Finance Committee, 21 Apr 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Official Report 271KB pdf

---

Budget Adviser

Item 3 is consideration of whether the committee wants to appoint a budget adviser for the second half of the parliamentary session. The current contract expires in the summer. Members have a note from the clerk, which outlines the process. Do members agree in principle to seek approval for the appointment of an adviser?

Members indicated agreement.

We will seek the Parliamentary Bureau's approval, and the Scottish Parliament information centre will prepare a shortlist of candidates for the post, for discussion at a future meeting. Do members want to comment on the draft specification for the post, which is included in our papers?

I have three minor points. First, paragraph 1.2 reads almost as though the screening of candidates has taken place—that might just be my reading of the paragraph. The screening has not happened, so the paragraph could be made clearer.

My other points are about the detail of the specification. Under the final bullet point under the heading, "Arrangements for each year's budget process", on page 4, it is proposed that the adviser should

"assist in the recommendation, where appropriate, of alternative spending priorities."

The word "recommendation" is a bit strong; we are talking about advice and not recommendations.

Do you have an alternative formulation? Should we replace "recommendation" with "analysis"?

Yes. My final point is also rather picky. Paragraph 5.2 proposes that

"Experience with working with politicians and committees would be a distinct advantage."

I agree, but keeping that sentence in the specification might preclude people who are not already in the system. It implies that someone who is in the system will have a better chance of being appointed. We should encourage as wide a range of people as possible to come forward.

Perhaps we could take out the word "politicians" and just ask for experience of working with committees.

I would be inclined to take out the whole sentence.

I hesitate to say this, but we are strange creatures.

Committees, or politicians?

I take the point that saying that experience with politicians would be "a distinct advantage" gives the issue more profile than it needs. However, such experience would be preferable.

We could say that such experience "may be advantageous".

There is a point about having someone who knows how to work with disparate politicians.

That is a fair point.

Can anyone suggest a form of words that would address the issue?

"May be an advantage."

That would deal with the issue. I told you that it was a picky point.

No, it is important. I am not as picky as Derek Brownlee, but I want to ask whether the specification that we are considering is standard. Do specifications vary hugely?

The standard contractual material is provided by the Parliament's procurement department. The material that is specific to the Finance Committee is based on the current contract with Professor Bell but has been updated slightly to take account of developments during the past couple of years. The committee is welcome to amend that material in any way.

That is fine.

Our discussions on the review of the budget process and support for budget scrutiny might lead to recommendations on the role of budget advisers, but we will deal with such matters in due course.

If members are happy with the specification, we will move into private session, as we agreed at a previous meeting, to consider the evidence that we heard on public sector pay.

Meeting continued in private until 16:45.