Official Report 216KB pdf
Item 3 is a brief discussion on the appointment of an adviser for our budget scrutiny for 2009-10. It seems as if we have only just finished a period of budget scrutiny and yet we are planning for the next one. Some of the issues that have been raised during our rural housing inquiry are relevant to this, which is why we have put the item on the agenda as early as we have done.
The only point that I would make is a procedural point. There is advantage in having continuity in the budget advice that we receive. We will be asking someone to cover all the different elements of the rural affairs and environment portfolio, and the lead-in time to learn about the budget procedures will be considerable. I accept that parliamentary procedures mean that we have to make a new appointment each year, but in order to have a degree of continuity there is an argument for having an adviser for two or three years at a stretch.
That depends entirely on whether people are prepared to apply.
I think that the procedures are right, because the person who was the budget adviser can apply again.
Yes, and we can make a decision at that point.
Of course.
Are members happy with the adviser specification?
And are members happy to discuss the short leet in private when it comes on to the agenda at a future meeting?
Meeting continued in private until 12:08.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation