Finance Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Official Report 354KB pdf

---

Committee Adviser

Item 5 is the appointment of a budget adviser. Members will have read the related paper. The committee has traditionally appointed an adviser to assist the committee in its scrutiny of the Scottish Government budget. I should perhaps start the discussion by saying that there is a question in some people’s minds about whether a single adviser, at this stage of the process, can do the job that we would be requesting of them. We should discuss what that job is. This is not part of our discussion about who would do the job; that will come at the next meeting when we look at the nominations that we have been seeking. However, the work of the committee, as we will come on to under item 6 when we discuss the work programme, is likely to be complex. For the first time, the committee will consider substantial matters of taxation; it will also carry out the usual budget scrutiny, which is a complex process.

The committee will not consider matters of the constitution at this stage because the standing orders have not yet been changed to give the committee that responsibility. That will happen only in September, if it happens.

That question will be considered by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I am expecting it to report sometime after the summer recess.

So this committee, certainly for the period into the early part of next term after the summer, will deal with finance and not the constitution. We can come back to the issue of advice on the constitution later, but this specific item is to do with the budget process. Adam, did you want to speak?

No, not yet.

Ah—you were waving your pencil, so I wondered whether you wanted to come in. It is a good thing that this is not an auction or you would have bought something.

I invite comments on the appointment of a budget adviser and any views that members have.

It might be difficult to find somebody who is an expert in both those areas and therefore it might suit us better to have two people.

If such a person existed who had all the talents that cover the responsibilities, it might be possible to have just one adviser. However, I agree that it may be necessary, given the additional powers that are coming to the Parliament, for us to look for two individuals from two separate areas of expertise.

They are two very different areas, potentially requiring people with different backgrounds and experience. It would make sense to look at two options if that was possible.

As I understand it, we would probably have to seek additional resource, but that is not impossible to do. It would be better than finding ourselves constrained in the advice that we could get, particularly in what is going to be a complex year.

I am happy with the approach that you are suggesting.

I was constitutional adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee for six years, which was an annual appointment that was then subject to reappointment. I think that the papers suggest that the proposed term in this case would be for two years. I recommend, at least in the first instance, having a one-year appointment or perhaps two one-year appointments, on the basis that the responsibilities that are coming to the committee are different from those that our sister committee had in the previous parliamentary session and we should give ourselves some wiggle room and room for manoeuvre.

That is a sound suggestion; I would tend to agree with that. Do members agree to take that approach at this stage?

Members indicated agreement.

When we come to the work programme, it will be clear that we are in a process of transition. I suspect that Adam Tomkins is right that we should not tie ourselves down too much.

Can the clerks advise whether shortening the proposed term is likely to affect the number of people interested in taking on the job?

The Scottish Parliament information centre is currently putting together a list. I could not answer that question at the moment. We already have some names on the list. We would have to speak to those people again in relation to that point. We will do that before the next meeting when we bring back the lists and we will have that information for you then.

We seem to be minded, first, to split the post into two and, secondly, to make the posts annual appointments if, as Patrick Harvie points out, that would not be a disincentive to people accepting the appointments. If it was a disincentive, we would want to reconsider that aspect. Is that where the committee is minded to go? Is that approach acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.

Can we take that forward and look at a list of suggested names for two posts at the next meeting? Perhaps we could also start the process of seeking the resource by saying that we think that it should be two posts at this stage.

Members indicated agreement.

Can I just be clear that this does not preclude us from considering the appointment of an adviser on the constitution in the future?

No, it absolutely does not.

So resources would potentially stretch to three advisers.

If we require that resource, it is right that we seek that resource. These are not items that can be skimped on. However, we will not be in a position to do that until the autumn, I suspect.

Understood.

Given that we are going to be dealing with names of appointees at the next meeting, I suggest that we take that item in private at the next meeting. I think that it is impossible to do it in any other way, frankly.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.