Contents
- Scottish Parliament Finance Committee Tuesday 4 July 2000 (Afternoon)
- European Structural Funds
- Government Resources and Accounts Bill
- Scottish Parliament Building Project
European Structural Funds
There have been no further developments in relation to our inquiry and we have yet to receive a formal response to our second letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Presiding Officer's letter suggested that there was a good chance that we might at least be able to take evidence from an official from the Treasury, but that has not been confirmed yet. I will do my best to get an answer to that request before we break for the summer recess.
The same problems beset the European Committee, which seems to have moved on. Members will have seen the questions that were put to the Minister for Finance, which seem to cover the European Committee's attempt to fill the gaps that were left by the non-appearance of a minister or official from the Treasury. I am informed that the European Committee now hopes to publish its report within a week of Parliament's return from the summer recess.
We must now decide what to do about collecting extra information, if we need it. The information that was supplied by Jack McConnell to Hugh Henry is useful for our inquiry and we must decide now whether we need further information. If so, we must press on and attempt to get a Treasury official to attend a meeting of the Finance Committee after the recess.
We all share the disappointment that the inquiry has been stuck in this rut for some time. The specific information that I asked the minister for towards the end of the evidence session at the previous meeting remains the key piece of information that is required to answer the questions that are in my mind—if not in the minds of other committee members—and I have notified the clerk of that. That information concerns the year-in, year-out allocation through the block and formula arrangement and the way in which it compares with comparable expenditure. At the previous meeting, the minister confirmed that for the first time. If that information could be elicited from the Treasury, it would help us to confirm whether the minister's assertions at the previous meeting were correct. That is the one substantial and specific piece of information that we require.
Are you suggesting that we seek that information by writing to the Treasury?
Before we invited evidence from the Treasury—which must be about seven or eight weeks ago—I suggested that we write to the Treasury in advance of the evidence-taking session, so that we could discuss matters with an official or minister on the basis of written evidence that we would have had in front of us. I still believe that we require such evidence before we consider what use we can make of oral evidence.
That is much the same area that I questioned the minister on—I did not receive a clear answer either.
Let us return to the letter that the convener received from David Steel, about his speaking to John Reid. Has Sir David given any indication of John Reid's view of our position? The letter does not say very much. We are inviting a Treasury official to the committee, but have we received anything from the Secretary of State for Scotland?
No. I did not contact the Secretary of State for Scotland; the Presiding Officer did that. We are no further forward than is indicated by the information in David Steel's letter.
The Secretary of State for Scotland's speech to the Scottish Grand Committee on 12 June made clear his view and that view is on the parliamentary record. He believes that information on European structural funds—a matter that must be addressed by the Finance Committee or the European Committee—could be supplied by the Minister for Finance. However, the Minister for Finance has made it clear that there are aspects of the inquiry on which he cannot comment because he does not have ministerial responsibility for them. That is a fair point. There is no real debate about the Secretary of State for Scotland's stance on the issue—he is passing the issue to the Minister for Finance to deal with. The Minister for Finance is quite rightly saying, however, that he cannot answer such questions because he does not have ministerial responsibility for those matters. We must insist that on such substantial issues as this—when there is an element of reliance on reserved issues and the responsibilities of UK ministers—we are entitled to hear the opinions of those ministers. We cannot complete our inquiry without them.
That is just where I was heading. I thank John Swinney for his intervention.
I agree with John Swinney. There are two issues: getting information and the ability of a parliamentary committee to count on co-operation in carrying out its work. I do not understand why that is so difficult, especially as Executive ministers have given evidence to select committees of the House of Commons. Surely there should be a two-way flow of information.
Nobody would disagree with that, Keith. We have made that point clearly in the second letter, if not in the first. However, there will not be such a two-way flow of information in this inquiry, although we may wish for it. There comes a point at which one must stop flogging the horse, because it is dead.
We can seek the information we require in the way Andrew Wilson has suggested. I have not given up hope of getting a Treasury official to come to one of our meetings and will press David Steel on the matter again this week. I do not disagree with Keith Raffan, but we must get the information that will enable us to complete our inquiry. Andrew Wilson made a specific suggestion—I ask him to clarify what information he seeks and the source from which we should invite it.
There should be a firm statement in our report about taking evidence from outwith the Scottish Parliament. We need to make that position clear at the outset.
The evidence is quite detailed and I wonder whether the clerk could undertake to go back to the previous evidence. Essentially, we are looking for clear annual information about the comparable expenditure in England and Wales since the inception of structural funds. That expenditure was the basis of the calculation for the Barnett formula allocation of structural funds to the Scottish budget. The information we need is reasonably detailed, but it is also easily obtainable annually.
The information is not something that we could expect the Minister for Finance to provide us with, because it refers to England and Wales.
No. Getting that information would require the unpicking of the comparable expenditure in the English and Welsh budgets. It would be a matter for Treasury officials.
Is it agreed that we should seek that information?
Members indicated agreement.
The letter from the Presiding Officer is clearly a holding reply, so I am not sure that you are right in your judgment that we are not going to get anybody—
No, sorry, let me be clear: the reference to horses and flogging was in respect of a ministerial visit to the committee.
Oh, right.
I made it clear that I will go back to the Presiding Officer tomorrow on behalf of the committee to find out where we are and to say that we do not regard the matter as closed.
The European Committee is publishing a report and we do not want to be too far out of kilter with the timing of that report. I hope that we will return to the issue in our first meeting after the summer recess.
Will there be an interim report that we can discuss at that stage, or will we be coming back to hear evidence from the Treasury?
It would be normal to finish taking evidence before we begin to put the report together.
So nothing will happen over the summer?
It is only fair that Callum Thomson and Anne Peat should get some summer holidays.
I presume that we could draft a report of some sort. As you know from this morning's session, convener, other committees embark on drafting of reports before they have heard final evidence—the cross-party group on drug misuse, for example. I agree with your point about not getting too far out of kilter with the European Committee.
I did not want to commit Callum Thomson or Anne Peat to such work without speaking to them first.
That is fair enough.
Callum, would it be possible to have a draft report ready for our return after the recess?
Yes—but with the caveat that Andrew Wilson's point is fundamental to the inquiry. However, we should be able to draft other aspects of the report for the first week back.
Given that the Treasury does not go on holiday until the end of July, there will be time for evidence to come through.
There will be a skeleton staff.
Yes—I am sure that they do not lock the doors during August. We will proceed on that basis and have a preliminary report ready when we come back in September.