Public Appointments
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-706, on public appointments, in the name of Mr Jack McConnell.
I welcome this opportunity to move a motion that notes the consultation exercise. I also welcome the fact that no amendments have been lodged, which creates a helpful tone for the debate. It is important that we consider together how we can build as much consensus as possible about the way in which public appointments are made in post-devolution Scotland.
As I said, I welcome the opportunity to debate the public appointments consultation paper, which I launched on 9 February. We are now seven weeks into the 11-week consultation period and I am looking forward to hearing the views of members this afternoon and those of organisations and individuals from throughout Scotland in the weeks ahead.
Devolution was a crucial step towards the modernisation of democratic structures by bringing people and government closer. The partnership agreement committed the Executive to innovative government that is open, welcomes good ideas whatever their source and encourages participation. The public appointments consultation paper is yet another demonstration of our determination to live up to that commitment. It encourages people from whatever part of society not only to submit their views and opinions on how the system should be reformed, but to play a part in the future government of Scotland.
This is very much a listening exercise. It is about ensuring that our public bodies command public confidence by being fair, open and transparent. It is also about encouraging wider participation and being accessible and informative. We want to devise a modern system. During the 1980s and 1990s, quangos and those who served on them lost public confidence. We want to change that, to transform the system, to put the past behind us and to look to the future positively to rebuild confidence. Devolution creates the opportunity to modernise our public appointments system.
The consultation paper is a useful focus for debate, as it raises a number of the issues that I want to reflect on this afternoon. First, the role of independent assessors is widely recognised as a success in the health appointments system; the UK Commissioner for Public Appointments may advise that Governments should go further on that. In Scotland, we could pursue that further either across all Executive appointments or perhaps in specific departments and bodies.
The paper also raises the issue of the creation of a Scottish commissioner for public appointments. There is no doubt that the new UK commissioner is doing a very good job. She has proven her independence from Government in looking at the system and taking up complaints and issues—she commands respect across the political spectrum. However, we may want to create our own Scottish commissioner, either by establishing a new post or by combining posts that currently exist or that may exist in the future. Such a commissioner would deal with complaints and review the system. They might even be involved in the appointment of independent advisers in some areas or across the board.
We also want to examine whether there is a role for Parliament. Yesterday, we published research that shows that parliamentary involvement in public appointments is not, as I thought, the norm across Europe. I found that research educational and interesting and I hope that members will read it—copies are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre and on the Government's website. The research shows that, although recent parliamentary involvement in the appointment of, for example, European commissioners has been widely recognised as a success, parliamentary involvement in appointments at national level is not the norm either in the European Union or in the Commonwealth. We need to reflect on those facts and on the reasons for and against parliamentary involvement in appointments, although we in Scotland are not obliged to adopt the systems that prevail elsewhere. The aim must be to devise a system that permits transparency and accountability for the elected representatives of Scotland, without putting off people who might otherwise come forward to serve—and serve well.
We are not tinkering at the edges, but examining the fundamental elements of the public appointments system—the independence of at least part of it, the way in which complaints are handled and reviews are conducted, and the role that this new Parliament can play. If we end up with a system that is merely a variation on jobs for the boys, we will have wasted an opportunity. I hope that members will accept our assurance that we will not allow that to happen. We must ensure that we can all have confidence in the new system.
Diversity in public appointments in Scotland is a big issue. In recent years, targets for improving the representation of women and ethnic minorities have been set, but the issue goes wider than that. The targets themselves may need to be reviewed. The inclusion of children's panels and tribunals in the overall total for public appointments in Scotland skews the picture in terms of the appointment of women to public bodies. If panels and tribunals are excluded from the total, the number of women appointed is still demonstrably low. The number of ethnic minority representatives on Scotland's public bodies is derisory and we need to consider how we can improve that.
We also need to consider how we can increase the number of people with disabilities who are appointed to public bodies and ensure that Scotland's rural areas and people from different socio-economic backgrounds are properly represented. Scotland's public bodies cannot be the preserve of professional elites in the cities of central Scotland. They must be open, accessible and transparent, with appointments available to people from all parts of society, who bring with them all kinds of life experience.
Yesterday, the Minister for Health and Community Care, the Deputy Minister for Communities and I hosted a lunch with representatives of ethnic minority, disability and women's groups, along with others from the voluntary sector. We had some excellent discussions about modernising the system and some good suggestions were made, which we will pursue. We may establish a group made up of such representatives for our officials to meet regularly, following the consultation, when they are seeking to put into practice much of what we will discuss this afternoon. We are keen to look into the possibility of organising events and providing information to promote public service and opportunities to serve.
