National Assembly for Wales

Bore da a chroeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd. Apologies for absence have been received from Rhianon Passmore MS. We're pleased to welcome Adam Price MS, who is substituting for Mabon ap Gwynfor at today's meeting. Do Members have any declarations of registrable interest they feel they need to declare?

Can I declare, on the last item, that I represent the Welsh Government on the programme monitoring committee and chair it?

Thank you. No other declarations that aren't otherwise on the public record? Thank you very much.

We have papers to note. We have a letter from the Welsh Government's Permanent Secretary to me as Chair regarding our report on the scrutiny of Welsh Government accounts 2020-21. This is in response to the recommendations in our report laid on 27 March. The Welsh Government note that they have not responded to recommendation 9, stating this is a matter for the auditor general. The Welsh Government has accepted all but one of our recommendations. They rejected recommendation 11, which sought an explanation as to why an estimate of fraud and error was not included in the 2021-22 accounts. The Welsh Government explains that an estimate was included in the annual governance statement for 2020-21 and 2021-22, which form a part of the accounts, with different estimates for the separately administered schemes. In the Welsh Government's response to recommendation 1, for information, they've included their secondment and loans policy, which applies to colleagues of all grades, and the civil service management code, which applies to all Government departments. Do Members have any comments or discussion points? 

Thank you, Chair. I'm not satisfied with the response regarding recommendation 11. I think fraud is fraud, and we as Members, and the public, should be aware of how much, even—. I'm okay with a penny or a pound being up and down, but it should be transparent. The fact that they're not being very forthcoming with that information does sit uneasily with me, and I'm sure members of the committee might feel the same way. But, for me, I'm not happy with that response about the recommendation not being accepted about fraud and error.

Thank you. Mike, any comments?

If it exists somewhere, why can't they just appendix it?

Can I come in on that one? I think there may have been some confusion, possibly. The wording against recommendation 11 in the Permanent Secretary's response doesn't quite reflect the wording of the committee's recommendation, which was addressed to the 2021-22 accounts rather than 2020-21. So, there is certainly something there for the committee to clarify with the Government, I'd suggest.

If we can do, because it is something that is important for not just us but for the public as well.

As I recall from our original report, there was reference to the UK Government having produced figures, but only one local authority in Wales having carried out the requisite work to identify a figure for them. It was £570,000, I think, which was indicative of a wider problem across Wales. If I remember in the Chamber, you quoted a figure of up to £37 million or some such.

It was. 

I know the UK Government's getting flak at the moment, because, having identified a higher figure, they've only so far recovered a tiny fraction of it, but at least it's in the public realm about how much this is estimated to be.

I agree.

So, you wish us to pursue that.

Please, yes.

Are you happy to pursue? Adam? Yes. Okay. Thank you. No other points there? Great.

We've also received a letter from the Welsh Government's director of propriety and ethics to the Chair—myself—regarding the Ernst & Young report on Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. The Welsh Government wrote to myself as Chair on 23 May to advise that a copy of the report should be requested directly from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, because they commissioned the report, and, as such, the Welsh Government could not release this without the prior agreement of the health board. I think Members are agreeable, I believe, to establishing whether the Welsh Government, as the body wholly funding Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, are right to hold that view, and, if not, we'll pursue it. We have—or I have as Chair—been pursuing a copy of the report directly with the board; that generated a call with the chair, who stated his personal view that he would like to see that released, but they were waiting for legal advice before they could determine on what basis that could be released to us, what redactions might be necessary, and whether this could be released publicly or confidentially. However, the deputy clerk has since received correspondence from them, I believe, asking us to specify the legal grounds on which we base our request for that report, which you may have a view on, given the official role that this committee has in scrutinising such matters. Mike.

Well, it surely is in our remit. If it's not in our remit, who can we scrutinise, then? If anybody can say that they can avoid providing information to us, who will still fit into us being able to scrutinise, apart from solely the Welsh Government? Because everybody else could say, 'This is ours.' So, I think that we need clarification. We need clarification from the Welsh Government on can we look at the accounts, and can we carry on doing what we've been doing up until now, of all the bodies that are directly funded by the Welsh Government. Because, historically, we've looked at those—the auditor general has produced reports on them. Are we able to do it, or can they say, 'This is nothing to do with you; this is just us'? It just comes to the heart of what the responsibilities and the power of both the Senedd and this committee are, where this committee is using the powers of the Senedd to investigate. I think it's really important that we clarify can anybody refuse us anything because they don't want us to see it. We're going to be talking to other bodies who are also wholly owned subsidiaries of the Welsh Government; some are not very keen on talking to us and not very keen on providing us with information. Are they able to just say, 'Well, no, we're not prepared to talk to you, we're not prepared to discuss with you, because we've got the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board precedent, in that we can just refuse you any information you require and ask you why you want it'?

