Public Appointments
The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Jack McConnell on public appointments. Questions may be asked at the end, so there should be no interventions during the statement.
On behalf of the Scottish Executive, I am pleased to announce today the launch of our consultation on modernising the public appointments system in Scotland. Copies of the consultation paper will be available this afternoon.
As an Executive, we want to create a modern and dynamic society, in which people from all walks of life can play their part. "Partnership for Scotland" commits ministers to innovative government that is open, welcomes good ideas from whatever their source, and encourages participation.
Devolution was a crucial step in modernising Scotland's democracy. To continue that modernisation, we must look at all levels of government in Scotland, which must serve the people of Scotland and make real and lasting changes that benefit Scottish society. The consultation is yet another step towards that goal, but it is more than that: it sets out the Executive's commitment to achieving more diversity in public appointments and to making the boards of public bodies more representative of, and accountable to, Scotland as a whole.
Current appointments procedures were designed with Westminster and Whitehall in mind. The Nolan reforms of the mid-1990s and the establishment of an independent commissioner for public appointments have introduced greater objectivity, rigour and transparency into the process. But the Scottish Parliament and Executive are new institutions, designed for the 21st century.
There is a widespread desire in Scotland for a more open and accountable style of governance, and I believe that fundamental questions should be asked now to ensure that the arrangements for making appointments are consistent with the new context in which we were all elected.
The consultation that we embark upon today will canvass the views of individuals and organisations from across Scotland on the current system of appointments to non-departmental public bodies, often referred to as quangos.
This debate is not about the number of nondepartmental public bodies, the number of appointments or the responsibilities of those bodies. It is about who is appointed and how they are selected.
This is a listening exercise, but it is an exercise with a purpose. We want to improve the processes and systems that are currently in place for making public appointments, because we want to devise a system that enjoys the full confidence of the Scottish people.
In recent years, too many people have become disillusioned with a system that they view as providing little more than jobs for the boys. While not everyone views public appointments in that light, those concerns need to be addressed. We need transparency and we need to stimulate increased participation from a broader cross- section of society.
Rather than setting out preferred options for change, the Executive wishes to hear the views and opinions of as many people as possible before instituting reforms. We want to hear not only the views of members of the Parliament, but those of the people of Scotland. Responses to the consultation paper are being sought by 28 April.
Public bodies of various types play an important part in the governance of Scotland. They advise ministers and assist with the delivery of public services. Some carry out important regulatory and grant-making functions. Scottish ministers are responsible for almost 3,900 appointments to 187 bodies. Spending by public bodies amounts to more than £6.5 billion a year.
I want to pay tribute to those who currently serve on non-departmental public bodies and offer, on behalf of the Executive, our collective thanks to them. However, new confidence and trust in the system will enhance their work, diversity in appointment will improve their decisions and improved accountability will ensure that they fit into our new democracy.
The time is now right for a public discussion about who is and who should be appointed to the public bodies that come within the responsibility of the Scottish ministers. The system should aim to enjoy public confidence through being fair, open and transparent; be proportionate; provide clarity and structure; secure quality outcomes; encourage a wider range of people to apply for public appointments to reflect the diversity of Scottish life; and be accessible and informative.
With those objectives firmly in mind, the consultation paper asks some searching questions. Should the Parliament be involved in appointments made by the Executive and, if so, at what stage and in what way? Should a separate Scottish commissioner for public appointments be established? It seeks views on the role and appointment of independent assessors, including
consideration of whether the composition of appointments panels should vary according to the nature and type of appointments. It asks whether the targets inherited from the Scottish Office for achieving greater representation in public appointments are relevant. More generally, it asks what more can be done to encourage women, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities to apply for public appointment.
The paper also addresses other issues, such as the type and level of payment for public service. The vast majority of people who serve on public bodies give their time freely without any financial reward. Some receive a salary, while others receive a daily attendance fee. I believe that the time is right to seek views on what levels of payment and what types of payment best fit those responsibilities.
