Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 05 Sep 2007
Meeting date: Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Official Report
117KB pdf
Budget Process 2008-09
Agenda item 3 is the budget process, on which our paper provides information. I would be grateful for members' general comments.
As members know, we discussed how the committee would consider the budget. It was agreed after some discussion that we would think about appointing an adviser. The committee can do a couple of things in preparing for the budget, and an adviser would be of some help to us. If we agree to such an appointment, we can set in progress the steps that are necessary to identify a suitable adviser.
We have an obligation to attempt to mainstream finance in all our deliberations as we hold our context-setting hearings over the next few weeks. The Finance Committee in the previous session made that recommendation to committees in its legacy paper. I was glad to see that without having read the Finance Committee's legacy paper the committee was one step ahead at the away day. I am happy to discuss with committee members the paper that is before us, and I seek your agreement to start the process of finding a budget adviser.
Today, we have to approve the specification and ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to approve our application for an adviser.
My only query is the wording in the paper. Under "Person specification" it states:
"The individual should be a recognised expert in the field of public finance".
It might be better to say that the individual should have recognised expertise and experience in the area. The stipulation of "a recognised expert" seems to be very limiting. Am I making too subtle a point? The current specification creates a daunting threshold for anyone who is considering applying. They may think, "Am I a recognised expert in public finance? Could I possibly apply for the job?" If the specification states that someone needs to have "recognised expertise", plenty of people who are experts in, for example, education but who also have expertise in public finance could apply.
Likewise, under "Conditions of Appointment", rather than state,
"As an expert in the field",
we could state, "as someone with expertise." It is a small point, but the change is intended to attract applicants rather than put them off.
It will no doubt be a challenge for us to find somebody, because there is a small pool and several other subject committees will also be looking for advisers.
A standard spec has been used. I appreciate your suggestion and see no difficulty in altering it. The challenge for the committee is to find the right adviser—someone who has the necessary skills in public finance but who understands the education system and local government, since most of the money that is spent on education is spent through local authorities. In saying that, we also need someone who understands culture, social work, lifelong learning and higher and further education. The role will be a toughie for whoever we appoint.
My experience of the budget process is that most members have an idea about what they want to ask and what subject area they are interested in. We want to know how much money is being spent and how that compares to previous years, but when we get to the budget process it becomes really formal owing to all the technical finance stuff that goes with it, which is why we need an adviser. However, we can do some preparatory work in advance of the budget as part of our work programme. We can establish the Executive's commitment to reducing class sizes and how much it is planning to spend, because the departments will be bidding for what they want to spend, even though the figure will not be nailed down until the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. It is important that when we come to the budget we have a rough idea of what the Executive plans to spend its money on and identify its priorities. We can then follow the process in November.
Your point is correct. That is one of the reasons why the Finance Committee wanted all subject committees to be aware of the budget process and to mainstream it into their deliberations and considerations throughout the year, rather than only prior to the process itself. I hope that we will do that on the committee over the next few weeks and continue to do it after the budget process in November and in all our future evidence-taking sessions.
We have agreed that we will start the process of seeking a budget adviser for the committee.
I remind members that there will be no committee meeting next week, but there will be one on 19 September.
Meeting closed at 10:35.