Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3224, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the general principles of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. I call Peter Peacock to speak to and move the motion.
I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate. The bill is important and continues the Executive's process of modernising the public sector in Scotland. It is another major step in making Scotland's public bodies more accountable, open and transparent. In that context, the bill follows the series of modernising legislative measures that we have produced. The Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 all ensured more accountability to and an increased role for Parliament. The bill follows the same route; it is part of the Labour and Liberal Democrat partnership's commitment to modernise Scotland's government and to make it more open and accountable.
The bill has two main parts—the setting up of a commissioner for public appointments in Scotland and the abolition of five public bodies as part of the implementation of the "Public Bodies: Proposals for Change" review, which took place last year. The five bodies in the bill are some of the few bodies that require primary legislation before they can be abolished.
Today is principally about the important new framework for the future process for appointments to public bodies in Scotland. Public bodies have a hugely important role in the life of Scottish government. They help Scotland's governance and ensure that a range of people who would otherwise not be involved in public service can have private careers and make a valuable contribution to Scottish public life by bringing to bear their experience and expertise in a range of areas. We need many more Scots to consider serving on our public bodies. To help with that, we require a framework that will ensure continuing adherence to the commitment to making appointments on merit.
I am pleased that the Local Government Committee endorsed the principles of the bill. As usual, after widespread consultation and evidence taking, the committee made constructive suggestions about ways in which the bill might be improved. I will return to those points later.
Hitherto, the Office of the United Kingdom Commissioner for Public Appointments has had the role of regulating public appointments throughout the UK. The proposed Scottish commissioner for public appointments will have a similar but more substantial and influential role than that of the UK commissioner. The Scottish commissioner will ensure independent scrutiny of the appointments process. The key functions of the Scottish commissioner will be to regulate the appointments process by prescribing and publishing a code of practice for public appointments. The commissioner will then oversee the implementation of the code and Scottish Executive ministers' compliance with it. The commissioner will report annually to Parliament on the code and the extent to which ministers have complied with it.
The bill contains a significant set of new proposals for the commissioner, which include promoting diversity in the appointments that are made to public bodies through a proactive diversity strategy and informing Parliament, before appointments are confirmed, if the code is breached. I want to stress that new power because it is significant and one which the commissioner in the south does not enjoy. It will give the commissioner a so-called whistleblower's role. If the commissioner became concerned during the course of a public appointment that a minister had breached the code, he or she could intervene before the appointment was made.
The minister said that the commissioner will be able to report to Parliament before an appointment is made if he believes that ministers have breached the code. Is there a duty on the commissioner to report to Parliament on such a matter? There is a difference between allowing the commissioner to report and requiring him to do so.
There is no such duty, but the important point is that the bill will allow the commissioner to scrutinise independently the entire process. We specifically gave the commissioner the power to report a breach to Parliament. I fully expect that, if the commissioner—who will be appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Parliament—thought that there was a breach, he would feel it incumbent on himself to bring that matter to the Parliament if it could not be resolved with ministers. I do not think that there is a particular issue there.
That serious point could be addressed simply by changing one word in the bill. In line 34 on page 2, the bill says that the commissioner
"may report the case to the Parliament".
If that was changed to "shall report the case to the Parliament", that would solve the problem.
We must be careful, in establishing a role for an independent commissioner, to ensure that they will act independently, using their judgment. The Parliament will recommend that person to the Queen for appointment, so they will be of considerable standing. It would not be appropriate for us to leave them with a standing instruction always to behave in a certain way. The commissioner will have plenty of power and we expect him or her to exercise it fully if he or she ever feels that that is required.
The commissioner will appoint and train independent assessors, who will be involved in every public appointment. I firmly believe that public confidence in the system will be improved by the work of the commissioner together with the increased powers of scrutiny that the Parliament will receive through the bill. The bill expands the role of the Parliament. It will have a role in the appointment of the commissioner, as I have said in response to members' questions; a role in the scrutiny of the commissioner's annual reports and in acting on any breaches of the code that are reported by the commissioner; and a role in consulting on the code of practice and the diversity strategy that the commissioner will produce. We have suggested that the Parliament may want to establish a public appointments committee for those purposes, but that is for the Parliament to decide. Through those roles, in conjunction with the new parliamentary notification system for public appointments, which we have already implemented, the Parliament will have a much more substantial and viable role in public appointments than it has had in the past.
I have spoken to the minister about the possibility of a new parliamentary committee. Why should we not, following this debate, ask the powers that be in the Parliament to establish that committee now? There is no reason for us to wait for the passage of the bill before setting up a committee to review the existing process.
What Parliament does is not a matter for the Executive. It is for Parliament to choose which committees to establish.
Through the diversity strategy, the commissioner will have a formal role in and responsibility for the promotion of diversity in public appointments. The boards of our public bodies should reflect the full circumstances, richness and diversity of Scottish society. We want all categories of person to be involved in our public bodies, but we do not have that at present. That is why the diversity strategy is important. The commissioner will consult widely on the diversity strategy and, following a recommendation of the Local Government Committee, we plan to include a duty to consult not only ministers, but Parliament on that strategy.
However, the Parliament and the Executive also have a right to expect that the commissioner will consult equalities bodies directly in devising the strategy. I fully expect that that will happen; therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary for the bill to include a requirement on the commissioner to do so, as that might limit those whom the commissioner could consult. I am pleased that the Equal Opportunities Committee has agreed that the bill will have a positive impact on equal opportunities.
The bill has a second important function relating to the abolition of five non-departmental public bodies: the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, the Scottish Hospital Trust, the Scottish Medical Practices Committee and the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. Those abolitions cannot be effected without primary legislation, which is why those bodies are included in the bill.
Will the minister assure us that the abolition of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council will not prejudice the need for clear and impartial advice to ministers on our built heritage?
I agree with that point. In a second I shall develop some matters that have arisen as a result of consideration of those two bodies in particular.
The Parliament's committees have considered the various suggested abolitions and have, for the most part, been satisfied with the bill's proposals. However, some specific points were raised by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and endorsed by the Local Government Committee in its report to the Parliament. Those points related to the successor arrangements following the abolition of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council. I want to make it abundantly clear to Parliament that ministers have been listening carefully to what has been said about those matters. We recognise that there are real anxieties about what is perceived as a potential diminution of the input and influence of independent persons to the decision-making process of ministers and Historic Scotland.
The changes are being proposed while concerns are being raised with ministers about certain aspects of Historic Scotland's role. We have been considering which appropriate actions to take to meet the Local Government Committee's concerns on the points that it raised about successor arrangements and Historic Scotland's wider role. We would like to take some additional time to conclude our thinking on those matters, but I make it absolutely clear to Parliament that before stage 2 we will seek further dialogue through the normal channels to reach agreement on the best way forward.
The bill covers two further matters of substance. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland will cease to be a royal commission and the new national survey of archaeology and buildings of Scotland will take on its functions. In addition, the proposed notarial powers will ensure a level playing field for solicitors and independent conveyancing practitioners following the abolition of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. I am confident of the positive effect of those tidying-up measures.
