Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1020
- 1039)
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER 2002
MR DOUGLAS
ALEXANDER AND
MS HELEN
GHOSH
Chairman
1020. Perhaps when you write us a note you could
include something about those public appointments which are beyond
the responsibility of the Commissioner for Public Appointments
and therefore of you and the Cabinet Office. I am thinking particularly
about a variety of prerogative appointments of which the House
of Lords' Appointments Commission is one. It would be quite nice
as part of our mapping exercise if we could just to see the range
of appointments that fall outwith the system that was set up under
Nolan. Would that be possible?
(Mr Alexander) Of course I would be happy
to furnish the Committee with a note. The only point I would make
would be a general but related point in terms of to try and contextualise
this discussion, there are about 30,000 public appointments, and
about 15,000 fall within the remit of OPRA under my present understanding
of its remit, but in addition to that there are a significant
number of appointments which fall first of all to the Lord Chancellor
in terms of his appointments and also a very large number of further
appointments which are basically tribunals which presently do
not fall within the remit of OCPA, nor indeed the body that oversees
the Lord Chancellor's personal appointments in terms of the semi
judicial appointments that he is responsible for. The only point
I would add is we actually therefore do map out how many appointments
there are that fall outwith OCPA. The number that are actually
involved (and obviously in terms of the specific question you
asked in terms of the Crown Prerogative) is tiny relative to the
number of public appointments, and the idea that somehow there
are 15,000 that fall under OCPA and the same again which are somehow
unregulated, unaccounted for or unidentified is somewhat wide
of the mark.
Chairman: It would be helpful if you could cover
that. I understand what you are saying. Of course I understand
that but it may well be that that small category includes some
quite interesting appointments we would like to know about. As
part of our search for the truth it would be very kind if you
let us have an indication.
Brian White
1021. One of the interesting things that came
out of William Wells' evidence was that the historical way of
looking at somebody was to look at their CV and see what jobs
they had done. He wanted to move away to look at the competencies
and trying to identify those competencies so that somebody who
was a housewife could have acquired those ones even though they
had not been through a series of jobs. He also said one of the
key things was where a particular competency was not evident that
they would identify the final training that was needed and suggest
ways forward. Have you changed the Public Appointments Unit's
database to go down that route?
(Mr Alexander) I will let Helen answer
in a minute in terms of the on-going work. I would emphasis it
is on-going in terms of design, development, evolution and changes
at the centre. I would first of all draw the attention of the
Committee to some work. Dame Rennie has done some quite interesting
work in terms of apprenticeships and public appointments because
I think, again consistent with our understanding of untapped pools
and potential, there may well be the opportunities for people
to gain the kind of experience that has been outlined in some
of the planning work that Dame Rennie has taken forward. It is
interesting to try and map out how people can take the kind of
journey that Helen described from being involved in tenants' associations
at a local level and potentially to move on from there. In that
sense I think we need a more nuanced understanding of what the
barriers towards people being brought out are, and it is why it
is so important we share the kind of information detail captured
in terms of the reality as to why people are not serving on public
bodies at the moment. I think that will inform some of the work
that is being undertaken at the centre.
(Ms Ghosh) The answer to your question about have
we done something sophisticated with the public appointments register
is no. It simply does not have that kind of competence base. It
is classic CV, what jobs have you done stuff, and as we increasingly
recognise it is a bit of a dinosaur we have not done that. There
are two things which are emerging from the work of the Short Life
Working Group, which I think would assist with this process. At
the moment although there is guidance given by Dame Rennie about
what the application forms should look like, there is not actually
a standard application form, and one of the propositions which
the Minister might have to broker with his departmental colleagues,
is should there be a standardised application form. Certainly
across the civil service, for example, we have moved to a competence-based
approach and all the interested, experienced stakeholders and
advisers we have consulted on that say that would be an excellent
idea. The other thing which we would want to pursue—and
it really fits into this whole equipping more inexperienced people
in a better way—is CVs. People do not understand how to
write a CV. They tell us what jobs they have had and they cannot
think of their own experiences in a competence kind of way. That
is the kind of help particularly the women who have been at home
with children for a long time need. Again, that is a practical
thing we can do and the regional offices might have a role to
play there with seminars and support and all that kind of thing.
1022. You will be aware that one of the things
this Committee has tried to do in this particular inquiry is to
move away from the usual suspects and we have had evidence from
people like Billy Bragg and Mark Thomas. On of the things they
said was that there are a number of public appointments, where
it is more than accountability in the executive type job, where
something akin to the jury system where you were selected at random
might be a way forward of attracting people. Have you got any
views on that?