I have found repeatedly that many people simply do not know who is on their local health board and other public bodies. Would it not be a good idea to publicise appointments in a mandatory way, through libraries and other centres where people can find out about them readily? On one occasion three or four years ago, it took me four telephone calls to find out the names of the new members of a health board. If people could see the information in libraries and other well-used centres, that would be a distinct help.
That is an excellent idea. The information needs to be made available at both ends of the process. Yesterday, voluntary organisations, including those representing disadvantaged groups, suggested that we publish an information leaflet detailing public bodies and the opportunities to serve on them. The leaflet could include a tick list, which people could send back to receive more information about the bodies in which they were interested. The voluntary organisations have helpfully offered to circulate that leaflet among committee members and activists across Scotland.
At the other end of the process, local authorities, for example, are much better than they used to be at publicising the names, photographs and contact points for elected councillors. Public bodies—especially local public bodies—should do the same.
We should also examine training, to ensure that people have the confidence to come forward and that they have the skills to perform their functions well. At the lunch seminar yesterday, the point was well made that there is perhaps a role in the education curriculum not just to examine systems of government, elected representation and the other topics that are covered in modern studies, but to consider public bodies as part of the system of governance. We should educate our young people about how the country is run and how services are delivered.
I hope that we can discuss those important points this afternoon and that they can be raised in the weeks ahead. I hope that there will be improvements in the system after the consultation. We have to rise to that challenge. Members should be clear that the Executive is determined to ensure that appointments to public bodies are fully representative of Scotland. We want talented, committed people to come forward, irrespective of gender, race, location or political party. I can guarantee that we will make appointments that are based on merit. We will treat the consultation seriously and report back to Parliament with proposals that can be debated and, I hope, agreed to by members.
The system must be open, transparent and fair. We have a valuable opportunity for everybody to make a contribution towards achieving that goal. I look forward to hearing views this afternoon and I hope that it will be possible to realise that goal.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the consultation paper on Modernising the Public Appointments System in Scotland, and urges individuals and organisations to contribute views and ideas during the consultation period.
The SNP welcomes the publication of the consultation document, "Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland: Modernising the System", and the spirit in which the minister is presenting his proposals. We will not dispute his objectives, except perhaps on the role of Parliament in the confirmation of public appointments—I will address that point later.
We urge the minister to produce radical and innovative proposals at the end of the consultation process. The fact that Parliaments in other European countries do not have a huge role to play should not be an excuse for inaction on our part. There are differences between us and most of our European counterparts; the main one is that they do not rely on quangos to the same extent as we do. For example, in France, the cabinet system makes it unnecessary to have a large number of quangos.
Although this is not part of the remit of the document, I urge the minister to undertake, in the not too distant future, a radical review of the number of quangos in Scotland, which has increased in recent years. Some of the legislation that is in the pipeline, such as that on national parks, will increase the number of non-departmental public bodies in Scotland. Excluding children's panels and tribunals, quangos account for £6.5 billion of expenditure—a figure that approaches 50 per cent of all the expenditure under parliamentary control—and for 1,223 appointments in 146 bodies, including national health service bodies. Those appointments represent a substantial spectrum of public administration in Scotland. I hope that, as well as considering appointments, we can examine how to make quangos much more directly accountable, either at Scottish level through ministers or at local level through elected representatives. I beg the minister to undertake such a radical review.
Let me concentrate on the proposals in the consultation paper. The minister mentioned in passing one of the reasons why the public appointments system has become so discredited in Scotland—to be fair, not just over the past two or three years, but over the past 50 years. The issue is not so much the cronyism in relation to ethnic or women's representation and so on, important though those issues are—and I will come to that in a minute—but the political cronyism, actual and perceived.
Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, produced a report last week on the health service south of the border, which showed that 83 per cent of all the councillors on national health service bodies were from one political party—the Labour party. I have tried to get the equivalent information in Scotland, where I suspect the ratio is not much different. The figures illustrate the need for a much greater spread of representation. There are good Liberals, good Tories and good SNP people who can serve on these bodies. I do not see why such public service posts should be confined to one political party.
Although I will not name names or personalise the issue, I cite as an example the chairmanship of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The chairman claims a salary of £38,000 a year for a three-day week. I remember the three-day week under Ted Heath. I am sure that Duncan McNeil would have been glad to get £38,000 for a three-day week in the shipyards. Given the salaries in the Parliament for a seven-day week, I do not see any justification for the chairman of SEPA receiving almost the same amount of money for a three-day week. That kind of thing brings the system into disrepute. I want ministers to rid themselves of the power of patronage and, as the minister said, to make the system more accountable.
