Item 5 is on the appointment of a budget adviser. We have before us a brief report on the role that the budget adviser had in sessions 2 and 3. Do members have any comments about whether we should have an adviser? My view is that we should appoint an independent budget adviser and that the clerks should be asked to bring forward names for next week’s meeting, so that we can discuss the shortlist then.
I certainly agree with that.
That certainly makes sense. I was surprised to see that the report did not mention cost. How does that work?
If you look at the back of the paper, you will see that there is a pro forma way in which advisers are costed. There is a set of rates. I am not convinced that it is necessary to put all the pounds, shillings and pence in the report.
There is a set rate for advisers. In some cases, the adviser might get slightly more than that, but that would be negotiated with procurement.
Right. Does that come out of the committee’s budget, or just a general budget?
It comes out of the committee office’s budget.
Which is a general budget for all committees.
Yes.
Okay.
Having a budget adviser is expected. In my view, it is value for money. The budget adviser has the respect of everyone on the committee and is a genuinely independent individual. Sometimes they will give advice that some of us, or all of us, do not necessarily want to hear, but it is important that we get that advice.
I am more than happy to get advice and I am happy with the principle of having an adviser. I was just surprised that a decision was being made in the Finance Committee when the paper before us made no mention of finance.
I think that that is because the practice of committees appointing advisers has been followed over many years and there is a kind of pro forma for it. I understand what John Mason is saying, given that he is a new member. There are things that Alex Johnstone and I almost take for granted, because they represent what the normal practice has been for many years.
I have been involved at times in setting and reviewing the fixed rate that has been paid to advisers. I am aware that additional resource can be made available if necessary. In general terms the Parliament has tried to cap and control the cost, but of course there is always pressure at certain times for the total cost to be elevated. A system is in place to ensure that the cost is controlled.
This might be a matter to discuss at our next meeting, but will there be a minimum and a maximum time for which we will have an adviser?
It is normally about four days a month. If we need the adviser for longer than that, I am sure that that can be negotiated. The advisers are highly professional people. The issue of cost is important, but as the old expression goes, you get what you pay for and we have to ensure that we get the person who is most suitable to advise the committee.
Where do you draw the names from for the shortlist of suitable individuals?
It is quite a specialised group.
The list of candidates will be drawn up by the financial scrutiny unit, which is located in SPICe.
There is only a small coterie of people who would wish to be an adviser, who are available and who have the necessary expertise. That is the pool from which we will choose an individual.
Previous
Work Programme