Examination of Witness (Questions 1-19)
DAME RENNIE
FRITCHIE
THURSDAY 7 MARCH 2002
Chairman
1. Dame Rennie, it is a delight to see you.
The Committee has decided to do quite an extensive inquiry that
it may call "Government by Appointment" and therefore
it wants to take a large view of the whole public appointments
process. The natural place to start was with you, partly because
we try to see you annually on your annual reports and also because
we like your assistance in getting us into thinking about some
of these issues. Would you like to say something by way of introduction?
DAME RENNIE
FRITCHIE
(Dame Rennie) Thank you. Yes, I would.
I am making rather a marathon statement, if I may, because I know
there are a number of Members of the Committee that I have not
met before I thought I would talk in particular about patronage
but also give a more general background, so perhaps you might
bear with me a little. First of all, I am grateful to the Committee
for inviting me to be here. I always remember my first appearance
before the Committee where I said I was really looking forward
to this and everyone seemed mildly surprised, but I do look forward
to it because I always learn something. I go away and think more
deeply or look at things as a result of the questions I am asked.
I am also glad to have an opportunity to say something about the
work that I have been doing. The timing is particularly opportune
for me because I have just been reappointed from the 1st of this
month for another three years.
2. Many congratulations.
(Dame Rennie) Thank you very much. I am still Commissioner
for Public Appointments for England, for Scotland, for Wales and
separately appointed to the post of Commissioner for Northern
Ireland. In Northern Ireland I have been appointed for another
year. However, Scotland is due to appoint its own separate Commissioner
on 1 April 2003, subject to legislation being passed, at which
time I relinquish my responsibility for Scottish appointments.
A similar arrangement is under consideration in Wales and I will
say a word or two about those changes later. When I was appointed
in March 1999, I recognised that there was a huge amount of work
to be done to open up public appointments. Partly because of my
background and experience over the past 25 years on diversity
and equal opportunities, a number of individuals and groups contacted
me on my first appointment to discuss what could be done to attract
the widest possible pool of candidates. I was very keen right
from the start to look at what positive action could be taken.
On meeting these groups or individuals and undertaking a number
of speaking engagements targeted at attracting more women, people
from ethnic minorities, people with a disability as well as younger
people and people from a wider geographical region to apply for
public appointments, I was aware or made aware right at the beginning
that I was pushing my role to the boundaries of my responsibilities.
Indeed, it was pointed out to me from time to time that this was
not strictly my business. However, some initiatives which I began—for
example, a pilot board-shadowing scheme for people with interest
and potential to meet and shadow serving non-executive directors—have
now been passed over to the central secretariat in the Cabinet
Office to take forward so they will live on and I am delighted
with that. This pilot scheme was part of a Public Service Week
which I conceived and then developed with others. It took place
in November 2000, partly in recognition of the importance that
people from all walks of life could be made aware of public appointments
and that opportunities were made available to them and that it
was a regulated process. The good news for me, as far as my reappointment
is concerned, is that I have now been given additional responsibilities,
including working on diversity officially, which I am taking forward
with strong support from the Cabinet Office Minister, Chris Leslie,
the Cabinet Office itself and other government departments. We
are working together towards an overall, strategic approach. There
is broad agreement that action must be taken to remedy the present
situation and there is a willingness to be imaginative and creative
in doing so. I look forward to building on the work which I and
my office have undertaken over the last three years. I think much
has been achieved but there is still a huge amount to be done,
particularly on diversity. I would like to outline what I have
been doing over the last year and the areas relating to the Committee's
inquiry which concern me directly. My Code of Practice is underpinned
by seven principles which come directly from the recommendation
by the Nolan Committee: the principles of ministerial responsibility,
of merit, of independent scrutiny, equal opportunities, probity,
openness and transparency and proportionality. These principles
are the foundation of the public appointments process and are
designed to ensure public appointments on merit. My three broad
aims are, as they have been from the beginning, firstly, to ensure
that there is a fair and open process that is easy to find and
smooth to travel through for anyone who seeks to be considered
for a public appointment. This process is only effective if it
delivers a quality outcome and that is my second aim. Such an
outcome is one where the people who are appointed are fit for
purpose and can do the job; they are visibly able to demonstrate
their performance and, where appropriate, broadly reflect the
communities they serve. My third aim is in the area of public
confidence and public perception. The public appointments process
and the subsequent performance of those who are appointed to serve
must be able to meet public scrutiny and expectations and earn
the confidence of ministers, Parliament and the general public.