Yes. Well, of course, this has happened with a previous report also. We have, or we believe we have, legal powers to use as a last resort, subject to Senedd lawyers, in this case, confirming how best to apply that. But we hope it won't become necessary to raise the big stick.

Can I just say that, if we have to raise the big stick, can we get the advice of leading counsel on it before we go? Because leading counsels are meant to have full expertise in this area, and, if we get the advice of a leading counsel, which you're probably paying £1,000 or £2,000 for, who will then say, 'You can', or, 'You can't'—if they tell us we can, then that makes it very difficult for them to refuse us. The last resort is we take Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board to court, which is using public money to take a public body to court, but I don't think anybody would like to see that. And I'm sure that Betsi Cadwaladr, if we started doing that, would say, 'You can't take us to court because we're Senedd funded and, as such, you can't sue yourself.' 

We shall see. I suppose whether that course of action will be necessary will be determined by the degree of watertightness of the response you get from Senedd lawyers. But, if needs be, is that an avenue you feel we could pursue? 

We'll see what the advice is. 

We'll see what the advice is. 

Can I push, Mark, that, whatever the Senedd's lawyers say, unless they're unequivocal in saying that we can, we seek further advice from leading counsel on the matter?

Well, if it is equivocated, then I think that might be necessary, but—. Is it something you want to discuss in private?

Yes.

But the comment is noted and we will pursue it, especially—. And, obviously, the response will be shared with Members, and, if Members have concerns about that response, then we will decide what further action is necessary for us to take. 

Could I ask, Chair—? As well as a general power that all committees have to call for papers and people to appear before us, there is a special provision available to us to command the publication of documents in the possession of the Government. Now, the key question here is whether that applies to documents that are in the possession of the Government, because they do have a copy of the report, or only to documents that they are the controller of. So, can we look at both of those aspects, both of those routes, in examining the legal powers available to us? 

Yes, we can incorporate that into the clarification we're seeking from lawyers. Any idea of timeline for a response from them? 

We'd be anticipating an initial response in the next couple of—[Inaudible.]—committee once it's available. 

And if that response is unambiguous, are Members content for the committee then to draft a letter for sending on the basis of that lack of ambiguity? But if it's ambiguous in any way then, as stated, we'll consider what further action we need to take, including the suggestion from Mike Hedges. 

If content at this point with that item, we have a short break for 10 minutes before resuming at 10:00. So, thank you very much. 

Croeso—welcome back to the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. Welcome to our witness for this evidence session on public appointments. Could I start by asking our witness to state his name and role for the record?

Hi, my name's Damian Bridgeman and I'm a serial board member and I've got a number of business interests and there's a record of my public appointments held with Social Care Wales. Thank you. 

Thank you very much indeed. Well, as you might expect, we have a number of questions for you, so I, as always, ask Members and yourself as the witness to be as succinct as possible to enable us to cover the wide range of issues this topic has generated. I'll start the questions with a straightforward question: why did you apply for a public appointment and how much did you know about the process before you did?

I knew nothing about the public appointments system when I first started, and I was actually—. One of my friends said, 'Damian, you need to take that final step and stand for a public appointment because people need to hear your voice, and you need to bring your skills and expertise around the table.' That's why I stepped forward.

Okay, thank you. What, if any, particular sources of information or organisations help you better understand the application process and the role you're applying for? And what if any specific barriers did you encounter in acquiring better understanding of that role? More generally, what do you think could help improve knowledge of public appointment opportunities for potential applicants?

Can I take that point in two parts?

Of course. 

One talking about the accessibility, which I'll come back to later on. But also, when you start the myriad of information about public appointments, and you start looking at reasonable adjustments, people automatically make assumptions that, 'Oh, you're going to need a lot of care, so we can provide you with carers', and I was like, 'Actually, I don't need carers—I can use other pots of money to provide myself with carers. But what I will need is a proper secretariat to help me take my own notes, because I have to use my voice to write notes.' And basically, trying to get the organisation that I took my first public appointment with, which was the Care Council for Wales, before they became Social Care Wales—it was really quite difficult. 