I shall pick up on some specific issues in the consultation document, the first of which is the representation of women. From the total number of appointments, in annexe D, it appears that there is a reasonable balance: 53 per cent male and 47 per cent female. However, tribunals make up about 80 per cent of all appointments. When the representation in tribunals, where males make up 44 per cent and females 56 per cent, is taken out, the gender balance in the remaining public appointments is appalling.
In the executive and advisory quangos, 72 per cent and 70 per cent of the appointees, respectively, are male. In the national health service bodies, 61 per cent of appointees are male and only 39 per cent are female. In the nationalised industries, 95 per cent of appointees are male and only 5 per cent are female. In the public corporations, 85 per cent of appointees are male and only 15 per cent are female. In the 21st century, we cannot justify such gender imbalance on those bodies.
Similarly, 0.5 per cent of all appointments involve someone from the ethnic community. Clearly, in a multiracial society such as ours, that is an unacceptable ratio. I welcome the minister's commitment to change that.
I promised to keep my speech tight to allow other speakers in, so I shall be brief. The current incumbent of the UK post of Commissioner for Public Appointments is doing an excellent job. However, the policy issue is whether we should have our own commissioner in Scotland. There is no doubt in my mind that that makes sense, but I hope that our commissioner will be appointed by the Parliament and not by ministers. The independence of the commissioner is essential. We have been lucky with the current appointee, but the way in which the commissioner is appointed is extremely important. I would like the Parliament to appoint the commissioner, as well as the independent assessors to ensure that the commissioner is truly independent.
I hope that every member will support my member's bill to introduce a system of public confirmation for the key public appointments in Scotland. Let us get rid of ministerial patronage. Let us open up Scotland and make the system fair, representative, transparent and—above all—accountable.
The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the Executive's objective—as expressed in the consultation paper—of making public appointments more open and accountable. We should aim to build on the Nolan reforms of the mid-1990s, which established an independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, a code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies and a monitoring process to ensure that appointments were made on merit after fair and open competition. I believe that those arrangements have worked well but that, as the minister fairly said, it is right that we should review them in the light of the advent of this Parliament.
We all know of the public perception that public appointments have been—how shall I put it?—made on a less than politically neutral basis. Our first objective must be to dispel that notion and to demonstrate clearly that those who have been appointed have achieved their positions on merit. Sadly, it seems that there is a conflict of sorts between the Executive's stated aim of ensuring that appointments are made on merit and the methods by which it is proposing to widen the range of people who are appointed to public bodies.
I am more than happy to support measures that encourage more applicants and candidates from a wider cross-section of society to respond to advertisements and to offer themselves for public service, as long as those measures can be reconciled with the aim of ensuring greater openness in the system of appointments.
I appreciate that I may differ in some respects from people whose desire is more to achieve an equality of outcomes among people who are appointed to a public position than to achieve an equality of opportunities for people to obtain that appointment to a public position. The targets that the Scottish ministers have inherited from the Scottish Office look to me suspiciously like quotas. I cannot support that form of positive discrimination, because it totally undermines the principle of appointment on merit in an open and competitive system. In fairness, the consultation paper recognises that conflict—paragraph 5.7 flags up the issue of merit versus balance. That issue needs close examination before we come to final conclusions on the system. I hope that the minister will take that on board.
I will illustrate that point with an example. It is always interesting to peruse papers such as this and identify the number and nature of non-departmental public bodies. I was especially intrigued by one of the more exotic species in annexe A of the paper—the Electricity Fisheries Committee. Seven appointments to this body are apparently in the gift of the Scottish Executive. It may bother Alex Neil and some others but, to be frank, I do not care whether the members of the Electricity Fisheries Committee are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, Protestant or Catholic, Labour, Liberal, nationalist or Tory. All that matters to me is that—when it comes to electric eels, electric kippers or any other high-voltage fish that come within the domain of that committee—there are no better-informed people in Scotland than the seven good men or women who are appointed.
That approach should pervade the system of appointments to all public bodies in Scotland. The people appointed from the candidates who come forward—and I recognise that we have to widen the field of candidates—must be the best available for that position. That also means that the people who make the decisions on the relative merits of the candidates must be independent, which is why I am interested in some of the suggestions in the paper about reinforcing the independent element in the making of appointments.