Ultimately, ministers are accountable for appointing those who serve on Scotland's public bodies, but the role of MSPs in the Parliament and the involvement of independent advisers should be addressed. Increasing the role of independent advisers and extending the range of people serving in that role must be considered. In this Parliament, we should set out to build an open and transparent partnership between members and ministers without deterring new and suitable candidates from coming forward.
The Executive is determined to do more to improve the diversity of appointments. We want to boost the number of women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and people with disabilities who are appointed. Past experience has been disappointing. For example, 75 per cent of all appointments to Executive non-departmental public bodies are men and 70 per cent of appointments to advisory non-departmental public bodies are men. Only in the case of national health service bodies and tribunals have efforts at attaining a more reasonable gender balance been successful.
In other areas, such as the appointment of members from ethnic minority backgrounds and people with disabilities, the success rate has been poor. The Scottish Executive inherited several key targets that had been set by previous ministers to tackle the problem of under-representation. Perhaps those targets need to change too, and the consultation paper addresses that.
The Executive will pursue a more proactive approach to encourage more potential candidates from a wider cross-section of society. For example, information on public appointments will be distributed more widely. The Executive is working with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments on plans for a public appointments week later this year.
Members and other elected representatives will be encouraged to identify individuals who might be able to contribute to the running of Scotland's public bodies. My colleague Susan Deacon, the Minister for Health and Community Care, recently wrote to all members, inviting them to submit names of people from their areas who might be equipped to serve on national health service bodies. Susan Deacon also wrote to various other organisations, and has prepared a range of material that sets out clearly and explicitly what is expected of those who are appointed. We want to repeat that kind of exercise elsewhere.
"Partnership for Scotland" stated that the Executive would encourage the Parliament to review and monitor public appointments to ensure the highest standards of accountability and effectiveness in public life. The consultation exercise that is being launched today demonstrates our willingness to take a fundamental look at the public appointments system. We are not prescribing particular changes, but ministers want to modernise the appointment procedures so that they are fit for purpose in the new Scotland. Scotland is a richly diverse nation and, as the consultation paper makes clear, that diversity should be reflected in the people who sit on the boards of our public bodies.
Duncan McNeil, Keith Harding and others have set a trend in the chamber by announcing the births of their grandchildren. I want to exploit that today, by congratulating my daughter Hannah on her 21st birthday, which was yesterday. I want her to live her adult life in a Scotland where her generation has more confidence in public appointments than my generation had at the same age. Today we are making a move in that direction, and I look forward to the debate in the months ahead.
I thank the minister for coming in under time on his ministerial statement—that is something of a record. I call Alex Neil to ask the first question.
I also wish Hannah many happy returns. I thank the minister for the provision of an advance copy of the statement, which was helpful, and give a general welcome to the principles that it contains. In particular, I welcome the pledge to encourage more women, disabled people and people from ethnic minority communities to participate in the public sector and in public appointments.
There are three issues that I would like the minister to address. First, will he consider conducting a parallel review of the number of quangos that exist in Scotland? The spending figure for those quangos is almost equivalent to what local authorities throughout Scotland spend
in a year—£6.5 billion. Although we welcome the review, we think that there is a need for a fundamental cull of quangos in Scotland.
Secondly, will the minister address in detail the role of the Parliament? As he knows, we would welcome the introduction of US Senate-style powers to this Parliament, so that, when controversial nominations are made, the Parliament has a role to play and can ensure that those who are running the quangos and other public agencies are of the right calibre to do so.
Thirdly, will the minister tell us which quangos will be covered in the report? Will nationalised industries such as Caledonian MacBrayne come under that regime? It is our opinion that they should. Will the judiciary come under that regime or a separate review? We are all agreed that we must put an end to the old boys' network that operates in the judiciary in Scotland. Finally, will he include the special advisers—regarding their appointments, although he will have no power over their dismissals or resignations? Finally—
That is two finallys.
