European and External Relations Committee, 18 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Official Report 170KB pdf

---

Regional Development Funding Inquiry

Item 2 is on our short inquiry into the UK Government's recent consultation on repatriating regional funding from the European Union to the UK Government.

We have agreed to conduct a short investigation into the matter. The purpose of our discussion today is to consider the written submissions that we have received from various local authorities and other organisations in Scotland. Those submissions are in the committee papers. We will also discuss the schedule of witnesses, so that we can arrange the evidence-taking sessions for the next couple of meetings.

First, are there any comments on the written evidence that we have had so far? We should not get into the debate on the issues. We have received a variety of responses. More responses may have come in since the committee papers for the meeting were prepared. I ask the clerk to clarify that.

For the record, so that the external organisations know that we have received the material, I point out that we received a number of submissions subsequent to the production of the committee papers that members have in their possession. Those submissions are from Highland Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the West of Scotland European Consortium, the Wise Group, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Orkney Islands Council and Glasgow City Council. Those submissions are being compiled, along with the submissions that members have in their possession, into a lever arch file that will contain all the submissions. We will bring that to members' offices after the meeting.

I have read through all the submissions that were in our papers and it seems to me that the almost unanimous view that comes through is antagonism towards the repatriation of regional funding. It might be helpful if an analysis of the papers could be done as they arrive, particularly in that sphere, rather than our having to plough our way through mountains of information.

I point out a piece of news that was in The Press and Journal, although I do not always believe everything that I read in The Press and Journal. The article states:

"the Office for National Statistics have confirmed that the Highlands and Islands should have qualified for a second round of European funding—which would have netted the area an extra £250 million."

I will pass the article to the clerk, because it is a matter that we should examine. We have missed out on objective 1 status and according to the Office of National Statistics there is something far wrong with the way in which the figures are calculated. That issue should be part of our inquiry. We should consider not only the Highlands and Islands missing out on objective 1 status but how the analysis for that is undertaken.

Do members have any further comments before we discuss witnesses?

I, too, read through all the papers and, as Margaret Ewing said, the message in each of them was the same. That comes as a surprise to me, given the fact that today the European Commission has yet again failed to have its books audited. I am not sure why everybody thinks that it is better for the EU to look after our money than it is for us or even the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. Having said that, could the clerks identify any papers that offer a different view so that there is variety in the input when we choose whom we will interview?

We will certainly take that on board.

We should put on record our thanks to all the organisations that have replied, given that this is not the first time that we have asked for written evidence on the subject. This is not the first time that those people have replied to us, so we are grateful to them for doing that, but clearly the situation has moved on.

Members will have seen the provisional schedule of witnesses. We can spread the witnesses over a couple of meetings in December and early January. That means that we can conclude the inquiry by the end of January, which will allow us to get stuck into our next inquiry on the promotion of Scotland overseas. At the moment, it has been suggested that we have a panel with Professor John Bachtler, Professor Michael Keating and Graham Meadows, who is the acting director-general of regional policy in the European Commission, and a panel with representatives of various councils around Scotland.

Would local authorities have a separate panel?

Perhaps we could have one meeting but two separate panels. After that, we could have a separate meeting at which we could hear evidence from the ministers. Jim Wallace has agreed to appear before the committee. We have had a response from the Department for Trade and Industry saying that it thinks that it would be more appropriate to invite a Treasury minister. We have taken that comment on board, but I feel that it is important that we get one or the other.

Could you or the clerk please explain why Clackmannanshire Council, Glasgow City Council and Shetland Islands Council were selected to give oral evidence when several other local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had also put in submissions? In fact, COSLA might be a bit miffed if it finds that it is not invited to give oral evidence while three individual councils have been selected. Is it the case that Clackmannanshire Council, Glasgow City Council and Shetland Islands Council have differing views on the matter?

It was difficult to ascertain the differing views among the responses, but having a geographical spread might be helpful to some extent. It is just a provisional list; if members feel strongly that other councils should be included in place of those three councils, they have the opportunity to put their views forward. We had to have a random selection of councils so that we would have people with different geographical perspectives appearing before the committee, but if members have strong views, this is the opportunity to suggest other councils.

I was interested in Dennis Canavan's question about whether the three councils have differing views. It would be more useful to have people with differing views than to have people from different regions. Views might be more important than geography, but perhaps they all have the same view.

My understanding from a brief reading of the paper is that there are different perspectives and different reasons. However, it is not likely that different conclusions will be reached, because most of the local authority responses that we have received reached pretty similar conclusions, so a variety of views may not be the easiest thing to achieve.

My initial comment on the responses was that very similar views were expressed, although the three councils would provide views from a remote area, a city area and a semi-rural industrial area. I presume that that is one of the reasons why those three councils were suggested. I thought that John Home Robertson might have given a plug for East Lothian Council, whose contribution was quite reasonable.

Give me time.

Aside from the selection of local authority areas, I wonder who Professor John Bachtler is and where his submission is.

I shall ask Stephen Imrie to clarify that.

Professor John Bachtler is a professor at the University of Strathclyde's European policy research centre. He has previously been mentioned by members of the committee, including Irene Oldfather. He was an adviser to the previous committee when it was looking at issues relating to structural funds. He has also been an adviser to the Department for Trade and Industry and he is an adviser to the Scottish Executive on structural fund issues. Among academics in Scotland, he is one of the leading experts on regional development.

I do not have a formal submission, as such, from Professor John Bachtler, because his thoughts on the matter are contained in the various documents that he has written for the DTI and for the Scottish Executive, all of which are in the inquiry folders that we will be circulating later.

That satisfies me on that point.

I am pleased to hear that there is a submission from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. It seems to me that the public sector is well represented, but there is little or nothing from the private sector. If we are going to interview people, perhaps the Chambers of Commerce should be pulled along. I am surprised that the Confederation of British Industry Scotland has not made a submission. I note that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has prepared a submission and, again, I am a bit surprised that Scottish Enterprise seems to have nothing to say. I would have thought that all those bodies would be worth talking to.

That is a fair point. Do members have any other comments on the witnesses before we take decisions?

It is obviously impossible to have a witness from every local authority that has made a representation, but I thank Phil Gallie for mentioning East Lothian Council. I agree—I would like to hear from that council.

We need to achieve a representative scatter of authorities. It makes sense to hear from a big city authority, from a remote island community authority and from AN Other or perhaps from some more councils. What prevents us from having two goes at taking evidence? I do not know about the timing.

I have every respect for Clackmannanshire Council, but I am not sure whether it is the most representative council of east central Scotland. Perhaps we could reflect on that further or discuss with the convener and the clerk whether a case can be made for varying the package slightly or altering the format.

I do not want to prolong discussion about the witnesses, so I suggest that we take on board Phil Gallie's useful suggestion of having a witness from the private sector. If we are to have a panel of local authority representatives for half an hour, perhaps we could add a fourth person from another authority to the panel, to achieve a wider spread. That will give members the opportunity to question whomever they want to. Is the committee happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I continue to encourage members to invite written evidence from anyone else whom they want to give evidence. There is no reason why that cannot still be done. We continue to receive submissions.