According to the paper, we currently have 27 independent assessors, but those assessors are appointed by ministers. That could compromise the assessors' independence and it could lead them to conform to some quota-setting principle in the making of public appointments instead of taking their decisions on the basis of the merits of the candidates. The suggestion in the consultation paper—that the independent assessor should be appointed by the commissioner—is sensible; I hope that it will be followed up. We should also try to increase the number of independent members on Executive appointment panels, again with the aim of sustaining and promoting the integrity of the appointments system.
The consultation paper suggests that we might have a separate Scottish commissioner for public appointments. That suggestion is worthy of examination, but we must ensure that it does not lead to inconsistencies in appointments across the United Kingdom, bearing in mind, in particular, the fact that some 65 cross-border bodies operate in Scotland but are controlled largely from Westminster. The appointment system must be meshed between the two commissioners. The suggestion that the UK commissioner might be the initial Scottish commissioner, until the system settles down and Scotland has a commissioner of its own, is sensible.
I welcome the consultation paper and the motion. I hope that the minister will take on board some of our suggestions.
When Alex Neil mentioned the chairman of SEPA, I was not sure whether he was arguing for a decrease in the chairman's salary or an increase in his own. No doubt he will clarify that later.
In reviewing the system of public appointments, we must pursue the key objective that everyone who serves on public bodies enjoys public confidence through being seen to be appointed by a fair, open and transparent system.
It is regrettable that, in too many cases, appointments to public bodies have been dogged by accusations of cronyism and lack of accountability. As David McLetchie rightly said, the Nolan committee helped by limiting the length of time for which people can stay on public bodies to two three-year periods; that change must be welcomed. Nevertheless, accusations of lack of accountability and cronyism continue to surround various appointments.
An example that springs to mind, which attracted considerable discussion in my part of the world, was the appointment last year of Harold Mills to the chairmanship of Caledonian MacBrayne. That appointment caused a great deal of concern in my constituency and throughout the Highlands and Islands. As members know, Dr Mills—in his previous incarnation—advised the Secretary of State for Scotland and Conservative ministers on various aspects of CalMac policy. Naturally, this man's credibility in chairing CalMac comes into question, especially as there are other issues surrounding the company that require decisions to be made.
The manner of Harold Mills's appointment also calls its credibility into question. Only last week, the First Minister admitted that the circumstances surrounding Dr Mills's appointment merited
"criticism of the detailed procedures surrounding the specification of the selection criteria, the composition of the panels and the selection and role of independent members".
That is a damning indictment of how the appointment came about.
Some months ago, I tried to obtain from the Executive a list of all the independent members or assessors who have sat on interview panels for appointments to public bodies in Scotland over the past five years, and an indication of how often each individual had been involved in making judgments about whether people got the job. I could get the names, but not the information on how often each panel member had been engaged to carry out that work. That is wrong—access to such information is vital if we are properly to democratise Scotland's public bodies. I hope that the consultation that Jack McConnell has proposed will address that. We must ensure the credibility of such appointments and establish a proper system to achieve that.
The appointment of a separate commissioner for Scottish public bodies, who would report back to the Scottish Parliament, is well worthy of support and further investigation. We have all heard that about £2 billion a year of public money is distributed by those bodies in Scotland. The Executive is also responsible for NHS bodies—whose total spend is £4.5 billion—and a number of tribunals, public corporations and nationalised industries. With responsibility for such enormous budgets, it is vital that public bodies in Scotland are as open and accountable as possible.
It must be recognised that thousands of people give their time generously to sit on the boards of such public organisations—they give that time to contribute to public life. We must get the balance of public scrutiny right, and I would not support a system in which volunteers who were giving up their time to serve on public bodies were put under US Senate-style interrogation. We want an open, transparent and accountable system, but we must ensure that volunteers still put themselves forward.
Clearly the Scottish Parliament must have a role in the appointments system. The committees can already scrutinise the activities of, and summon as witnesses, not only the chief executives but the chairmen of bodies.
We want a system of appointments that enjoys public confidence through being transparent, accountable and free from any accusation of cronyism. Furthermore, that system must strike the right balance to ensure that individuals will still give of their time and volunteer for positions.
The time for this debate is extremely tight and we will move to closing speeches at 16:40. If members can keep their speeches to three minutes, I will be able to call three speakers.
I welcome the opportunity to endorse the minister's speech. High standards in public life are an important issue, not only for us as parliamentarians, but for the ordinary working people whom we serve. Just as they want to have faith in elected politicians, they must have faith in public appointments.