And then, secondly, the application process, it doesn't work with screen readers, and I have to place on record that I have a real, deep understanding of how assistive technologies work. I've been lucky enough to work with Microsoft, Apple, Google to develop screen readers, so I was able to give the public appointments unit exactly what I needed and how I needed the system to work. But, again, the knowledge wasn't there. So, actually, we're putting actual barriers up to people really applying for these roles, but also we're not skilling the people up that are going to be supporting these applicants with the right knowledge. So, I'd say there are two actual barriers even before you start the process.

Thank you very much. You referred to reasonable adjustments and that they made assumptions, but did they come and ask you at the beginning of the process and agree with you what reasonable adjustments should be? Or, as you described it, did it rely on you to have to react to their assumptions?

It relied on me having to declare what my own reasonable adjustments were. I will come, further on in your questioning, to expand on that, but all the way through the process I've had to be willing to ask, and there are a number of disabled people that won't ask for reasonable adjustments because they think that's going to not stand them in good stead for public appointments. 

Okay, and you also referred a few moments ago to the public bodies unit. What, if any, contact did you have with them during your application and appointments process, before you became aware of them further on?

Absolutely none. All I had were generic e-mails that really made you feel like you're not actually being treated as an individual. When you actually asked to speak to someone it took them—. On one occasion I asked to speak to them and it took them three and a half days to get back to me. 

Okay, thank you. I'm going to bring Natasha Asghar in. 

Yes. Hi, Damian, nice to see you.

Hi there.

So, I wanted to ask you—. Because we had an evidence session here on 3 May, and the committee heard from various witnesses, and they said that there was a specific art to applying for these particular roles, and a certain wording that you need to use, and certain phrasing and terminology that's really handy. So, I just wanted to know: do you share that view with them?

I do share that view, and I think that there is a complete art form in the whole—. I would even say, further on in public life, it's the language you use, it's—. I'm going to be really honest: it's sometimes even the people you know, to let you know that these public appointments are out there, because even though public appointments are well advertised on sites, it's still a closed shop. So, yes, on the two counts: it's a secret language that you have to learn, and also getting to know that public appointments are available is even a closed shop to many.

You mentioned in your previous answer to our Chair about skilling up. How would you suggest the best way one can skill up?

Disability Wales and other organisations are running sort of mentoring and facilitation schemes at the moment for public appointees, but actually, I don't think they go far enough. I think they should be properly funded in the first instance, and also, they should have qualified executive coaches running the sessions, rather than relying on third sector organisations to run them, because, let's be really honest—and I'm sure you'll share the view, Natasha—there is a skill to public life, and sometimes the third sector organisations can only do what they know, but they don't know the finer points. So, actually, even though we are trying to give people a true hand up, we are not really skilling them for the future.

Understood. Thank you so much for that. Do you feel that constructive criticism or feedback is given to candidates after having been to an interview or the selection process?

I've been asking for feedback on a number of occasions, because I went for certain chair roles, and I didn't even receive—. First of all, I didn't even receive a proper sort of, 'Sorry, you haven't been successful', and that to me is the basic that you should be getting. Also, when I asked the deputy permanent secretary to look into it for me, because I was having some mentoring from them at the time, they said, 'There are no records of your interview process and there are no records of where you could improve.' So, I reached out to Academi Wales when Jo Hicks was there, and asked her to mentor me, and we tried to get a development plan in place, but because I couldn't get the information on where I needed to improve, it's only through sheer determination that I've managed to get to where I am now.

I know Mike wants to ask you a question. Can I just ask you just one question, based on what you just said?

Yes.

How did they respond to you, out of curiosity?

They just said, 'Oh, you did well. Please apply again.' But I was like, 'If you want me to apply again, I need to know where I failed, so I can improve.'

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Mike Hedges.

I was going to say, didn't they score it? I speak as someone who's been on lots of appointment panels in lots of different places, as probably everybody else in this room has, that you score each candidate on the questions they answer, you add them all up at the end, and the person with the most points collectively is the one appointed. Surely, if they said, 'We asked you question 2, and you only got three out of five for it, and that is where you went wrong, and question 8, you only got one out of five,' surely they must have that sort of information—?

