European and External Relations Committee, 23 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Official Report 278KB pdf

---

Regional Development Funding Inquiry

The next item on the agenda is a brief discussion on our regional development funding inquiry. We have finished taking evidence for the inquiry and briefing paper EU/S2/04/7/3 outlines some of the themes. At a previous meeting, we discussed taking a few minutes to go over the themes before the first draft of our report—Keith Raffan was keen for us to do that. I hope that we will discuss the first draft at our next meeting but, in the meantime, we must give the clerks some guidance on the issues that we want the report to cover.

The briefing paper lists 11 headings that cover areas that we might want to include in the report. I am relaxed about most of it, but I am sure that members would like to make comments to give the clerks some guidance for the first draft.

Quite a lot of information has come before us, and I want to reflect on the Official Report of our meetings before I make substantive comments on what is a crucial piece of work. To be honest, I do not think that I want to take a position on the issues in the space of five minutes without reflecting on the evidence, particularly the evidence that we took today from the European Commission. It would be appropriate for us to take time to look over what Mr Meadows said and to reflect before we cover these key areas.

I thought that the intention today was not to go into detail but to consider the headings that cover the areas of interest. On that basis, the only thing that I would like to see some comment on in the report is the fact that all the changes go back to the aims and objectives of the Lisbon agreement. I would like a section in the report to refer to that. Given what the witnesses from the directorate-general for regional policy said to us today, some comments on competitiveness would also be helpful.

I reiterate that at some stage we will have a first draft of the report, which will form the basis of the direction that the committee wants the report to take. To help the clerks to put that report together, we will need some broad headings. Although today's evidence brought up various aspects, I do not think that it will lead to any new headings.

Perhaps not new headings, but there was a difference in emphasis. Today's evidence was important, particularly on issues such as absorption capacity, on which Mr Meadows gave a detailed answer. The paper lays out the core issues and questions. We will have to answer those questions and come down on one side or the other, sooner rather than later. We cannot delay indefinitely. Very important issues are clearly laid out and we have to make choices. For example, are we in favour of setting the budget at 1 per cent of EU 25 gross national income or 1.24 per cent, or somewhere in between? Do we accept today's evidence from Manfred Beschel that the new regional policy will in fact help us and be better than before?

I do not want to go into a lot of detail; the headings in the paper seem fine and I agree with Keith that we will have to take decisions at various points. However, the repatriation framework is important. The evidence from the European Commission indicated that the Scottish Executive had taken a different line from that taken by the UK Government, but we have been told in Parliament that, on the whole, the Executive seems to be going along with the UK line. That detail needs to be clarified for us, because we operate as a Scottish Parliament committee.

We still lack some evidence. We will have to read over what Mr Meadows said today, and I presume that we are also waiting for an opportunity to raise some issues with the DTI. I do not see any problem with having general headings but an awful lot of questions arise from the paper. It will be the answers that are important.

We may have to add to the paper. For example, one of the headings is "Reform of State Aids" and quite complex information arises through consideration of flexibility in state aids. The DTI evidence mentions the principles of decentralisation and devolution and I would like that to be discussed and questioned, and included in the paper.

The committee is perfectly at liberty to invite more witnesses to give evidence any time we choose. However, we would have to take such a decision soon. We have now had our last oral evidence session. At some point, we will have to give the clerks some guidance so that they can begin to draft a first report. When we receive that first report, we can demolish it, turn it upside down, agree to it, or whatever, and then receive a further draft.

We still have more to do, such as the visit to London, and more will be added to the report in due course. However, we must make a start. Otherwise it will be several weeks before we even have a first draft to discuss.

Margaret Ewing has raised an important point. We will have to clarify that point, probably by writing to the First Minister. What happened at the meeting in Rome when the First Minister distinguished Scotland's position from the UK's position, with a UK minister next to him, is important. We need to know exactly what he said. Because of what the European Commission witness said today, we need urgent clarification.

What you have done, convener, in presenting us with this briefing paper should become our practice in future for other reports. The paper has fixed in my mind some of the questions that I have to ask myself and some of the aspects that I have to consider from previous reports. The paper is very useful and I would not like the clerks to be dissuaded from producing similar papers in future.

We have two issues to discuss. The immediate question is whether, in light of the director general's comments, we should pursue further evidence from the Scottish Executive on its view of the UK's repatriation proposal. That could be written rather than oral evidence. Keith Raffan has suggested that we write to the Executive to seek clarification.

We should write to the First Minister.

We took evidence from the Executive last week, when we heard from Jim Wallace, whose evidence is on record. We simply need clarification on this point.

We may seek clarification, but we need not do so. Our report could simply reflect the fact that the Executive's position was not clarified, so there are various options. Is the committee minded to write to the First Minister for clarification?

Members indicated agreement.

Secondly, we must decide whether we want the clerks to produce an expanded version of the paper that is before us that takes on board the comments that we have just heard, or whether we want to allow them to begin producing a first draft. The draft report would not contain agreed recommendations or conclusions but would form the basis of a proper discussion.

In preparing previous reports, the clerks have taken due cognisance of the evidence that the committee received and have had the time to go through the evidence in detail. The paper before us provides a framework, so I would have no problem with the clerks preparing a first draft as a private paper that committee members could then reflect on. That should be the next step.

The report could be kept very sketchy at this stage.

In the first instance, I suggest that we have a draft report for general discussion that does not have any agreed recommendations and conclusions. If the clerks produce a really good draft, we can then start taking decisions. That might be a good way forward that would avoid wasting too many meetings discussing a draft report.

I do not want to waste the clerks' time by requiring them to write "on the one hand" and "on the other". If the draft report has no conclusions, the final report might look very different. Members are capable of seeing both sides of the arguments, so I do not want to require the clerks to produce a draft that must then be rewritten. I know from experience how difficult it can be to start off with a draft with no conclusions and then rewrite it so that it has conclusions. It can mean starting the whole thing again.

Do you think that we need the conclusions first?

We have to argue and decide on the basis of the evidence, which is already available in the documents that have been provided for us. We have to do the work.

Regardless of whether we have a mini-draft, a first draft or a preliminary draft, can we try not to cram it in at the end of a long meeting? We need time to give the clerks whatever guidance we feel may be required for the excellent work that they do.

I agree.

Are we agreed that the clerks should prepare a private paper for the committee to discuss in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We probably could not consider such a paper at our next meeting, as we will take evidence on that day. Margaret Ewing is quite right that we should come to it fresh.

Proper time will be put aside for the discussion.

Will the draft report contain conclusions?

I was about to ask that. We have decided that we want a private paper. Should the paper include options for recommendations and conclusions?

Members indicated agreement.

On that basis, we will take on board the comments that have been made and set aside a decent time at a future meeting to discuss the paper that the clerks produce.