I revised my Code of Practice last year in order to simplify the
public appointments process and to include a new definition of
"merit" which I have adopted. "Merit" was
redefined following research and consultation to examine the perceived
tension between appointment on merit and the need to achieve greater
diversity on boards. The new definition is in line with the recommendation
made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life that criteria
for selection should take account of the need to appoint boards
that include a balance of skills and backgrounds without trading
down. I have introduced new quality assurance measures which are
designed to make sure that independent assessors are selected
with the right skills. The new measures will ensure that the assessors
are engaged at the key stages of the appointments process and
that they are confident in their role as guardians of the process
and of my Code of Practice. I have recently set up a new OCPA
central list of independent assessors. My office has advertised
for, interviewed and subsequently appointed these assessors. The
list is primarily for departments that do not have their own lists,
but the list may also be used by other departments, for example
to fill particularly high profile appointments for which they
want to demonstrate that the assessor is as independent as possible.
We now have a high quality and diverse group of 22 OCPA independent
assessors of whom 13 are women, three are from ethnic minority
groups, three are in their thirties and half are from the regions—that
is, outside London and the south east. As I said earlier, I am
personally committed to opening up the public appointments process.
I regularly, on average once a week but sometimes more often,
give talks to or meet and listen to targeted groups to encourage
a wider range of people to consider applying for public appointments.
For example, I spoke to the Women at Work group, a project managed
by the WEA, in Inverness last week, to encourage more women into
public life. More than 70 women attended from throughout the Highlands
and Islands. I spoke yesterday at Opportunity Now to give a personal
perspective on women in non-management roles. On Saturday, I am
in Winchester giving a speech for Unison on women in public life
to celebrate International Women's Day. Later this month I am
speaking at Black Women Mean Business which is an event organised
by the Home Office Race Equality Unit. Shortly, I am addressing
a meeting convened by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
of leaders of disabled charities to encourage them to look more
closely inside their membership. I believe those not applying
for public appointments can be divided into three groups. First,
those who are eminently suitable and either do not know about
public appointments or how to be considered for them. Second,
others who are also suitable, who do know about public appointments
and choose not to come forward for a variety of reasons. Thirdly,
those who have potential but currently lack a particular experience
or skill which would enable them to be selected on merit. I am
working closely with the National Assembly for Wales in relation
to a scoping study which has been conducted by Professor Theresa
Rees from Cardiff University on motivation to apply for public
appointments. We want to understand what motivates those people
who have applied to come forward and those who do not. I hope
that we will be able to involve England, Scotland and Northern
Ireland in some of these initiatives. We need to examine how we
inform, attract, administer, sift, assess, interview, recommend,
appoint or disappoint all those we endeavour to interest in public
appointments. This means having clarity about how many public
appointments there are, how many are regulated and by whom and
having clarity about the numbers of women, members of ethnic minority
groups and disabled people, not only broken down by public body
but looking at those who are in chair posts and those who are
in paid and unpaid posts. The Scottish Executive have already
started a mapping exercise aimed at giving us a clearer understanding
of the current status of public appointments and I am encouraging
England and Wales to do the same. We need to target departments,
bodies, regions and different groups to raise awareness in a proportionate
and measured way and to follow through to outcomes. That is, policy
review, policy formulation, policy implementation through to policy
result. We need to be prepared, openly questioning and radical
in our considerations and consultative in our approach. I mentioned
paid and unpaid posts and this leads me to the issue of remuneration.
