it would be difficult if not impossible to survive such a tool." I am just wondering how you have reached those kind of estimates. At the moment, there is no equivalent test within private higher cars. There is a similar test in relation to taxis, which relates to unmet demand, but that is a different test. We took the figure from Napier University that quoted—I think it was 15,000 to 20,000, so it is in the financial memo—that quoted an indicative level for the unmet demand test, and quoted that as an example. In practice, it is a completely new test. We do not know how we have not devised the procedure yet for what would be appropriate for it. I think that the point raised by the Scottish Taxi Federation and others that that figure of around 15,000 might be on the low side is possibly the case for a large authority, like Edinburgh or Glasgow. However, those are quite exceptional. A lot of local licensing authorities have very small numbers of private hires, and where they would carry out an unmet demand test, the figure would probably be a lot lower. We would certainly be happy to work with local licensing authorities and relevant stakeholders to work together in developing an appropriate methodology for testing that. I was going to open up the session, but none of my colleagues have indicated that they want to ask any questions, as yet. I hope that they will. I will ask them to get themselves psyched up for that. The fact that the FM notes that some local authorities might receive no fee income from sexual entertainment venues—for example, where none exists in a local authority area, but they could incur tens of thousands of pounds of legal fees should an operator challenge a decision not to grant a licence. We recognise the risk within the financial memorandum, but the precise costs of how much challenge could cost are very hard to pin down. In respect of a low-level challenge on a civic licence, for example, a private hire-car driver, a licence going to the sheriff's court, Glasgow Council estimated that between £2,000 and £3,000. If something goes all the way to in the house of the court of session, the costs are very substantial and there is no getting away from that, although it is hard to be precise. Within the 1982 act, there was a responsibility for local authorities to ensure that the cost of licensing in totality is covered by the licensing fees. Ultimately, on a very expensive case, it is for the local authorities to take a judgment on whether it is worth pursuing and whether the public benefit that they are trying to achieve would warrant pursuing all the way through the courts and to incur that expenditure. A number of points during the financial memorandum have highlighted concerns around costs of appeals. It occurs from the British Association of Shooting and Conservation in relation to air rifles, from the Scottish Taxi Federation in relation to taxis and from various licensing boards in relation to some of the new changes, particularly around fit and proper person. There are concerns that costs of appeals have not been properly factored in in those areas. I wonder if you would like to respond to that. That is a question that covers all the licensing regimes, so I will deal with it in a perfectly broad fashion, if I may. If we are talking about appeals in respect of decisions taken by the local authorities or the police in respect of whether to grant an application or revoke an application, it strikes me that it is right that the way to eliminate the possibility of an appeal would be to have no appeal system, but I do not think that anyone is suggesting that. The moment that we have an appeal system, of course, the possibility of appeal arises. The likelihood of an appeal largely depends on the quality of the decision taken amongst other things. It also depends, of course, on the mindset and the positioning of the potential appellant. It is one of the situations where, yes, the moment we have an appeal system in place and we do for all of the licensing decisions, the possibility of an appeal exists. However, the likelihood of an appeal is a different factor, and it is a factor that has—it is a decision. It is something that it can only really be ascertained on a case-by-case basis as to how likely that is and what, indeed, the costs of that will be. I do not know if any of my colleagues want to say anything about the specific regimes. Just at the point that Mr Gibson made, there are, of course, only about 17 to 20 sexual entertainment venues in Scotland that, of itself, limits the scope for appeals that could be taken through the courts. Will you say that in relation to sexual entertainment venues? Of course, in the responses that we have received, the point has raised that, obviously, there may be appeals against refusals. Obviously, while there is a small number in existence, there will, of course, be potential applications, which, prior to the legislation, would have gone through the alcohol licensing or other route, but the creation of a new licensing regime would potentially lead to refusals under that regime and, thus, appeals to those refusals. I think that basing it on a small number in existence perhaps does not reflect what may happen, and I think that that is the point that licensing boards are attempting to get across. I realise that it is difficult to put an exact figure on it, but, of course, the point of a financial memorandum is that it is supposed to deal also in best estimates. When looking at this, did you look at the scenario around applications that were refused rather than simply those that are already in existence? Were you perfectly correct that there would be applications on top of that, but the point is still that lap dancing clubs have been in existence in Scotland for perhaps 15 years and, still, after that period, we have only reached the point of about 20. It is reasonable to infer that the demand is limited, so there will be applications, but it is not going to be an enormous number. In terms of the costs of appeals, it just depends how far they are prosecuted through the courts. Going to the House of Court of Session will be expensive, but we have never had a better estimate of how much it would exactly cost than the figure of pens of thousands. There is a feeling in relation to the introduction of the fit and proper person criteria in relation to personal licences that the definition is vague and could lead to a number of challenges on the back of it. Glasgow City Council licensing board, for example, says that the current drafting of the bill creates uncertainty as to the scope of the test, and unless corrected, it will expose boards to increased litigation costs until case law provides necessary judicial clarity. Is this something that you have had raised with you directly around the fit and proper person test, and is it something that the Government intends to look at as it moves forward with the legislation? Fit and proper test has been very carefully drafted. There are existing fit and proper tests in other pieces of legislation that the local authorities will be quite familiar with, so it is not a completely new concept. It has also been framed in that it has referenced to the overarching licensing objectives for the Licensing Scotland Act. Those are broadly framed and ensure that the local authorities provide certain constraints on the decision that the local authority can make, but where the local authorities to ignore those constraints, they would still be bound by