Last week, we heard that one person who chairs two quangos holds 14 directorships. How can anyone run two major public organisations at the same time as being on 12 other boards?
It is just as well that I cut short my statement to allow Mr Neil to ask a record number of questions, all of which I am delighted to try and answer.
We should not limit our review of the number, range and responsibilities of quangos in Scotland to a consultation over a two or three-month period. It should be an on-going process in which the Executive and the Parliament are constantly involved. Before the establishment of this Parliament and the Executive, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of NHS trusts in Scotland under the previous Scottish Office. In the past six months, it has been announced that the board of Scottish Homes is to go, as part of its change to executive agency status. Today, my colleague Mr McLeish will announce a review of the role and responsibilities of the local enterprise network. Such reviews go on and on; all the different public bodies have a regular process of review and it is only right and proper to view all those reviews on their own merits each time. Although we will retain bodies that have a clear function and can provide a service for Scotland, we will amend, abolish—if necessary—review and change where changes are required.
It is neither my view, nor the view of other ministers, that we should have a confrontational style of confirmation hearings in the Parliament or elsewhere for the chairs or other members of
NDPBs. However, we want to conduct a dialogue and have a consultation on how best the Parliament and the Executive can work together on the issue. We have not put constraints on such a process in the consultation paper and are keen to get opinions from across Scotland. We have to make sure that, whatever the Parliament's involvement in Scotland's appointments to public bodies, its scrutiny and transparency does not deter people from all walks of life—not just those who might be in positions of confidentiality in business or elsewhere—from applying for positions. Part of the consultation's purpose is to get that balance right.
I can confirm that this consultation and its recommendations will cover all Scotland's bodies, including the nationalised industries. However, it will not cover the judiciary; and, no doubt to Mr Neil's great disappointment, it will not cover the special advisers either, although I am sure that they will not lose too much sleep over that.
At the moment, there are people across Scotland—Mr Neil mentioned one in particular— who do a great job on behalf of their communities. However, everyone in Scotland who currently serves on a public body suffers from the problem of public confidence in those bodies, which is an issue that the consultation is designed to address. Mr Neil's questions about particular appointments in the past will, I hope, be addressed in the future by our constructively reaching conclusions that will help the situation.
The audio operators have told me that half a dozen members have not put their cards into their consoles. Members should remember that, without doing that, they do not exist.
As a great many members wish to ask questions, short questions and answers would be much appreciated.
I am still recovering from the spasm of thinking that Mr McConnell was going to tell us that he was a grandfather, which would have made me look at policemen in a completely different light.
On behalf of the Conservatives, I thank the minister for his statement, which is genuinely received with favour. I am pleased to hear him say that he wants to investigate a system that has perhaps attracted the criticism of creating jobs for the boys. Speaking for my own sex, I should say that jobs for the boys is of little interest; jobs for the Labour boys—perish the thought—is of even less interest.
In his statement, the minister listed the objectives of the system, one of which is to
"enjoy public confidence through being fair, open and transparent".
Does the minister agree that we should concentrate on merit when enlisting anyone into a quango and that an important criterion of enlistment should be their added value to that quango? Furthermore, does he agree that, given how some quangos operate and the people who serve on them, there should be a monitoring process for whatever system is devised? For example, the champions for change initiative has been launched with a great brouhaha. I do not know what it has achieved, although Brian Souter and Ruth Mackenzie have been very busy recently. There is a need for public information and public reassurance that personnel on quangos are performing and continuing to add value and make a contribution.
I assure Annabel Goldie that any spasms that she might have had if somebody had announced today that I was a grandfather would have been nothing compared with mine—in any case, I thank her for her comments.
I agree that appointing truly on merit adds value to the work of public bodies and of Government in Scotland. Many people who do not want to serve in elected public life can do so in other ways on a voluntary or paid basis. Selection on merit can mean many things; I want it to mean a diverse selection on merit, in which people are selected not because of a preconceived notion from a long time ago about the kind of people who can serve on these bodies, but because of what our modern society expects from public services and the people who make decisions about them.
