Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3287, in the name of Brian Adam, on behalf of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, on its sixth report in 2005, the "Draft Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland".
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. The remit of the committee was extended in March to include consideration of statutory consultation documents and reports of non-compliance that are received by Parliament from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland.
Under the act that established her office, the commissioner is required to consult Parliament on a code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies. The Parliament as a whole is to be consulted on the draft code. In considering how such draft documents were to be handled, the Parliament agreed that there should be prior scrutiny of them by a committee, to be followed by a debate in the chamber, which ought to enable Parliament as a whole to respond without taking up an inordinate amount of chamber time. I note that we have 45 minutes for the debate. Some members may be concerned that we may not take quite that long, but I will endeavour to ensure that the subject is given an appropriate airing.
Before this year, we did not have a mechanism to enable a person or a body to consult the Parliament as a whole. This is the first time that the new rule in the standing orders on such consultations has been put into practice. The report by the Standards and Public Appointments Committee sets out the steps that it took in considering the draft code of practice. We started with a highly successful informal meeting with the commissioner, Karen Carlton. The committee was impressed by her undoubted enthusiasm and passion for the role that she has taken on. Following that briefing, the committee wrote to the commissioner with some fairly wide-ranging questions, to try to capture a bit more of the ethos of her office and perhaps gain an indication of her objectives and a greater understanding of the rationale behind the draft code. Those questions and the answers to them are set out in annex B to our report.
It is also worth noting that we looked at a report that was published in January 2005 by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. One aspect of that report was consideration of different public appointment systems throughout the United Kingdom. Karen Carlton gave evidence during the course of that inquiry and, generally, the Committee on Standards in Public Life looked favourably on the arrangements that are in place in Scotland now and the ones that we hope to have in place in the near future.
The report by the Standards and Public Appointments Committee is self-explanatory, but I wish to touch on a couple of the committee's responses to specific questions in the consultation questionnaire. Those are set out in annex A to our report.
The interim code of practice under which the commissioner is obliged to work classifies public bodies in upper and lower tiers, and there are differing approaches to appointments depending on the classification of the body. The commissioner has to work under that code, because it contains the current rules.
We were pleased to note that the draft code proposes that every appointment round will be subject to the same criteria, regardless of the size and spend of the body. That is a consistent approach that we feel will reflect positively on the system. We were concerned that bureaucracy might take over and that perhaps, for some appointment rounds, a sledgehammer was being used to crack a nut. However, we were reassured by the commissioner's intended approach, by the thought that has gone into applying the principle of proportionality, and by the further guidelines that will be published once the code has been adopted.
Other members may want to comment on the topic of the political activity and allegiances of candidates for posts in public bodies, so perhaps I should be brief on that matter. The draft code states that political activity declaration forms will not be sent to applicants; such forms will be completed only by successful candidates, for monitoring purposes. That is not standard practice elsewhere in the UK, and witnesses who gave evidence to the committee noted that in a small country it may be relatively easy to guess a candidate's political affiliation.
However, the rationale for appointments in Scotland is merit. Political activity is not a criterion for appointment and it is to be hoped that the commissioner will be successful in her strategy of attracting new faces to posts in public bodies. There has been considerable concern that there is a Buggins's-turn attitude to public appointments in Scotland, with the usual suspects moving from one body to the next. I share the view that we should be encouraging new faces to offer themselves for public service. The criteria that are used should help in broadening the field and make it less possible to identify candidates.
The committee feels that the commissioner is advocating the right approach in keeping political activity separate from the selection and interview process, especially when it is operated in conjunction with anonymised applications in the early stages of an appointment round.
The code of practice can be evaluated only in the light of its operation and the experiences drawn from that operation. The Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 requires the commissioner to keep the code under review, and we note that the commissioner has stated that she intends to ensure that she receives feedback from those who are involved in public appointments and that that will be taken into account in determining any future revisions.
That flexibility, added to the sound base that is set out in the draft code, means that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee is content to endorse the "Draft Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments in Scotland".