Since the bill's introduction, several issues have arisen that will result in amendment of the bill at stage 2 and I have written to the Local Government Committee to set out those amendments. We are considering an amendment that was suggested by the committee on whether changes to schedule 2, which covers the bodies that are under the remit of the commissioner, should be made by affirmative rather than negative resolution.
We believe that most of the changes will be simple. A new body may be created and simply added to the list or an existing body may change its name. If a controversial change were proposed, it would be possible for the issue to be debated under the Parliament's procedures. There can be up to 10 routine changes in a year and although I still believe that negative resolution is sufficient to protect Parliament's interests, I know that the committee has expressed a contrary view. I will listen carefully to the arguments during the debate so that we can consider the matter further.
The bill will introduce changes that will modernise and improve our system of public appointments and ensure a further depoliticisation of the appointments process. The bill will guarantee openness, transparency and accountability and will underpin the existing commitment to appointments being made on merit. It will encourage more people to participate in public life and will have a positive impact on encouraging a more diverse range of people to serve on Scotland's public bodies. The bill will provide the basis for better and greater public confidence in our public bodies and the public appointment system.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Bill.
We should be clear about why we are debating an Executive bill on public appointments today; it is not, as the minister claimed in his opening statement, because the bill is part of a series of bills dealing with public life that the Executive has introduced. We have the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill because last September Alex Neil introduced his member's bill—the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill.
I will remind the minister what the Executive memorandum on Alex Neil's bill said:
"The current appointments system has built-in mechanisms for ensuring that it is fair, open, transparent and delivers a quality outcome, which is subject to independent scrutiny."
Therefore, last September, the minister and the Executive had no intention of introducing the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. Of course, by the time the Local Government Committee took evidence on Alex Neil's bill we had had a U-turn from the minister and the new First Minister—there would be an Executive bill after all. The U-turn was undoubtedly caused by the embarrassing revelation that two thirds of all public appointees who declared a political affiliation were from one political party—the Labour party.
I now turn to the bill that we have before us. My colleagues will highlight several other concerns about the provisions to abolish public bodies. I want to highlight areas that I believe weaken the bill.
The bill suggests that the commissioner for public appointments may report to the Parliament if there are any breaches of the appointments code. The minister suggests that that can be done by an annual report. However, there is no duty on the commissioner to report at any other time and there is no duty on the commissioner to draw to the attention of Parliament any potential breaches.
I know that Tricia Marwick has another hat as deputy convener of the Standards Committee. Does she agree that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill should be consistent with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002, which states that the commissioner "shall" report incidents to Parliament? Would not it be good and proper if the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill followed that practice?
As the deputy convener of the Standards Committee, I would like to say how much I agree with the convener of the Standards Committee. The standards commissioner in the Parliament has certain powers and responsibilities in relation to MSPs and the fact that the same powers and responsibilities are not being given to the commissioner for public appointments weakens the position. Matters are left entirely at the discretion of the commissioner, who, I am sure, will be a very good person. Obviously, the commissioner must be as independent as possible, but the Parliament must be informed of the actions of the commissioner to allow for scrutiny and the total transparency of the system and to maintain faith in the system.
Ultimately, the Parliament holds ministers to account and we cannot do that unless the commissioner has been given a duty to report to the Parliament any breaches that they come across. The bill is also flawed in that it allows for the possibility of an appointment being made in breach of the code. In evidence, Roger McClure of the Scottish Funding Councils for Further and Higher Education agreed with me that, before an appointment was made, the commissioner should confirm that all the processes were followed, thereby avoiding an appointment that breached the rules. That would give the Parliament and the public a guarantee of the rigour of the process.
I acknowledge what the minister said and also what he said when he gave evidence to the committee. He asserted that the bill allows the commissioner to intervene before an appointment is made and to tell Parliament that they do not think that the minister is acting in accordance with the code. However, that is not the same as the commissioner having a duty to do so.
As the minister has said, whether there should be a public appointments committee to manage the new scrutiny role is a matter for the Parliament, which is the point that Alex Neil raised with the minister. While it is a matter for the Parliament, the Executive has the majority of the MSPs in the Parliament. Can the Executive guarantee that, if a resolution to establish a parliamentary committee is made, the Executive will support it? It is not the role of the Executive to establish a committee, but it is impossible to establish a committee without the Executive's support. It is surely self-evident that a committee should be established to give support and to ensure that the commissioner is able to carry out his or her own duties. Such a committee should be given as wide a remit as possible and the powers to bring matters to the attention of the commissioner.
Quangos and public bodies in Scotland spend nearly £9 billion of public money. If the commissioner is to ensure that public appointments in Scotland are beyond reproach, the minister needs to consider the question of duty. The creation of a commissioner for public appointments in Scotland is supported by all the political parties and all the respondents to the Executive's consultation process. The bill should be an opportunity to modernise and restore faith in the public appointments system. Jack McConnell has said that devolution will give us the opportunity to modernise our public appointments system, and so it should.
The Scottish National Party will support the general principles of the bill, but we have concerns that the bill is not all that it could be and we hope that the minister will take on board our concerns at stage 2.
I express the support of the Scottish Conservatives for the bill. However, while the Executive is to be congratulated on introducing the legislation, we should not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the sleaze, corruption and cronyism that the bill is designed to prevent comes courtesy of Scottish Labour. That could scarcely be better illustrated than by the current financial scandal engulfing new Labour in Motherwell and Wishaw and the problems that continue to emanate from the officegate affair in Fife.
Part 1 of the bill provides for the creation of a commissioner for public appointments in Scotland, which received strong support in the consultation process. The new code of practice will mean that appointments are made in an open and transparent manner and that any breach of the code can be investigated and reported to Parliament. I hope that that will dilute the cronyism and jobs-for-the-boys mentality that pervades the appointments system in Scotland.
Will Keith Harding give way?
I would rather not.
I have one reservation, about section 2(10), which seeks to impose diversity in the selection process by setting targets for appointments from minority groups. The Scottish Conservatives celebrate diversity in every way and we are desperately keen to see more balanced representation for all groups in our society. However, that must be achieved on merit, not through targets. Positive discrimination is a dangerous and inherently flawed concept and I cannot support its use.
Furthermore, as I articulated in the Local Government Committee, there is legitimate concern about the term of office that is prescribed in schedule 1, which states that there can be no more than three five-year terms and that the third will only be permitted in special circumstances, if it is in the public interest. As I suggested when we took evidence from Roger McClure of the Scottish Funding Councils for Further and Higher Education, who considered a five-year term to be too long, the commissioner's enforced shelf life may be a deterrent to good candidates applying. Why should a good commissioner who is serving in the public interest be forced out of office to the detriment of the public when he or she is doing a perfectly good job? The same logic applies to forcing a commissioner out of office at age 65, as my colleague John Young, who has more experience of that than I do, will explain shortly.