I welcome the creation of the role of Commissioner for Public Appointments, which should achieve the aim of avoiding political interference while ensuring that independent scrutiny is implicit in the system of appointments. The promotion of equal opportunities is also important in any system of public appointments. The Labour party manifesto for the Scottish Parliament election committed us to celebrating the diversity of Scotland's people.
However, in Lanarkshire and elsewhere, we have failed in the past to ensure that our public appointments system was representative of the diversity of the communities served by those bodies. We know that public bodies comprise mainly white, professional males. Although we recognise the wealth of talent and experience already employed in those organisations, we must deliver a system of public appointments that reflects the diversity of Scottish society. I welcome the Executive's agenda on that matter.
The Parliament welcomed the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Committee as a sign of our commitment to equality in Scotland. I am pleased that the Executive is expanding the values on which the committee was founded by promoting and enshrining those values in our public bodies to make them truly representative of the public.
Without disparaging any individual or group of professionals, I often wonder whether my area of Lanarkshire is mainly populated by middle-class professionals. Even a cursory look at the background of the people who serve on public bodies would indicate that the personnel are drawn from too narrow a section of society. Where are the women, the ethnic minorities, the disabled and the ordinary working people? At the moment, those groups are under-represented, if they are represented at all. That issue must be addressed, which is why the Executive's initiative is so welcome.
The issue is not only about proportionality or social exclusion, or about whether 75 per cent of appointees are of one gender or another; it is about fiscal competence. As such bodies account for approximately £6.5 billion of public money, there is a good case for a scrutinising role for the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Having the right people to make the correct decisions about such large sums, along with other prerequisites, will lead to potentially greater fiscal competence, by better matching needs to available resources.
It is my earnest hope that through the introduction of those initiatives, the profile of public service will be raised in the eyes of the general public, which in itself could encourage more people than ever before to consider offering their talents for the country's benefit.
I believe that the Executive is determined to fulfil its commitment to the equality agenda and that we will continue to strive for greater diversity of representation on public bodies. Jack McConnell's proposal goes a long way towards creating a climate of greater trust in our appointees and towards independent scrutiny becoming a reality.
There is still much to do, but we recognise the work that has already been done. The minister's proposals are good for public confidence in appointments, for Lanarkshire and for the people of Scotland whom we serve. I commend the motion.
I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I, too, welcome the debate, which is long overdue.
It is imperative that we break down the barriers between the public and the many quangos in Scotland. There is a perception that quangos are stuffed with a combination of the untouchables and the usual suspects, to borrow titles from the Hollywood movies. That must change.
As the minister knows, I have an interest in the water industry. The water industry highlights the desperate need for change in public appointments. I want to take the example of the North of Scotland Water Authority and, in particular, of its chairman, Colin Rennie, whom I have mentioned before in the chamber.
Colin Rennie is chairman of NOSWA by virtue of the fact that he was once a Labour party councillor in Dundee. However, shortly after his appointment, the Labour party in Dundee decided that he was not good enough to be a councillor and he was deselected. He is therefore no longer a councillor, yet has kept his position as chairman of NOSWA.
This is a man who is contracted to work one and a half days a week, yet who last year cost NOSWA £36,000. He gets a salary of £26,000, taxable benefits of £7,000 and £3,000 towards his pension—all for one and a half days a week. That is an appalling state of affairs, yet the consumers in that water authority, when faced with 45 per cent increases in water charges, must put up with statements from the chairman that they should not worry, because the increase is only the same as the cost of a packet of crisps.
The chairman is untouchable—there is nothing that consumers can do to remove him. They are not happy with his statements nor with the 45 per cent increase in their water charges, yet there is no facility to remove him from his position as chairman of the water authority, a position that he got by virtue of his position in the Labour party, although he no longer holds his post there due to lack of confidence in him. People must be given the means to remove such people from their posts.
Staying with the water industry, I want to turn to the position of the water commissioner. The recently appointed water commissioner was appointed to be the customers' champion, yet the customers had no role whatever in his appointment—he was appointed by ministers. Again, from what I am told, customers are not happy with his performance, but there is no means whereby they can do anything about it. They did not even have a say in his appointment. That also must change.
I do not want to continue because others wish to speak, but I want to ask the minister to acknowledge when he winds up that those two examples illustrate why we desperately need to change the system.
I welcome the motion moved by the minister and congratulate him on the innovative approach in the document. The consultation is welcome and will allow input from a wide range of agencies, which is important.
I want to examine two of the key objectives outlined in the consultation document, the first of which is fairness, openness and transparency, to which we all subscribe. Its importance was stressed by many members.
