Official Report 119KB pdf
Item 3 on the agenda is the budget process. Papers have been submitted and the clerk has prepared a note that explains where we are at. The basic agreement that I seek from the committee is that, first of all, Parliamentary Bureau permission should be sought to meet jointly with the Justice 1 Committee because that is our customary way of dealing with the budget proposals, and that in addition to scrutiny of the draft budget for 2006-07, selected parts of the efficient government technical notes should be scrutinised and reported on—as members will gather, this is all extremely technical. I would also like the committee to agree that we should meet jointly in private with the Justice 1 Committee to receive a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre on the budget proposals and also to consider possible witnesses for our consideration of stage 2 of the budget process.
The other element on which I need a decision from the committee is the question of an adviser. Traditionally, an adviser has been appointed to assist both committees on what we all know is a complex and technical process. Given that we are talking about an interim stage—and we do not have a lot of time to look at this, as members know from the draft programme—it seems to me that there is no need to appoint an adviser because the extent of what we will be looking at is fairly restricted. Do members agree not to appoint an adviser?
That is probably the practical solution because we do not have much time. However, I regret that that is the case. The clerk points out in the note that we received that the Finance Committee suggested that we take a particular view and look at the elements of the efficiency report that fall within our remit. Given that that is slightly different to what we have done in previous years, it would have been helpful to have some professional advice during the process. However, I accept that we do not really have time to appoint an adviser. Perhaps we need to bring such proposals to the committee earlier in future so that we can think about them rather than being rushed into taking a decision at the last minute.
I have some sympathy with that view. At the same time, however, we shall have a SPICe briefing, which will be helpful.
I share Stewart Maxwell's view. I submitted to the clerks earlier my preference that we have an adviser. Given the Finance Committee's work on scrutinising the efficient government review, there might be scope for us to borrow the expertise in the field of that committee's standing adviser. Perhaps he could even give us a background paper on the work done by the Finance Committee, in addition to the SPICe briefing. That could be a compromise. It would make sure that we are being consistent with the work of the Finance Committee and it would be helpful to that committee.
That is a helpful suggestion that it might make a lot of sense to do follow. I note the general concerns expressed by Stewart Maxwell and Jeremy Purvis and I sympathise with them. We are to some extent victims of the system. However, I understand that the adviser to the Finance Committee, Arthur Midwinter, will be available to guide us if there are areas in which we think that his views would be welcome.
Previous
Petition