I am also keen on monitoring. The consultation paper contains a specific passage about the possibility of appointing a Scottish commissioner for public appointments and the role of such a post. The way in which decisions are made must be constantly monitored to ensure that the system works in practice and that we learn lessons from previous appointments. It is equally important that there be openness and transparency so that Scotland can monitor the decisions that are made by this Parliament and by ministers.
Champions for change is not a quango. It is important to stress that the process we are discussing relates to appointments to the official public bodies of Scotland, and not to occasional individual appointments that may be made by parliamentary committees or by ministers.
It will not be possible for all 14 members who want to ask questions to do so. I ask members to keep questions brief.
I welcome the minister's statement. Does he agree that for public appointments to be above reproach, they must be made on the basis not just of merit and proven ability, but of obvious expertise and significant experience? They should be based not on whom one knows, or which political party one belongs to, but on the quality of one's track record.
To introduce the greater objectivity, rigour and transparency that we all seek, will the minister give serious consideration to having an official record of potential candidates that is independently assessed; a high-profile campaign to involve more women, disabled people, and people from ethnic and other minorities; and constructive—not confrontational—confirmation hearings before parliamentary committees for major appointments?
I will not prejudge the consultation on some of the more substantive issues. I want to ensure that we appoint on merit people who are able to carry out the required duties and who bring a range of experiences and talents to bear on our different public bodies. I also want to ensure that there is a serious, concerted effort—not just a one-off high-profile campaign to get a few headlines—to improve the number and range of people coming forward.
As well as launching the consultation paper, I have published today the annual report on appointments, which contains the kind of register of recent appointments to which Mr Raffan refers. In future, we want to ensure that not only is there an independent assessment of appointments that have been made but that there is a firmer independent role in appointments as they are being made. The consultation paper addresses that issue.
I welcome the minister's statement and the commitment to encourage more women and people from ethnic backgrounds to take up public appointments. Will the minister clarify what is being done at present? Are there any statistics showing the backgrounds of people who take up public appointments?
A monitoring exercise has been going on to assess the success of the targets that were set in 1997-98 to improve the representation of women, in particular, and of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. This consultation needs to review those targets.
We also need to consider specific efforts to examine the range of people coming forward in relation to geography, social background, current economic status and so on. This is not about political correctness, but about getting a wide range of people with a wide range of expertise to assist our decision making. Constant monitoring and evaluation will help in that process.
On Saturday, a constituent came to ask me why the criteria for the guidelines for selection to serve on the water industry consultative committee exclude him, as somebody who was recently working in the industry. His point was that he has substantial knowledge to offer, at a time when the minister is aware of grave concern in the north of Scotland about increases in water charges of 51 per cent over the next two years. Would the minister extend the scope of the inquiry to include the criteria that govern public appointments as well as the appointments themselves?
Yes.
Excellent.
I, too, welcome the minister's statement. However, he may be aware that the current chairman of the North of Scotland Water Authority, Colin Rennie, was appointed to the board by virtue of his position as a Labour representative on Dundee City Council. He was deselected by his local party in Dundee but continues to hold his position, earning more than £26,000 a year, plus expenses, for a two-day week. What measures does the minister plan to introduce to ensure that water consumers in NoSWA's area are able to remove the chairman of the board, if they so wish, and to follow the example set by the Labour party in Dundee?
The purpose of the consultation exercise is to try to have a serious debate about the future of public appointments in Scotland— [MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—rather than to have some cheap point-scoring exercise for the next 10 weeks that distorts the position of individual members. From close observation in recent months, I can tell members about the work that is being done by that particular chair of a public body, to try to ensure a turnround in its affairs, and to serve the people of the north of Scotland much better than was the case in the past. I hope that we can encourage that sort of practice in the future.
One of the reasons for ensuring that the consultation takes place and for improving the transparency of the system is to avoid similar cheap points being made in future about any appointment. Every appointment should be made on merit and should be seen to be made on merit.