If we are to realise the second objective in the consultation document—encouraging a much wider range of people from all sections of society to participate in public bodies—we must increase participation by women, people from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. As Alex Neil so eloquently said, the level of women's representation is, quite frankly, unacceptable.
Alex Neil pointed out that women participate primarily in children's panels, and are not chosen for executive appointments to quangos. That illustrates the fact that women are segregated into perceived women's roles and do not have an impact on the key decisions that affect our lives.
I want to respond to an issue raised by David McLetchie. The issue is not one of merit versus balance; surely it is one of equality of opportunity.
The targets that have been set for appointments to the devolved Scottish public bodies for women and ethnic minorities are welcome, as is the commitment to encourage disabled candidates to apply. Will the minister reassure Parliament that disabled people's membership of public bodies will be monitored, given that no specific targets are set? If we are to encourage people from a wide cross-section of society to respond, we must change the perception of our public bodies. An advertising campaign targeted at publications that are primarily read by women and by people from ethnic minorities is welcome, as is the commitment to child care.
If we are to succeed in broadening social representation, we must ensure that the environment in which our public bodies operate is changed. We must remove the perception of elitism, to ensure increased participation. There is general criticism of the lack of transparency and accountability and of the undue bureaucracy in public sector bodies. Attitudes must change.
We need to encourage people from a diverse range of backgrounds and, if we are to do that, we need a co-ordinated approach. Because of a lack of relevant data, it is often difficult to pinpoint where under-representation lies, and I would like a further commitment from the minister that that will be addressed. The issue of equality must also be addressed not just in the boardroom but at management level.
I look forward to the outcome of the consultative process, and I welcome the commitment from the minister fundamentally to overhaul the public appointments system, to ensure a more inclusive and transparent approach in our public bodies.
I welcome what the minister said, and I know that we have a difficult job ahead in trying to rid the country of the curse of cronyism. Cronyism is not exclusive to any one political party, or to any section of life. It is a perfectly horrible part of the human condition, I am afraid. The worst possible workers are acquired through it, and it is to be avoided.
While we talk of transparency, we must admit that, until we in the Scottish Parliament began to try, the governance of Scotland has been about as transparent as a Harris tweed nightgown. There is far too much secrecy. One way to stop that is to stop the march of the cronies into the 3,900 appointments that are controlled by the Scottish Executive. That means that all public appointments must come before the Parliament. Only that way will we all be able to play spot the crony and achieve fair selection.
We need the oxygen of the different, new views of everyone represented in Scotland. We need only look at how well the Parliament did yesterday, when we had contributions from every possible political party on the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. We did well, and pulled together as a Parliament, producing much better legislation than would have been the case before.
Imagine how good people could be in those all-important public bodies, which govern Scotland more than we in Parliament do, if we were free from the old ways of doing things.
Alex Neil referred to SEPA—I did not know that he would. SEPA is one of the most secretive of all the quangos. We have all had perfectly dreadful experiences with SEPA. In November 1998, when I arranged a public meeting in Baillieston about Paterson's toxic dump, there was a SEPA representative on the platform. Two months after that meeting, I had to discover for myself that another 100,000 tonnes of material, half-raw sewage this time, was about to go into that dump. I telephoned SEPA and said, "Why didn't that man inform the public of that on that particular night? Did you know that that was going to happen?" SEPA just replied, "Yes." It had no legal compulsion to tell anyone. But the absence of legal compulsion does not matter—what an insult to the public that they were not told. They have to suffer that toxic dump, but they could not be told by that body, SEPA, which we are paying for.
We need more openness and, through that, better governance. There must be a radical shake-up with—please—appointments brought before the Parliament.
We now come to winding-up speeches, and I apologise to members whom I have not been able to call. I thank the closing speakers for giving some of their allotted time in order to accommodate as many members as we did. I now call Robert Brown, who has three minutes.
Perhaps I can draw the minister's attention to the Scottish Standing Committee for the Calculation of Residual Values of Fertilisers and Feedingstuffs. I suggest that he offer a post on that committee to Alex Neil should his questions in Parliament become too troublesome. I instance that not because of the oddity of its name—I have no doubt that it is an important body—but to illustrate that the range of bodies that we are talking about is vast.
In the document, we read that on the Justices of the Peace Advisory Committee are 10 ordinary people, such as councillors and managing directors, four lord provosts, four members of the peerage, two knights of the realm and 13 military men. That is not representative of Scotland in the 21st century. A fair bit of work needs to be done in that direction.