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's 6th Report, 2005 (Session 2):
Draft Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland (SP Paper 410), together with the Official Report of the Parliament's debate on the report, should form the Parliament's response to the consultation by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this brief debate. With the committee report and this debate, the commissioner has fulfilled her duty under the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 to consult the Parliament on the code of practice.
The committee's remit has been extended and there is now a mechanism for reporting to the Parliament any serious breach of the code. The committee states that it favours the anonymisation of applications. That is a welcome change from the interim code of practice whereby applicants' details are known throughout the appointments process and it will go some way to ensuring that appointments are made on merit. As Brian Adam has pointed out, it is in the interests of all of us to make it clear that appointments to public bodies in Scotland will be made on merit and not according to any other criteria.
I turn to the vexed question of cronyism and public patronage in the public appointments system. The committee recognises that
"there is a public perception that ‘cronyism' and political patronage is prevalent in the public appointments system".
If there is such a public perception, it is hardly surprising, when we consider the evidence of the number of members of the Labour Party in particular who have been appointed to public bodies. That perception in turn prevents others from even applying for appointments, as many believe that it is pointless and that they will not get appointed anyway. That is what I believe the code of practice and the appointment of the commissioner are about.
Like the committee, I believe that the commissioner, Karen Carlton, is genuine in her endeavours to ensure that the perception and the reality of the situation are overcome. I look forward to her further work on the equalities strategy. The public appointments system needs to be opened up. It must be open, transparent and fair. That is the only way in which public bodies will genuinely reflect the diversity and reality of 21st century Scotland. In her response to the committee, Karen Carlton acknowledged that
"More work must be done to encourage a wider variety of people to apply for positions and this will be addressed by the Equal Opportunities Strategy",
which she is now working on. The evidence continued:
"The Commissioner is charged with preparing and publishing a strategy for ensuring that appointments, and recommendations for appointment, are made by the Scottish Ministers in a manner which encourages equal opportunities."
It is important that the commissioner monitors how effective the public appointments process is at the moment, and whether or not the code of practice is leading to the changes that I think all of us believe are needed. The commissioner said that she has
"written to the Permanent Secretary to request access to information provided by applicants in their application and monitoring forms during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2005, to determine applicants' gender, ethnic origin, ability, declared political activity, age, educational background and where they live."
That is important, but there is a flaw here. I do not think that the permanent secretary should keep that information once an appointment has been made. It is not right that the Executive, having made the appointment, hangs on to all the data. I would like the commissioner and the Executive to work together so that, when an appointment is made, such information is passed into the safe keeping of the commissioner for public appointments. I hope that she and the Executive will consider that.
I would like the commissioner to return to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity once she has carried out the assessment and monitoring of political appointments from the start of the Parliament until 31 March 2005. We need that information. If we do not have that information, which precedes the code of practice, it will be impossible to work out whether the code of practice, once it has been adopted, has made a difference. I hope that the information on past public appointments will be placed in the public domain, and certainly in the Parliament's domain, so that MSPs may see whether the changes that have been made have indeed led to a wider field of people being appointed to public bodies in Scotland.
I congratulate the Standards and Public Appointments Committee on its examination of the draft code and I congratulate the commissioner, who has done a very fine job.
If I employed a speech writer, which I do not, I would have suspected Tricia Marwick of passing her a used fiver, because the beginning of her speech and the beginning of mine bear remarkable similarities. I make no apology for repeating the points, because they are important in the context of the debate.
On behalf of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party members, I welcome the report and the motion. Although it is self-evident that the topic does not bring people flocking to the chamber, it is nonetheless important in that it addresses one of the issues that has so bedevilled modern politics: cronyism.
I recall a very senior—and, I am grateful to say, now retired—politician advising a group of us some years ago that one should never give up the power of patronage and that it was too important a weapon to be surrendered lightly. If a line exists between patronage and cronyism, I suggest that it is very fine indeed. I suggest strongly that whatever we call it, cronyism must be rooted out of our public appointments system once and for all.
The committee recognises in its report that there exists a public perception of cronyism. I suggest respectfully that that is a massive understatement. It has got to the stage where cronyism is almost taken for granted by the general public. On occasion, I feel sympathy for individuals who are appointed perfectly acceptably to high-profile public appointments for which they are probably eminently suited, because the very fact of their appointment can lead a sceptical public to wonder what their political connections are and what favours they might have carried out in order to deserve such a seemingly lucrative reward.
