6. 6. Statement by the Chair of the Finance Committee on Ministerial Appointments: Pre-Appointment Hearings by Assembly Committees

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 3:34 pm on 5 April 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Simon Thomas Mr Simon Thomas Plaid Cymru 3:34, 5 April 2017

(Translated)

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.