We now move on to item 2 on the agenda. Before the meeting, members were given a copy of a letter written to me by Andrew Wilson and Bruce Crawford. This morning, I also received a letter from Keith Raffan, asking me to put the item on the agenda. That is why we are discussing the subject.
Given the debates of the past fortnight—of which members will be well aware—and the requests from Keith Raffan, David Davidson's colleagues, and the three smaller parties, there seems to be consensus on the need for an inquiry. We requested a joint meeting because the Finance Committee has a specific focus on the financial aspects and the European Committee has a close handle on structural funding and allocation issues—it has already spent some time considering the matter. The subject usefully dovetails with the interests of both committees.
I thought it would be useful to hold an inquiry, although I take a different tack from Andrew in that I do not think that we have to do it jointly with the European Committee. In my letter, I suggest that we co-ordinate with the European Committee because the remit overlaps and we do not want to offend another committee. However, it is clear that the specific areas that I outlined—additionality rules and matched funding—fall within the remit of the Finance Committee, rather than within that of the European Committee. It is perfectly legitimate for us to examine the matter.
That is fair. We can draw too close a parallel with Wales—there is no parallel with objective 1 and objective 2 funding there. The difference has been highlighted during the past two or three weeks.
I have some sympathy with Keith Raffan's view. The two committees should be involved, but their involvement should be different. We need to satisfy ourselves that the European context in the block grant is being thoroughly explored. That could be part of a projected look at the Barnett set-up, quite apart from our examination of the general use of finance. The European Committee comes at the issue from a slightly different angle. Its view—which you have heard from its convener—concerns the connections with Europe. We are considering how resourcing is applied in Scotland, how we access it, and whether it is distributed correctly. That is the remit of this committee. We do not need a joint inquiry. We should run separate inquiries, but have constant contact with the other committee.
That point makes an important distinction.
If the European Committee is carrying out an inquiry at the moment, would it not be wise for us to wait until it has reported before we begin our own inquiry? We are taking informal briefings on the Barnett formula. We may want to take some informal briefings on this issue as well while we are at it, as the two are closely related. After the European Committee has reported, and depending on its findings, we can decide how to proceed with our own inquiry. We do not want to duplicate the work of the European Committee.
I understand that the European Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry. I have a copy of the agenda for today's meeting. It is headed:
Committee resources are quite tight. We must be careful not to duplicate the work of another committee. It would be useful for us to allow the European Committee to complete its inquiry and await the outcome. Two weeks ago, we agreed to proceed with briefings on the Barnett formula as a priority issue. David Davidson's suggestion was helpful: within those briefings we can perhaps consider some of the European issues.
Yes, there is a fairly obvious connection with the Barnett formula.
The European Committee is addressing an entirely separate issue—the management of the funding programmes. The words are the same, but the content is quite different. We will have a meeting with the convener of the European Committee on Wednesday morning. As that committee is likely to have a similar discussion this afternoon, and as this is a finance issue rather than a European one, should we not take soundings from the European Committee on its views and return from the meeting with coherent suggestions? We cannot decide on a course of action in isolation, given the fact that the letter has been sent to the European Committee as well.
That is a sensible suggestion. We need not make a decision today on what work the committees should undertake jointly.
Perhaps a suggestion could be made at the meeting on Wednesday that could be taken back to both committees next Tuesday.
It is important that we co-ordinate. Additionality rules and matched funding are, as David Davidson said, separate issues in our remit. I want this committee to focus on those issues.
I was not suggesting that the European Committee's inquiry is the same as ours.
I never said that you were, convener, but that is what one or two other committee members are suggesting. These are major issues. We cannot keep putting off discussion of them or adjoining them to briefings on other issues. Sooner or later, we must tackle them. We are undertaking a specific inquiry at the moment, and there is the question of time, but I am happy with Andrew's proposal that you co-ordinate with the European Committee. That is important for our good relations with that committee.
Is anyone not of the view that that is how we should proceed? The European Committee meets today and there will be discussions with the convener of that committee tomorrow. Should we await the outcome of both those meetings and return to this matter next week?
Thank you for your attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:36.
Previous
Finance Inquiry