We very much welcome what I consider to be the key point in the code and the commissioner's resolve to tackle it head on. We simply must eliminate all suggestions of cronyism if respect for public appointments and public agencies is to be fully restored.
What else needs to be done to restore faith in this politically sensitive area? I believe that it is vital that such appointments are genuinely open to all, and we look forward to the production, as soon as is practicable, of an equal opportunities strategy to promote vacancies to the widest possible audience. Although we accept that it is not the function of the code of practice to raise awareness of vacancies, we are encouraged by the commissioner's candid admission that more work needs to be done to encourage a wider variety of people to apply for positions. On that issue, we are clearly heading in the right direction.
The third aspect of the code that we welcome is the stress that it places on the importance of the commissioner not only being at arm's length from and 100 per cent independent of Scottish Executive ministers, but being seen to be so. The committee rightly questioned the commissioner in some detail on that aspect.
Although we accept that the minister must specify the desired criteria for the appointment at the outset of the process and should be given a summary of candidates at the end of it, the success of the code is totally dependent on there being no ministerial involvement at all in between those two extremes. The process will require careful monitoring if that aim is to be achieved, but its importance cannot be overstated.
Ultimately, both the code of practice and the equal opportunities strategy will further the stated desire of eliminating the perception of cronyism in public appointments only if ministers themselves respect and encourage the commissioner in her goal of ensuring that all appointments are made accessible to the widest possible pool of talent and are awarded on a visibly non-political basis. As long as that remains its aim, the code will continue to have our support, as does the motion before us this afternoon.
Cronyism takes a lot of different forms. Some of it might be described more as networking—one tends to favour the applications of people one knows. There might be a network at the local golf club, or whatever the venue for networking in a particular area may be.
Appointments can also be seen as a reward for public service. One of the better episodes of "Yes Minister" features a high-powered scientist who is persuaded to write his report on the alleged dangers of a chemical firm in a sensitive constituency in a certain way; he then gets the chairmanship of a public body. That is, obviously, wrong, but I have no doubt that it happens—perhaps it happens only south of the border, but I would not bet on that.
If someone is given a choice between voting for either A or B to get a job in some quango or other and they know A quite well and think that he is competent and do not know B at all, they are likely to vote for A. That is human nature, so we will not be able to get away from that. However, we have to make rules that are as clear as possible so that the selection process is competitive, open and above board. At the end of the day, however, someone will have to decide whether A is better than B and they will make that decision based on all sorts of reasons, some of which might not stand up to too much scrutiny. However, we live in an imperfect world to which we all contribute many imperfections.
It is important to take a proportionate approach to this matter. We do not want to get wildly excited about jobs that have no or little pay and which do not involve the disposal of large amounts of public money. Such jobs should be treated differently from those that are well paid.
The question of anonymity has been explored at length. The point is that everyone in Scotland who really matters—obviously, that excludes me—knows everyone else who really matters and, therefore, even if the process is anonymous, people will say, "Oh, that must be X," and will support him or not on that basis. There is an issue about the attempt to try to keep things as anonymous as possible. The intention is excellent, however.
It is a good idea that the same rules should apply to people who are nominated by organisations. Certain bodies, such as the Faculty of Advocates, have a right to nominate people to serve on the boards of quite a lot of older bodies. We have been dealing with some of those bodies recently in relation to charity law reform; I am thinking of the boards that run the national galleries, libraries and so on. However, I think that that process should be similar to that which applies to official nominees, which would mean that there would be no chance of cronyism arising in that regard.
The question of political activity not being a plus or a minus in the process is important. Certainly, people should not be appointed to a body merely because they have been an active member of a particular party. However, the reverse tendency is almost as bad. Some people regard anyone who has done any dabbling in politics as inherently evil and think that they should not get public posts.