Although I recognise that I have no locus in the area of what
fees departments pay those people who are serving on public bodies,
I believe that remuneration is a diversity issue. About 80 per
cent of public appointments are unpaid and I am told by many people
that the lack of remuneration and the inconsistent level of remuneration
across different bodies are real barriers to enabling a broad
cross section of people to participate on boards of public bodies.
Many people, for example, who are self-employed or who have small
businesses to run cannot afford to spend a day or more a month
on a public body with no remuneration. This is likely to be the
same for younger people rather than, say, some older people who
may be retired with a pension and have time to spare. Economically
narrowing the field therefore creates the impression of exclusivity
and helps to sustain the belief that public appointments are for
the privileged few. Indeed, the perception that boards consist
of pale, stale, males from the southern counties still exists.
The National Assembly for Wales are currently undertaking a study
into the remuneration of their public bodies to try to achieve
some consistency and ministers are now considering the results
of that study. I do not advocate however that people in public
appointments should receive or expect the going rate that they
would get in paid employment for the same degree of responsibility.
That would change the nature of public service. However, I do
think that a fair and consistent approach needs to be taken if
we are serious about increasing diversity on public bodies. One
of my objectives is to set good practice and encourage departments
to learn from past mistakes as a result of complaints made directly
to me, particularly looking at those complaints and seeing what
lessons might be learned. I am the Ombudsperson for complaints
on those public appointments within my remit and I have introduced
and revised a complaints process in the handling of complaints
within my office. These include informing Permanent Secretaries,
heads of department, of new complaints, rather than coming in
at a lower level with those I have decided to investigate and
issuing the lessons learned together with anonymised summaries
of complaints to departments so that they do not make the same
mistakes time and time again. We have a steady flow of complaints
to my office. There have been 37 in this financial year which
compares with 26 until 31 March last year. I employ external auditors
to audit departments on a three year cycle and ensure that departments
are doing everything that good practice requires. As mentioned,
I have simplified my Code of Practice and have grouped all the
bodies in my remit into two tiers rather than three as had been
previously the case. In doing so, we have built in greater proportionality
to the appointments process. This is important and I have asked
my auditors this year particularly to audit departments' use of
proportionality. There is a danger that departments who make few
appointments may introduce so many hurdles that they make it difficult
for people to move through the process. I am encouraging departments
to be flexible and pragmatic as long as the principles of my Code
are not breached. I would also like to mention some of the work
that I have been doing on executive search consultants and the
use of them. Over the years, our independent auditors and some
of the independent complaints I have received exposed areas of
weakness in the use of executive search agencies, particularly
in the public appointments process so I therefore commissioned
a study, the first part of which has yielded some interesting
results. The study shows that the use of headhunters varied widely
across departments. For example, in the past year, half the government
departments who participated in the survey did not use headhunters
at all and at the other end of the scale one department used them
more than ten times. Of those who did use headhunters, about half
did so to ease the administrative burden. The remainder used them
either to help where the appointment profile was high, 27 per
cent; or else to broaden the field of candidates, 22 per cent.
For me, one of the most worrying aspects to emerge from the study
was that search consultants were often inadequately briefed by
the commissioning department. Fewer than half were provided the
job specification or advertisement text. 27 per cent of departments
assumed headhunters were aware of my Code of Practice. In the
second part of the study, I will be talking to independent assessors
who sit on appointments and to search consultants themselves.
In particular, I want to see if search consultants understand
the principles in my Code of Practice and how to interpret them.
I shall be looking at whether there is more information available
to the panel on those candidates who come through headhunters
rather than those who respond on the web or through advertisements.
In other words, whether everyone is being treated fairly and equally.
I shall also be interested to hear from headhunters what they
think about the stage that they are brought into the process.
