Finance Committee, 09 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Official Report 197KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2004-05

Item 3 is consideration of options for meeting outwith Edinburgh during our consideration of the draft budget. Members will note from the paper that has been provided that meetings outwith Edinburgh were held by our predecessor committee and proved to be very successful. The paper seeks our agreement to a date and format for the meeting, as well as suggestions as to preferred locations. The clerks have identified the most convenient date, having regard to the pattern of work involved in responding to the draft budget. I suggest that we agree the date that is suggested in the paper—namely, Monday 10 November.

I am sorry, but I want to make an observation on the evidence that we have taken. The Executive will give evidence next week and I am keen that we should have a moment—perhaps next week—to feed back to the clerks what we think the terms of our financial memoranda should be. The committee faces issues of judgment. SLAB presented a case that gets to the heart of our role. As well as ensuring that there is accuracy in costings, there must be due recognition of efficiency considerations.

John Swinburne suggested that we should be careful not simply to respond to all the restrictive practices of the day. The evidence that we have just heard led me to think about the situation in other professions, such as surgery. When a surgeon changes their technique from traditional open surgery to microsurgery, the same amount of time is involved but the tools of the trade change. Surgeons do not expect a significantly large payment for keeping up to date. Similar issues arise in the context of the bill and, although I am happy not to pursue them now, I think it would be an error if we were to say to the clerks, "Please sum up the evidence that we have heard", and to reach a judgment on that basis. It might be appropriate to discuss that next week. I register my view that it would be helpful to have a five or 10-minute discussion without witnesses about how we want to approach the trade-off between accuracy of costings and securing efficiency for the public purse in the handling of the bill. I am happy to leave the issue on the table until next week.

It would be most appropriate to deal with that in a structured discussion, which we could incorporate in next week's agenda.

Can we agree to meet outwith Edinburgh on 10 November, which seems to fit in with the arrangements?

I want to clarify something. Wendy Alexander was right to go back to the previous item on the agenda. Will we hold the proposed discussion in public?

Yes—I do not see why not.

Very good.

Is 10 November agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The format that has been used at previous meetings is set out in paragraph 7 of the paper on the budget process. I add for the information of new members of the committee that the afternoon session usually gives us the opportunity to quiz the minister directly. As well as matters that arise from the draft budget, we can raise issues that have been raised with us in the morning sessions, which tend to be workshop sessions. In the past, a successful feature of such meetings has been the ability of organisations that have made points to us in the mornings to watch the committee try to carry through some of those issues into the discussions with ministers in the afternoon session. Does the committee agree to adopt the format that the paper suggests?

I support the broad thrust of the paper, but in relation to choice of location, paragraph 10 says:

"The Committee met latterly in remote areas and it may be that this Committee would prefer to meet in an urban area on this occasion."

Paragraph 6 states that the previous committee met in Orkney, Skye, Kirkcudbright and Perth. We are all in favour of the Parliament's committees going around Scotland, provided that there is a reason for them to do so and that the financial basis for such visits is prudent. My view is that we should seek to visit places that have not received a visit before; consideration of whether they are rural or urban would seem to be secondary. Some of the best-attended meetings that I have been to as a member of other committees were in very rural locations, where a visit of a parliamentary committee is perhaps more of an occasion. It was certainly my impression that visits to such places enhanced the Parliament's reputation. Is it necessary to exclude rural or remote areas? Can we consider places that have not been visited before and exclude, or not tend towards, places that have been visited before?

Before we get on to the location, perhaps we can deal with the format of the meeting. Are members content with the format of morning workshops followed by a ministerial session?

I am happy to delegate the format and location of the meeting to you and the deputy convener. It is possible to spend a lot of time in unnecessary discussion of such issues during committee meetings. It might be better for one or two members to decide on such matters, if others are happy with that.

Wendy, did you have a suggestion?

I am happy to give way in favour of Kate Maclean's suggestion.

Are we agreed that Fergus Ewing and I be delegated to consider a location?

We can moan if we do not like it.

Yes, you can. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am not in favour of moaning, as you know.

We will report back to the committee next week with our suggested location.