Part 2 of the bill provides for the abolition of six NDPBs or quangos. We are in full agreement with that and have argued for a long time that there is a desperate need for the amount of red tape and bureaucracy to be cut to allow officials to get on with the job that they are supposed to do. Despite the protestations of unelected bureaucrats who are afraid of losing the jobs that friends in high places have given them, I do not believe that the bodies perform any functions that other, preferably local bodies could not do adequately.
I will be sorry to miss Mr Harding if he is not here after the next election. I point out to him that, at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, Brian Monteith—although it is always difficult to remember whether Brian Monteith was at the committee—did not dissent from the committee's view that although removal of some of the bodies listed in the bill might be welcome, serious issues arose with at least two of them and those issues required to be addressed. The minister mentioned those issues and I welcome that mention. Therefore, Mr Harding's unqualified attack on quangos might not be entirely accurate with regard to two of the bodies, even from the point of view of the Conservative party.
I did not detail specific bodies. I said only that we support a reduction in the number of quangos. Stage 2 will determine which ones go and which ones stay. The removal of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy is welcomed and is long overdue.
Despite the small reservations that I have noted, we support the bill.
It was slightly strange to hear Keith Harding's speech, because my understanding is that the Conservative party wants to increase the number of quangos. It wants to get rid of democratic bodies, such as local councils, and pass some of their functions to more and more quangos, such as individual schools, which would become quangos. Indeed, the Conservative party invented the quango state and the sleaze and corruption that have resulted in the need for the measures that we are considering. We will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on quangos and how we deal with them.
The bill is an important measure. It is about depoliticising the appointments process, ensuring that it is independent and restoring public confidence in it. I will talk briefly about a couple of the bodies that are scheduled for abolition, but in its stage 1 inquiry, the Local Government Committee considered mainly the public appointments process and I do not want to tread on the toes of my colleagues who will speak about some of the other issues.
On the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, I was confused when I read the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report. At the end of it, I came to no conclusion about what the problems are. The real issue is about how those bodies operate, not whether they exist. We can get too caught up in the structures. There are problems with how we assess an ancient monument or site. We can create a blight by listing such sites. We need to examine the process a bit more widely to prevent that and to ensure that, if something is listed as a scheduled monument, there is a way of maintaining it in a way that is useful and helpful to the community and of stopping it falling into disrepair and thus not fulfilling the purpose for which it was scheduled. We need to consider those issues rather than which bodies are charged with determining the listings.
I have no difficulty with the abolition of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, but I find it slightly strange that, as a result of its abolition, independent conveyancers will no longer be allowed to register. The one independent conveyancing practice happens to be based in my constituency. In fact, it is just a couple of doors down from my constituency office.
Perhaps I can offer the member some information. Listings are done by Historic Scotland, as are delistings. The conflict that the member talks about is at the heart of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report, in that there will be no independent monitoring of the role of Historic Scotland.
My concern is about the procedure of listing, rather than which bodies do it. It is about the processes involved, rather than the fact that it can create problems: monuments are listed, but they may fall into disrepair and not fulfil the purpose for which they were scheduled. That issue needs to be addressed, and I suggest that we require a wider debate on the issue.
I return to the matter of conveyancing. I wonder why registration of new conveyancing practices will not be allowed after the abolition of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. Perhaps the Executive can explain that. The fact that only a few practices have been registered to date is not a reason for abolishing the process.
I turn now to the proposals for a commissioner for public appointments. The change is an important one. I do not share the SNP's concerns. I think that the new process will be open and transparent and will significantly enhance the way in which public appointments are made in Scotland. The parliamentary process will result in a backstop that does not exist under the UK system.
One of my concerns about the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill that Alex Neil introduced was that, rather than depoliticising the public appointments process, it would have increased its politicisation, as there would have been an opportunity for a member to challenge every appointment to every public body for political reasons, rather than because of any genuine concern. The measures in the bill remove that concern, and leave Parliament to examine any genuine breaches of the code of conduct in ministers' appointments. It is important that the Parliament deals only with genuine breaches, and not only with politically motivated challenges.
It is important also to bear in mind the concern about the number of Labour appointees. There is a political interest in only about 10 per cent of all appointments, which is a small proportion of all appointments. It is important to bear in mind the facts, not just the allegations.
Let me confuse Iain Smith with the facts. His facts are wrong, and I refer to a ministerial reply to a question from me, given on 17 October. It is not 10 per cent of appointees who declared a political affiliation, but 23 per cent. That is a rise from 13.1 per cent a year ago. When the member is making allegations, at least he could get his facts right. That would be a novel idea.
I have not seen the latest figures to which Alex Neil refers. I was referring to the figure of about 10 per cent—the 13 per cent figure—that was reported to the Local Government Committee when it took evidence on Alex Neil's bill just a few months ago. My remarks were based on that evidence.
I support the proposals contained in the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. Its general principles are right. Specifically, I support the proposals for the appointments commissioner. However, I have some doubts. I do not share the concerns of my colleague, Mike Rumbles, regarding the choice of "may" or "shall" in relation to the commissioner's reporting to Parliament. I think that discretion should be exercised. There is a danger that the threshold at which the commissioner decides to get involved may rise if they are required to report to Parliament instead of having the ability to consider things a little earlier. There is a serious danger in requiring a report to be made to the Parliament. As I said, the threshold may be raised and interventions may not happen as often as they perhaps ought to. Members should bear that in mind. Let us leave the discretion to the totally independent commissioner, who is appointed by and reports to the Parliament as and when required.
I support the bill.
We now come to the open debate. I call first Trish Godman, in her capacity as convener of the lead committee.
The Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill implements the recommendations of two fundamental reviews of public appointments and public bodies, both of which have been undertaken since the advent of the Scottish Parliament.
The bill has two principles: first, it would establish a separate, independent commissioner for public appointments; secondly, it would abolish six public bodies that are no longer required. The Local Government Committee was concerned with the appointment of the commissioner. The secondary committees were concerned with the abolition of the public bodies to which I have referred.
No one would disagree that we should have an independent, accountable and transparent public appointments system. Appointments must be made on merit, never on the basis of who people know. They should be made on the basis of people's experience and expertise in, and knowledge of, the area in which they are seeking appointment.
The commissioner's first task will be to publish a code of practice for public appointments. The Local Government Committee heard evidence on the commissioner's duty to consult Parliament and ministers about the code. We were content that consultation was necessary and that any stronger procedure would erode the commissioner's independent position.
We were assured that the commissioner had adequate powers, should the code of practice be breached by ministers acting before an appointment is made. In other words, the commissioner should have the role of whistleblower. The minister discussed that earlier. I agree with Iain Smith that, if a duty were placed on the commissioner to report such matters, all small breaches would have to be referred to the Parliament. That is not acceptable.
Why does the member think that that is unacceptable? Surely the Parliament should be informed of any breach of the code that has taken place.
Very small breaches of the code can be attended to before an appointment proceeds. If a duty to report such matters were placed on the commissioner, every small breach of the code would have to be referred to the Parliament.
