We have all had a chance to consider the paper that was produced by the clerk on EU funding. Does anyone have any initial comments? The paper sets out various options. I am open to suggestions on where we go from here. My view is that we should press ahead with the inquiry. We will have to consider the basis on which we do so, and the speed, because we must take our existing programme into account. I will leave it at that and invite comment.
For clarification, do you mean that there might be some doubt about the second issue listed:
Yes. Strictly speaking, that is not within our remit, but I think that we could stretch it. In my view, it should be included although it might not be strictly relevant in Finance Committee terms.
I am relaxed on that point. I do not think that it is within our remit, but if you feel strongly about it, that is fair enough. There is no controversy over that topic.
That is right. As Sarah Davidson pointed out in our paper, the difficulty is that the European Committee's remit is so wide that it can discuss legitimately almost anything that includes the word "European". Three of the key issues are specifically within our remit. While they also have an obvious European dimension, that does not mean that we should stand back and allow another committee to get on with it. We must consider those issues.
We must draw a clear line in the sand between ourselves and the European Committee, which seems to be quite avaricious in what it tackles. I do not blame the European Committee for that. It has an almost indeterminate function and can take a scattergun approach. Its basic function, however, is to consider legislation and whether it affects the Scottish Parliament. If the legislation has such an effect, it should be dealt with by the appropriate committee. We are in such a situation now. If there is a direct impact on financial matters, in particular as they affect the budget, that must be the concern of the Finance Committee, albeit with some collaboration.
It would be interesting to know the feelings of the convener of the European Committee. We should not be going down the road of arguing with that committee. We should try to find a way forward, rather than say: "It's ours. Get off."
Andrew Wilson mentioned the paper that formed the convener's recommendations to the European Committee, which that committee will get this afternoon. I have also seen that paper. The convener's view is that the issues that we are talking about fall within the remit of the European Committee. We cannot deny that they do, but David Davidson made the point, very fairly, that specifically they are our issues, whereas generally they are the European Committee's issues. It is about being specific.
I want to support what David Davidson said. In all matters financial, we should be the lead committee. I do not want an argument or confrontation with anyone, but that is up to the European Committee. It must be acknowledged that we are the lead committee on all matters financial. That is simple and straightforward and there is no argument to be had. If the European Committee wants to investigate other aspects of the structural funds, that is fine, but we are the lead committee on the financial aspects.
I agree with that proposal. It is not for us to decide anyway, so we should just state that we would like an inquiry into the matter and ask the bureau to decide which is the best body to carry it out. Do we want to propose a stand-alone inquiry, or do we want to propose a wider inquiry on the Barnett formula? We will not have time to do anything until—
Until after the Easter recess.
Yes, until we have had a series of briefings. Then we will be able to proceed with an inquiry, taking evidence in May. We may not need to decide now, but it might make our case stronger.
That is a reasonable suggestion. There is no question that an inquiry should happen, so to delay until after some briefings on Barnett seems needless. We could take the decision now to crack on with an inquiry into Barnett, of which this matter would form part, but that is a bigger question for the committee. Your guidance suggests that we should press on as soon as possible with the European question. Whether it is part of the Barnett inquiry does not matter, but we should tee up to have a timetable in place for immediately after the recess.
Do you think that it would make our case stronger if we suggest now that we will have a stand-alone inquiry? We would have to put our case to the bureau.
My preference is for a stand-alone inquiry. I think that it would make our case stronger if we are seen to do it as part of an inquiry into Barnett. We have agreed to that in principle. We want to get the briefings first, but there is no suggestion that we will not do it.
I suggest that, as convener, you put it to the bureau that we have a stand-alone inquiry. We have room in our timetable to hear briefings immediately after the Easter recess and to hear evidence in May. As David Davidson and Keith Raffan said, the Finance Committee is the right body to conduct the inquiry.
We are agreed that we should be the lead committee.
I disagree with Ken Macintosh on the timing. I see no reason to take briefings and then wait until May, given what you have just said about it being pressing. We could kick the Barnett briefings back slightly, but I suspect that they will merge anyway.
We will need to take some briefings on Barnett for the European inquiry.
This is just a practical problem. I notice that the inquiry would take four to five weeks. Do we know just how much of our time will be involved in the budgetary process after the Easter recess? That is when the full-year process begins and we must send out our survey to the subject committees and wait for it to be returned. Will we have as much time as we think we might?
The subject committees must return their views to us by the end of May, so we should have some time before that. Sarah, do you think that a four to five week inquiry could be undertaken between coming back after Easter and the end of May?
Yes, we would have time to do that.
I think that we could do that, Keith. That period is a guide. It may not take that amount of time; it depends on the availability of witnesses.
How long will it take for the bureau to decide whether we can proceed?
I am not sure, but it meets every week. Once it has received our recommendation and that from the European Committee, it could decide as early as next week.
We should give you permission to proceed without a further meeting to set up the inquiry if the bureau gives us the go-ahead. That would avoid wasting a week in deciding what we will do. I am quite happy with that and I am sure Sarah will be as well.
We want to go ahead on the basis of a stand-alone inquiry. As soon as we get the go-ahead from the bureau, the clerks can get moving.
That being the case, I would like to comment—I was going to wait until we discussed it in detail—that if we are looking at the question of the formula and bypassing the block, rather than just the Secretary of State for Scotland, we should speak with officials and others from the Treasury.
Did the Welsh Affairs Committee take evidence from the Treasury?
They did not.
We need a briefing on the Barnett formula. Andrew, are you suggesting that that should come from the Treasury?
The Welsh Affairs Committee made do with the Welsh Office and academics and we could do that, but speaking to the Treasury would be helpful, especially if we intend to take a wider look at the Barnett formula.
A recent European Parliament answer given to Neil MacCormick is of relevance because it talked about additionality at the state level rather than at the regional level. That suggests that it is important that we speak to the Treasury.
We seem to have moved on to discuss who we might take evidence from. There are suggestions from the clerks in the options paper, including the Minister for Finance, the Secretary of State for Scotland and officials from their departments. It might be particularly useful to ask Dr Gillian Bristow, as she has been quite widely quoted on the Welsh situation. Does anyone have views? Do you agree that we should have those people?
Do we need a special adviser, possibly Mr Heald? It is complex.
It is complex but the turnaround is very tight. We will come on to the question of advisers for the current inquiry and we need to remember that recruiting advisers takes time. I am not unhappy about doing that but—
We have time.
What do you think, Sarah?
It is probably manageable.
Both academics mentioned could fill that role. From other discussions with David Heald I expect that he would be less keen because of the time required. I have no idea about Gillian Bristow, but she has written extensively on the subject. She could be asked if she would give evidence and advice.
However, she is based in Wales, and the parallels are not exact.
She may have colleagues in Scotland. I think the report made reference to papers written at Scottish universities.
Perhaps Sarah Davidson and Callum Thomson could make inquiries about the possibilities for an adviser.
It is important that the adviser be independent. Dr Bristow might be seen as having a particular point of view. It might be better to have someone who is more neutral.
A fair point.