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.