Under agenda item 6, we must discuss whether we wish to appoint an adviser to assist us in our scrutiny of the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2009-10. Do we agree so to do?
Does the committee agree with the specification for the adviser, which is laid out in annex B of paper EO.S3.08.08.04?
I have a procedural question. If we decide to appoint an adviser this year, will we have to go through the process of appointing an adviser every year, or can the committee appoint an adviser who will advise us for the rest of this parliamentary session?
Until now, any committee, apart from the Finance Committee, that has appointed an adviser for the budget process has appointed one on an annual basis, rather than have a standing adviser. The Finance Committee has someone who is informally described as a standing adviser, but I think that special arrangements have been made for that. The committee would need to be certain about whether it needs someone in that longer-term capacity, or whether it is content to appoint someone for this year and then to consider the matter again when the next draft budget is produced.
I would like to go ahead with the specification that is before us. However, although I do not know whether the committee would always want to appoint an adviser—that would be up to members of the committee at the time—it might be helpful to have a named adviser, rather than have to produce a specification and advertise the post every time. Is that a possibility?
What Elaine Smith has said is helpful. It would be useful if, for the remainder of the session, we had an adviser in a cupboard—metaphorically speaking—who we could bring out as and when necessary. That approach might be to the advantage of the committee's budget consideration. The fee structure could be negotiated in such a way as to set out the person's rate if we do not use them while they are effectively on stand-by or on call, and to specify the working rate if we bring them in at any stage of any budget process. I say that to elicit clarification, but I can see the possibility of doing things that way.
We will certainly seek clarification on the matter. I can understand the arrangements of the Finance Committee. We may well be happy with an adviser whom we have already used, and we might wish to consider a longer-term appointment, but there are issues of openness and accountability. We should be seen to ensure that whomever we appoint at a given time is the best person for the job. I take the points that Elaine Smith and Hugh O'Donnell have brought up about the efficiency of such appointments. We will get back to members on the matter. In the meantime, can we approve the specification that is before us?
I would approve the specification as it is. Regarding Hugh O'Donnell's suggestion, we would need to decide how long we wanted an advisor to be on so-called stand-by. We would need to ensure that the arrangements met the legal requirements and statutory duties under equalities legislation. I would hate to think of the Equal Opportunities Committee appointing an advisor for five years if that was against the law. We must consider that aspect—we should ensure that our backs are covered.
We will get advice and report back to members on that specific point. Are we happy with the specification as it stands?
We will seek clarification on the points that have been raised.
Meeting continued in private until 12:44.
Previous
Religion and Belief