(Mr Alexander) When the invitation arrived
on the mat from the Committee for me to appear I thought you were
favouring the usual suspects with a vengeance! It is the third
appearance of a Cabinet Office Minister before this particular
investigation. I am aware of the evidence that was given by some
people who perhaps you have not heard from before. I have to say
I simply disagree. There is not a direct parallel to be drawn
between, for example, jury service and some of the vital work
that is done by advisory or executive bodies because my starting
point is our objectives. First of all, there is merit in terms
of the people being able to do what are vital jobs—we are
talking about a combination of executive and advisory committees
and £25 billion of public money—but on the foundation
of an enduring commitment to merit a recognition that we need
more diversity, because the best way to achieve the genuine calibre
of people we need is to leave no individual and no community behind,
and we have to recognise that in this country we do not have a
single community, religion or gender to waste if we are going
to pursue that agenda of merit and diversity. In that sense I
do not see how that can easily be reconciled with the idea that
somehow there should be a lottery of individuals who suddenly
find themselves responsible for advisory committees on British
lighthouses or seed potatoes or whatever the individual specialty
is.
1023. Rather than pursue that here can I perhaps
ask you to look at some of the evidence in local government where
citizens juries have been selected along those lines, some which
have brought people into the process and they have gone on to
do what you are looking for. The point they made was they have
never been asked before.
(Mr Alexander) That to me is a different
and vital and indeed valid observation. I myself would certainly
concede that one of our biggest challenges is people who have
never been asked before. I do not think the idea that because
someone has not been approached before necessarily prejudges what
should be a criteria or means of selection of those individuals.
Certainly I am unyielding in my determination to make sure that
people are aware of the opportunities to serve. I do not think
that necessarily leads to a prescriptive outcome in terms of how
we should select candidates. It is certainly the case in my own
locality in the West of Scotland in the work of some of the local
authorities and local citizens' juries that they have been able
to assist significantly in the local policy-making process, but
I think it is, again, a distinction that needs to be drawn between
advisory committees who are often advising about highly specialised
areas of public policy and citizens' juries which, from my understanding
today, would certainly suggest there is an additional means by
which particularly local councils can gain access to a range of
views within that locality. In that sense perhaps there is a clearer
distinction that can be drawn between an important and useful
tool for making sure you are aware of the broad range of views
within the communities on a range of public policy matters and
sometimes very specialist work that is needed for advisory work
in an area.
1024. We have talked a lot today about ministerial
accountability. One of the fears that I have is that we have the
independent appointments we talked about and we get into a situation
where ministers are still being blamed but they do not have levers
with which to effect change. I am thinking of Postcomm as the
classic example. The question I really want to ask is how do you
see some of these appointments being accountable to Parliament?
We have had, for example, Andrew Turnbull coming to this Committee
before he took up his appointment, we had the Chairman of the
Bank of England Appointments before the Treasury Committee and
we have had the Information Commissioner come to this Committee
on a regular basis in order to follow up. How would you see some
of these appointments being made accountable to Parliament?
(Mr Alexander) I think there is again
a constitutional point probably underpinning this whole discussion.
The principal means by which parliamentary sovereignty is upheld
is there is a responsibility on ministers to answer for their
conduct either before a parliamentary committee or on the floor
of the House. I think it could therefore be confusing to the clarity
of responsibility, which I personally think is important, if ministers
are capable of being scrutinised on the actions of people appointed,
by whatever method, within their respective departments if it
was somehow suggested that a process whereby committees could
themselves scrutinise potential candidates was necessarily a victory
for parliamentary scrutiny. It seems to me if a parallel were
to be attempted to be drawn with senators in the United States
for example and presidential cabinet appointments that, to me,
does not seem to work in a British parliamentary system where
the principal means of scrutiny is the floor of the House where
ministers are held accountable for their decisions. All of that
being said, of course it is perfectly within the competence of
a committee such as this to summon a range of different people
to help seek the truth, as the Chairman puts it.
1025. One of the things that is happening and
will happen more in the future is cross-departmental initiatives.
We have had Sure Start which had two ministers, we have got OFCOM
which has just been appointed again under two departments and
if the modernising government agenda is to be successful we are
going to break down the silos a lot more than has happened in
the past. So we are going to have these overlapping responsibilities.
That has challenges for you in terms of public appointments where
they will be responsible to more than one minister, so how do
you tackle that aspect of it?
(Mr Alexander) It is probably more incumbent
upon ministers to make clear that ultimate responsibility lies
with them in those circumstances and I think that would be a fair
observation because it is important that there is clarity as to
who can be held to account for conduct. On the other hand, I would
have to say I am broadly optimistic in terms of the scope of not
just departments but, in particular, ministers to work together
effectively. The example you cite of OFCOM I had some experience
with because I served briefly in the Department of Trade and Industry.
