Item 6 on our agenda is a statement by the Chair of the Finance Committee on ministerial appointments: pre-appointment hearings by Assembly committees, and I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas, to move the statement.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is the last time you’ll hear from me this afternoon—before Easter even. Despite that, I am pleased to make this statement here today on behalf of the Finance Committee, talking of our experience of holding a pre-appointment hearing on a ministerial appointment, which we undertook as part of the process for recruiting the chair of the Welsh Revenue Authority. I welcome the opportunity to inform the Assembly, which will hopefully help to improve this procedure in future, and give advice to other committees.

Many of us in the Assembly have been calling for pre-appointment hearings for some time. The suggestion to hold a hearing for this recruitment was made by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. And, back in 2012, when he was the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, he wrote an article for the Institute of Welsh Affairs, from which I will quote:

un ffordd arwyddocaol y mae’r Senedd yn awr yn llusgo ar ôl datblygiadau mewn mannau eraill o ran atebolrwydd a thryloywder yw’r modd y mae’n penodi swyddogion cyhoeddus allweddol.

It’s worth noting, therefore, that the first hearing of this type, undertaken by a House of Commons committee, took place back in 2008. So, we are nearly 10 years behind Westminster, and I’m not happy about that. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has taken the first steps to bring the Assembly in line with other parliamentary bodies.

We welcome the opportunity to be involved in the process of appointing the chair of the WRA, and we hope this experience will set a precedent for future recruitment processes. The hearing was held by the committee on 16 February, and its main purpose was to reassure us as Members, and as a committee, of the suitability of the Welsh Government’s preferred candidate for the post. It also gave the candidate exposure to parliamentary scrutiny in a public setting, which is something that an appointee to a post at this level needs to be prepared for.

The committee was well placed to carry out this hearing, given our scrutiny of various pieces of tax legislation, and our interest in the establishment of the WRA. We were pleased with the opportunity to participate in this procedure, although we noted that there is currently no specific guidance in place in the Assembly for this kind of hearing. As time was limited on this occasion, we used the Westminster guidance as a basis, and worked to agree a set of overarching principles that we would adhere to for this particular hearing.

Going forward, based on our experience, I would strongly suggest that a set of formal guidelines be established for future pre-appointment hearings, to provide a more strategic approach. The guidance should set out principles that can be agreed by both the Assembly and the Welsh Government, drawing on best practice procedures in other parliaments. We can see these processes as part of the development of a protocol between the Assembly and Welsh Government. We should consider this as part of the general work being undertaken to agree protocols, as I have just said.

Based on the Finance Committee’s experience, I believe the guidance should cover a number of areas. First of all, how will the appropriate Cabinet Secretary or Minister incorporate the views of the committee? Whilst I am an advocate of holding pre-appointment hearings, we must ensure it does not become a tick-box exercise, and that the committee’s view is given due regard by the Government. This would ensure that committees understand their role in the process.

We did not see the information submitted by the candidate in making her application. And, in my opinion, the information we were given in advance was most insufficient. Committees need to understand why the Minister, or Cabinet Secretary, believes the candidate is preferred, and why they are believed to be suitable for the post. It would be helpful if a statement could be provided for the appropriate committee. With only a short period of time, and limited information available, a statement would facilitate more effective and relevant questioning.

On this occasion, we agreed to report under embargo to the Cabinet Secretary within 24 hours of the hearing, and to publish a bilingual report within 48 hours. In this case, there was time immediately after the meeting for the committee to have a brief discussion, but not necessarily enough time for Members to consider any concerns in any great detail. It was not possible for the committee to reach a unanimous opinion, and the issue of the disagreement was noted in a majority report. It is possible that, with more time and an opportunity to discuss these concerns with the Cabinet Secretary, the committee would have come to a unanimous conclusion.

I would recommend, therefore, that for future hearings, these reporting deadlines should be revised to allow time for proper consideration by the committee, while being mindful of causing delays to the recruitment process. Should pre-appointment hearings become a routine part of the recruitment process, I would suggest that additional reporting time be factored into the timescales. In saying this, I note that the Government did not confirm the appointment until last week, due to high-level security checks.