It is important that the bill enables Parliament to scrutinise any breach of the code and to act on the reports that the commissioner makes. The commissioner must report annually to the Parliament and must train independent assessors. If they are sufficiently concerned, they may direct the minister not to make an appointment.
The minister indicated to Alex Neil that it is for Parliament, rather than the Executive, to decide whether it is necessary to set up a public appointments committee to manage Parliament's new scrutiny role.
The Local Government Committee also considered the issue of equal opportunities. The commissioner must prepare and publish a diversity strategy, which is right and proper. Others will discuss that matter in greater depth, but I would like to comment on it briefly. Public appointments are important if we want as many women as possible to play an active role in public life. In some ways, the Scottish Parliament leads by example, as 37 per cent of its members are women. We look forward to an Executive amendment at stage 2 that will formally extend consultation on the diversity strategy to include the Parliament.
The Local Government Committee was not persuaded that it was necessary to specify individual bodies on the face of the bill to achieve the desired aim of wide-ranging consultation. We felt that that was too prescriptive and could limit innovative and flexible approaches. Although the committee supported the principle of a mainstreaming equality approach underpinning the strategy, it did not believe that it was necessary for that to appear on the face of the bill. More innovative approaches can be adopted within a broad equalities framework. However, it is our considered opinion that a duty to consult Parliament on the equal opportunities strategy must appear on the face of the bill.
We considered the issue of terms of office. Keith Harding alluded to the matter and I know that John Young intends to speak about it.
The word "Scotland" appears in brackets in the short title of the bill. That annoyed all members of the committee—it certainly annoyed me. We see the point of including the word "Scotland" in the title of legislation that is made in the UK Parliament, but why is that necessary when legislation is being made in Scotland? I was not convinced by the explanation that the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services offered—that there is scope for confusion between UK and Scottish legislation. We have called on the Executive, together with parliamentary officials, to consider establishing a longer-term convention. In my opinion, the title of the bill should be the Scottish public appointments and public bodies etc bill. As things stand, the Parliament is made to appear an adjunct of the Westminster Parliament. It is not; it is a legislature, rather than an assembly. It is certainly not a committee of the Westminster Parliament.
The committee recommended that, given the importance of the provisions for removing public bodies, those should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We asked the Executive to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to that effect.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee took evidence on the abolition of the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and on successor arrangements. Having read the Official Report and the written submissions, I am not surprised that there appears to be considerable anxiety about the successor arrangements, particularly with regard to independence and accountability. I am glad to hear that the minister has addressed those issues and I know that Karen Gillon, the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, will also address them.
The Local Government Committee was involved mainly in deliberations on the part of the bill that concerns the Scottish commissioner for public appointments. The key functions of the commissioner have been addressed, albeit with recommendations for amendments. The creation of a Scottish commissioner is right and proper. We must have a public appointments system that is independent, accountable and open and we must ensure that appointments are based only on merit. The bill will ensure fairness, integrity, honesty and openness in public appointments and I urge members to support its general principles.
I agree with what Trish Godman said about the bill's being Scottish. She fought vociferously on that point in the Local Government Committee, where she had members' support, and I congratulate her on mentioning it in her speech.
I will concentrate on two main issues in the bill. The most important part of the bill concerns the appointment of a commissioner, their independence and the powers that they shall or may have. I also want to touch briefly on the abolition of the six non-departmental public bodies, particularly the Historic Buildings Council. A lot has been said about the powers that the commissioner shall or may have. I thank Mike Rumbles for raising the point about changing a simple word in the bill. That might happen at stage 2 and I hope that the minister will consider the matter, because it would clarify a lot for members throughout the chamber.
The minister gave evidence to the Local Government Committee on the powers that he sees the commissioner having. I shall read out some of them, which Tricia Marwick and Trish Godman have mentioned already. Of the commissioner he said:
"If the code is not being observed properly, they may step in before the appointment is made."
He also said:
"If they are sufficiently concerned, they may direct ministers not to make any appointment."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 10 September 2002; c 3206.]
I hold the minister to those words and I hope and believe that he will hold firm to them when the bill goes to stage 2 and stage 3.
We believe that the commissioner must be independent and that they must have the freedom to express any concerns that they might have not only to ministers but to the Parliament. That is why I congratulate Mike Rumbles on the simple point that he made. I hope that an amendment to that effect will be lodged at stage 2.
The dedicated public appointments committee has been mentioned. The minister might live to regret the fact that on many occasions he has said to me, Alex Neil and the Local Government Committee that he would welcome the setting up of a dedicated public appointments committee—in fact he suggested it. I might—to use old Glasgow slang—be chancing my arm by asking this, but if the minister's suggestion appeared in an amendment at stage 2, would he be prepared to support it, regardless of the political persuasion of the member who lodged the amendment? I would like to hear the minister's answer to that question in his summing up.
The bill is important and the independence and freedom of the commissioner are paramount. We in the Parliament want transparency. We want things to be open and the bill is one of the first steps down that road. If amendments would help us along the road, I would be more than happy to lodge them at stage 2.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee and others have carried out far more research and work on the HBC and other bodies than I have and I want to touch on that work. I have read the Official Report and the evidence that the bodies submitted and I was absolutely stunned. I will read out a small paragraph of the Official Report. In a question to Graeme Munro of Historic Scotland, Karen Gillon asked:
"91 per cent were in favour of retaining the HBC. Why did you advise ministers to abolish the HBC? On what basis did you do so, if the responses were clearly against that?"
Graeme Munro answered:
"I am sorry, but I cannot tell the committee what our advice was to ministers because that must be confidential." —[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 10 September 2002; c 3651-52.]
The bill is all about transparency. When I read the report on the bill, I found that attitude horrific.
I have mentioned one part of the report; I am sure that Karen Gillon will provide further examples. An inquiry into Historic Scotland would not go amiss. I hope that the minister will discuss that in his summing up.
The minister mentioned that he would give us further information on Historic Scotland. The committee was concerned that to abolish the HBC at this stage would be a terrible error. I look forward to receiving more information.
Keith Harding said that I would deal with the issue of a commissioner being forced to retire at the age of 65. My party normally wheels me out when ageism is under discussion. I hope that allowances will be made when I stumble, stagger, slur my words and cannot make out my notes.
Keith Harding rightly mentioned the cronyism and jobs-for-the-boys mentality that pervade the appointments system in Scotland. The only omission was the jobs-for-the-girls mentality. Independent assessors are mentioned. How independent will they be? I am also concerned about how the assessors will be appointed and about who will have the final say in that process.
The fact that a commissioner will be forced out of office at the age of 65 amounts to age discrimination, which is every bit as bad as racial discrimination and sex discrimination. Is not the Government considering a new retirement age of 70? That is quite conceivable nowadays. I would like a Labour member to deal with that issue.
Colonel Glenn went back into space at the age of 77. I doubt whether any of the 129 members of the Parliament would be capable of going into space as an astronaut. That should be borne in mind. Surgeons continue to operate beyond the age of 65. If their scalpels slip by a fraction of a millimetre, a patient could be permanently disabled or even die. The age of 65 is an artificial limit.
