Item 5 concerns the appointment of a budget adviser. Again, we have a paper from the clerk. As members will see, the previous committee appointed a standing adviser. The arrangement was extremely beneficial to the committee and the Parliament. As the clerk's paper points out, the Procedures Committee recognised the value to the Parliament of a standing budget adviser and has recommended that we appoint someone to carry out that role in this session.
We certainly need an adviser and I do not necessarily disagree with what you say, but I will make some general points. We agreed that we would not determine our work programme today and that members can make suggestions on the work programme. I have made one suggestion and will confirm details of it in writing following the meeting.
Can I—
May I continue, or am I going to be interrupted?
I will clarify the position, Fergus. If we appoint a standing budget adviser, that does not impinge on the appointment of advisers for other inquiries that the committee may want to pursue. That was the procedure that the Finance Committee followed in the first session.
I was planning to address that point before you spoke, convener. It is obvious that we can have more than one adviser; however, if we do, we must pay for more than one adviser. We should not rush into a decision today, because to do so would be foolhardy. We should first determine our work programme, which might be substantially different from the work programmes of the previous Finance Committee. For example, we may decide that we want to scrutinise the budgets of Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as well as that of Scottish Water, to find out where all the money in the quangos is going, and we might want to divert that money into other areas. My point is that the thrust of our work might not be the same as it was in the past and we might need to consider horses for courses; that is, advisers who have appropriate expertise in particular areas.
We are not discussing names at this point.
I do not intend to mention names.
I was just cautioning the member.
I am trying to make another general point. Having decided that our approach to the work programme should be "Festina lente", we should take the same approach to the selection of an adviser. I do not know enough about any of the individuals who have been suggested and whom I will not name, but I would like to know more about them. There might be a case for having a discussion—formal or informal—with some of the proposed candidates. However, we should not be rushed into picking an adviser today when we do not know what the task is and when we do not know enough about the individuals who have been listed. I hope that members will agree that we need to do a great deal more work on the issue before we can take a decision.
I was under the impression that an adviser would be appointed specifically in connection with the work that the committee must do on the Scottish Executive's budget, rather than as a general budget adviser to work on the budgets of organisations such as SNH and Scottish Water, although I might have misunderstood the proposal. We know that that exercise will have to hit the ground running, because we have not been able to conduct stage 1 scrutiny of the budget. We know that a report will be made in the middle of August. We may be able to put off a decision until next week or the week after, but we must get an adviser in place if we are to make significant progress on that work at the beginning of the next term. It is therefore urgent that we get an adviser in place before the recess. Apart from work relating to the Holyrood project, that will probably be the first substantive piece of work that we need to do.
When we meet in private, will we be advised on the backgrounds of the suggested advisers? Is it intended that we do that today? I see that there are about six names on the list. Fergus Ewing might have a point when he says that it is expecting a bit much of members who have no idea who the candidates are to make such an important decision in closed session at the end of this meeting.
We need only decide in principle whether we should appoint a standing adviser. It is for the committee to decide whether we wish also to discuss candidates for the position. That is a separate issue that can be dealt with today or at a later date.
Have all the proposed candidates indicated that they would be available?
No. The people who have been identified are regarded as having relevant expertise and as being in a position to take on the role of adviser, although none has been approached.
If we approached someone, would we go beyond a short synopsis of their curriculum vitae and seek a statement of the skills, experience and attributes that they would bring and the contribution that they would make to the work of the committee?
I ask the clerk to respond to that question.
There exists the facility that provision of a full CV be specified as part of the contract award system once we have made a direct approach to an individual.
Beyond their CV, can we seek a direct statement from the proposed adviser indicating what they would bring to the party; that is, what they would contribute to the work that we are charged with?
If the committee wants it, we could ensure that such a statement was provided.
I caution members that there is only a small pool of people who have the relevant skills and expertise. In the past, some of the people whom we have approached have for their own reasons been unavailable to take on what is an onerous set of responsibilities.
I repeat that I am not disagreeing with that; I just think that we cannot take the decision today.
The paper was drawn up by researchers in the Scottish Parliament information centre, who referred to the database of advisers that was set up last year. All the people who are mentioned on the list have registered with the Parliament and are interested in becoming advisers. In producing their list of people who best fit our draft specification, SPICe researchers consulted the database of advisers.
Although we are grateful for the information that SPICe has provided, the committee—not SPICe—makes the decision. I presume that if other individuals were to come to mind as having potentially impressive credentials in relation to performing the role, it would be open to members to have those people's names added to the list. In that way, people would not be disenfranchised from offering themselves as potential advisers.
That would be possible.
I can provide some clarification on the database. The previous Equal Opportunities Committee discussed the way in which advisers were appointed. In the very early days, SPICe drew up lists only of people of whom it had heard, which meant that a huge pool of people who might have been able to become committee advisers was left out. That was not good equal opportunities practice, so the Parliament advertised for people who wanted to put forward their names. Those people had to meet certain criteria. I hope that any new people who wanted to put forward their names would have to go through the same process that the people who applied to be on the database initially had to go through. Any necessary criteria should be met.
