Examination of Witnesses (Questions 991
- 999)
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER 2002
MR DOUGLAS
ALEXANDER AND
MS HELEN
GHOSH
Chairman
991. Could I welcome our witnesses to the Committee
as we begin to conclude our inquiry into the public appointments
system? It is good to see you here with your supporting people.
My clerk tells me that you are all sitting in the order of the
organogram that was given to you. I gather you have not followed
that. Minister, you are going to say a few words to kick us off?
(Mr Alexander) I thought it might be
helpful first of all to introduce Helen Ghosh, who is the director
of our machinery of government team within the Cabinet Office.
Given that you are moving towards the conclusion of your investigation,
I thought it might be helpful if I set in context my own remarks.
First, my own view on why the public appointments and diversity
agenda is so important to our work in government. Secondly, what
I see as my role as Cabinet Office Minister in advancing that
agenda and finally a word on progress that has been made since
you saw Chris Leslie and Barbara Roche earlier during your inquiries.
Firstly, why it is so important? I would judge the correct starting
point as a recognition of our commitment as a government to the
success of the public realm. As I believe you said at the outset
of your inquiry, delivering better public services in part depends
on appointing better, more able public servants. NDPBs play a
crucial role in delivering those services directly to the public,
whether directly or in an advisory capacity. Executive agencies
spend more than £25 billion of public money, almost a quarter
of the social security budget, and can have a vital impact on
people's lives whether it is advising on medical treatment or
funding local sports facilities. Of course we need to ensure that
these are the most talented and effective people that we can find
to grow the pool of talent from which these appointments come
and then the more confident we can be that they in turn will be
able to deliver. That is why we need to encourage and enable people
from all sections of the community to come forward and to ensure
that we are making the most of the skills and experience that
our out there, ready to be tapped. What is my role within the
Cabinet Office? As the Minister responsible for both NDPBs and
the appointments policy, I have two main interests. First, the
NDPBs are fit for their purpose, that they are well led and well
run and focused on their objectives and their customers and provide
good value for money for the taxpayer. All these are primarily
the responsibility of their sponsoring ministers and departments
of course but I and my team have a role in challenging and supporting
departments in fulfilling their sponsorship functions. Secondly,
I have to support and, if necessary, cajole departments in their
work to attract talent from the widest possible pool. Our best
practice advice and our outreach work with OCPA, with the equality
unit, are perhaps the best examples of this work. Finally, what
progress have we made recently since last you heard from Barbara
Roche and Chris Leslie? Firstly, we have been doing work to build
up better data on this subject, something I know this Committee
and Dame Rennie Fritchie are keen on. As well as preparing for
publication of Public Bodies 2002, we are setting up a
database which will help us answer questions on diversity which
at the moment we are still unable to answer. We have also been
looking at whether the service currently provided through the
public appointments register really meets the needs of members
of the public in this post-Nolan world of job advertising and
we are developing some ideas for change. I am looking forward
to getting shortly from our officials a list of top 20 ideas for
improving our record on diversity and the Short Life Working Group
has been taking forward our work in this area over recent months.
I will be happy to try and answer your questions.
992. In general terms, we are looking at a system
that was put in place by the Nolan Report. We call it the Nolan
Rules, I think. Is it the view within government that the Nolan
Rules are working well, are adequate, have solved all the contentious
issues in the public appointments field or are there some problems
that have arisen out of them?
(Mr Alexander) I would certainly see
the Nolan recommendations as the foundation for our work in this
area. It clearly defined the remit initially for Dame Rennie Fritchie's
work and the office in general. Already, I think it is clear in
the work that Dame Rennie personally has been taking forward that
that does not delimit the scope for further improvements. There
is also a recognition of the strength of commitment the government
feels to upholding the Nolan Rules. In some ways, we have moved
beyond the strict terms of the rules in recent years.
993. She did have some criticisms in her latest
annual report about how it was going. She pointed the black spot
at various government departments for not involving independent
assessors properly, not following her code of practice. That is
quite a challenge to government if they are not working the system
that she is supposed to be monitoring properly. How have you responded
to those observations from her?
(Mr Alexander) I would uphold her right
to continually challenge government. That is in many ways why
she is there, to be both a watchdog and also an encourager of
best practice. That is where I think in the Cabinet Office we
can work closely with her. There is the very important role as
the guardian of procedures, by which these appointments are made,
which I would certainly uphold, but I think that can be supplemented
and this is some of the work Helen and her team have been taking
forward within an internal process of government where, along
with the rules which are upheld by Dame Rennie Fritchie, we within
government can act as a support and encouragement to departments,
as they seek to take those rules forward themselves. It might
be appropriate for Helen to say a little in terms of how our own
best practice guide within the Cabinet Office is working in terms
of assisting departments in avoiding being in a position where
they can be named and shamed. If I recollect, that was a rendition
by Dame Rennie just in this year's report and again it is evidence
of the seriousness in government that we attach to Dame Rennie's
views in this area of policy.