I want to know more about the openness and transparency of the
process and see what questions come out of it and identify best
practice. My aim is to protect the integrity of the public appointments
process when it is delegated, wholly or in part, to an external
agent. I mentioned earlier that Scotland was due to appoint its
own separate Commissioner on 1 April 2003, subject to legislation
being passed, and that a separate Commissioner for Wales had also
been proposed. In the meantime, I am working closely with the
Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. My aim
is to set up a transitional office in Scotland in advance of the
new Commissioner being appointed in order to provide them with
a fully operational base and allow a seamless transfer of responsibility.
I should stress that this preparatory work would in no way be
binding to the new Scottish Commissioner, who would no doubt want
to put their own stamp on it. I hope however that they find the
work done by this office since 1995 a useful basis on which to
start. I am speaking with the National Assembly for Wales about
whether a similar arrangement might be set up in Wales. I hope
that this has given you an indication of some of the work I have
been undertaking over the past year. There is other work which
my office is engaged on such as a study into international comparisons,
but I do not think we will cover all of it today. I would like
to stop there, if I may, and answer any questions or comment on
any issues you would like to raise with me.
3. Thank you. It may well be that, as we proceed
with our inquiry, we may want to bring you back when the Committee
is up to speed on some of these issues. If we cannot do justice
to it all today, please forgive us. What was the problem to which
your establishment was the solution?
(Dame Rennie) The problem was when there was a fair
amount of public concern about patronage or sleaze in relation
to a range of matters and the Nolan Committee was then set up.
Part of the Nolan Committee's work was to look at what standards
there should be in public life and how should those standards
be monitored and regulated. Out of the suggestions from the Nolan
Committee, one of them was that there should be an office for
the Commissioner for Public Appointments and an independent Commissioner
set up to undertake that work. The government accepted that recommendation.
Sir Len Peach was the first person to be appointed to that role.
4. The problem was the allegation or perception
of political bias in public appointments?
(Dame Rennie) I think it was wider than that. It was
the public unease and discomfort and concern—these public
appointments are part of public life—and the mystery about
who has these appointments—how people are appointed, wanting
to know more about it. I think political bias may have been part
of it but it is wider than that. I was not part of the Standards
in Public Life Committee so I do not know the debates.
5. Having been part of those debates, I can
assure you that very much the climate of the times was that there
is political patronage being exercised here in a biased way and
therefore we must have it all cleaned up. The Committee on Standards
in Public Life heard evidence on it and heard various proposals
and proposed you. When you began to do the job, did you discover
that those allegations were well founded?
(Dame Rennie) I discovered that there were a range
of practices that were evident and public and there was another
range of practices that were not so public and transparent. For
example, when I began to listen to concerns about politicisation
in National Health Service appointments, one of the things that
we discovered was that it was not known to the Commissioner's
office at the time that, after people had been through an open
process and selected, before their names went to ministers, they
went separately to Members of Parliament for them to indicate
any thoughts they had about these names. That was one of those
practices where there was the possibility of potential for some
influence that was not recorded, measured or independently scrutinised.
6. You are doing some splendid work and your
outreach work is wonderful. It is probably not at all what was
envisaged as central to the job when it was set up. I am wondering
if you were set up to address a perception which was not necessarily
the case and, although you say it provides some reassurance, it
could provide reassurance about a problem that was not there.
(Dame Rennie) Certainly. I did find that there were
political influences being brought to bear on the appointments
in the National Health Service. That was one measurable area that
I brought to the public's attention and indeed things have changed
there. When I look at how many people undertake political activity
who are appointed, something like 19 per cent currently, the public
perception is that many more people who are politically active
are appointed because that is what gets the headlines. There is
still a lot of froth before you get to any substance. I am still
finding some substance or still being asked to investigate some
of that.
7. Let me tell you one thing that was put to
me the other day about how all this is working. Someone who is
very close to these things said, "What used to happen is
that the minister used to make these appointments. Now what happens
is the civil servants do it", because although there is a
veneer of the independent assessor that comes in these independent
assessors are former civil servants. They are people who have
been in the system ten years ago. They bring their chums in and
now it is the Civil Service who are doing all this. What have
we gained?
