Finance Committee, 12 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002

Official Report 131KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2002-03

Agenda item 4 deals with the options paper for meeting outwith Edinburgh. I will hand over to David McGill to take the committee through the options with which he has come up.

The options are all set out in the paper. At our previous meeting, we had some initial discussions about the possibility of holding a meeting in the Aberdeen area to coincide with the meeting of the Parliament in Aberdeen.

We have been asked to ensure that the committee does not meet in Aberdeen itself. I understand that there will be a number of events surrounding the meeting of the Parliament in Aberdeen and we have been asked not to use up resources in the city. To that end, we have considered areas outwith the city.

Stonehaven and Montrose were mentioned at the previous meeting. We have included Peterhead as another option, although I understand that Peterhead does not have a rail link, which might cause access problems for committee members.

At this stage, we need to agree the date and location of the committee meeting. The clerks will then work up a detailed programme and come back to the committee with the format for the meeting and possibilities for witnesses at the morning session.

Are there any local views?

I proposed Stonehaven because it is an easy dropping-off point for those coming to Aberdeen by rail. Stonehaven would be suitable if we want the minister to attend and people to come from a fair distance or from the south side of Aberdeen. I know that facilities are reasonable in Stonehaven, from where it is an onward journey to Aberdeen.

It would be nice to go to Peterhead. There is a feeling in that area that the Executive and the Parliament are not paying enough attention to the difficulties in the community. Many people in Peterhead are interested in the financial sector, although, logistically, a meeting there would add a further two-hour journey from Aberdeen. That might not suit the minister and it is important that the minister is available for the meeting.

The people or sectors from which we are seeking local information and evidence would not find it difficult to reach Stonehaven, particularly with the good road and rail links. Meeting in Montrose could be more difficult, as not all trains stop there. Obviously, no trains stop in Peterhead, but they all stop at Stonehaven.

The decision is between Stonehaven and Montrose. It would be wonderful to go to Peterhead, but that is logistically more difficult. However, that did not prevent us from going to Kirkcudbright. Not a lot of trains stop in Kirkcudbright. I imagine that the same people would wish to give evidence whether we met in Peterhead or in Stonehaven. My recollection—I am sure that others will correct me if I am wrong—is that the Finance Committee has met in Aberdeen in the past.

The committee met in the city.

I imagine that the committee heard evidence from Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. Regardless of whether we go to Stonehaven or Peterhead, I presume that we will approach Aberdeenshire Council.

The advantage of meeting in Montrose is that that would allow us to talk to Angus Council and perhaps to people from Tayside. I do not know whether the Finance Committee has done that already. I agree with David Davidson, but I think that meeting in Montrose might offer a fresher perspective, as it would allow us to invite people who have not previously appeared before the Finance Committee.

I take the point about Peterhead. On this occasion, given that the Parliament is already involved in a big logistical move to Aberdeen, the extra hassle of going to Peterhead would be a problem.

I do not think that there is a huge amount to choose from between Montrose and Stonehaven. Montrose is close to the northern border of Angus and if we met there we could attract people from Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council. I suppose that this is a trivial point, but the train station in Stonehaven is not exactly well placed for most of the facilities in Stonehaven.

There are taxis.

Yes, but I was trying to save the Parliament's money.

Are there any other views?

Does the meeting have to be on 27 May? Would it be reasonable to take all day on 28 May, which is a committee day?

That day is not a committee day; it is a chamber day.

No committees are meeting that week, except on the Monday or Friday.

I have no preference. Montrose and Stonehaven are quite nice towns in their own way. Wherever we go, we can certainly invite a neighbouring council as well as the local council. I do not think that that is an issue.

We seem to be at an interesting place on the indifference curve. We are not sure whether there is a strong reason for going to one place rather than the other. We have agreed that the committee should meet outwith Edinburgh and there are convenience and timing aspects to going that weekend. As I remember, our original preference was to go to Orkney, which we have been told is not possible logistically.

We could progress arrangements for the meeting and find out whether Stonehaven or Montrose emerges as the more suitable in terms of accommodation and availability of witnesses.

I am happy to go along with that. No one has put in a strong bid for one or the other place.

Let me do so, then. I opt for Stonehaven, because the Parliament is going to Grampian. I suspect that at some point the Parliament will go to Tayside in one form or another. There are logistical difficulties with Montrose and it is as hard to get to the town hall from the station there as it is in Stonehaven. I have local knowledge of that. I bid for going to Aberdeenshire, because that would at least allow us to include people from the Buchan area in the north.

I think that you are pushing it. We are going to Grampian—we are meeting in Aberdeen. For the very reasons that you have given, it might be more equitable to go to Montrose. My view is that we should leave it to the clerks to find the best arrangements and then go with that.

I am not sure that the day needs to be quite as extended as the options paper suggests or as was the case when the committee went to Kirkcudbright. I was not part of the visit to Kirkcudbright, but I believe that it was a long day. Given whom we have to see and the logistics, we might get by with a meeting of less than six hours.

I hate to argue with the convener, but, on the two occasions when we have had full-day meetings, we have needed six hours to allow local organisations a reasonable amount of time in which to give evidence.

I do not think that we could have cut down the time when we were in Kirkcudbright.

Can we leave it to the clerks to make suitable arrangements, taking into account transport and other issues?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings the public part of the meeting to a close. As agreed, the meeting will now go into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 12:54.