The Executive's report on changes to public bodies, which it published in June 2001, resulted, for example, in the abolition of 52 bodies and the rationalisation of 43 health board structures. However, on the south side of Glasgow and in East Renfrewshire there has been a violent backlash against unelected health boards, which went through a charade of consultation. People in those areas feel that the boards are made up of unelected puppets who are responsible to no one in the electorate and are merely vassals who drive through what the Labour Executive wants.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing mentions that the Executive is responsible for about 148 public bodies. Is it not possible to be more specific—or are we dealing with a moving force? Perhaps someone will answer that.
Trish Godman is a good fairytale presenter—a talent she learned during many years as a Glasgow Labour councillor. She lulls people into a feeling of comfort and security. Members—I nearly said comrades—should be wary. Trish Godman referred to the need for more women members and, presumably, more ethnic members. That is fine, but will we pursue equal opportunities by halting anti-ageism? Grey power is a powerful force in the electorate; it should not be underestimated. When I cease to be an MSP, I will lead grey power protests outside the Parliament buildings at Holyrood if anti-ageism has not been done away with. That is a warning.
The public's mood is one of complete disillusionment with certain public bodies. People on the streets feel that methods of appointment are open to question.
I speak on behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The committee's report was unanimous in relation to the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. On the basis of the evidence that the committee has received, we remain concerned. We are not yet convinced that the case has been made for the abolition of those two bodies.
Evidence to the committee indicated that the independent advice that the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council provide is welcome and much needed and should continue. The committee's main concern is therefore about the successor arrangements should the proposed abolition go ahead.
The committee gathered evidence from a wide variety of sources, but our concern was compounded during that process, especially when we took evidence from Historic Scotland. It seems somewhat absurd that our committee can question, in detail and at some length, the chief executives and chairmen of bodies such as the Scottish Qualifications Authority and Scottish Ballet and Scottish Opera, yet cannot get a simple answer to a simple question from the chief executive of Historic Scotland. For a parliamentary committee, that was simply unacceptable.
I welcome Sandra White's bringing to the Parliament's attention the lack of answer that I received from the chief executive.
I am delighted that Karen Gillon has raised the issue of Historic Scotland, although she will forgive me if I call it "Hysteric Scotland" given the way in which some of my constituency matters have emanated from the workings of Historic Scotland. I am concerned that the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is saying that the committee did not get answers. I am sure that that issue will be raised during the stage 2 debate. We need to highlight the closed-door approach that Historic Scotland deploys in responding to MSPs.
I have experienced that for myself in my dealings with Historic Scotland on behalf of New Lanark Conservation Trust. However, I must move on.
In the course of evidence taking, it became clear that both the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board are well regarded throughout the sector. Indeed, Historic Scotland—ironically enough—conducted a consultation exercise that drew a 79 per cent response rate and showed that 91 per cent of respondents are against abolition. As Sandra White said, when Graeme Munro was asked about that, he said
"I am sorry, but I cannot tell the committee what our advice was to ministers".—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 10 September 2002; c 3652.]
That advice was that ministers should absolutely ignore 79 per cent of the built heritage consultees.
The minister herself was not able to provide any more advice, other than to say that no better argument was made, for want of a better phrase. The committee is of the view that unless successor arrangements are put in place that the committee and the Parliament find suitable, we will not be in a position to support the bill at stage 2.
More important, one of the main aspects of the bill has not been examined. From the evidence that we received, Historic Scotland is in need of fundamental review. That should take place as a matter of urgency.
There are three aspects of the bill that I want to draw to the attention of the committee that will consider the bill at stage 2. I hope that we will be able to address the problems then.
The first concerns the powers of the commissioner. We have a commissioner, but she is a UK commissioner and covers only a proportion of the non-departmental public bodies that are the subject of public appointments. In my view, it is important that the Scottish commissioner should have 100 per cent coverage of all public appointments and should not be confined to a partial remit.
We must strengthen the powers of the commissioner to achieve political balance and to end other forms of cronyism. We need to deal not only with political cronyism but with the old boy networks that operate in Scotland. We need to break them down so that appointments are genuinely made on merit. Appointments should be made on the basis not of who people know but of what they know.
Will the member give way?
The situation with regard to political cronyism has not changed at all in the past year. Actually, to be fair, it has changed a wee bit. This year, 60 per cent of those declaring a political affiliation were Labour supporters, whereas last year the proportion was 61 per cent. That is a 1 per centage point improvement in 12 months.
I give way.
To whom is Alex Neil giving way?
What a choice! I wish the commissioner were here to advise me. I give way to Sylvia Jackson.
The member is talking about political bias. He has also mentioned merit. Which does he think is more important? How would he bring the two together so that we can think about merit without wanting a political bias?
My point is exactly that. I do not believe that 60 per cent of those who declare a political affiliation are very clever people when they belong to and support the Labour party. The issue is one of merit. On a good day, the Labour party would get 40 per cent of the vote in Scotland. I do not see why it should get 60 per cent of appointments. There is clearly a political bias.
With all due respect, most senior Labour spokesmen have admitted that there has been bias in the system. My fundamental point is not just to moan and groan about that today—although I have enjoyed doing so—it is about giving the commissioner the power to consider political balance and cronyism, whether that relates to party affiliations or people being members of other organisations, including secret societies.
My second point is about the code of practice. It, too, has to cover the issues I have mentioned. Again I use the example of a political appointee. At the moment, the definition of political activity is fairly narrow. We have to consider the definition of political activity that is going to be applied through the bill or the code of practice. I do not believe that we can be satisfied with the existing definition.
The other issue is the time scale. The only political activity that has to be declared is that which took place within the past five years. On occasion, political activity that took place six or seven years prior to the appointment might be relevant. We must consider that issue at stage 2.
My third point is to repeat what I said earlier in the debate about the parliamentary committee. I see no reason for the delay in setting up the parliamentary committee. However, its structure is critical and I hope that its convener will not be a member of the Executive. Ideally, the majority of members will not be part of the governing coalition, or the party that will be governing after 1 May next year.
I will not keep members long. I put my name down to speak because I was under the impression that Karen Gillon was not in a position to speak. I endorse everything she said.
I took heart from the minister's remarks at the beginning of the debate. They show that he is clearly going to pay attention to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's anxieties about the successors to the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. I am also grateful that the minister has taken into consideration the Subordinate Legislation Committee's thinking about those issues.
It is important that the committees can influence legislation. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee was perfectly willing to accept a bonfire of the quangos, or even a campfire of the quangos, but when the detail is considered there are real doubts about whether the measure would be in the interest of good government. We have to scrutinise it. We have done so to a degree and I welcome the fact that the minister is to go further. I hope that the committee will be included in that consultation when it happens.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate for two reasons. First, we are considering diversity and encouraging diversity within our public bodies. Secondly, we have to ensure that the public has confidence in our public bodies.