I confess that I concur with Alex Neil's call for a reassessment of quangos. I do not think that all quangos are bad, but they have a tendency to grow and they are hidden away in corners of the governmental machine. The object of the exercise is to get good people who reflect the population of Scotland into posts in a way that is seen to be transparent. We are discussing a number of politically sensitive areas. Appointments to water authorities were touched on earlier; I would instance the chairs of health boards. Health boards operate in a politically sensitive area and have come in for some criticism in the Parliament in recent weeks. It might be that Parliament should scrutinise the appointment of their chairs and those of other bodies, such as SEPA, the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Enterprise.
Parliamentary scrutiny of appointments seems less appropriate for technical and professional bodies. I know that that raises the image of appointments to such bodies being made behind closed doors, but we have to include an element of selection by people who know about candidates' professional abilities.
The technique of appointment is also important. A system of formal appointment making, which includes interview panels manned by people who know what they are doing, has to be built in. With great respect to parliamentary committees, we are not professional appointers.
We have to strike a balance. We do not want to put people off, but those who are appointed must realise that they are in public life and that they must behave accordingly. We need to produce a system that is worthy of a 21st-century democratic set-up. We have a variable system; we should not adopt one pattern across the board and apply it to all sorts of different bodies.
I also welcome the consultation paper. As Mr McLetchie said, we are broadly in support of the initiatives that are listed therein. We hope that there will be a wide and constructive response from the public.
Transparency of procedure for appointments and transparency of operation of quangos is essential for the credibility of those organisations in the eyes of the public. It is important to bear that in mind as there is a degree of cynicism among the public about how those bodies operate. That transparency is equally necessary for the effective working of the quango. I hope that the broader issue of quangos in general can be examined. Perhaps some of them can be restructured into voluntary organisations. Not all of them need retain their current character.
There is a need to depoliticise appointments and to remove the appointments system from the direct political arena although, of course, it is acknowledged that there must continue to be a link, in the interests of accountability.
My party supports the concept of an independent commissioner and—in the short term—using the UK commissioner seems a sensible transitional proposal.
Merit and added value to the quango must be the criteria. Considerations of gender and other comparable and worthy factors must be balanced with that. Marilyn Livingstone made a good point: there are apparent deficiencies in the composition of many of those bodies, but it is important for the sake of the credibility of the people serving on the bodies and the credibility of the body itself that merit be paramount. I do not believe that it is impossible to find merit in the groups to which Marilyn Livingstone referred.
The Conservative party opposes an abstract quota approach. For a responsible and transparent approach to these issues, there must be openness. An application of that approach would be to allow the commissioner to appoint the 27 independent assessors, and to increase the number of independent members on the Executive's appointment panels.
Given what we can only estimate to be the total cost of remunerating personnel in quangos—that, interestingly, does not figure in the document, but it must be a significant sum—I suggest that there is a need to monitor the appointment process and the performance of appointees. To minimise bureaucracy and cost, the commissioner could audit the process. However, should not appointees be appointed for an initial probationary period, whereby continuance of their appointment would rest with the individual quango chairman? Given the responsibilities that those people have, and the budgets for which they are responsible, that would be a perfectly acceptable commercial proposition, and I see no reason why it should not be extended to the sphere of quangos.
The Conservative party supports the minister's motion and hopes that the response that he receives will be positive and helpful.
I shall try to be brief, having cut out quite a lot of my speech. I cannot hope to compete with the speed at which Richard Lochhead spoke.
Political parties and their networks are an inevitable route by which people are drawn into public life, and it is rather disappointing that that fact will not be for discussion in the consultation document. That aspect of public appointment puts many people off; some people simply do not want to enter a system in which there are many party political appointees, and that excludes a considerable market of people.
I do not doubt that the Executive genuinely wants to attain a measure of transparency. However, if ministers keep appointments to themselves—which seems to be a possibility—they run the risk of being accused of cronyism. Cronyism is easy in a country as small as this. We all know the line, "Ah kent yer faither"—or, in Jack McConnell's case, "Ah kent yer auntie in Bridge of Weir." It is a small country and accusations of nepotism and cronyism are easy. Therefore, we must take special steps to ensure that there is no hint of cronyism in anything that we do.
The Executive's suggestion that the First Minister should make an annual statement to the Scottish Parliament about the year's appointments will simply bolster the notion that the Executive wants to cling to control with retrospective scrutiny. That would not encourage the atmosphere of transparency that the Executive wants to foster. In the consultation paper, the Executive alarmingly veers away from pre-appointment scrutiny, on the ground that that might deter able candidates from applying.
