Our next item is on the procedures relating to Crown appointments. There is one major issue that is still outstanding and it is encapsulated in the letter that I sent on our behalf to the Presiding Officer and in his response. It relates to our idea that, in addition to an assessor to assess the conduct of interviews and ensure that everything has been done correctly, there should be an independent assessor who would report to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on how well people seeking reappointment had done their job.
I put on record again that I am not in favour of the system that has been advocated, in whatever form. This is the kind of ridiculous argument to which we end up being reduced. I am extremely concerned about the contents of the reply from the Presiding Officer. I find it hard to believe that nowhere in this country are there people who can assess the performance of an individual in any particular post. Such assessment happens in industry every day of the week and it occurs regularly in personnel departments. I do not accept that there is no one in Scotland who can carry out that role. I am not at all in favour of going down the road that has been advocated. I would rather that matters were settled by open and competitive interview for the posts rather than by the reappointment procedure. It is barking mad not to assess the performance of an individual who holds a post before reappointing them, but that is in effect what we are being invited to do.
As I understand it, the Presiding Officer is setting out the reasons why the SPCB thinks that what we propose would not work. He is not saying that the SPCB would not take account of the performance of the person in the job. Presumably it would be assessed in some other way.
In what other way? That is the question that is left open. What is the process?
Just to qualify what I am going to say, I say that I feel some sympathy for the line that is taken in the Presiding Officer's letter. However, I am concerned about assessment. From reading between the lines to some extent, it appears that, as no one is qualified to make the assessment, the corporate body will make it on its own—supposing that it is qualified to do so. I have sympathy with the position that is taken in the letter, but I share Bruce McFee's concern about recommending a process of reappointment that does not contain any form of objective assessment. I am not sure that the case has been made in the letter that there is an alternative to what we proposed.
I agree with Alex Johnstone. The committee wanted to ensure that anyone who is going to be reappointed has been carrying out their job properly. There will be a remit for the job. It will not be so difficult to find someone who is qualified to make the assessment that all the boxes have been ticked and that the person has demonstrated their ability to carry out their role on behalf of the public. We have to engage a bit more in conversation with the Presiding Officer, to let him understand what the committee is looking for. Before we can make a decision, the convener should share that information with the Presiding Officer and report back to the committee.
I tend to agree. I find it difficult to believe that there is no one at all in Scotland who could make a meaningful assessment of how a commissioner had carried out his or her role. I agree with Cathie Craigie that we should engage in further conversation about that.
I thought that we could resolve the issue by correspondence but, given the views that have been expressed around the table, I realise that we cannot do that. It would therefore be appropriate for us to invite the SPCB to come back to the committee so that we can explore matters a bit further and come to a conclusion one way or the other. We will have to make our decision and present it to Parliament, but it would be useful to have that dialogue to test some of the arguments in the letter and to allow us to be confident about the decision that we make.
Should we ask the SPCB formally to come and give evidence on that specific point? The alternative is to have a more private meeting with the SPCB, but if we are trying to be transparent we should probably do it in public.
The Presiding Officer's response is a dog's breakfast and it has been apparent from day one that pursuing the route that has been pursued would result in a dog's breakfast. The Presiding Officer was the one who initially wrote to the Procedures Committee. It would have been clear in his mind and in the minds of members of the SPCB which way they wanted to go on the issue, and it is clear from the letter which way they want to go. They want the SPCB to take the decision and they do not believe that there is a role for some form of independent assessment. This is the sort of ridiculous situation that we get into when we go down the reappointment road, which is why it is always safer to go back to open and competitive interview; if the individual who holds the position is the best candidate, they will get the job again.
I think that the committee has already decided on that point.
Nice speech, nice rhetoric, nice press release, but we have gone through the process. If we can move forward on independent assessment, I think that that is the right route to take. Bruce McFee and I will disagree on that and I do not want to get into a big debate about it again. Ultimately, any appointment is for the Parliament to make. Bruce McFee can make innuendo and comments about nods and winks and slippery slopes, but it is for the democratically elected members of the Parliament to endorse any appointment on a vote. That is our role and responsibility. As I have said from the beginning, there should be some independent assessment of the job. I support the convener's position.
As an addition to what has been said, I would like to say something that I could have said the last time that I spoke. My concern is that if we do not have any form of objective assessment in the process, that just takes us one step closer to the potential embarrassment of having the character of a candidate assassinated on the floor of the chamber. As Karen Gillon pointed out, the opportunity exists for us to do that, even within the procedure that we are talking about. However, ensuring that we have objective assessment as part of the process will prevent political parties or individual members from making attacks on candidates in the chamber, which none of us wants to happen.
Again, I agree with Alex Johnstone, which is worrying me. Please put my name-plate in a different position on the table for next week's meeting. Bruce McFee is wrong to say that the Presiding Officer's response is a dog's breakfast. When the committee gets through this piece of work, we will suggest great improvements. Karen Gillon and Alex Johnstone were right to remind us that the appointment process is open and democratic and that the Parliament will make the final decision. It would be wrong to suggest that things could be done otherwise, such as with a nod and a wink.
I am clear about which way the vote will go, which is fair enough. Karen Gillon said that an appointment would be a matter for members when it goes to the chamber. I agree that that is technically right. However, on what assessment and on what basis will members make their decision? It is not a matter of members simply nominating an individual for a particular post. Section 21 of our draft report states that only a member of the selection panel may, by a motion, recommend the nomination of an individual. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of an MSP nominating any individual he or she wishes. We will be relying on a selection panel and it is possible that it might not have an objective assessment of a candidate that it wished to reappoint. Would members be happy if that went through without any form of objective assessment?
We are not suggesting that.
It is a possibility.
I think that we have found common ground on this.
Well, it will be interesting to see what happens if the common ground develops a little bit further. Anyway, I shall leave it at that because it is clear what the Procedures Committee's feeling is on the matter. However, I suspect that we might be back in a similar position shortly.
We are proposing that we invite the SPCB to come and give evidence on the specific issue of the form of assessment of a person's performance. Is that agreed?
I oppose that.
You can vote against that now if you want.
If you wish to note my objection to the process, convener, that is fine and we will not bother going to a vote.
You have already objected to the whole process. The difficulty you might find is how best to run what you find is an unsatisfactory process. Are you opposing our invitation to the SPCB?
I just do not think that we should proceed down this route at all. I think that I made that clear in what I said. However, if you are going to do it, then at least this gives a modicum of—
So in fact, on this particular point, you agree.
I think that we should halt the process—full stop. Otherwise, we end up in this ridiculous situation.
That has already been debated and dealt with.
Fine.
So we will write to the SPCB. Is there any point now in the next item on the agenda?
The final item was to move into private session to discuss our report, but you are right that there is now no point in doing that, given that we must pursue the matter with the SPCB before we come to the report.
That is the one major sticking point. In the light of the decision on item 2, we cancel item 3 and end the meeting.
Meeting closed at 11:24.
Previous
Parliamentary Time