I welcome the statement and its recognition, long understood by the Labour party and the Labour movement, that when there is diversity among decision makers, the needs of the broad range of groups in society are more likely to be met in decision making.
I ask in particular that there should be an emphasis in discussions on the importance of challenging the assumptions about what constitutes merit, ability and talent. After all, if we asked a range of white, middle-class, middle-aged men what constitutes talent, they would probably give us their curriculum vitae.
I hope members agree that this is not just an issue about fairness, but that it is an opportunity to tap into the huge, underused resource of talent in our local communities, particularly among women, which sustains communities and local organisations, often in difficult circumstances.
Those points are well made. I can confirm that, as part of the consultation process, we intend to hold a series of meetings, some of them in conjunction with other ministers, with groups that are currently under-represented. Those discussions will consider not only how to encourage more applications or how to ensure that there are more appointments, but the criteria and the method of selection, and how to ensure that when people are selected, it is on the basis of a wide range of experiences of equal value, rather than the preconceptions of the past.
Hugh Henry.
My question has already been asked.
Tavish Scott.
On the theme of merit that he mentioned earlier, does the minister recognise that there are important differences across Scotland, in the roles that different bodies play? In this process, he needs to consider carefully those regional differences, as well as what is there already.
Does the minister recognise, for example, that there is no one on the current board of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency from north of the Highland line, despite the role that that body plays for industries north of that line? Does he recognise that there are well-documented concerns about the chairmanship of Caledonian MacBrayne, and that there seem to be concerns about some members of the board of Highlands and Islands Airports, in regard to the roles that they have played in the past? We must therefore make this process much better and more transparent.
While I do not necessarily wish to concur with any of the comments made by Tavish Scott on individual appointments, it is important that we achieve a balance across a range of criteria, including experience as well as geography and that, at the end of the day, we ensure that, throughout Scotland, people who want to serve in public life have an opportunity to
do so. There is sometimes a perception that the people who serve on our public bodies come from certain exclusive groups, often based here in Edinburgh. We want to break that image once and for all. We must ensure that there is confidence in every part of Scotland that our public bodies represent everyone who lives in Scotland.
I thank the minister for his proposals. Will he confirm that he will seek applications from the unpaid local heroes in organisations such as tenants associations, housing associations and health councils? I also ask him not to rule out the possibility of electing applicants.
I would not want to rule that out at all—it is important that we have an open and constructive debate. It is also important that we recognise talents and experience from a range of different sources. I would like to see people from the boards of directors of Scotland's most successful companies volunteering to serve on our public bodies. I would also like to see people whose experience has been on school boards putting themselves forward, because we recognise that that is also a valid experience.
I support Paul Martin's points about encouraging a range of people from different backgrounds to come forward. In particular, I would like people who are currently in work to find serving on public bodies as accessible as do those who have retired or who have more flexible working lives.
Following on from that question, will the minister tell us how he intends in the consultation process to address the question of involving younger people and those with family responsibilities in some of the public bodies, given that those bodies make decisions affecting families, but tend to have input mainly from people who are retired or who have specific business experience?
Given what I have said about my daughter, I had better be careful about talking about 21-year-olds getting places on quangos, or I will be accused of cronyism. It is important that young people in Scotland have a chance to exercise their voice. That does not always have to be through formal membership of organisations and bodies—it might be achieved through those bodies carrying out proper consultative processes with young people.
In the course of the next 10 weeks, I hope to have a dedicated consultation with the youth groups in Scotland that were so active in the youth parliament that met around the time of the launch of the Scottish Parliament last year. We might discuss how young people can learn about public bodies, get involved, serve on them or be trained to take part in future. Such participation will benefit the whole of Scotland.
I am concerned by the minister's answer. Young people have a lot to offer us and I would like young people to be included on the list of people whom the Executive is trying to bring on board. We do not have young people on quangos and we must put them on the list to encourage them to apply for public appointment.