As we continue to grow as a Parliament, pre-appointment hearings of this nature will enhance our reputation as a mature legislature. At present, such hearings are held in various legislatures, including Westminster, the Scottish and European Parliaments, as well as in the US and Canada. The guidance adhered to in each Parliament varies. However, each institution does have a list of public appointments that are subject to a pre-appointment hearing. I believe that a list of this nature would be a valuable addition to the Assembly’s guidance. This approach shows a clear example of best practice. However, as with any new procedure, there are areas for improvement. If the Welsh Government and the Assembly can work together to make this process efficient and productive, there is no reason why Wales could not become a country that other Parliaments look to as an example of best practice.

By working together on guidelines and establishing effective procedures, we have an opportunity to lead the way in strengthening the transparency and accountability of ministerial appointments. We can learn from best practice in other Parliaments to form our own procedure that gives the public confidence in the decisions made by the Welsh Government and Members in this Chamber. I welcome questions and comments from other Members.

On behalf of Steffan Lewis, who is a member of the committee, may I thank the Finance Committee Chair for his statement today and for discussing the important opportunity we have in terms of improving not only the transparency of ministerial appointments, but also the Assembly’s ability to hold the Government to account? It’s a very timely statement, if truth be told, given that the Assembly is fast maturing as a legislature. There is sufficient evidence of that—the ink is barely dry on the first piece of Welsh taxation legislation passed in this Chamber yesterday.

In my view, introducing pre-appointment hearings would support that broader development and support the maturing of the institution, and, as the Chair said, it would move the National Assembly for Wales towards the same kind of regimes as those adopted in many other legislatures across the world. So, I welcome this proposal of drawing up formal guidelines or a protocol for pre-appointment hearings. I very much hope that the Government will agree to work with the relevant committees in this undertaking, which would develop the Assembly machinery for the benefit of democracy. I look forward to hearing the Government’s views on this.

I agree with the Chair’s comments about ensuring that any arrangements for pre-appointment hearings must be far more than a box-ticking exercise. This is important because the potential of these hearings to enhance the Assembly’s ability to scrutinise Government decisions is reliant on the appropriate committee having the relevant information so that the correct decisions can be made. So, I would like to endorse the Chair’s call that committees should receive information about candidates, including an explanation from Government as to why they were chosen, in good time in order to enable more effective questioning. Of course, we must also ensure that the Government takes the committee’s view on candidates in earnest. I acknowledge that the work is yet to start properly in this area, but has the committee received any proposals on the powers that will be required for committees to ensure that their views are given due attention by Government?

To conclude, I understand that arrangements in Westminster provide a veto for certain committees on specific appointments, whilst, for other appointments, a report is prepared or a consultative vote is taken. Does the Chair believe that it’s worth considering that kind of approach in drawing up guidelines for the Assembly and that we would perhaps need to vary the powers and influence of any committee according to the appointment in question?

I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for his questions and for his general welcome for this process, the development of the process and the need for more formal guidance, perhaps, so that everyone can understand how committees operate with Government.

May I just say, first of all, that I feel that the committee ultimately did have an opportunity to assess the candidate and an opportunity to hold the candidate to account in a public forum, where she was questioned in a very thorough manner? I think that’s entirely appropriate, and, therefore, that process is clearly one that committees do and one that we could do ourselves.

Rhun ap Iorwerth raised a number of points that we need to understand and which need to be included in formal guidelines. For example, what powers? We had no veto on this occasion, certainly, but if the committee had been unanimous in reporting unfavourably against a candidate, and had done that on a robust basis, explaining why, then I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary would have had to reconsider just how he was going to proceed with that appointment. But it is a question that arises—whether the guidance should put a specific veto in the hands of some committees. That is something that would need to be negotiated between the Assembly and the Government. It is a discussion in the Assembly, because, although it’s the Finance Committee that had the opportunity to carry out this first pre-appointment hearing, this will be something that other committees will be interested in, and I would suggest that it is something that the Chairs’ forum should look at in this place as we develop that in due time.

I welcome the chairman’s statement this afternoon. This is something that we had in our manifesto at the Assembly election last year—rejected by the people of Wales, hence the Government’s sitting on this bench here. But I do think there’s a wider issue here that, with the increasing number of appointments and the stature that has been highlighted previously by the Plaid Cymru speaker of the increased powers and responsibilities of this institution, a good way for people to actually understand how much of the actions are taken on their behalf—pre-legislative scrutiny and pre-appointment scrutiny are a vital part of the way that the public get informed about the roles people are undertaking on their behalf. You’re quite right, Chair, to point out that, in many legislatures around the globe, this is common practice, and surely we should embrace that and welcome that. In your statement you did touch on the tax authority’s, the revenue authority’s, appointment of a chair and how the individual came before you. Surely, that is something that is welcomed and, ultimately, should be expanded across the areas of public appointments so that Members in this institution and the public at large can really understand what these roles entail, how they’re undertaken, and, ultimately, drive another level of accountability through. That, ultimately, has to be good for public service delivery. So, from these benches, we certainly will be supporting any increase in the ability to bring appointments forward.