(Ms Ghosh) You quite rightly pick out the point that
in the Commissioner's report she does highlight some things in
the Departments whom her auditors visited this year, though if
she were able to appear before you at the moment she would reinforce
the point that I have heard her say in many contexts that, overall,
departments carry out the processes extremely well and these are
very much exceptions rather than rules. One of the particular
bits of work that we are doing with Dame Rennie's team is to discuss
in detail with departments how the best practice rules apply to
them. My team is involved at the moment, for example, in a series
of workshops going round all the departments, not just picking
out people who are named and shamed, but departments as a whole,
to refresh their memories about the best practice guide which
I think Dame Rennie describes as excellent, to talk them through
their current issues and problems with the processes, with representatives
from OCPA there as well, and to get feedback from them about the
practicalities of how things work. Of course, across departments,
depending on how many appointments they make, there are very wide
variations in both the numbers and the skills of departments in
making appointments. There are very different issues for them
about how they can meet the OCPA guidelines and get appointments
made quickly and effectively for the purposes of their NDPBs.
Developing our best practice guidance is something we make live
by these visits to departments.
994. I think it is still a mystery as to the
relationship between this thing called the Public Appointments
Unit, which we always joke should be called the Public Disappointments
Unit, and individual departments who do the bulk of the finding
and appointing. This seems an impenetrable system which is full
of potential for overlap and confusion. How can you reassure us
that there is not confusion here?
(Ms Ghosh) There are two issues. The
first is one that the Minister referred to, which is the role
of the Public Appointments Unit, the role of the Public Appointments
Register, in finding talent. The very reason we are looking at
how the Public Appointments Register currently runs is because
we think that effectively it is a dinosaur left over from a different
age. It is left over from the days when you just had a list of
the great and the good and it was a very untransparent process.
Post-Nolan, with the fact that all departments are advertising,
it is very confusing. That is one of the bits of feedback we have
from the excellent series of seminars which the Women in Equality
Unit ran for women. We had lots of enthusiastic women across the
country saying, "Great, we would love to be involved."
Their number one requirement was how do we know what the vacancies
are. At the moment, we can only say, "Put yourselves on the
Public Appointments Register" which does not let people know
when there are vacancies. There are 4,000-odd people on it and
I have about three people running it, if I may be vulgar enough
to talk about money, and no more money to put in. They simply
could not do a proper, "Here is a vacancy that might suit
you" recruitment job. We are very conscious that there is
a disjunction there. The kinds of ideas we are looking at are
whether or not we could do something that was a synergy with what
departments already do in advertising and website terms and possibly
set up a one-stop website.
(Mr Alexander) It seems to me there are two challenges,
one internal and one external. How do we get the balance right
between the centres of departments? That is an internal conversation,
ensuring that we are there when departments are appointing people
so that they can get access to best practice, good advice, making
sure not just that OCPA discovers when wrongdoing has occurred
but that there is help in advance of that to ensure that it does
not occur. That is one of the areas that Helen is charged with,
within government. While that may not have surfaced in public
debate, I am confident that that work is being taken as a growing
awareness of the need to conform to these guidance rules but also
as an opportunity to garner assistance from the centre in this
area. The second point is at least, if not more, of a fundamental
challenge, which is how are we outward facing in this whole issue
of public appointments. I think the era when Whitehall was best
is so obviously passing in that we need to get beyond the culture
that says, "As one of the great and the good, you will apply
to a single department which is a single repository of knowledge
and information about public appointments" and instead we
proactively go in search for people who are qualified and able
to make a contribution as a public servant; and, at the same time,
we work harder as a government than we have in the past in making
sure that there is a level of information available about the
kind of appointments which may interest people. Perhaps my constituency
experience is exceptional, but I have not often met constituents
of mine who have said, "I am desperate to serve on a public
body." You are far more likely to find somebody who says,
"Can I get into a particular agency or institution"
because of their own interests. In that sense, we have to upscale
our work in making sure that there is a genuine interactivity
between opportunities available and candidates who potentially
would be interested but do not at the moment have access to that
information.
995. At the moment, you are saying there is no
easily accessible directory of current available appointments,
but you are hoping to make sure there is shortly?