I thought that I had made that clear. For the avoidance of doubt, I will confirm that I concur with those comments.
In view of the allegations of cronyism surrounding many public appointments, will the minister publish the political affiliations of appointees who are members of political parties? Will he seriously consider giving a role to a committee of the Parliament in scrutinising all public appointments?
Is it not about time that the great quango collector, "Bomber" Robertson, was brought back from NATO to explain to us what happened to his great commitment to a bonfire of the quangos on day one of a Labour Government?
As I have already said, there have been significant changes to some of the most important bodies in Scotland. The number of health trusts has been dramatically reduced, Scottish Homes has been identified for change by the Minister for Communities and other reviews and changes will happen on a case-by-case basis.
It would be appropriate to consider the other issues raised by Mr Canavan during the consultation process. That is what consultation is all about.
I come from a long sporting tradition of calling for boards to be sacked and believe that that fine tradition should be resurrected after the sad events at Parkhead last night.
Recently, an unelected health board discounted a petition before it had been actively considered by this elected Parliament. Will serious consideration be given to getting rid of unelected boards altogether—at least in the health service— and introducing some form of election into the health service for the first time? That was the policy of the Scottish Labour party not all that long ago.
As I said, the nature and number of public bodies and their responsibilities is not part of the consultation exercise. Individual debates will take place in the Parliament and elsewhere over the months and years ahead about a range of public bodies and their future worth to Scotland.
The consultation exercise is about who is appointed, who appoints them and the selection process. It is a vital part of our job as both an Executive and a Parliament that, towards the end of our first year, we consider the selection process as it currently stands. Regardless of how many public bodies exist in future in Scotland, we must get right the selection and appointment system, doing so in the best interests of the people whom we represent.
Two members have dropped out of my list. I will take questions from the remaining three members, if they are quick.
Much of my question has been answered already. I thank the minister for addressing and highlighting in the chamber today the problems with public appointments.
Much of what I was going to say was on the question of CalMac, on which we have heard quite a bit already.
As I have said before, it is not compulsory to ask a question.
Will the minister ensure that future appointments to the board and executive of CalMac will be subject to democratic scrutiny and representative of the areas served by the company? In regard to communities' support for and confidence in the company, will he further consider relocating CalMac's administrative offices to a location that—
That question is outwith the scope of the minister's statement.
Much as I am happy to extend the powers of the Minister for Finance, I think that I would be pushing it this afternoon if I extended them to such decisions.
However, we want to ensure that public appointments are based on merit. Local knowledge is a vital part of that approach, as are experience and a range of other qualities. We can ensure such an approach if we handle the consultation exercise properly. I am sure that John Farquhar Munro's points will be made during that consultation.
I welcome the minister's attempts to avoid discrimination, but I would add a plea that in public appointments there should be no age discrimination against either older or younger people.
Will the minister guarantee that, one day, this Parliament will scrutinise all major quango appointments, which seems to me to be the only fair, democratic approach?
There should be a cull of quangos. They are extremely unpopular, yet they control £6.5 billion of public expenditure. Does the minister agree that he should accelerate that famed bonfire of the quangos by finding the matches at last?
The points made by Dorothy- Grace Elder can be made during the consultation period. The questions are designed to address those very issues, on which I am sure that we will hear a variety of views during the consultation period.
Out of the 4,000 quango appointees, how many are disabled persons? What targets were set for disabled appointees?
Will the minister consider sponsoring further pre- application training, particularly for underrepresented groups? There is a wealth of talent out there, but people do not have the same self- confidence to come forward as middle-aged, white males—as Johann Lamont has just reminded me. [Laughter.]
Will the question of the accountability of quangos, which arises in many committees and which may not be part of the consultation exercise, be considered separately? If so, when?
Dr Simpson's first two points are addressed in the consultation document, which is available this afternoon. His third point is not within the scope of the consultation exercise, but I am sure that committees and ministers will address it in the months and years ahead.