Last week we discussed European Union funding arrangements but, as members may know, the European Committee did not consider whether there should be an inquiry, although it took evidence from the Commission. After that, I had a meeting with Hugh Henry, the convener of the European Committee, Bruce Crawford from the European Committee and Andrew Wilson from this committee. Sarah Davidson and Stephen Imrie, the respective clerks, were also present. We considered a number of issues relating to European funding, and following the meeting the two clerks produced a paper outlining some of the issues and options.
With the greatest respect, Mr Meadows did not say what you have just reported. He was entirely unclear on Scotland's position and said that the Commission was happy with arrangements because it was concerned with state and project levels. He said that the question of whether the Scottish budget gains or loses was a matter for the internal workings of the Treasury and that we would never find the answer to it. That is for us to determine in the inquiry.
A number of issues have been identified that seem to fall more into the financial framework than the European one. My view was that if the two committees were to do something jointly—not necessarily a single inquiry—we should be the lead committee. I repeat, however, that that would not necessarily be our decision. The emphasis on the issues means that that would be the logical conclusion, although I am not sure that Hugh Henry would agree.
I agree that this is a financial issue rather than anything else. I am never quite sure what the European Committee wants to do with it. I can understand its role in screening and examining documentation, but I feel that the matter belongs with this committee, if only to lay ghosts—I am not taking sides.
The difficulty is that we will meet again before the European Committee meets, as it meets in the afternoon.
I agree with David Davidson that a paper would be helpful. There is a problem with a joint committee inquiry. I can see why different committees might be involved in taking evidence at stage 1 of the legislative process, with one committee as lead committee, but straightforward inquiries should be done by one committee.
Last week, we talked about the possibility of including European funding arrangements in our report on the Barnett formula. What is our thinking on that? It is a question of timing and when we get round to doing either or both of those reports. European funding is intrinsic to the Barnett formula, so it should perhaps be part of that report, but I do not want to delay the inquiry unnecessarily, as we have not yet agreed what we will do about Barnett.
We had a brief discussion on that point. The issue is seen as being distinct and discrete, although—you are correct—one report would inform the other. There is a desire for an inquiry on European funding, even though, much to my dismay, we do not yet have agreement on a formal inquiry into the Barnett question. My suggestion is that we push ahead on the European front and allow ourselves to be informed by that as to how we should examine further the Barnett question.
We are committed until the Easter break due to our present inquiry. The plan was to move into briefings on Barnett after that, but if we want to institute an inquiry into European funding, that would take precedence. David Davidson suggested that the clerks could give us a report next week, which would include timings. If the clerks are happy to do that, we would welcome such a report.
The two issues—European funding and the Barnett formula—are closely linked. Will we get a clear understanding of the issues if we consider them separately? The clerks should consider in the paper that they produce which inquiry would come first or whether they could be done together.
One of the suggestions is that we have a briefing on Barnett as part of an inquiry into European funding arrangements.
I would like to go back to what you and Kenneth Macintosh said, convener—that time will become a major problem. We are going into the full budgeting process after Easter for the first time. We have not been through that process before, so we do not know how long stage 1 will take. We will send out a questionnaire to the Parliament's committees and await responses and we must process all that data by the end of June. We need to know how much time will be available for an inquiry and we need to know what our priorities will be.
I am keen to maximise impact, but the newspapers have reported that the Local Government Committee will initiate an inquiry into local government finance.
I support what Rhoda Grant said. The Barnett formula and European funding are closely linked. If we were to examine European funding, it would be useful to have one or two joint briefing sessions so that we understand the subject.
That would be part of the inquiry. I hope that will we have a clear idea of how the European Committee is likely to approach the issue, but I think that the preference is that this committee should undertake the inquiry.
We should communicate with that committee to ensure that we relate what we do to it. This is a first for that committee as well and we want to make a good diplomatic move. I suggested a joint inquiry, but I am persuaded by some of the other arguments—especially those relating to logistics and having a committee of more than 20 people—that we should not. However, we must maintain a relationship with colleagues in the European Committee who understand European structural funding.
The matter is on the European Committee's agenda for next week. The clerks, the convener of that committee and I will liaise.
Meeting closed at 12:21.
Previous
Executive Finance Functions