European Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 2, 2000

Official Report 212KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

There are a number of points to cover. We have skirted around a European strategy on drugs. For us to invite someone from the Commission over and meet the expense of that visit, we must formally approve the suggestion that we hold a meeting about drugs. The Parliamentary Bureau must then approve that suggestion. I recommend that we invite a representative from the European Commission to a future meeting to discuss the European Union's drug strategy. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The timing of such an invitation will be important. I hope to secure a debate on drugs before the summer recess. Bruce Crawford may be able to refresh my memory as to which days in the chamber have been allocated to SNP business.

Right now?

I do not have a clue when they are.

I am afraid I cannot remember.

They are some time in May, I think. One of them will be while the Parliament is meeting in Glasgow.

That is right, but I cannot remember whether it is in the first or second week in Glasgow.

I just wanted to inform members that I still hope to secure a debate on drugs.

We have agreed to proceed with the invitation and to make the necessary arrangements.

We have spoken about examining the Commission's forward work programme and trying to identify early in the new presidency of the European Council what its priorities will be. I propose to invite a representative from the French embassy to brief the committee on the priorities of the French presidency, which follows Portugal's. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have had a response from the Transport and the Environment Committee on the European car-free day. It agrees that we should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and to the Scottish Executive seeking their views. So that this does not drag on and on, I suggest that we simply send that committee's recommendation to COSLA and to the Executive for their attention, asking them to take matters forward as appropriate. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The closing date for changes to the assisted areas map is today. I have had a letter from Clackmannanshire Council, whose submission is for a small technical alteration to the boundary that has no implications for any other area. I realise that several members may want to comment, but at this late stage we cannot reopen the debate on assisted areas, which is a reserved matter. However, I recommend that we ask the Scottish Executive to reflect any local wishes that have no consequential effects on other areas of Scotland. That would allow for technical amendments such as the one suggested by Clackmannanshire Council, which we shall send to the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Scotland. We shall send that today.

I realise that it is difficult to go back in time to unpick what has already been done. Fergus Ewing and others have tried to lodge emergency motions in the chamber to discuss issues relating to the Highlands. There is a specific case in Clackmannanshire which I do not think conflicts with any of the rules and regulations put down by the Commission, or with any interpretation of those rules by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the DTI.

The proposed amendment concerns the Carsebridge business and industrial site in Clackmannanshire. The council has, rather cleverly, supplied me with copies of a map, which I shall circulate to committee members. It gives an idea of what the council is talking about. May I circulate them?

By all means, but I do not want to get involved in a detailed discussion about specific areas. As I said, councils can put a case for technical adjustments to boundaries in their areas and we can ask the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office to reflect those local wishes where possible, for cases that have no consequential effect on other areas. My understanding is that the Clackmannanshire case has no wider implications elsewhere. Unfortunately, I do not have enough detail to discuss it in depth, so we are at a disadvantage.

I realise that, but people from Clackmannanshire are here today, so it would be useful to outline briefly some of the issues affecting the Carsebridge business and industrial site. It is the site of the largest private sector employment location in Clackmannanshire, with around 500 jobs. It is the location for phase 8 of the Alloa business centre and construction work is already under way on a £3 million contract. That development could generate 200 jobs. Alloa business centre will offer the main opportunity for small and medium enterprise development in the area.

I realise that it is difficult to comment on specifics when writing to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to Mr McLeish at the Scottish Executive. However, there is a specific issue in the Clackmannanshire case, which will not create any difficulties. So long as it is done through a proper technical amendment, it should not impact on the competence of the proposed map.

I believe that Clackmannanshire Council has already presented its case directly. Are you suggesting anything different to what I have proposed? I suggested that the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office should as far as possible reflect local wishes where there is no consequential effect for other areas of Scotland.

I am not sure whether members know of other cases, but I know of no other case that involves a technical amendment.

We are not all privileged to have detailed knowledge about this case. Rather than address specific local cases, I suggest that we try to establish the principle that, if a technical amendment is needed that has no implications for another area, a local council's proposals should be reflected as far as possible by the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office. We would then avoid getting caught up in commenting on things that we do not have sufficient information about.

I understand the difficulty, but it would be nice to draw attention to specifics and to give an example in the letter.

This debate is not too dissimilar to the one about European funding that we had early on. At that time, my constituency was in quite a bad situation. When I asked, I was told that this committee was not the place for talking about individual cases; it was only for making general points.