Others have talked about the need to get a wider range of people applying for public posts. As has been said, often people do not think that they will get the job and so do not apply. However, they are also not aware of the opportunities that exist. Between us, we have to advertise and promote the whole process much better. We have all had discussions about trying to get people who we happen to know through our party-political activities who might not be active politically but who are knowledgeable about a particular sphere to apply for the sort of jobs that we are discussing. On the whole, however, they do not. We have to convince good people to apply for public posts.
On the issue of the length of time that people should be allowed to stay in their posts, I think that they should be allowed to stay on for longer than is proposed, but I understand the arguments in the report. If we are trying to attract new people, there have to be vacancies for the new people to take up. Perhaps, therefore, 10 years is long enough. However, in some organisations, a lot of the skill and knowledge is in one person's brain and it is a pity to have to lose that. The issue could be examined again.
I have been on the board of one organisation—unpaid, I may say—for a long time and I have been trying to get off it, but people keep saying, "No, no. You remember what happened 30 years ago, so we need you." That is flattering, but I think that it is probably a mistake. I can accept the 10-year point, but I still think that we have to consider the matter.
In general, the proposals are a good step forward. I do not know how we can persuade a sceptical public that we are trying to make things open and above board. We should perhaps consider how we can apply some of the principles in the report to the press and the media—that would be an extremely salutary lesson for them.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this brief debate on the draft code. This afternoon's debate is a necessary stage in the process that will allow the commissioner for public appointments in Scotland, Karen Carlton, to prepare a finalised code for ministerial appointments. The code, when it has gone through the required consultative process, will allow the commissioner properly to regulate, monitor, report on and advise on the process through which citizens are appointed to the boards of Scottish public bodies by Executive ministers.
In my view, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's sixth report in 2005, which is before the chamber today, is correct to point out, in paragraph 12, that
"the draft Code of Practice … will provide a solid platform"
from which to create a "robust mechanism" to ensure that "any negative image" of "political patronage" is properly countered. I emphasise that we are talking about perception and not reality—pace Tricia Marwick, Alex Fergusson and Donald Gorrie. When the draft code came before the committee, there was a unanimous view on that point and I believe that the committee was correct so to conclude. I support the words of the convener of the committee on that point.
I will comment briefly on a number of points that the committee made in its response to the consultation and which led to the all-party consensus. Annex A of the report is the committee's response to the seven key questions that the commissioner posed. In response to question 2, the committee was keen to express its support for the principle that every application for a public appointment should be subject to the same process. I believe that the key to attracting as wide a field of applicants as possible is for the process to be, as the committee's response states,
"as straightforward and understandable as possible."
A consistent approach throughout the appointments procedure should enable a cross-section of Scottish society to feel able to come forward to be considered and to serve. That is what we all want. Such a coherent approach is both sensible and necessary if the perception—not the reality—of political patronage is to be challenged. I suggest that, if we keep on talking about the reality of cronyism, for which there is little evidence, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I state again that cronyism is the perception and not the reality.
The committee concluded—correctly, in my view—that the proposal to anonymise applications in the early stages of an appointment round is essential to the construction of a process that ensures that all applications are judged purely on their merits. I believe that we can all agree on that. Committee members thought that that proposal could lead to a rise in public confidence in the system and achieve the aim of
"eroding the perception of cronyism."
Committee members welcomed the commissioner's acceptance that the educational establishments that candidates attended should also be anonymised. Again, that will help to remove any suspicion or perception of bias.
The final aspect that I will touch on is political activity. I regard as sensible the committee's conclusion that
"Political activity is not relevant to the appointments process".
Committee members were strongly of the view that
"in order to achieve a ‘depoliticised' framework for appointments to public bodies in Scotland, information of this nature should be taken out of the equation at an early stage."
I believe that that is so wholly sensible that it is worthy of everyone's support. Committee members also believed that, because we all agreed with the idea.
Appointments to public bodies by Scottish ministers must be seen to be like the actions of Caesar's wife—above suspicion. It is up to the Parliament to play its part in assisting the commissioner to produce a code that will prove resilient enough to achieve such a laudable and necessary objective. On that basis, I commend to the chamber the sixth report in 2005 of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee.
It gives me great pleasure to offer the Executive's support for the introduction of the proposed code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland. I believe, and external scrutiny confirms, that we have a good system. The proposals will help to strengthen it further and will knock on the head the perception of cronyism.