It was many years ago when the commissioners—the children’s commissioner and the older people’s commissioner—were appointed and we believed that those shouldn’t be a Government appointment, they should be an Assembly appointment. Surely, that is good practice and, sadly, that hasn’t come to fruition, albeit I do welcome the moves from the Government when they do include other parties in that appointment process. But, surely, we should formalise that more so that it is the institution that makes that appointment. So, I welcome your statement this afternoon, chairman of the Finance Committee, but I do hope that, through your experiences and the points that you make in your statement, they can be taken forward now to expand the opportunity for scrutiny committees in this Assembly to actually—I was going to use the word ‘interrogate’ but that sounds more frightening—scrutinise chairmen and, in my view, special advisers as well, on their appointments because, equally, in the modern Government—and this is not just in this Government here; it’s Governments across the United Kingdom—the role of special advisers is an increasingly important role and has an important bearing on the way Government works, yet how many people actually understand or know the names of those individuals and, surely, that’s an important part of Government and an important part of scrutiny that should come into the public domain as well then. So, I Invite your comments on that particular aspect as well.

The Chair of the Finance Committee.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies and I was with him all the way until he mentioned special advisers, with my own history there. But it’s a fair point. It’s something that can be explored in that regard. I think the fundamental point that you were making, which I absolutely agree with, is that this is a good way of opening up the issue to the public and to show the public and demonstrate to the public how these appointments are made, who is responsible for what, and, indeed, to give them an opportunity and a flavour of how the scrutiny will be ongoing, because this is a pre-appointment—in this case, a pre-appointment of the chair of the Welsh Revenue Authority. I’m sure that the Finance Committee will have—now that she’s been confirmed as the chair—her back as the chair to give formal scrutiny about the work that she’s undertaken, the governance of the Welsh Revenue Authority, and their, of course, corporate plan and ongoing work on behalf of the Welsh taxpayer. So, it’s an important signal of how we intend to do that work when we do a pre-appointment appointment like this.

I don’t think—to be fair, the Member wasn’t suggesting, and I don’t think we should go to the more partisan approach to some of these appointments. If you’re looking at how Trump’s appointments are being made at the moment, it tends to be very partisan. It does engage the public, however. It’s public and it gets people engaged; there’s no doubt about that. But I hope that in this institution, at least, we can use what we have, which is one of the best things that this institution has, which is our committee work and the cross-party work we do on committees and the ways we work together, to try and explore and scrutinise Government appointments and Government actions. I think that’s the tool that we use to make these public pre-appointment hearings as successful as possible.

If anyone is interested in this, I would strongly recommend that they actually watch the video of the appointment, because I think it’s a far better reflection on the scrutiny and the questioning that was done than the oral transcript of the questions asked and the questions replied, because it is by getting somebody before a committee, by looking them in the eyes, and asking them questions, that you make a judgment—it might be wrong, it might be right, but at least you make a judgment—as to whether they have the right level of skills and have learned from previous experience that they would bring to bear in this regard.

I think Andrew R.T. Davies’s question has just given me an opportunity to say one thing, as well, for clarity for everyone: we have three different ways of making appointments by which committees can be involved at the moment. I think it’s important to say that. So, we have Assembly appointments themselves: so, the Finance Committee, for example, will be, in due time, appointing a new Auditor General for Wales. That’s not a Government appointment; that’s an Assembly appointment through the Finance Committee. The public services ombudsman is handled in a similar way.

Then, as the Member said, we have the commissioners’ appointments, which are Government appointments, but which have Assembly involvement, and representatives of different parties are involved in the appointment process. And then we have this new thing, which is the first time we’ve done this, which is a Government appointment by which the Assembly has a pre-appointment hearing and can give the public verdict on the favoured candidate of the Welsh Government.

I think we’ll need to keep all three going forward, because we need that mix of scrutiny. It’s a bit confusing, sometimes, but I think we’ll need to keep that mix of scrutiny. But what’s very important is that it’s done in public and people have that chance to see that we are exercising our democratic role as a parliament to hold Government appointees to account—and maybe, in time, that may include special advisers.

Thank you very much.