Local Government and Regeneration Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Official Report 512KB pdf

---

European Commission Work Programme 2013

Item 4 is European Union priorities for 2013. I invite our EU reporter, Stuart McMillan, to brief us on the issues on which he feels we should focus.

I thank Fiona Mullen and the rest of the clerking team for their assistance. I also thank the convener of the European and External Relations Committee, Christina McKelvie MSP, for acknowledging the omission of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s EU priorities from her committee’s report on the EU priorities of the Scottish Parliament, which we debated in the chamber yesterday. However, I am confident that this committee will play a key role in supporting the European and External Relations Committee’s scrutiny of EU policy in the areas that are within our remit.

As I informed Parliament in yesterday’s debate, a number of on-going EU policies will complete their legislative journey in 2013. Several of those are of significance to the remit of this committee—namely, the multi-annual financial framework and the Scottish partnership agreement for 2014 to 2020, which is the EU budget for the next seven years, the future of European structural funds, and the proposed changes to EU public procurement rules.

As I mentioned yesterday, the EU budget for 2014 to 2020 will see the first-ever reduction in spending since the establishment of the EU. It is worrying that should planned changes in allocation of structural funds take place, we could see a substantial funding cut to Scotland. As structural funds play a crucial role in funding the delivery of regeneration activity, any significant reduction in those funds could have a direct impact on communities and on Scotland’s economic development.

I recommend that the committee examine the evidence on the potential impact of the loss of European structural funds as part of our regeneration inquiry. That would be a valuable addition to our work, especially if the United Kingdom Government undertakes talks with the Scottish Government on how EU structural funds will be allocated between 2014 and 2020.

As members will be aware, the EU is also in the process of reforming public procurement rules within the internal market. Any reforms that may place further limitations on the ability to deliver shared services could have a negative impact on local government. In January, COSLA wrote to all of the Parliament’s EU reporters to emphasise the need to focus on reform of public procurement rules as a key issue for local government.

As we are commencing the final strand of our three-strand inquiry into public services reform, I recommend that we write to COSLA and seek further information on the potential impact of the new EU public procurement rules and shared services limitations on local government. We should consider any EU reforms in the context of the strand 3 inquiry. Such work will also help to inform our scrutiny of the proposed public procurement bill when it is introduced to Parliament. Paragraph 14 of the paper that is before us sets out recommendations for us to consider in respect of our EU priorities for 2013.

12:00

A number of EU reporters and staff went to Brussels in early December to make contacts and to discuss relevant issues for our committees. In that regard, I record my appreciation of Fiona Mullen’s efforts on behalf of the committee. My main area of concern on the visit was the lack of cohesion in Brussels in respect of the people whom I met. The diary that was put in place was not what I would have expected, to the extent that some of the meetings that we had ended up being cut short—one of them was a mere 10 minutes long, although it took about half an hour to get to it. My recommendation for future visits to Brussels by EU reporters of all committees is that when they are organised from the Brussels end, travel time to get to meetings should be taken into consideration, which did not happen for me and Fiona Mullen on our visit.

Thank you for that. I understand that those matters are being dealt with by the clerks. As you rightly highlighted, the difficulties were not caused by our clerks’ arrangements, which I think were first class.

Absolutely.

Do members have any comments or questions on the report?

I am quite happy to agree the report. However, I am a bit concerned about the fact that we missed the deadline for our report to be included for the debate in the chamber. That reflects the committee’s workload; there is so much going on that we missed the deadline.

It was nothing to do with our missing a deadline; we were not informed as a committee of the work that that committee was carrying out. Our clerks have been dealing with that issue with the European and External Relations Committee. The convener of the European and External Relations Committee apologised for the omission to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee at the start of the debate in the chamber yesterday. We have a heavy workload, but if we had received a communication on the issue from the European and External Relations Committee, we would have managed to deal with it. However, the fact is that that was never communicated to us. I do not know whether the clerks want to add anything to that; I believe that the issue is being dealt with.

Was it just the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that was omitted?

Yes. An apology was given yesterday, as were assurances that the omission will not happen again.

What you have said is accurate. However, I think that we can take a positive view of what has happened. I suggest that, because our report will go separately to the European and External Relations Committee today, and given my contribution to the debate in the chamber yesterday, our committee’s suggestions and recommendations will be given a bit more importance and scrutiny. I think that there is a positive outcome from the negative aspects of what happened, in that the European and External Relations Committee and the Scottish Government will have to look at our information separately, which will highlight our recommendations. There is a negative side to what happened, but there is also a positive outcome for this committee.

Okay. Are there any other comments or questions?

What happened regarding our report was unfortunate.

It was an unfortunate circumstance.

I am gladdened by the assurances and the apology. I hope that it will not happen again.

Okay. Are we agreed on the EU priorities as set out in the paper from Stuart McMillan?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to keep the priorities under review in the light of developments in the European Commission’s work programme throughout 2013?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to take—as part of our inquiry into regeneration—evidence on the potential impact of changes to European structural funds from 2014 onwards on funding of regeneration projects?

Members indicated agreement.

As part of our public services reform inquiry into developing new ways of delivering services and for any future consideration that we may give the forthcoming procurement reform bill, do we agree to write to COSLA’s European unit to seek further information on the potential impact of new EU public procurement rules on local government and the impact of EU limitations on shared service arrangements for local government?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, do we agree to keep a watching brief, via the European and External Relations Committee’s “Brussels Bulletin”, on the multi-annual financial framework and the Scottish partnership agreement for 2014 to 2020, European structural funds, public procurement, and shared service arrangements?

Members indicated agreement.