I congratulate the commissioner for public appointments in Scotland, Karen Carlton, on the progress that has been made. Overall, the Executive's view is that the draft code represents a significant advance. In our formal response, we will warmly welcome the broad thrust of her proposals. It is in everyone's interest to take the opportunity to establish a new Scottish code that is tailor-made to meet Scotland's requirements and the expectations of all our stakeholders and the wider community.
I also congratulate the Standards and Public Appointments Committee on the compilation of its thorough and comprehensive response to the consultation. I am sure that the commissioner will welcome its constructive contribution, as outlined by Brian Adam and others.
Public confidence in the public appointments process throughout the United Kingdom and perhaps more widely has sometimes been low, as many members have said. The Executive has taken various steps to address that. As a priority after devolution, we introduced legislation to establish a separate commissioner for public appointments in Scotland with a remit to establish a new Scottish code for ministerial appointments. I am pleased to be involved in the current stage of the continuing process of improving the integrity of our public appointments system.
The full terms of the Executive's response to the consultation will become public in due course, but I will say a little about the proposals and follow up several points that members made. The Executive welcomes the redefined principles that underpin the code. In particular, extending the definition of independent scrutiny to make it clear that an independent assessor is involved at each stage of an appointments round should serve to reassure the public and dispel the perception of cronyism.
Given the level of unwarranted criticism and allegations of cronyism in recent years, I am pleased to support the commissioner's proposals to remove the political activity declaration from the early stages of the appointments process. That has been widely welcomed throughout the chamber. That information plays no part in the selection process, but the suspicion remains that that is not always the case. We are of course content for that information to continue to be collected and published in the case of successful applicants.
We are also content with the decision to preserve anonymity until candidates are shortlisted, but anonymity beyond that point would be impracticable. We agree with the commissioner's proposal to abolish the 10-year rule. The 10-year rule may reduce the talent pool or make contributing to the public sector less attractive. We support her views on that.
We have some concerns about the principle of proportionality. Brian Adam suggested that we must be careful not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We have concerns about abolition of the two-tier system, which works well. We would like the commissioner to produce further guidelines on how the principle of proportionality should be interpreted to ensure that, throughout Scotland, the approach is consistent and the process is practical and understood fully.
The Executive also has concerns about statutory nominations, although we have few in Scotland. The nominees are in competition only with one another and not with other candidates. We do not consider it practical in all instances to subject them to the same process, but we need to satisfy ourselves that the procedure that is followed by the nominating body is suitably robust and that it leads to an acceptable outcome.
We welcome much else in the draft code and I am happy to reiterate and confirm the Executive's broad support for the introduction of the new Scottish code of practice. We believe that the new code will assist in driving standards up even higher, contribute to the delivery of quality appointments and help to manage and reform important elements of public life in Scotland, and we hope that it will enjoy improved public confidence for years to come.
To respond to the point that Tricia Marwick made, I confirm that information on public appointments going back to 1999 will be handed over to the commissioner, which will inevitably lead to our being able to judge the impact of the new code of practice in the coming years.
I was going to let Tricia Marwick intervene, but I notice that the minister is finished. That fooled me.
I have enjoyed listening to the debate and thank members for participating in it. It is not surprising that those members who have participated have been engaged with the committee; the honourable exception is my colleague Tricia Marwick, who is a former member of it. Speeches have been informative and constructive.
The motion states that the official report of the debate will form part of the Parliament's response to the consultation by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. The commissioner will therefore consider members' comments and ministerial comments.
It is natural that most members should have focused on cronyism. We need a baseline and I am glad to hear that the minister has given an assurance that details of appointments since 1999 will be made available so that we have a proper baseline for measuring whether we are achieving what we want to achieve. We want evidence that we are encouraging more well-qualified people to contribute to public life in Scotland, that there is a diverse group of appointees and that we are disposing of any real or perceived bias in the system. However, we will have to wait to see the outcomes.