The bill takes advantage of the Scottish Parliament's powers under devolution to ensure public confidence in our public appointments system. I agree totally with Trish Godman on the short title; I believe that Scotland should be in the short title without the brackets and I hope that the minister will take that on board.
The first objective of the bill that has received cross-party support is the establishment of a commissioner for public appointments. The commissioner will be committed to promoting diversity. I am keen that that should happen. We are and must be committed to ensuring that all sections of our community are represented on our public bodies—or how will we ever achieve public support? It is reassuring that that objective was strongly supported during the consultation period and in the consultation document "Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland: Modernising the System", which was issued in February 2000.
The bill requires the commissioner to ensure that
"appointments to the specified authorities are made fairly and openly",
which we would all support, and
"so far as reasonably practicable, all categories of person are afforded an opportunity to be considered for appointment".
Again I agree with Trish Godman that the issue is one of mainstreaming and encouraging more people to take up the challenge.
I note from the policy memorandum on the bill that the Scottish Executive commented that
"It is a commonly expressed concern that disproportionately few women, disabled people, people from ethnic minorities"—
I should insert the issue of age here—
"and different socio-economic groups and from outwith the central belt apply for appointment."
All of us in the Parliament would support that statement.
As we have heard, the commissioner will be appointed for a five-year term and can be removed only by a resolution of the Parliament that receives the support of two thirds of MSPs. The seven functions of the commissioner—which I will not go into, as they were outlined by the minister—will ensure that the full potential of Scottish society can be tapped. That is really important. Public bodies must have the confidence of the public they serve. That means including everyone in our community.
As a direct result of the fundamental review of public bodies in Scotland in June 2001, recommendations were made for the abolition, reform or review of 113 public bodies. Karen Gillon articulately put forward the views of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on some of those bodies. Most of the changes that are detailed in the report could be effected, as we have heard, without the need for primary legislation, except with regard to the six bodies that are included in the bill.
The public can be confident that we are streamlining the number of bodies. The remaining bodies need to be seen to be tested against the new set of principles that will be established, and to have a distinct role to play and functions to perform that cannot be carried out at least as effectively by any other organisation. They need to be clearly accountable to the Scottish ministers and to the people they serve.
The promotion of diversity in public appointments sends a positive message throughout Scotland and beyond. I wish the Executive and the commissioner, whoever he or she may be, every success in the promotion of social justice. I concur with the recommendations in the bill. I agree with the Health and Community Care Committee's view that the views of the Scottish Hospital Trust and the Scottish Medical Practices Committee should be taken into account before their dissolution. We see before us today practical legislation to ensure public confidence in the fairness, accessibility and transparency of the public appointments system. I urge the Parliament to support it.
I call Bill Butler. If he can be reasonably brief, I will allow a brief contribution from Colin Campbell.
I will do my best, Presiding Officer.
I rise to support the general principles of the bill, whether "Scotland" is in parentheses or not, although I prefer it not to be. There is broad agreement across the chamber on the need for the bill. There is consensus that the creation of the post of commissioner for public appointments in Scotland would help to bolster confidence in the process by which public appointments are made. That is absolutely necessary.
The lead committee—the Local Government Committee—found that witnesses who gave evidence were all of a mind on the proposal. I am also pleased to note that the Local Government Committee concluded that the commissioner's responsibility to consult ministers and the Parliament on the code of practice is essential to ensure the input of this chamber into the public appointments process. The Local Government Committee was absolutely right to reject the notion that such a responsibility could, in some mysterious way, threaten the public perception of the commissioner's independence. I also see that the main functions that are proposed for the commissioner and their execution have broad cross-party support, and rightly so.
The Executive parties and members of all other parties and of none are committed to ensuring a clear and transparent system of public appointments and to measures that will ensure diversity of representation, which is important. The creation of a commissioner for public appointments shows the commitment of the Parliament and the Executive as legislators to build a more open and representative public appointments system.
I was amused by the richly ironic words of the Conservative party's spokesperson, who said that we should cut quangos, which are terrible. For 18 years before 1997, the Tories increased the number of quangos. Labour, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, has cut the number of quangos. However, we will leave that to one side. If Mr Harding cares to intervene, I will accept an intervention from him—although he took no interventions.
I did—I took an intervention from Mr Russell.
Does Bill Butler think that he has the sole right to change opinions? New Labour adopted all Conservative policies. Why should we not adopt one of its policies and reduce the number of quangos?
I am a member of the Labour party. I do not know about the new Labour party to which the member refers.
When the number of unelected bodies can be cut, we should cut it. Such bodies should be retained only when necessary. For example, the Health and Community Care Committee, of which I am a member, was content about the proposed transfer of the functions of the Scottish Hospital Trust and the Scottish Medical Practices Committee to the national health service and to NHS boards. Such a transfer makes sense.
My colleagues on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee expressed some doubts about the abolition of the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. That was right. The minister said that the Executive is listening carefully to the anxieties of committee members. I believe that it will listen carefully to members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that important issues such as independence and accountability, and the concern about them, will be dealt with at stage 2.
The bill is fundamentally good and necessary. I commend its principles to the chamber, as it would increase transparency and accountability, which are necessary for a democratic Scotland.
I will allow Colin Campbell a brief speech.
I agree with John Young: I have no interest in being the commissioner for public appointments, because I would have to leave the job seven months after I started it. The Equal Opportunities Commission endorsed the Executive's view that the bill would have a positive impact on equal opportunities, but paragraph 4(1)(c) of schedule 1 says that the commissioner will vacate
"office on 31st December in the year of service in which the Commissioner attains the age of 65 years".
On 3 September 2002, Dame Rennie Fritchie told the Local Government Committee that:
"Another difference is that the Scottish commissioner must leave at age 65. That is different from my post. It seems somewhat at odds with openness, transparency and diversity"—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 3 September 2002; c 3172.]
to do that. Her written evidence said:
"There is no upper age limit on public appointments; and my Annual Report … records that 10 per cent of those appointed or re-appointed to boards of public bodies in 2001-02 were aged 66 or over … it may appear inconsistent if the Commissioner were expected to leave the post in the year in which they reach 65."
The Local Government Committee agreed with that, but could not support that because of the civil service regulations about pensionable posts.
Colin Campbell has little time left.
I thank the member for that elucidation. As we both come from roughly the same generation—[Members: "Oh!"]—that was generous, Trish.
I am 10 years younger.
I ask the member to do her best to ensure that that issue is taken care of at stage 2. Please think about that.
I was one of the 37 respondents to the Executive's consultation document on the bill and the only MSP to respond. I responded because of the importance of the independence of the public appointments process.
I am pleased to speak in the debate today as a back bencher. In my response, I welcomed the proposal for the commissioner to establish a code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies. However, I noted that I felt strongly that none of the independent assessors who are to oversee the appointments should have party-political affiliations. That stipulation should be specifically embodied in the code of practice that is to be drawn up by the commissioner.