Mike, with all due respect, I asked them for that information, because I've interviewed people myself in a number of other roles, and the answer was, 'We can't provide you with that.'

Okay. Perhaps they can provide it to us. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. My questions are done. Thank you.

Okay. Adam Price, I believe you have some questions.

I think it depends what level of public appointment you're applying for, and I also think that, actually, we are getting to the point where it needs to be scrutinised by a panel such as yourselves, because I think there are actual real cultural barriers within the public appointments system that we need to get out into the open. So, I think maybe we should be more public about how we appoint public appointees. I have called a couple of times, 'Let's actually make a documentary about public appointments, to actually get the conversation started so that people can have the myth broken for them.' So, I think if we could make, I don't know, like a council that had to oversee some of these barriers and that could actually scrutinising the people who were doing the initial sifts and hold them to account, I think we would start to see more diverse membership of public appointments. But I think something radical needs to be done, so I would welcome more scrutiny.

I was lucky enough, or brave enough, to give evidence to the Holmes review and I would actually say that the Holmes review hasn't done anything to the public appointments system here in Wales and it's just become a token document. When we went to the launch of that document, everyone was saying really positive plaudits about it and, 'Oh we'll make radical change', but again, nothing has ever really come of it. And I urge this committee, when you finally put your recommendations forward, to please, please, keep holding them to account, because otherwise, it'll just be, 'We've gone through the process, we survived', and nothing's really going to have to change.

Well, that's really sobering, Damian. Just picking up one of the recommendations, for example, of the Holmes review:

'All bodies making public appointments to be Disability Confident by summer 2019',

based on a range of criteria. So, in your experience, that and other detailed recommendations, you don't think there's evidence that that's happened, even though the Welsh Government has signed up to it.

Again, I'm sitting on the disability taskforce that's been set up by Jane Hutt and there have been recommendations there that everyone should sign up to the social model of disability. All public appointments, and even yourselves as public officials, should have that training, but actually, when you go and speak to chairs about it, they have no idea. So, how can we say we’re disability confident, when people don’t really even know the basics around disability legislation?

Diolch yn fawr; diolch yn fawr, Damian.

Are they aware, if I can just interject, of the statutory public sector equality duty applying to them?

I think a lot of them are aware of what they're meant to do under the equality duty. A lot of them do the minimum of what they've got to do under the equality duty and they will try and make it look like they're doing more.

Thank you. Again, before I bring in Mike Hedges, just in reference to your response to Adam Price, where you indicated that although the Holmes review was accepted it hasn't been implemented in the way you had hoped, how do you feel that that could be better monitored systematically? It's an issue raised with this committee regularly that policies, recommendations accepted and so on, don't produce the desired result because of a failure of monitoring and evaluation built into the system.

First of all, when we do a Holmes review and it's led by Westminster, we have to make sure there is decent dialogue between the two organisations, because that always seems to be something that's lacking. I've sat on other committees where things happen in Westminster and they don't know it's already been happening in Wales for a number of years. It was exactly the same when it came to the Holmes review. When you tried to say, 'Well, actually, are you truly looking at it through Welsh lenses?', the answer was, 'Oh, we're just looking at public appointments in the round; we're not actually looking at how public appointments relate to devolved administrations.'

Thank you. Mike Hedges.

Nice to meet you, Damian, in person, as opposed to as a 'Facebook friend', in inverted commas. I know what you're going to say for the answer to this, or I'm fairly certain what you're going to say, but I just want you to say it for the record.

That's fine.

Are you aware of any disability awareness courses that have been offered to chairs and panellists?

Yes, I am aware of organisations and bodies that can run those disability awareness courses, but I'm also going to place on record that we need to skill people up within organisations to become disability champions, and people with long-term health conditions, and any other marginalised group. We need to actually start modelling from those sectors of society, rather than, 'Oh, we've just done a generic training course.'

Thank you very much. Do you have any views on the software used for public appointments? Are there any specific features that can have a negative impact on accessibility or anything that can, in the way that some benefit forms do—they're written to put you off?

I have to say, I wish that once you'd filled out the form once and it says, 'Please give your information,' I wish there was a way of just filling out the bits that you needed to tailor for the particular public appointment. I also wish that even though Welsh Government says quite openly on their website, 'If you want it in alternative formats, come and ask us for it', but again, you're putting the emphasis on the disabled person or the person with complex needs to go and ask for it, when actually it's common practice now to put the information on additional web pages, so that people can go there for themselves.