Donald Gorrie told us a little about the "Yes Minister" approach to appointments. Although much in that series appeared to be founded in reality, I hope that this type of approach will be able to address that. A series of independent commissioners has been appointed to deal with a number of issues to do with public confidence in public life. I hope that the reservations that the minister expressed on behalf of the Executive will be tempered by the discussion about moving towards the commissioner's position if there is doubt about a position. That will help to reinforce public confidence. Even if we occasionally have to consider the proportionality of things, we ought, when there is doubt, to err on the side of the commissioners rather than on the side of those who have done it before and know that it works, so to speak. If we are to instil public confidence in our procedures, we must support the independence of the various commissioners' offices.
I hope that when we fill any post we will get the best person for that job. That means that, among other things, age, gender, where a person went to school and any religious inclinations that they may have must be disregarded. Bill Butler rightly pointed out that that is a key area in which there is a perception of cronyism. It will be very easy to identify someone's background if we do not ensure that applications are anonymised. Donald Gorrie was correct to say that, in a small country such as ours, even if we anonymise everything it will be possible to identify at least some individuals. However, if we meet one of the other big objectives that the commissioner has set in her draft code of conduct, we will attract new people, who may be less easily identified.
We need to avoid discrimination. We already have a raft of laws that aim to stamp out discrimination and inequality in the workplace. The approach that is taken in the commissioner's draft code of practice reflects the need to get the best person for the job. The code speaks of merit. It states:
"All public appointments are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, by the well informed choice of individuals who match the needs of the public bodies in question."
Many posts are important in delivering not just the Executive's wishes, but the wishes of the Parliament. I understand the desire of those with public policy issues to have someone sympathetic to those issues in place, and that question needs to be addressed. However, we have a wealth of people who are willing to give of their time in order to improve the well-being of our country. Some posts carry significant salaries, whereas others carry only modest salaries. In order to get good-quality people and to have appointments based on merit, we must ensure that the process is independent and that merit can be seen to be the principle governing selection. We are aware that there is a perception that that may not always be how things work and that many worthy applicants may be put off considering offering their talents and services because they believe that their face does not fit or that they do not have the right connections. Donald Gorrie dwelled a little on that point in his speech.
Hard work and time will probably be required to remove the perception to which I referred. As there is a turnover in public appointments, we should start to see that happen. It is important that the monitoring process is keenly scrutinised, not just by the commissioner, but by Parliament. Perhaps even parliamentary committees that have a particular interest in an issue should take a good look at the process. It will take time for the situation to change, because not all ministerial appointments will end with the production of the code of conduct. There should be a natural turnover, but gradually we will get to that point, which should help to build public confidence. The committee believes that the commissioner is taking the right approach to tackling the problem. She has shown a definite commitment to putting in place a system that can command public confidence.
The draft code alone will not solve every problem, although we hope that it will go a long way towards achieving that aim. The Standards and Public Appointments Committee looks forward to receiving the commissioner's draft equality strategy, to which some speakers referred. We should receive it later in the year. The strategy is an important buttress to the draft code, as we understand that it will lay the groundwork for encouraging and supporting a wider variety of people to apply for posts in public bodies. It will address the issue of opening up the appointments process to people who have not previously applied and of supporting applications, especially from those who, for whatever reason, have not submitted them in the past.
The strategy will be subject to the same scrutiny procedure that we are currently undertaking for the draft code of practice. When it is laid before Parliament, I encourage members with an interest in the area of public appointments to take a look at it. I know that there are members who have an interest in the area. Perhaps because of all the other things that are happening at the moment in the world of politics in Scotland, they have not taken the opportunity to take part in today's debate. There will be another, and I encourage those with an interest in public appointments to participate in it.
The Standards and Public Appointments Committee would be pleased to receive input to its considerations on its report to Parliament. It is open to any member to come to our committee meetings.
I encourage members to support the motion in my name on behalf of the committee and to endorse the contents of the report on the draft code of practice. The commissioner for public appointments in Scotland is trying to build confidence in the system of ministerial appointments through the draft code. In that endeavour she is to be commended and supported.
Our committee believes that the draft code provides a sound platform from which to launch our campaign for a process that is seen to be more accessible and attractive than at present and that encourages a diversity of applicants, which is what people inside and outwith the Parliament would like.