(Dame Rennie) I understand the concern. You might
remember I raised this as a concern myself when I first was appointed
and wondered who were these independent assessors; and where did
they come from? Since they are there to prevent people being tapped
on the shoulder and appointed without any particular criteria
against their selection, if that is their role, how were they
appointed? I discovered that they had been tapped on the shoulder
at the time without any particular criteria to undertake this
role. I did find that some of them were former civil servants
from the very departments they were there to oversee and I did
find that some of them were people who held public appointments
in the very department that they were there to oversee. Again,
I questioned this as a conflict of interest and have done two
things. One is I have now set out in my Code of Practice that
departments must publicise the role of independent assessors.
They must be openly selected. They must be drawn from a wide range
of people. They must be selected against criteria and there must
be an independent assessor on that panel. They must come on a
training session run by my office so that they truly understand
their role and some of the more detailed areas around data protection
and equal opportunities. In addition, I have set up this separate
group. Because it is in the area of patronage, whose patronage
and at what stages? I set out something like eight stages in the
process: how do we inform people? How do we attract people? How
is it then administered? How are people sifted? How are people
assessed? How are they interviewed? How are they recommended and
finally through to the appointment? In the informing area, who
gives the information about appointments? Where is it publicised?
In the sifting area, looking at if civil servants are strongly
part of the sifting process-- and indeed they are—are we
clear that the sifting process is against criteria? This is an
area that I am interested in. I hear from independent assessors
that occasionally who writes the references has an effect. If
someone significantly well known acts as a reference for someone,
does that begin to have an effect? Is that a kind of patronage,
at the interview stage? In the recommending stage, how is the
submission written? If the panel come to a view on the candidates
they see and write their markings and notes about each candidate
then three names may go forward to the minister. But who writes
the submission? It is likely to be the senior civil servant. Who
gets to see it who has been on the panel? It is unlikely to be
the independent assessor. The delicacy of emphasis and choice
of words may be different at that stage, and not necessarily deliberately,
than the emphasis the panel may wish to give and that could have
an element of influence.
8. But you are on the case?
(Dame Rennie) I am aware of it and I am checking at
every stage.
Kevin Brennan
9. I am interested in this area of politicians'
involvement in public appointments. You have just described how
ministers are involved. What do you think the role of politicians
should be in the public appointment process?
(Dame Rennie) Politicians generally rather than just
ministers?
10. Both.
(Dame Rennie) I was fortunate to be able to give a
ministerial seminar at 11 Downing Street about three weeks ago,
where I was able to speak to ministers and say what I thought.
11. Who was at it?
(Dame Rennie) Lord MacDonald, Lord Hunt, Angela Eagle—it
might have been Maria. They were both due to be there and one
of them could not be. I cannot absolutely be sure. Alun Michael
and Lord Whitty are ones that I can remember were there. I think
ministers have a very important role right at the very beginning.
Ministers need to look, especially if it is the chair of a body,
with the senior civil servant and revisit what is the purpose
of this body; what is it there to do and to be clear about its
purpose first. Then to visit the role of the board. What is the
role of the board? You will know that boards generally have two
major functions. A bundle of things under the area of governance
or conformance, that is to monitor and steward in relation to
what is done and how it is done. There is also a bundle of things
in relation to the performance of the board, adding value to the
strategic thinking, being able to make decisions and so on. Ministers
and those involved in the appointment need to be clear: the purpose
of this body is this. The role of the board is rarely 50/50 so
is it 30 per cent governance and 70 per cent adding value to the
strategic thinking and other things or is it, because of current
circumstances, more this or more that? Once you have that, you
are able to say, "If that is the role of the board, what
are the core things that every board member needs to be able to
know, understand or do and within that what are the particular
extra specialties or expertise that we might need".
12. They agree that at the beginning?
(Dame Rennie) Not necessarily. They should but I do
not think that happens.