(Ms Ghosh) Indeed. In projects of this
kind, anything which involves IT takes some time. We are hoping
to possibly build on some existing software. You may have seen
the DWP work training site which Job Centre Plus runs, which is
similarly a one-stop shop for vacancies. We might be able to build
on something like that to make that kind of gateway into public
appointments so that people can say, "I am interested in
this kind of topic. What is there out there?" and they will
whizz through into the individual department's sets of vacancies.
(Mr Alexander) Not only does it provide a better service
to the citizen in the sense that you can find out specific appointments
that are available, but it potentially transforms your own internal
workings within the department and challenges some of the traditional
structures of government in the way that it surfaces information
which means it is not only of assistance to us in giving us up
to date information in terms of issues of diversity and vacancies
as they exist, but it simultaneously provides better service to
the citizen.
996. Last week we were told by a leading authority
on diversity in the public appointments area that she believed
the single most important thing that could happen would be public
bodies acquiring a duty to promote equality. That would turn around
the whole way in which this is approached. Is that something that
commends itself to you?
(Mr Alexander) I cannot say I am familiar
with who the individual was. I have recently had a conversation
with the Equal Opportunities Commissioner, Julie Miller, who was
arguing about the merits of the approach adopted by the Welsh
Assembly in terms of a positive duty. I am not sure if it was
the same source, but I can assure you that as soon as she got
in touch with me and said that this was an issue of concern to
her, I made sure that we had her into the department and a very
interesting report has just been published on the work on diversity
within Wales. I was intrigued from a Scottish MP's point of view.
I could not recollect this issue during the passage of the Scotland
Act. How do you get to the situation where positive duty and further
diversity are contained in the Wales Act? She said it had partly
been that people had an interest during the passage of the Bill
in Parliament but, as had been anticipated, it was a very effective
lever within Wales, cascading across the whole range of the public
sector. In that sense, it was a very productive meeting I had
and I found what she had to say of interest. The general point
I made was I think we are only at the beginning of our understanding
of the potential for creative policy making that a devolved constitutional
architecture in Britain gives us. It is exciting for ministers
to have the opportunity to learn from innovation taking place
in Edinburgh, Belfast or elsewhere. The specific point that I
put to her in terms of how to take forward this work was to make
sure that we were centred on the evidence emerging in Wales and
that we would continue our dialogue with the Cabinet Office, but
also that it was important to continue to build those relationships
across government, in particular with Barbara Roche and the Equalities
Unit.
997. It sounds as though, if we float something
towards you, you may be receptive. We have been wrestling as we
have had our sessions on this with what ministers do and what
other people do. We had some interesting evidence a week ago from
Sir William Wells who chairs the NHS Appointments Commission,
a body that we recommended should be established. He was adamant
about two things. One was that it was he and not ministers, the
Commission and not ministers, who did the appointing. Secondly,
that this was a model that should be extended across government.
Are you going to be equally sympathetic to these kinds of ideas?
(Mr Alexander) I spoke to civil servants
following that advice and when I asked the question from an official
point of view, whether it was pretty clear as to who was right,
Sir William Wells or Chris Leslie, back came the response that
both of them were right. On the basis of experience in government,
the government did not surprise me. It seems to me a common sense
point. The constitutional reality in terms of the statutory authority
is that it rests with ministers. It is equally a constitutional
point that secretaries of state have the authority within their
departments to determine how that ministerial authority is exercised.
As it transpires, with the Department of Health and the establishment
of the authority which involves Sir William Wells, that has been
delegated to an authority. I took trouble to look at the evidence
that was given before this Committee and it does not seem to me
that there was any substantive contradiction. I am pleased to
say that during our time we have not had any involvement of ministers
at all in any of the appointments we have made. That, to me, does
not seem inconsistent with the statutory reality that the Secretary
of State and ministers are still accountable to Parliament.
Chairman: I recognise a third way position when
I hear one. I suspect that is something we will want to explore
a little further.
Mr Hopkins
998. I am a new Member of the Committee, but
I was interested in your suggestion that you wanted to select
public appointees from the widest possible pool of talent. In
the 1970s I worked at the TUC in the economic department and I
was responsible for organising TUC representatives on the regional
planning councils. We gathered together nominations throughout
the country, submitted them to government and nothing happened
for eight months. Then we would get a letter back from officials
saying, "We do not care for your nominations. We make these
alternative suggestions." This was in the middle of the social
contract of the Labour Government and Len Murray had to go to
John Silkin and say, "This is part of the agreement. We want
our people on" and it was very easy to see why these people
were not appointed. If somebody said Sir George Jennings, CBE,
retired general secretary of the Button Makers Amalgamated Society,
he would get on. If it was Jim Smith, convener at British Engineering
and Electric or whatever, he would not. It was very obvious what
it was about and it was about politics. You can have a nice balance
of ethnicity, gender, age, wisdom and everything but if somebody
is not politically acceptable they do not get on. Last week, I
asked Sir William Wells what happened if somebody came up for
an appointment on a health service body who had a difference of
view about an aspect of government's modernising agenda. He said,
"That would be a difficulty." Political control continues.