That is right. I re-emphasise that the person whom we choose must be a public finance expert who is knowledgeable about the Scottish budget process. That means that there is a limited pool.
It is appropriate that members have the opportunity to suggest people whom they think are missing. That should be done as quickly as possible and I would very much like us to make the decision at our next meeting. I say that because, although it might be valuable to spend half of our away day on the work programme, the committee's credibility will rest on the diligence with which we steward or scrutinise the Executive's budget. I accept that the media and others are interested in quangos, but my experience is that, although failures can occur, the obligations of corporate governance mean that quangos have more transparency, which is perhaps why they get the media coverage. It is easier to see the mistakes that are made by quangos than it is to see those in the £15 billion plus that does not go via quangos and which is the responsibility of the Executive. The committee's primary stewardship function is over that money.
I will take up Wendy Alexander's suggestion. There are two decisions to be taken: the first is to agree whether we will have a standing adviser to help us through the budget process and the second is to agree to consider names at our next meeting. It will be open to members to propose individuals for consideration, but that will need to be done relatively quickly—within the next 48 hours—so that the appropriate information on all potential candidates can be gathered.
I agree, but I want to make two quick points. As a new member of the committee, I would value knowing what resources are available to us so that we can avoid the confusion that Fergus Ewing outlined about what the adviser will actually do. I see from the notes that we are also asked to approve the specification for the adviser. We have not really touched on that, although I am satisfied with the specification, which states clearly what the adviser's responsibilities would be. However, it would be useful to have some guidance on what resources will be available to the committee to carry out our duties on more thematic inquiries.
It might well be proper to discuss that issue at the away day—the committee might have a view about what resources it would wish to be provided with.
I want to make just one point that arises from this useful discussion. Can we ask the clerks to look at the specification for the adviser to see whether it might incorporate advising on inquiries on which the committee might decide to embark at a future date? That might mean that we could do without a special adviser—although, as Wendy Alexander said, we could reserve the right to have a special adviser. However, I am thinking about the public purse. Unless it was absolutely necessary, we would not want to have a plethora of advisers when one might do.
In the clerk's paper, the fifth bullet point under the heading "Technical adviser to the Finance Committee", is a catch-all, because it refers to project work. In my view, what happens will depend on the nature of an inquiry. If our standing adviser feels competent to advise us on a specific inquiry, we might use the standing adviser for that. If, on the other hand, the standing adviser feels that he or she is not well enough equipped to do that, the committee might wish to look for an additional adviser. It really depends on what our work profile is, on the subjects that we choose, and on the breadth of expertise of the adviser that we appoint. To answer Fergus Ewing's question, the remit provides us with the capacity to do what he suggests.
To pick up Jim Mather's point, will an invitation be made to all potential candidates—whether they are on the current list or are added to it—to submit a more detailed curriculum vitae, including their full work history, experience, involvement and any special interests of the sort that we are required to declare? We need to be fully aware of the skills and expertise of the candidates, and of the areas of public life in which they have been involved or connected with in the past.
It is not really a question of candidates in that sense. SPICe has helped us to identify the people who have the relevant expertise. If members wish to factor into the equation other people who have not been identified by SPICe, that can be done. We will make an approach to a person only once the committee has agreed whom to approach. In that context, we might be able to ask for some of the information that Fergus Ewing has suggested, but we cannot treat the matter as if we had a series of applicants for a job in the way that Fergus Ewing has suggested—a balance needs to be struck.
Like Ted Brocklebank, I feel that we do not have enough information to enable us to make a decision on whom to approach. I would like to have more information along the lines that I have suggested. The adviser role is very important and, barring the unforeseen, I presume that it will be effective for the next four years. I would like to know a lot more than what is asked for in the paper. Given the fact that a job is being conferred, it is correct—and it is good procedure—that we know more about the successful candidate whom we select. To be frank, I think that we should approach each candidate and ask them for the information that I have suggested.
How did the committee appoint the previous advisers? Was the process that was used different from this one?
The process was similar. I think that the only difference was that the adviser database had not been set up at that point. I think that the last standing adviser was appointed in September or October 2001. Other than the fact that we did not have a database to interrogate, I think that the process was the same.
So there was no more information then than we have now.
Yes.
I suggest that we ask SPICe to gather as much information as possible about the available candidates, and that we agree in principle that we will appoint a standing adviser. The information that is available can be brought to the next committee meeting, where we can make our selection on that basis.
I am not sure how the database operates and whether the information is available to all members. Does anything prevent individual members of the committee from speaking to anyone whose name is on that database?
I am not entirely sure, but I can find out and get back to you.
Individual members might be able to raise any points that they wish to raise with anyone whose name is on that database.
I have already invited members to put forward the names of anyone whom they think merits consideration, but I ask them to do so soon, if they wish to do that.
Meeting closed at 11:48.
Previous
Work Programme