Official Report 85KB pdf
For item 2, members have in front of them a paper—which they have had time to read—on budget scrutiny and the appointment of an adviser. I invite members' comments, which could lead to our making a formal decision this morning.
I would like a couple of points to be clarified. I am happy with the layout of the paper and with the suggested remit and person specification of the adviser, but is the post likely to attract a number of applications, and will there therefore be an interview process, or will the appointment be made on a more informal basis?
If we agree to appoint an adviser, my experience from other committees is that we will probably have a list of suitable people. We will then discuss those people, draw up a short leet, and decide whether it is necessary to proceed to an interview.
Thank you. I also want to ask about the work of the adviser, which the paper says
I understand that we would have to make another application to seek approval to extend the timescale.
Thank you.
The local government finance settlement for next year, and the likely scenario for ensuing years in light of the spending review, will be a big part of our job. How will the level of scrutiny that we are required to undertake—or are expected to undertake, or should undertake—compare with the level of scrutiny that the Finance Committee will undertake? Is there an overlap, or is there a discrete area that we will consider, such as the broad figure of the local government settlement and then, below that, the different levels of the budget? Where is the crossover with the Finance Committee, or is there no crossover?
I have no experience with this committee, but in the Health Committee in the previous session of Parliament we took a broad look initially. However, we will be able to focus on particular areas and do more detailed work in order to achieve greater scrutiny or a change in practice. Is that correct, Martin?
That is correct, convener. The committee can consider issues across the whole of its remit or it can focus on a particular issue. The Finance Committee will, of course, take the co-ordinating and lead role in scrutinising the budget. The Finance Committee is likely to consider local government in particular, but that will not prevent this committee from considering the local government part or any other part of its remit.
It would obviously be sensible to speak to the convener of the Finance Committee and to our adviser before deciding whether we want to focus on certain areas. The convener of the Finance Committee has suggested informally that more considered work should take place with the advisers of all the committees. Ideas are being developed that we may hear about in the coming weeks.
Thank you.
Do members have any further questions? Last cut? If there are no further questions, do members agree that we should formally proceed to appoint an adviser?
Thank you.
Meeting continued in private until 10:21.