Is the hidden hand still operating? Is it just business as usual
with a different guise?
(Mr Alexander) I would not say it is
business as usual. I would probably take issue with a vision of
where we are today being directly analogous with the 1970s. Of
course there is a talent pool and this idea that we must contribute
to public bodies but I would not say it is the sole repository
of that kind of talent or ability. I think that sort of vision
of our society is far too narrow a reach in terms of what we aim
for in the area of appointments. We seek genuinely to reach the
widest possible talent pool. That said, trade unions in particular
may well be the kind of institutions who are collecting people
with the kind of skills which should be made available for public
appointments. This is also true of a range of community organisations.
A couple of weeks back there was a major seminar held in Leicester
which particularly focused on ethnic communities where a range
of people who were actively involved in community organisations
in the east Midlands came and heard about the potential to be
involved in public bodies. Patricia Hewitt spoke at that meeting.
In that sense, in terms of our ambition and our reach, it extends
to trade unions but beyond them to wider civil society and a range
of different groups and organisations. In terms of how does the
process work within government, I think it is fair to say that
ministers do remain accountable in terms of decisions that are
reached. On the other hand, we have a far clearer understanding
post Nolan of what is the appropriate way to delimit the important
task and ensuring that there is democratic accountability through
the minister and on the other hand we build public confidence
by a procedure which is overseen by the watchdog of OCPA but also
is more transparent and recognisably fair and open in its practices.
I believe that on the basis of that aspiration for diversity and
an enduring commitment to merit, you can build the kind of public
realm that we would like to see. It is a continuing task. Very
legitimate questions continue to be asked but I think you would
be hard pressed to sustain a case that, if you look at the level
of public disquiet that gave rise to the Nolan Inquiry a decade
or so ago, as against where we are today, we have not made considerable
progress in recent years.
(Ms Ghosh) I am sure as a new Member of the Committee
you are probably taking Dame Rennie's report to bed every night,
but there are some very interesting figures in her article, where
she said that in the 2001-02 appointments 20 per cent of the appointments
or reappointments were people who declared that they had been
politically active which is still a relatively low figure, 14
per cent Labour, three per cent Conservative and 2.5 Lib Dems.
Dame Rennie would make the point that she would be worried that,
whatever percentage of people in the pool of applicants, the proportion
of people who successfully came through the system were greater
than the percentage of people in the original pool of applicants
who were politically active. She sees no evidence of that, so
it suggests that the transparent processes are not assisting people
with political activity.
999. One can have a situation where all of these
people belong to one party—shall we say the Labour Party?—but
some are ruled out and some are ruled in by some kind of hidden
hand. I have been in politics long enough to know that this does
happen in the real world. I would like to hope that we can be
a bit more genuine and accept a range of debate and not have this
degree of political control which operates so obviously in our
society.
(Mr Alexander) If you have evidence of
political partiality, I would be keen for you to raise that directly
with the Commissioner. On the more general point, I think there
is a challenge that we face in making sure that the architecture
in this area is right. May I just quote the words from the opening
impression to this Committee's work? The chairman said, "The
power of enlightened people is growing and the public needs to
be reassured it will be treated fairly and honestly." The
following sentence: "It is vital that the patronage exercised
by ministers and others is not misused." I believe our challenge
is to maintain the democratic accountability and legitimacy of
ministers. There is a risk, if people were to feel that unelected
officials are somehow appointed as distinct from elected ministers.
On the other hand, we have to be honest in recognising that there
are concerns in terms of how ministers exercise that power. That
is why we have broadly the framework right on the one hand, maintaining
ministerial accountability so that ministers can be brought before
this Committee or the floor of the House; on the other hand, putting
in place post-Nolan architecture which allows for public confidence
and a greater degree of transparency in the process. That is not
to say that there is not scope for improvement in the future but
we need to be clear in terms of what our objective is. I for one
maintain the view that we do want ministers to continue to be
accountable, not least given the sums of public money involved,
but on the other hand we have to make sure that the procedures
and practices are strong enough to sustain public concerns.
|