the overall scope of the bill, the bright true decision that is frequently referenced, related to a board making decisions beyond the scope of the bill. By referencing the fit and proper test to the overarching licensing objectives, it ensures that the decisions that are made by the board are constrained within the scope of the bill, whether the scope of the act. On the issue of public entertainment venues, the financial memorandum states that the abolition of theatre licences would represent a decrease in regulatory burden overall, but evidence to the committee from Dumfries and Galloway Council says that those authorities are not currently licencing places of public entertainment would need to undertake a substantial and detailed process to assess whether there is a need to licence theatres as places of public entertainment, and further states that those that already do would incur significant press publication fees for statutory notices if the authority's resolution is to be widened to include theatres. Glasgow City Council has urged the Government to introduce provisions to allow the necessary amendment to the resolution to be expedited, which it has suggested would reduce the costs to theatre owners, etc. On the one hand, we are being told that there is a reduction in the burden, on the other hand we are being given evidence that would suggest that there will be an increase in terms of the costs in some places. I wonder if somebody could perhaps reconcile that. I think that the point about decreasing regulatory burden was actually upon the theatres themselves, some of whom may have to have a theatre licence and a public entertainment licence at the moment, whereas there would be a more streamlined system that would allow a theatre, for example, to apply for the one licence. In the longer term, we would also expect that having to operate a single regime more than two would have benefits for local authorities. In terms of expediting the nine-month period between a local authority passing a resolution and actually coming into force, it is reasonable that there has to be some period between an authority announcing that something needs to be licensed and actually coming into force so that people have time to apply for licences and to get ready for it. The current period is nine months, which we are not especially wedded to, but it is hard to see how it could be less than a matter of several months. I should also point it out that public entertainment licence is very wide, it is very flexible, so a local authority could decide to licence many of the new billiard halls, for example, or snooker clubs. From the point of making that decision to actually coming into force, you do need a period of months. The requirements of the 1982 act are that an authority publishes the resolution, invites comments and then considers those representations. There is a degree of work obviously to reach the point at which a draft resolution can be published, but that matter of work should be proportionate to what it has been proposed to do. In this case, I would expect there to be a strong assumption that theatres should fall under public entertainment licensing. They are already licensed and they have largely the same characteristics as many of the other forms of entertainment, which are licensed as public entertainment. In these circumstances, we would not expect a substantial and detailed process to actually be required. Finally, on the fees, we do recognise that publishing the classified advert that is required under the act just to notify people of a change in resolution has a cost. Glasgow estimated that the cost of an advert would range from £300 to £550, the last two having been £340 and £522. It is a cost of a few hundred pounds, but it is not an on-going cost. It will probably have to be inquired twice during the process of changing a public entertainment resolution. I was just going to ask on that. I am by no means an expert, so this is very much the daft laddie question. Presumably, those adverts do not need to be applied collectively for each individual licensing. For example, if a number of venues are going through this licensing process, they can all be captured within the one advertisement that obviously reduces the cost burden. The cost that is being referred to here is that when a local authority determines the change that public entertainment resolution, i.e. saying what it is that we are going to licence, they have to advertise that fact and invite comments, and then they have to put another advert in at the end of that process saying that this is what the final resolution looks like, so it is not about individual applications, it is about the totality of what is changing within a local authority area. I want to return to the submission of the Scottish Taxi Federation. Now, they say that this will impact on their members because of the Government's comments that additional costs should be charged to licence fees. In Paragraph 170, you have given an indicative value of the cost to driver's vehicles on booking officers with examples of fees that are set out in five licensing authorities. Do those examples include any additional costs that you expect to see for the implementation of the legislation, or do the Comments from the Taxi Federation reflect the fact that they think that those costs will allow you to increase in the future because of additional costs that could be through appeals and other impacts of legislation? The actual statement includes reports, actual licence fees that were being charged at the time that we asked. What assessment have you made of what impact the legislation might have in terms of additional increased costs for licence fees for taxi drivers and others? It is very difficult to gauge because the overprovision in relation to private hire is a discretionary part. It is up to local authorities whether they wish to introduce it. Although, when we consulted, there seemed to be broad support for it, certainly in the call for evidence, there does not seem to be a lot of indication that local authorities are keen to use that additional power. If local authorities decide not to use it, there will be no additional cost. In terms of that additional cost, if it is the fact that an authority applies that power, the Taxi Federation should be clear whether the cost of the overprovision section and the possible court challenges will only be charged back to the licence fees for private hire car operators or to the regime in general. I have to look at the legislation. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot offer a legal view. It does not seem to me to be prescriptive as to how the local authority would allocate that as to whether it was within just the private hire element or within the taxi element. At the moment, there is an unmet demand test in relation to taxis. I am not sure whether local authorities restrict the cost of that to their existing taxis or whether they spread that across the private hire. I suspect that it is really an issue for the local authority to decide on for themselves. Thank you very much for hearing evidence today. If there is anything further that we can help you with, please let us know and we would happily provide further comment. Okay, thank you very much for that being the end of the public part of today's deliberations. I am going to call a small recess before I do. I just want to get the agreement of committee that we will look at this report in private at the next session.