I continue to feel strongly that that should be the case. Lines 12 and 13 on page 2 of the bill set out that:
"In preparing the code of practice, and in making any revisions to it, the Commissioner must consult the Parliament and the Scottish Ministers."
When he or she does so, I sincerely hope that that point is included in the code. Not only do the independent assessors who advise ministers on the suitability of appointees need to be independent, they need to be seen to be independent and free of party-political connections.
I am concerned about what would seem to be the relative weakness of the wording of line 34 on page 2, where one finds the words "may report" the breach of the code to the Parliament. The wording should be changed to "shall report". That would reflect the views that were expressed earlier in the debate.
The committee came to the correct conclusion that the bill will allow the commissioner and the Parliament adequate powers to scrutinise any breaches of the code that are reported to them. However, I am concerned that the commissioner does not have to report any breach that he or she finds. That provision needs to be tightened up at stage 2. I feel that I know a loophole when I see one.
The bill appears to be clear when it sets out that section 2(8) applies:
"In any case where—
(a) it appears to the Commissioner that the code of practice has not been complied with;
(b) the Commissioner has intimated that fact to the Scottish Ministers; and
(c) the Commissioner considers that—
the code of practice is unlikely to be complied with within a reasonable time".
For the bill then to use the words "may report" the case to the Parliament is something that the committee should re-examine.
The committee report states:
"should the Bill successfully complete its passage through Parliament, it will be a matter for the Parliament to decide whether to establish a dedicated Public Appointments Committee to manage its new scrutiny role."
That is an extremely important point. Although it is perfectly right and proper for the Parliament to decide that, I am concerned about how the mechanism for setting up such a committee would work. Would the Local Government Committee produce a report to the Parliament on the matter? I would like the committee convener to give an assurance that the most appropriate route to take would be for it to be a parliamentary issue.
John Young mentioned ageism, as did Colin Campbell. I hate to draw comparisons, but the Parliament has approved the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. We examined the issue of an age limit at committee and, having taken advice, we removed it because to have an upper age limit is ageist.
Given those caveats, I warmly welcome the bill. It is a real step forward, but I would like to see the adoption of those few changes.
The debate has been low key, but I find the air of consensus in the chamber unusual and sadly depressing. Nevertheless, we are talking about £9 billion of public funds, which is a significant part of the Scottish block. It is clear that we wish to ensure that the bodies that deal with that amount of money are properly constituted and run.
A number of useful speeches have been made. Keith Harding rightly highlighted the difficulties that could arise under the terms of the commissioner's appointment. The duration of five years for the commissioner's term of appointment is hardly likely to encourage someone to leave a reasonably highly paid and responsible job in the outside world to take the appointment. Given that people look for continuity of prospects, five years is not long enough.
The age restriction is another issue that has been flagged up. John Young, in an extremely articulate speech, highlighted the issues that can arise in that respect. Ten or 20 years ago, we would have agreed that 65 was the appropriate age limit. Indeed, we might even have said 60. However, we now face an era in which people will have to work longer and longer. Gordon Brown has pillaged pension funds and, as a result of the Labour Government, the economy is in such a state that many people will have to work well into their 70s, purely to survive.
What about the famous bonfire of the quangos? Members will recall when Angus MacKay stood in Peter Peacock's place and promised that all the quangos would be done away with. However, what is the position today? Although ancient monuments are being demolished, very little else is.
Now that is ageism. [Laughter.]
It could well be.
Why has that happened? Of course, the reason is that jobs are at stake. They might not be jobs for the boys, but jobs for the girls. In any case, we are certainly talking about jobs for the comrades and Alex Neil was quite right to point out the figures in this respect. If I extrapolate on his figures, it appears that, on the basis of the 1 per cent reduction this year, it will take another 20 years before the Labour party gets its fair share. Obviously, it will not happen that way, because its share of the vote will fall. That means that it will take much longer than 20 years.
How on earth has the Labour party managed to get away with this for so long? It seems that every deadbeat councillor and half-baked politician from the Labour side who has been unable to hack it in elected office has been shunted off into a quango.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am in my last minute.
I see that Colin Campbell has left the chamber, presumably to have a conversation with Trish Godman, who was far from happy with his highly ungallant remark about her age. Although we talk about positive discrimination, such a step is very retrograde in many ways. Being serious for all of five seconds, I should point out that we want appointments that are made not on the basis of positive discrimination, but on the basis of ability. That said, anything would be an improvement on previous positive discrimination measures, in which many appointees have been appointees of the Labour party. Such a situation cannot continue.
As Mr Aitken pointed out, there has been some consensus in the debate. I want to address three issues, the first of which is the ageism that John Young mentioned. There is no doubt that paragraph 4(1)(c) of schedule 1 should be struck from the bill. It is completely outrageous to say that someone must retire at the age of 65, particularly someone who might be doing a very successful job. Having spent some days with Mr Young in Quebec, I can bear witness to the fact that at whatever age he is—it would be equally ungallant to say that in the chamber—he is well able to keep up with the best of us in all activities that we choose to undertake. I leave those activities to people's imagination.
Another point that was debated concerned the duty of the commissioner. I find it strange that although some of the commissioner's duties, such as the duty to promote diversity, are instructed in the bill, the basic duty of enforcing the integrity and honesty of the structure is not. That is the point at which we should examine carefully the bill's wording. Mr Rumbles and Tricia Marwick are right: the change of one word would make all the difference, and Trish Godman's point, which was that there might be minor breaches that required no action, can be taken care of by that, too. Changing "may" to "shall" at the beginning of section 2(8)(a) does not force the commissioner to take any action after reporting it. After a breach, action would still be discretionary, but reporting would not. That answers objections on both sides. It would not insist that action is taken in the case of what Trish Godman called a minor breach, but it would mean that Parliament would know if ministers had breached the regulations. That change should be made, or at least debated extensively, as the bill goes through Parliament.
The Scottish National Party offers its support to the legislation, but only with the sense that it does not go nearly far enough. Alex Neil's influence on pushing the issue in Parliament has rightly been acknowledged.
There has been general concern in Scotland that the process of public appointment must be transparent and open in the sense that the Parliament is transparent and open. It is to be regretted that the Executive was pushed or pulled into introducing the bill. It is to be regretted that the bill does not yet have the total openness that Alex Neil was seeking, in a bill that I supported. However, the minister and his colleagues are to be commended for the fact that, at least, we have the bill now and we can progress. The bill will be supported, but it will be changed and developed as time goes on.
As a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I have been most concerned about the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. There is no doubt that, as the evidence session progressed when we examined the matters, there was mounting incredulity in the committee. The points that were made by Sandra White and echoed by Karen Gillon are true—we had an open and accountable discussion with Professor Michael Lynch of the Ancient Monuments Board. We had an open and accountable discussion with Pat Chalmers—who is here today—who spoke on behalf of the Historic Buildings Council. We had a completely closed and unaccountable discussion with Graham Munro, the chief executive of Historic Scotland. He was unable—I say unable because it was not his fault entirely—to tell us about certain aspects of his work because, as he represented an Executive agency, his advice to ministers could not be discussed. That presented a problem for members of the committee. I am surprised that Iain Smith did not understand the report because it was crystal clear. The problem is that the process of listing can be difficult for those people whose buildings are subject to it. There must be an independent review and some scrutiny. There must be a level of expertise and judgment in the Historic Buildings Council, which does not come from Historic Scotland.