Coming back to the pure assistive technology elements of the platforms, it doesn't work with screen readers, it doesn't work with amplification software for people with hearing loss. It doesn't work with those because it is so locked down. So, again, when the Welsh Government are asking for that software to be reviewed, let's actually have people on that panel with lived experience of how the software landscape works with assistive technology. Also, we have other public bodies that are funded to make sure that technology is implemented across publicly appointed units, so let's actually work together rather than in silos.

Thank you. The Holmes review also recommended that candidates should be able to use alternative means of application. I know you sent us a video for this meeting. Is that happening? If it is, good. If it isn't happening, should it happen more often?

As I said, I use my voice to write e-mails because of my complex cerebral palsy. The reason I use video sometimes is because it allows me to be quicker in my response. So, what I'm saying is 'Actually, let's have a range of options that people can use to upload information'. And to be honest, if I was appointing somebody for a public appointment, I'd quite like to see how they carried themselves, and how they conducted themselves on a video. So, actually, that could be part of the process of whether you're going to be appointed or not. 

Are you aware of training and support provided by the public bodies unit to encourage people from currently under-represented groups to apply and carry out public appointments? And have you any experience of that, or have you identified any weaknesses?

Funnily enough, this week, I received an e-mail saying that the public appointments unit are running courses for under-represented groups, especially people from disability under-representation and ethnic minorities. So, it seems to be coming, but, before that, I have to say, I wasn't aware of any additional courses that were out there. 

Okay. And finally from me, is the time commitment required of public appointments aligned with the time commitments set out in the recruitment advertisement? What I'm saying, in a very long sort of way, is, they may say that it needs one day a week, or half a day a month, or whatever it is in those sorts of contexts. Does the amount they actually need or ask of you exceed that?

Yes, it always exceeds what is always on the public appointments. You can ask my husband for evidence of this. There are many Saturdays before committees I'm sat there reading papers, because you haven't got the time before, otherwise, to take on the information. 

Okay, thank you. 

Thank you. Natasha Asghar. 

Thank you so much. Damian, how would you assess the Welsh Government's progress to date in delivering its diversity and inclusion strategy, particularly when it comes to public appointments?

Really poor.

Okay. Why?

Because, again, it's not being led by a diverse group. It's not being—. They're not being held to account quickly enough for quick actions, and also, can I be really honest?

Absolutely, yes. 

It feels like tokenism. 

Okay. Tokenism in what way?

It feels like, 'Oh, we have to be seen to do this, so we're doing it'.

Okay. It's a tick-box exercise, you feel. 

Yes. 

Okay. All right. The Welsh Government's diversity and exclusion strategy for public appointments runs until the end of the year. What key priorities—? You mentioned, obviously, that there is tokenism and there are elements of it that you're not satisfied with. But what would you like to see be included? If we could wave our magic wands and change things, what do you think would be that ideal change for you?

I'd like to see when that is actually implemented, the people helping to implement it are people truly representative of the diverse groups, because, otherwise, you're going to get experts that charge Welsh Government exorbitant amounts of money for consultancy that supposedly works in a number of organisations, but, actually, does it actually work in practice? No. But it allows Welsh Government to say, 'We've done our bit when it comes to diversity'.

Okay. Thank you so much, Chair. Thanks. 

Thank you. You've already indicated some particular measures that you suggest the Welsh Government could take to improve the process, but what specific measures, additionally, if any, would you like to see the Welsh Government put in place to increase awareness of public appointments in currently under-represented groups and communities? And related to that, to what extent are vacancies appropriately advertised?

I'd actually like to see Welsh Government take a really radical step and take public appointments back in-house fully, in the sense of we actually have a public appointments commissioner for Wales, or something like that. Because, actually, when it becomes a generic sort of public appointments organisation across the bridge, they're not really understanding the demographics for Wales. 

So, I'm not saying I want to see another body set up as such. I'm just saying that I think we should possibly look to strengthen our partnerships a bit more and stuff like that. And I also think, to really push this forward, I come back to having a council of people from diverse groups who have had public appointments actually being able to give advice about how things should be run, because I'm going to also place on record that there have been a number of public appointments I've gone for, and then I find out they've gone across the bridge to find appointees because they come back and they say, 'We can't find anyone in Wales'. Well, actually, surely, we should be growing our own rather than allowing people to come across the bridge.

