Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice 1 Committee, 04 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004


Contents


Budget Process 2005-06

The Convener (Pauline McNeill):

Good morning everyone, and welcome to the 5th meeting in 2004 of the Justice 1 Committee. I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones. We have to switch them off completely, rather than just put them on silent mode, as they interfere with the sound system. We have received apologies from Stewart Maxwell, who will not be with us this morning. I think that he might be promoting his member's bill somewhere.

Item 1 is on the budget process for 2005-06—it is that time of year again. Members can probably hardly believe it, as it feels like we have only just completed the previous budget process. I need to invite the committee to seek approval from the Parliamentary Bureau if we wish to meet jointly with the Justice 2 Committee to consider the Executive's budget proposals. We also need to decide whether to appoint an adviser.

On the first question, is the committee content to continue the practice of meeting jointly with the Justice 2 Committee to consider the budget process?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

The second question is whether we appoint an adviser to assist us in our scrutiny of the Executive's budget proposals. Members might wish to consider appointing a standing adviser, who would be available for the duration of the parliamentary session.

Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):

Would a standing adviser be able to advise us on various financial matters in the course of the year, such as items in the justice budget that were brought to our attention or announcements that were made? Could such an adviser provide advice for us on the financial aspects of an inquiry?

The Convener:

If we appointed a standing adviser, it would be for the duration of the budget process. The start and finish times of the appointment would therefore stretch over a few months. There is nothing to prevent a committee from appointing a standing adviser on any matter. We might, in future, wish to consider having an adviser on justice issues in general. In this instance, we are seeking to establish some continuity around the budget process. We have had that in the past, with Brian Main as our adviser this year and the previous year. Having been involved in both those budget processes, I can see the advantage of having such continuity. However, we would not be able to get the advice of that person for general financial matters that lie outside the budget process.

I would be supportive of having a standing adviser for the purposes of continuity. I have found that helpful over the past couple of years.

Does anyone dissent from that view?

Members indicated disagreement.

In that case, we will return to the matter in the usual way with some suggestions for whom to appoint, on which the committee can make its decision.