This morning, I was interested to note a message about today's debate from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, which was sent to some members. First, it says that an independent representative body is needed because of the problems that exist. Secondly, it says that ministers need the help of such a body so that they understand some of the wider issues. Thirdly, it says that such a body must be accountable to Parliament. Alas, Historic Scotland is not directly accountable in many ways. That message concludes, as I will conclude, with the words
"This implies a structural review of the role of Historic Scotland."
I hope that the minister will say in his summing up that we will not simply tinker with some of the bill, but that we will examine closely the role of Historic Scotland and other bodies to try to get it right. Presently, the role of Historic Scotland is the main obstacle to getting it right.
The debate has been interesting and there have been many good speeches. I have listened to all of them and I will try to respond to as many points as I can.
I thank members in general for their support for the general principles of the bill. As some members said, there is considerable consensus about the direction of travel and a number of interesting, detailed points have been made. The key points of support related to the independence of the commissioner and the independent assessors that the commissioner will recruit, train and support and to the fact that the system of public appointments in Scotland must be conducted on the basis of merit—which was the sense of Marilyn Livingstone's point. That will give the confidence in the system that we require to have and it will encourage more people to become involved in the process and to help the governance of Scotland. I am grateful for the expression of consent for the principles.
One thing that has not surprised me, but has confirmed the views that ministers were forming, is that almost every member has asked questions about the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council.
On that point, will the minister consider a review of the accountability of Historic Scotland? As an example, I mention the case of Castle Tioram in my constituency, where plans were submitted for its development and Historic Scotland was called in as a statutory consultee. That led to a public inquiry to which Historic Scotland appointed a reporter to give evidence. Then, a ministerial decision on the inquiry was issued. Historic Scotland was judge, jury and executioner.
Rhoda Grant, Mike Russell, Bill Butler, Margaret Jamieson, Ian Jenkins, Sandra White, Karen Gillon, Iain Smith and Trish Godman have all made points about the successor arrangements, to which I listened carefully. I tried to make it clear in my opening speech that we want time to consider how best to respond to the points that have been made on that issue. I do not think that I could make it any clearer that I intend to respond, but I want to respond appropriately. Although members have raised concerns about Historic Scotland, I know that they relate only to some of Historic Scotland's functions and not to all of them. I am trying to be constructive and helpful. We are listening and we will consult the committees further on how to make progress on the matters that have been raised, particularly by Karen Gillon, about the successor arrangements.
A question has arisen about the words "shall" or "may" in relation to the new power that we have given the commissioner to report breaches of the code to Parliament. I stress that the commissioner's power to intervene in the appointments process is new. The points that members have made so far on the matter have not convinced me. The post will be independent and the commissioner, who will be appointed by the Queen on Parliament's recommendation, will be a person of considerable substance.
I am short of time and I gave way earlier. I would like to make progress.
It is important that the independent post has discretion. It will be for the commissioner to determine when to report to Parliament. The power will exist absolutely in the commissioner's hands and he will exercise it if he chooses. Other options would get us into problems of definition. Iain Smith made the valid point that to change the bill might raise the threshold at which the commissioner would report to Parliament, which would be wrong. I will think further on the points that have been made, but so far I am not persuaded.
Will the minister give way on that important point?
I will not give way.
The proposed parliamentary committee is a matter for Parliament. I would have to see Parliament's specific proposals before committing the Executive to supporting them. We have made clear our position on the general issue of such a committee.
I am grateful for members' support on the diversity strategy, which aims to widen the range of people who take part in Scotland's public bodies. We are not as successful on that issue as we should be. We want more women, more people from ethnic minority backgrounds, more people with disabilities, more people from outwith the central belt and more people from different socioeconomic backgrounds to serve on Scotland's public bodies. The commissioner's role will be vital in making progress on that.
A number of points were made about the bill's short title. I heard what was said about that and no doubt the parliamentary authorities also heard it. The particular reason for the title is that the bill has two separate limbs. To qualify both those limbs and to ensure that both of them apply in Scotland, we had to use the convention that was mentioned. I am sure that the appropriate people have heard the debate on the matter.
Keith Harding indicated the Conservatives' support for the bill, grudging though it is. The Conservatives would be wise to support the bill because in large part it is designed to clear up the mess that they left behind. As Iain Smith rightly said, the Conservatives invented cronyism in the public appointments system. At the height of their disrepute, the Tories' approach was so discredited that they had to involve the Nolan committee to try to tidy up the mess that they had left. Our proposals take Nolan's work considerably further and are appropriate to Scotland's circumstances.
Tricia Marwick accused us, wrongly, of a U-turn and said that we did not act until Alex Neil introduced his Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill. If Tricia Marwick looks back at the records she will discover that we intended to introduce the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill prior to the introduction of Alex Neil's bill.
If the minister intended to change the system, why did he say in September that the procedures with which he was working were open, transparent and working fine?
Our procedures have become increasingly open and transparent and we wish to make further progress on those matters.
I understand John Young's point about the commissioner's age. Our proposal is not intended to be ageist. The job is pensionable and we have applied the same rules to it as are applied to any other pensionable job in the public sector.
Will the member give way?
I cannot. I must make progress.
In an extremely muted speech given his past record on such matters, Alex Neil indicated that there is a chance that he might be recovering from his paranoia about the Labour party. Clearly, the therapy of being an MSP might be working for him. Alex Neil must be consistent. He was happy to use the procedures that he now denigrates and criticises when seeking to have some of his SNP cronies appointed as independent assessors. He was successful in that, and that was right because those people were appointed on merit. Alex Neil was also noticeably silent when his old pal, Jim Sillars, was appointed to Scottish Enterprise and reappointed by Henry McLeish.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that it cannot be in order for any member to suggest that my husband was appointed by Michael Forsyth and then endorsed by Donald Dewar on anything other than merit.
I thought that I heard Peter Peacock say that Jim Sillars was appointed on merit.
I gather that Jim Sillars is an old pal of Margo's as well.
Sometimes.
Alex Neil needs to be more open and transparent. He went on to argue that we ought to have a quota system for appointments to ensure political balance. However, the purpose of the whole exercise is to appoint people on merit, whatever their political affiliations.
The bill is another major step forward in the delivery of the Executive's pledge to modernise the approach to public appointments. It will ensure the de-politicisation of the appointments process; it will guarantee openness, transparency and accountability; it will underpin our commitment to make appointments on merit; and it will encourage a more diverse range of people to participate in public life. The bill is an important step in building the post-devolution Scotland that we want to see—a Scotland in which public service is respected and admired. I commend the bill to the Parliament.