Does Colin Campbell agree that, contrary to the statements that were made by the Executive on its commitment to attract a wider range of candidates to the boards of public bodies, the recent recruitment advertisement for the board of Caledonian MacBrayne actively discouraged applications from anyone other than people with identical backgrounds to the ones of those who were already represented?
If Mr Campbell is giving way, he ought to sit down.
I am sorry.
Does Colin Campbell agree that, even during this consultation process, we are talking about more jobs for the boys and the establishment elite?
I am sorry that I remained standing, Presiding Officer. It is the habit of a teacher that is hard to give up. It is a way of dominating the audience. [Laughter.]
I could be persuaded to agree with Linda Fabiani's assertion in some circumstances. The member's bill that was suggested by Alex Neil would require ministers to bring nominations to the Scottish Parliament for confirmation. If appointments were made primarily on merit, not on political ties, that would be uncontroversial and would avoid the type of confrontational grilling that is referred to in the consultation paper. A pre-appointment endorsement of an appointee by the whole Scottish Parliament would make the public feel much more relaxed in the knowledge that the job had been done transparently and fairly.
The SNP welcomes this debate on public appointments and hopes that any publicity that accrues from it will result in a large number of individuals and organisations contributing to the consultation.
The debate has been interesting and helpful. I assure members that all points raised will be taken on board both during and after the consultation process, with the possible exception of Dorothy-Grace Elder's eloquent proposal of including cronyism in a new definition of original sin. However, the establishment of a new quango to monitor Harris tweed nightwear is a singular challenge that arose during the debate. I assure Colin Campbell that, however much he might stand up, he would have some difficulty dominating my auntie in Bridge of Weir, as I certainly never managed to do so.
A number of important points were made during the debate. While I will not attempt to respond to all of them, it would be appropriate to refer to a few.
Equality targets and diversity of representation were raised by Michael McMahon, David McLetchie, Annabel Goldie, Marilyn Livingstone and other members. The current targets are either incomplete or unsatisfactory and do not appear to produce the desired outcome.
If we are considering changing the targets to improve the diversity of public appointments in Scotland, we must be a little more creative and imaginative, by examining the beginning of the process, not just the outcome. We should examine the criteria that we establish, the way in which we advertise potential appointments and the way in which we assess those who come forward. That would ensure that we achieve not just a vague, technical, political correctness, but real equality of opportunity. It would also ensure that we take on board life experiences from across Scotland and that appointments are made completely on merit, without any disadvantage or discrimination. That would be a welcome objective, which we can achieve with the assistance of the organisations that we met yesterday.
During the debate, members raised the issue of payments made to people who sit on quangos—some quango members receive remuneration, but many do not. We need to consider a consistent approach if we are to encourage a wider range of people to come forward.
I am not sure whether members of the Electricity Fisheries Committee, to which David McLetchie referred, receive any remuneration. However, anyone who sits on a committee that advises and assists
"Scottish ministers and any person engaging in, or proposing to engage in, the generation of hydro-electric power on any question relating to the effect of hydro-electric works on fisheries or stocks of fish"
deserves remuneration, in my view. [Laughter.] I hope that we will consider that.
Robert Brown helpfully referred to our variable system. The consultation document suggests that we might consider piloting new systems in the advisory non-departmental public bodies; perhaps the Parliament could pilot new scrutiny and accountability systems in some NDPBs. We must address such issues at the end of the consultation exercise.
I agree strongly that we must examine the fundamental role of the independent assessors. A Scottish commissioner, or the national commissioner, could consider the appointment of those independent members. In considering a Scottish solution to that question, we should ensure that the appointment of independent assessors is up front and is not diluted by the fact that they are appointed by ministers or by any other politician.
This is a one-off opportunity. As we approach the end of the Parliament's first year, we should ensure that those who serve on Scotland's public bodies receive the credit for their work that they deserve. The vast majority of people who serve on public bodies do so for the best of reasons, irrespective of the decisions that they are asked to make and of the source from which they come. At times, it must be difficult to serve on public bodies when everyone seems to suggest that members of quangos should jump on a bonfire at the first opportunity, rather than giving them credit for the work that they do. The appointments process must be seen to be fair and transparent. The procedures are important, but the way in which they are perceived across Scotland is even more so.
That is the challenge that we set ourselves. I hope that we will meet that challenge, and I look forward to debating the outcome of the consultation exercise and, perhaps, Mr Neil's bill, in the months ahead.