I am very supportive of Clackmannanshire, which is close to my constituency. However, I feel that there should be a ruling about the way in which we conduct business of this type.

I am content with what has been said. If there are technical amendments, as proposed by Scottish Enterprise Borders and the Scottish Borders Council, they should be taken on board. The situation there is similar to the one in Clackmannanshire. Obviously, it is too late to argue the case for major changes, but if the committee is minded to encapsulate what has been said, that would help us considerably. If you were minded to take a second example outside Clackmannanshire, the situation in the Borders is much the same—a key area has been excluded. Minor technical changes can bring those areas back in, at no particular difficulty to anyone.

Thank you for allowing me to be here and to listen to your proposals.

I wish it could be as simple in all instances as Euan Robson suggests. I accept the point that the convener and Sylvia Jackson have made that this is not the place for going into a detailed examination of what has happened with the assisted areas status map. However, I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that huge changes have been made, especially in the Cumnock and Doon Valley, by the exclusion of almost all the former coalfield communities. At no point had that ever been suggested as an option. It has come from nowhere; there has been no consultation. A simple technical amendment will not resolve that problem. As constituency MSP, I have made forceful recommendations as to how things ought to be done. I hope that this will not be repeated in future, with fairly minor adjustments made in some areas, but huge and fundamental differences made right across the whole of the Ayrshire coalfield community. I am at a loss to see how it can be justified.

My feelings are much like Cathy Jamieson's: the exclusion of two Highlands and Islands local enterprise companies was unexpected and a bitter blow. The assisted areas scheme had been expected to bring jobs into the area affected by the downturn in BARMAC, but that will not now happen. We have 1 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, but we have taken 28 per cent of the hit. We do not have any technical amendments at our fingertips, because the decision came out of the blue.

I want to record that we in the north feel devastated by what has happened. I appreciate, from what you have said, convener, that we cannot say that we want to reverse the decision and that we want it all back, because that would affect other areas in Scotland. However, I hope that we can have discussions with the affected areas to see whether we can get a better formula than the one that we have been given.

I agree with what Sylvia Jackson and Cathy Jamieson have said about this not being the place for discussing individual cases, but the problem that Cathy has outlined is completely different from the one that Maureen Macmillan has outlined. When we considered this at the outset, we agreed on a ward-based approach. The difference between having a ward-based approach and the European Commission's preferred approach of NUTS 2 was that for every winner, there would, consequentially, be a loser.

The losers were mainly in NUTS 2 areas such as East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire, which forwent regional assistance so that other areas that would not have qualified did qualify. There has always been a trade-off; but the trade-off was between having a ward-based approach and a NUTS 2 approach that was based on the local authority areas as a whole. Those principles are worth restating at the same time as we restate some of the so-called technical adjustments that are required. As a constituency MSP, I suggested some technical adjustments in advance of this process starting.

The choice was not between one ward and another: the choice was between a ward-based approach and a NUTS 2 approach based on local authority areas. North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire lost out as a consequence, in order that other areas that would not have qualified under NUTS 2 got the advantage. If gross domestic product was the only criterion for qualification, East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire would have been eligible for objective 1 status. We are talking about deprived areas, in need of economic regeneration, forgoing assistance in order to give the Clackmannanshires and the Highlands of this world secured status.

I do not want to go back into the principles. We have already agreed them. Sylvia Jackson asked about the best way of dealing with this kind of issue. Constituency members should make their representations for their areas directly; this committee should, as Allan has suggested, address the principles. Without mentioning any particular area, the principle that I would put forward is that, where possible, local wishes should be reflected when there is no consequential effect for any other area in Scotland. In that way, we would reinforce the views that individual MSPs and local councils have been putting forward. If we put that principle forward today, I hope that it will be taken into consideration.

We do not know where the change to the map came from. No one knows whether it came from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Executive or the European Commission. When we were discussing the assisted areas map and the objective 2 map, the minister clearly said that he wished them almost to be mirrored. If we could find out where the change had come from, we could ask the minister to ensure that any changes to maps are not mirrored. That is something that we could do to try to help the next round. Some of the areas that have lost out in the changes to the assisted areas map may still manage to get some objective 2 funding. If the objective 2 changes mirror the assisted areas changes, they will get nothing.

We should have another opportunity to discuss objective 2, so I do not want to open up that debate just now. Do we agree on the recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.