13. What happens?
(Dame Rennie) What should happen is that; and that
the minister makes it very clear: "I want people who can
do these things and this is what we are looking for". Then
the advertisement or the publicity material should be drawn up.
Then the specification should be drawn up. Then you look at where
you go to find people who might be able to do that. Where are
the gaps? What extra work needs to be done? What often happens
is, because this needs to happen some months before the appointment
comes up, senior people and ministers are often too busy and a
very junior person in the department says, "This appointment
is coming up. We had better pull out the old advertisement, tart
it up a bit. What is the latest buzz word? We will add that in,
so we are also looking for these things." I am being a bit
facetious here but that tends to happen. These junior people are
often doing honours, garden parties, all sorts of things. This
is not necessarily their main role and they do not do it that
often.
14. When does the minister get involved in practice?
(Dame Rennie) Often around the time that they are
getting the list of candidates in. It is likely that the senior
civil servant will be saying to the minister, "This will
be coming up. Is there anything in particular you are looking
for?"
15. Anything or anyone?
(Dame Rennie) Anything in terms of skills and ability
or balance on boards. Then they are able to look at the pool of
candidates to say, "Have we enough or do we need to go out
and do something else?" In terms of MPs, they too should
be involved right at the beginning of the process, particularly
if it is a local or regional body that is going to affect decisions
in their own constituencies. They need to know these are coming
up. They need to be consulted about what kinds of things are important
within your constituency and what kinds of people are we looking
for and do you know any people who live locally who meet these
criteria because you may wish to put some names in. They should
be asked that right at the beginning, along with all sorts of
other people. Where can we find a field of candidates who would
suit? MPs have an involvement of course when they are holding
the minister of Secretary of State to account for the performance
of that body. Have you selected the right person?
16. Do you think that, underneath the elaborate
process that should take place in a public appointment, there
may be an informal, unreported process going on whereby there
is a nod and a wink between the civil servant and the minister
and a list is accidentally left on a desk with names on it and
a temperature is taken; rather than the formal process you have
described, which is to follow very carefully the procedures based
on principles and so on?
(Dame Rennie) I do not know about lists on desks,
but I have had occasion since I have been in this role when ministers
have rejected whole lists.
17. Do you think it is inappropriate to do that?
(Dame Rennie) I am questioning how have things got
to the pitch where the kinds of people coming forward are not
what the minister is looking for. That is why I say ministers
need to be consulted early. I require my office to be informed
every time that happens. It used to happen much more regularly;
it now rarely happens. At that stage, their names begin to come
forward. The other area where things sometimes happen is if the
minister is particularly keen on a set of skills and may know
one of the names, if that is known to the senior civil servant.
Independent assessors have reported to me that sometimes a senior
civil servant appears to be pushing a particular candidate when
there is no evidence to suggest they have anything better to offer
than the others. That is when the independent assessor must be
impartial and independent from that department and must be able
to say, "The rest of us do not think this. You are thinking
that. You are out on a limb. Therefore, we note you take a different
view. The minister will make the decision in the end but this
is our joint view".
18. In the old days, the minister would phone
up and say, "Would you like to be the chairman of the Welsh
Tourist Board?" and so on. If the independent assessor said
at that point, "I disagree with you. This person does not
meet the criteria for this appointment", what would be the
practical effect of that objection?
(Dame Rennie) The panel would not be able to place
this person above the line if they thought they were not able
to do it.
19. Even if only the independent assessor took
that decision?
(Dame Rennie) No. If only the senior civil servant
is pressing for this person and others on the panel said no—that
has happened on occasion—that person cannot be placed above
the line. If the independent assessor had concerns, they would
have to be documented. They are likely to come to me which is
why I am relaying this to you. "On this appointment, I am
a little worried. I would be grateful if it could be usefully
audited because I have concerns. I do not think, in the end, something
wrong has happened." Very often, people say this. "I
think in the end we got to a good place, but I was concerned along
the way that there may have been some particular pressures and
therefore I would like you to be aware."
|
