Finance Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2000

Official Report 81KB pdf

---

European Funding Inquiry

Item 1 on the agenda is the European funding inquiry. Members will have received paper F1/00/11/1. I am sorry to have to advise members that, since it was circulated, both Professor David Heald and Tony Mackay have had to withdraw because of other commitments; they are unable to assist the committee, at least in person. David Heald has said that he will submit a view in writing.

The programme will remain as it stands, however. We might discuss our approach on stage 1 of the budget on 23 May; although that is yet to be confirmed, it means that it is unlikely that there will be a gap in the agenda on 23 May. Do members have comments on the proposals relating to the inquiry contained in paper FI/00/11/1?

Is there no intention to replace Professor Heald and Mr Mackay?

I will ask Sarah Davidson to respond to that. The problem is that no one else immediately springs to mind, although, if members want to suggest any names, that would be welcome.

We felt that we had covered the obvious candidates. As the convener said, if members have any suggestions, we will follow those up as a matter of urgency.

The paper seems perfectly reasonable. Losing David Heald means that we have lost the only living expert on the Barnett formula—and I am include Joel Barnett in that.

Gillian Bristow, at Cardiff Business School, has partners in her research group. One of them is at the University of Strathclyde—the name escapes me, but he or she may be a reasonable person to contact. That is on the European angle.

I cannot think of anyone, other than David Heald, who has done substantial research into the Barnett formula, with the exception of Margaret and Jim Cuthbert, whose work has been published in the Fraser of Allander "Quarterly Economic Commentary". They are known to be partial to my way of thinking, so it is a question of whether the committee would want to hear their evidence, in the full knowledge that they have a specific line of argument, as most academics do. They are an option for members to consider; they coined the phrase "Barnett squeeze", so it might be worth while hearing their views.

Who is this?

Margaret and Jim Cuthbert; Margaret is an academic.

Yes. I know.

Jim is the former chief statistician at the Scottish Office.

We could perhaps discuss this after the briefing, but it may be worth looking into, especially given the University of Strathclyde connection.

Members are asked to endorse the paper on the European structural funds inquiry. Are there any comments on it?

I think that at this time, quite fairly, we cannot know exactly where we will be led by the inquiry—certain sub-strands may emerge. In principle, the bullet points seem an admirable base from which to start. We ought to retain some flexibility—if it is possible within the time scale—to allocate extra time here and there as the committee sees fit.

Our inquiry has to dovetail with the European Committee's inquiry, so do we have a copy of its remit?

We do not have it at the moment.

It might be useful for members of the committee if, as the European Committee's part of the inquiry progresses, we were to receive the relevant papers—written evidence and evidence given at committee meetings.

We agreed that there would be no crossover, so it would be advisable to keep in touch. I would like to know whether, as a result of its report, the European Committee is planning to seek one of the committee half-days for a debate in the Parliament. I do not know when its report is likely to be published. We are aiming for ours to be out by the middle of June. I am not sure where that sits with the European Committee's proposed timetable. If there were to be a half-day committee debate, we would want to tie in our report with it. Is it possible, Sarah, that we could be finished before the summer recess, with the European Committee going beyond that? Do you know if it intends to finish before the summer?

At the moment, the European Committee plans to finish its inquiry before the end of June.

It might be helpful if, rather than passing sheaves of paper around, the clerks could let us know who has given evidence to the European Committee and what papers it has received. If members want specific papers, they can ask for them. If that is acceptable, I believe that it would be the best way of proceeding.

I notice that the provisional publication date is Monday 12 June. Is there any reason for publishing on Monday, rather than on the day of the meeting on the Tuesday?

No. The provisional date probably represents the week beginning 12 June, to be honest, rather than the specific day of publication.

As there are no other comments on the paper on European structural funds, is it agreed that we move ahead on the basis suggested?

Members indicated agreement.