And in terms of vacancies being advertised, are they appropriately advertised so that they're known to under-represented groups?

They're known to the under-represented groups that are willing to go and have a look for them, but then unless you're willing to go and look for them it's like they're buried on a Welsh Government site. So, actually, I would welcome the use of platforms such as Nurole, which is a global non-executive platform that is used by a number of businesses and a number of organisations. And, actually, let's see it more publicly advertised. If there was a real drive to taking public appointments out of the shadows, I think we'll see more people willing to apply.

Thank you. An issue sometimes raised by disabled people who feel they've not been treated fairly or equally is a tick box on the initial application form declaring that you are or are not disabled. Do you think that that's something that should be there? And if not, why not?

I've actually got personal evidence of applying for a public-appointed role and ticking the box and I don't get an interview, and then I don't tick the box and I've been given an interview. So, what does that tell you?

Thank you, yes, it is, unfortunately, a story we've heard many times, but I wanted that on the record, and I'm glad you provided that answer.

You made reference already to mentoring programmes, which are often cited as a way to develop potential candidates from under-represented groups to become board-ready. And again, you made reference to some programmes that you either have been involved with or are aware of. But are you aware of any other mentoring programmes, and how would you asses their effectiveness in increasing diversity in public appointments?

I'm only aware of the one I mentioned previously, but I have asked, and I have been successful on that programme, and then I went back to be a facilitator of the programme, and that's a programme that was run by Academi Wales, which is called 'Summer School'. It's used for civil servants. It's supposed to be mainly used for civil servants, but the sort of hidden secret is, if you're in the third sector or in a public appointment, you can also use that as a training opportunity. So, I think, again, it's if you know what's out there, you can get on to things. But, again, it's knowing what's out there to be able to get onto things.

Thank you. And what features, do you believe, should be included in an effective Welsh mentoring programme for public appointments? And, more widely, what, if any, other measures do you believe could or should be put in place to support positive development of people so that, when vacancies arise, they're ready, willing and able to apply?

I think we should start having shadow appointment opportunities like some health boards do in England. So, you become a shadow board member, and then, when the actual appointment comes into force, then you get interviewed to see whether you're willing to apply. I give way.

Natasha.

Thank you. It was just in relation to the shadowing. Shadowing is a great concept—I'm all for it—but a lot of people may be put off by it because there's no pay for it. So, how would you suggest we make that more lucrative?

I was actually going to say, well, actually, we should make—you know, not obviously what you'd get when you're on a full board, but actually, we should be willing to pay out-of-pocket expenses and reasonable adjustment costs.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Damian.

Okay, thank you. Well, in that case, I invite Adam Price to take up the questions again.

I have to be quite open and honest in the sense that anyone who stands for election is bound to know, is bound to be wanting to serve in whatever way they can within their community, so, actually, public appointments might be the way they do that. And I suppose it's because, again, if you know how the systems work and you're in those circles and that's where your friends come from and that's where your work colleagues come from, you are more likely to flock together. But what I would like to see—and I've been a real advocate for it—is, let's actually really open up the public appointments to people who wouldn't necessarily be around the table. Because, if we want true democracy, how can we have true democracy without listening to the marginalised voices?

Unless we start really looking at fundamental shifts in the public appointments system, we will always get people who are more politically civic minded applying for public appointments, if we don't actually do some radical manoeuvres and use this committee's recommendations to be the catalyst for that.

Let's be really honest about it. If we want to get a diverse group of people, we have to look at how we become more honest about the time that it's going to take, we have to be more honest about, actually, it may affect benefits, because actually it will be seen as a job. As soon as you put yourself forward for public appointments, you have to be willing to even—. Even though it's only a slim possibility, you might become a target for a newspaper article, you may have people coming up to you in the street, thinking that you're actually in Welsh Government, so, 'Can you do more?' So, I think it comes down, for me, about education, and we have to look at the fundamentals of how we can actually make people ready for public appointments, because actually, when you take on a public appointment, you're actually taking on quite a significant role that's not really held to that point at the moment because people don't really understand it.

