European Committee, 21 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

European Structural Funds Inquiry

The next item on the agenda is the remit for our inquiry into structural funds and their implementation in Scotland. Members have received a briefing paper that contains some suggestions. Before I open the meeting up for discussion, I will make a couple of general points. The issue of who should take the inquiry forward—and, indeed, the way in which that should be done—has still to be finalised by the Parliamentary Bureau, which is debating the matter this afternoon. I presume that we will find out after that meeting exactly what will happen.

A remit has been proposed, and some suggestions have been made—but not set in stone—about people who might participate. A time scale has also been suggested. The dates have been included to give members a rough idea of the time scale within which we want to operate. We are not saying that it must be those people on those dates; we want simply to give members some understanding of how the process will work.

I appreciate those comments, and we wait with bated breath the outcome of the bureau meeting.

To help us to gain a clear understanding of the structural funds—how they affect the Barnett formula, how the Barnett formula affects them, and so on—and to help us to understand whether the funds are truly additional, it might be useful to have three people to advise us, to ensure that we can fulfil the remit.

One person in particular has come to mind while I have been sitting here. John Usher is the head of the European office or secretariat—I am not sure of the exact title—in Edinburgh University. When I met him last week, before the publicity surrounding the European Committee's visit to Brussels, he said that he was interested in additionality and that he might be prepared to come and speak to us. That would be useful.

Under the heading "Key Issues", the briefing paper asks

"Is there a difference from the Welsh situation?"

It might be useful to have a view from Wales that is as dispassionate as we can get. We could invite Gillian Bristow, who in conjunction with Nigel Blewitt produced a report on this issue for the Institute of Welsh Affairs.

The list suggests witnesses from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Scottish Colleges, and I understand why they are included. It might also be useful to find out the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' view on additionality and any problems that have arisen in the way in which the funds have been managed. I may be taking a risk in suggesting that we invite COSLA, but it ought to participate in the inquiry.

I agree. Scottish local government has a broad perspective and can make a significant contribution to the debate. Bruce Crawford also suggested that we add the academics that he named from Edinburgh University and from Wales.

I do not know whether members are aware of this, but last week the Court of Auditors produced a report on additionality. It might be helpful if members of the committee could have a copy of that.

It is part of the sift process.

Bruce Crawford suggested additional academics, but the list of proposed witnesses already has an overtly academic flavour. I am not sure that adding more academics would add value to the process. We might want to substitute one academic for another. It should be possible to complete the inquiry in a shorter time scale than that proposed; we could combine evidence-taking sessions to achieve that. I am wholly in favour of COSLA coming along to provide balance to the academic input.

I have a few general comments. The first relates to the period that the inquiry will span. It may be an idea to focus on the period since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, instead of going back into the mists of time.

I agree that we should hear from representatives of the Executive and the UK Government, at ministerial as well as official level. We should be ambitious and invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is, after all, in Scotland more than occasionally and might be pleased to appear before the committee. If not, we will have to settle for another minister from the Treasury team. However, this is an important enough matter for an invitation to be issued to the chancellor himself.

If our remit is to include the Welsh dimension of the problem, we will need a witness or witnesses who can inform us about that.

The paper suggests that on 27 June we finalise and agree the draft committee report in private, and hold a press briefing on the same day, but that seems a bit ambitious. We may well have substantial amendments to consider on that final day, and the draft report would have to be printed before being published and given out to the press. However, I agree that we should try to encapsulate the inquiry in as short a time as possible.

I endorse strongly the recommendation that we should have an adviser. The subject matter is complex, and there is a lot of Eurospeak and gobbledegook that lay persons find difficult to understand. If someone could take us through that minefield and explain it in lay person's terms, that would be helpful. I note that at least three academics are listed as proposed witnesses. Perhaps one of them would be a suitable adviser. That is just a suggestion; I do not have any detailed knowledge about their expertise.

I would like the clerk to explain why the Parliamentary Bureau is considering the matter. Is there a potential turf war between us and the Finance Committee? Did the Finance Committee refer the matter to the bureau? It seems to me that the European Committee also has a legitimate role to play.

Both committees put the matter on their agendas, and there is potential for duplication. The bureau will try to determine which committee would be more appropriate to lead. It may well decide that there are some things that it would be appropriate for us to consider and other things that it would be appropriate for the Finance Committee to consider. The bureau could conclude that, if there are implications for the Barnett formula or for the calculation of the Scottish block, the Finance Committee might want to consider those issues in more detail.

It would not be appropriate for the European Committee to get involved in that level of detail. We may start something that ends up elsewhere. The Finance Committee is certainly interested in examining the implications for Barnett and the Scottish block. We are trying to determine the legitimate perspective for the European Committee and how we can work in partnership with, and complement the work of, the Finance Committee. I do not know what the bureau will decide this afternoon, but we should try at least to confirm our remit.

It would do no harm to invite the chancellor. It will be for the Government to determine which minister, if any, should attend, but we should extend that invitation; that was a useful suggestion. Once we have covered other issues, I shall come back to the question of the adviser. I shall also return to the Welsh situation, as there may be other comments.

From the European Committee's point of view, the two sides of the debate are the Treasury's and the European Commission's interpretation of the way that Britain, the Treasury and Scotland monitor European spending. It is a fine balance whether the Finance Committee or the European Committee handles the inquiry, because in one way the European Commission polices, whereas the Treasury interprets.

The list of witnesses is excellent. One of the vital components is a Treasury minister, or Treasury officials; whichever committee addresses the matter, a witness from the Treasury must be a priority. If the request for such a witness were to be turned down, that would be a great handicap to our investigation. From what I have seen, the Treasury is the key.

I wonder whether the order of witnesses is correct; perhaps the European witnesses should come before the academics. This is a matter of interpretation, then discussion, of policy; perhaps we should have the policy makers first before we have the discussion and the argument.

Ben Wallace is right. He said that the European Commission polices us. The European Court of Auditors polices the Commission. The Court of Auditors has been quite scathing in its annual reports on European Commission and member-state spending. I am not referring specifically to additionality, but to a wide range of areas, such as agricultural spending. I would have thought that that court would be a good starting point, because we could use its information to question people.

Is there general agreement that we will be flexible in the structure that we employ—Ben Wallace is right to suggest that we invite the witnesses in a different order—and that we will proceed as quickly as possible? Dennis Canavan is right about 27 June. That was an indicative date, rather than a specific commitment. We can determine how we handle that matter nearer the time, once we know how the work is going. Allan Wilson's point about moving as quickly as possible is valid, and I would like to come back with further suggestions.

I want to pick up on a few points. First, with regard to the list of witnesses, there is a danger that we will become too bogged down in the academic side of things. The inquiry should not be just an academic exercise. Whichever committee proceeds with making recommendations on how we get best value out of European funding for people in Scotland, I would be loth for us to sit for weeks and weeks, taking evidence from only the academic side. I support the notion that COSLA be involved, and I hope that we issue requests for written evidence to a wide range of organisations and individuals.

On evidence taking, I hope that we can get some papers well in advance. Perhaps each witness who is invited to give oral evidence could be invited to submit a paper in advance, so that when we get down to questioning and engaging in discussion, we can use the time productively. That would be better than witnesses repeating information, or giving us information for the first time when we do not have an opportunity to assimilate it.

Ben Wallace said that the inquiry was a priority. If we are to take on the work, and resolve it as a priority, it will not be helpful if the inquiry kicks around for a long time without any progress being made. At the risk of making myself unpopular, I wonder whether there is scope to shorten the timetable initially to take evidence, and then to allow us some time to consider and discuss it, and produce the report? That might mean more meetings, which members might not like, but we should consider that in order to get things moving.

My first point is similar to the point that Cathy Jamieson made about the academics. I know, from Bruce Crawford's comments, that more academics may be added to list. Could we receive written information from them? Some of the academics might not be as prolific in this area as others. We might need only one paper, which would reduce the work a little.

I am concerned about which matters will be dealt with by the European Committee and which will be dealt with by the Finance Committee. While I take fully on board what you say, convener, we should keep an overview of the process. If the work becomes divided, we should ensure that we have some representation in the other committee or that we have a joint committee, so that we do not lose sight of the overall structure.

That is a valid point.

I suggest that we agree the process generally and try to get the work completed as quickly as possible, although we can come back with revisions to the remit. We can take into account Ben Wallace's suggestion about the order in which we see people and try to refocus the structure. We can consider from whom we should invite written submissions, which might help the process, and try to give ourselves sufficient time, as Cathy Jamieson suggested, at the examination stage. Then we will have the opportunity to consider the evidence properly during the deliberative stage. We can add in COSLA as well.

That covers just about everything that I was going to say. I was concerned about the number of academics on the list. At the risk of offending them, I do not know what their areas of expertise are, except that those areas will be generally European. Are they economists? Do they share the same point of view? I am concerned that we might end up having academic debates rather than getting proper information out of the exercise. I agree with Cathy Jamieson. We should ask for written evidence, rather than taking oral evidence, from the academics, particularly if they have opposing points of view.

We had attempted to include people who, from press coverage, might have slightly different perspectives, in order to have a balanced debate. Following members' comments, we will reconsider that approach and try to work out one that is more tightly focused and that takes into account the suggestions that have been made.