I'm going to answer this from a personal point of view, and then I'm going to come back to your centre of governance. I ask for every bit of training I've asked for to get me ready for—. I basically want to be, in the next three, four years, a chair of a public-appointed body here in Wales. But I'm having more success across the bridge in getting opportunities because there are fewer barriers. Actually, I'd rather serve my community, I'd rather serve a real organisation that I really strongly believe in, but you only go where the opportunities are.

So, coming back to your points, I welcome the opportunity of a centre of governance being led. I was chair of the Institute of Directors for south Wales for a period of time, and, without going into too many points around that, I had to help them implement a diversity and inclusion strategy because nobody had the skills there to do that, and that was across the whole global organisation. So, actually, a true centre of governance, and a true centre of actually being able to help people experience what public life means, in whatever guise that means, I really welcome that. But I also say, again, you've got some amazing courses being run by the University of South Wales on coaching and mentoring—actually, put some investment in there, and actually allow people to go on it, whoever's identified would be a decent role model, and actually help them help whatever organisation you give the recommendation to, to develop something that is actually truly fit for purpose, to help people really get ready for public life.

Thank you. Referring back to your earlier comments about the people at the head of the bodies recruiting people to public bodies appearing not to have heard or understand, for example, what the social model of disability is, they may never have heard of it, or they certainly don't know what it means. So, who shall guard the guardians? How do we, do you think, need to ensure understanding and acceptance in those senior positions so that this is not just something where you have to tick a box and put in an annual report, but it's cultural within the organisation and filters all the way through? 

Without getting too technical, Chair, I think it should become part of their sponsor organisation accountability meetings with their officials, and, actually, the Minister that's in charge of that public appointment should ask for evidence that everybody's gone through true disability awareness training. And it shouldn't just be said that, 'We've ticked the box in our annual report'; they should actually be asked to provide evidence of that course taking place. 

And how do you believe we should—well, not 'we'—. How do you think intervention should operate where you get a serial offender i.e. somebody in a senior position in a public body who, despite being repeatedly reminded of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation, and the public sector equality duty, and so on, continues to feign ignorance and treat the members of the under-represented groups as the problem, rather than themselves?  

I suppose it would have to come back to a committee like yours because, actually, unless you get it in a true scrutiny committee where your terms of reference say you are, you're only ever going to get what the political parties and the officials at the time actually want you to know unless you can truly scrutinise it independently. 

Thank you. Well, I confirm we are a true scrutiny committee but we can only make recommendations, and then scrutinise the implementation or not of those recommendations, which we continue to seek to do in many areas. We're coming to the end of the questioning, but the commissioner for public appointments has suggested that more applications for public appointments are made from residents in Cardiff, as, in England, those from south-east England are in the context of public appointments there, which is something you've also referred to. How important do you believe it is for the Welsh Government to increase the diversity of public appointments based on geographic location, and if you do believe that that's a matter to be considered, have you any ideas about how that might be done? 

I think, like every form of public life, there should be a level of regional representation because, actually, you know the regions that you represent, you know certain policies, how certain legislation might go down in those areas. As a public appointee, I think that you should be more asked to sometimes be the voice of your community, rather than just the actual individual. So, you should be required as a public appointee, in certain organisations especially, to actually go out and interact with certain community groups, so you're bringing a wider breadth of knowledge. 

And why do I think people from Cardiff—? I personally live in the Vale of Glamorgan, and I'd probably guess there are quite a few people from the Vale of Glamorgan that would apply for public appointments, but it comes down to the economic barriers and it comes down to how people perceive whatever institution and whatever public body it is within those communities.

Okay, thank you very much. Do Members have any further questions they would like to put to Damian Bridgeman? I can't see anyone at this point. Are there any points that we've not raised with you that you would like to highlight now? 

Just one in particular, Chair. I would like to see true guidance being placed, like there is on the documentation that, actually, the Welsh language should be more widely tested when people get appointed for public roles, because there are people within public-appointed roles in Wales that are in supposedly bilingual organisations that aren't necessarily truly bilingual themselves.

Okay. If you have no further points, I thank you very much for attending this committee today and giving your evidence to us, sharing your thoughts and ideas, and experience also. A transcript of today's meeting will be published in draft form and shared with you for you to check for accuracy before the final version is published. So, again, thank you very much for being with us today.

I now propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of today's meeting. Are all Members content? 

Content.

Thank you. In which case, I'd be grateful if we could go into private session.