Before I talk about the experts, are there other general points?

It is a difficult balance to strike. I understand the points that members are raising, but while the experts—or academics—might bring a more esoteric level of debate to the table, they are also people who can be independent from the committee process. They will be able to give us their interpretation of the situation in the UK and, at sub-state level, in Scotland. From that perspective, they are important and we do not want to lose too much of their input.

I accept that we can receive some written evidence, but perhaps one or two of them should come to the committee to speak to us, so that we can get beneath what they are saying and ensure that that balance is achieved. I am quite happy for someone like John Usher to come in and for some of the others to move over. I was quite taken with Dennis Canavan's suggestion that we might be able to use one of the academics to advise us on how to progress the debate and to facilitate the discussion around the more technical issues. That might be a useful approach.

It would be difficult to agree that approach now. As Maureen Macmillan said, we are not quite sure what the experts' areas of interest are. We attempted to pull together a list of names of people who had strong views one way or the other. As far as having an expert, reporter or adviser is concerned, it might be inappropriate to bring in someone who has a particular perspective on either side. I think that we should ca cannie on that and rework what has been proposed.

I mentioned John Usher, who might be able to do that job. He was non-committal about his views. Allan Wilson can sit and smile all he likes, but John Usher was genuinely non-committal.

Call me old-fashioned.

We will call you cynical. John Usher has an open mind and Stephen Imrie can confirm that. He might be of use to the committee.

We will return to the issue of an adviser in a minute. First, we should discuss some of the broader issues of structure.

I think that we should consider the written evidence and then decide who should come to the committee. That would streamline the committee much more as a number of people could be saying the same thing. It is not a good idea for us to hear the same thing again and again.

We have to be clear about what we are looking for from an adviser. I do not know what experience the various people have. I know that Tom Kelly of the Association of Scottish Colleges is involved in the overall delivery for the further education sector. I do not think that we would be looking for someone with that kind of experience, given that we are analysing additionality. We want someone who has a great deal of research experience, knows the European system and has an understanding of the European Commission and the European Parliament. It might also be useful if they had a financial or accountancy background.

Organisations such as the European Parliament have independent research departments attached to them. Such departments have examined issues like this before and we might get assistance from them.

I apologise for missing the introduction to this item. I do not want to be involved in academic exercises. If I did, I would not be in this Parliament. We are examining a political question so we should deal with the politics of it. We should deal with the relevant politicians and civil servants before the summer recess.

An academic exercise would not be complete until next year, and there may be some who want the political exercise to take that long. However, we need to deal with the question quickly because there is a public perception that all is not right. It is important that we give ourselves time to consider the evidence. We should give ourselves that time, even if it means adjusting the final date.

Has there been any clarification from the Parliamentary Bureau as to which committee is doing what?

No. We should know later this afternoon.

There are some distinguished Scots who have retired from positions in Europe—David Miller, for example. There are others who worked in the structural administration for the European Commission. We could consider using someone like that. I cannot name many at the moment, but I am sure that there are three or four.

It would be helpful if members could suggest the names of possible advisers to Stephen Imrie. We will bring a short leet to the committee for discussion. Can we agree to endorse the suggestion to obtain an adviser?

Who will draw up the short list?

The deputy convener, the clerk and I will bring the list back to the committee.

Winnie Ewing's suggestion was a good one. David Miller used to be head of the European Parliament's research unit.

We already have a number of names. If members would like to suggest others, they should let Stephen Imrie know so that we can draw up a short list to bring back to the committee.

I do not often disagree with Tavish Scott, but I hope that we will not lose the academic side altogether. Even if most of the evidence that we receive is written and we invite only one or two people to appear before us, it could be useful.

We must still secure approval for the appointment of an adviser. If we agree that we would like to pursue that, the clerk can draw up a list.

Are there financial implications? Are advisers paid?

Yes.

Do we have to get approval from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body before we can appoint one?

Yes.

If the SPCB does not approve our incurring expenditure, there may be retired people who have worked in the European Commission—the sort of people Winnie Ewing was talking about—who would be prepared to do the work on a voluntary basis, particularly if they live in Scotland. If the worst comes to the worst and the corporate body does not approve the appointment of a paid adviser, I suggest that we suss people out to see whether they would be prepared to do the work on an unpaid or expenses-only basis.

I do not anticipate there being a problem. There is a budget for this, and we have been very sparing in our demands. We will address the problem if it arises and bear Dennis Canavan's comments in mind.

Some helpful points have been made. There is more tidying up to do, and we will revise the paper in the light of the discussion that we have had so far. We seem to be agreed on the key issues and on the fact that we want to proceed as quickly as possible. We will follow up on Irene Oldfather's point about seeking written evidence early.