The commonsense view of Whitehall watchers was that to watch the
DTI and DCMS work together in pursuit of what was a significant
piece legislation would speak to the capacity for Whitehall departments
to make life difficult for each other. I have to say that was
not my experience either at official or at ministerial level.
I think in such a challenging area of public policy as the establishment
of a new communications regulator, if we see the kind of effective
joint work that we experienced there, then I am broadly optimistic
that this can be an effective way for departments to work. Two
other observations I would make. First of all, I would look at
the kind of scrutiny that the House can bring to bear where there
is joint working, for example the work of Lord Puttnam's Committee.
The fact that there is joint working within governments between
departments does not exclude the possibility of again a more intelligent
and porous form of policy, for example pre-legislative scrutiny,
as we increasingly see in Scotland, or indeed here at Westminster.
The final point I would end with in terms of this particular challenge
is to return to the observation made about e-government. The reality
is that in addition to the responsibilities I am discussing with
the Committee today I am responsible for e-transformation in government
and perhaps there is no better example of where, first of all,
you need to work effectively with ministerial colleagues because
as e-transformation Minister you are acutely aware that the budget
holder tends to be the Secretary of State of the respective department
who is undertaking the immediate expenditure, but it is also the
case that this technology has the potential to transform internally
the operations of government to harness its true potential in
terms of how it faces outward to the citizenry. In that sense—it
is a mug's game predicting these matters—I would be surprised
if in 20 years' time some of the present structures that have
existed be replicated in an identical fashion, but I do not hold
responsibility for responsibility of government issues.
Brian White
1026. Having been on Lord Puttnam's Committee
I have never worked so hard in my life. One of the criticisms
that we have had of public appointments is you get Joe Bloggs
who gets a part-time job here and a part-time job there and he
acquires them almost as trophies, how do you deal with that in
terms of the monitoring that you do? Do you monitor whether Joe
Bloggs has X number of appointments and if you do what do you
do about it?
(Ms Ghosh) It is one of the issues we
are trying to pick up on our database. I am sure Dame Rennie raised
it with you when she was here earlier in the summer. We do not
know the extent of it now. What we are trying to do by building
up a database, which is effectively turning the information from
public bodies into an intelligent database of which we can ask
questions, to be able to pick up how many people appear to have
more than one appointment. Of course there are lots of difficulties
with that because of the issue about Joe Bloggs, how many Joe
Bloggses are there, and all those sort of matters, so it is quite
an interesting issue about how you define the data.
Chairman
1027. There is only one Dame Helena Shovelton.
(Ms Ghosh) Indeed there is.
(Mr Alexander) Not that we would seek to personalise
this.
1028. I mention that because she was an interesting
witness for us, talking about these issues, in fact raising issues
to do with pensions and about people who served in multiple public
appointments. Julie Mellor from the EOC raised the same point
about the need for proper support, including pension arrangements.
It is not a trivial point.
(Ms Ghosh) A lot of those issues come
back to remuneration. I think the policy issue is, of course,
if those people are the best people fitted for the job should
it rule them out?
(Mr Alexander) It is a serious point. It speaks to
at least a couple of issues, one is the point about remuneration,
that is something being considered in terms of what impact in
reality it has in terms of the unwillingness of people to come
forward. I am cautious of returning to the Audit Commission, but
I understand the reasons for that. I think it also speaks to what
Brian White identified as the person who somehow gets these jobs
as trophies. If you unbundle the sentiment behind that it speaks
to the fact that somehow there is a illegitimacy round some of
the people who in the past have achieved public appointments.
I think first of all we have a responsibility to fix the process
to make sure we rob public appointments of any suggestion that
it is illegitimate that people are appointed on whatever grounds
that may be and make sure the procedures are sound. Then it obliges
you to take seriously the integrity of that process and if that
does mean that somebody has made it on their own merit, recognising
the challenge of diversity, and gets through the process and is
appointed to one then it begs the question if they are capable
of and willing to serve in a separate capacity is there a separate
rule that says it is illegitimate for somebody to serve on another
public body. I for one think, (a) it is one of the issues which
is being looked at in terms of how we can attract a wealth of
talent. If we are serious about procedures we have to regard the
procedures and the integrity of the procedures as being the principle
guardian of public interest in this regard, not a random number
that you must only serve on one public body at a time or you can
serve on a certain number sequentially or whatever the particular
view of some critics might be.
Kevin Brennan
1029. Brian White has raised a few of the issues
I wanted to. In your little discussion on constitutional matters
it did trigger in my mind why, perhaps, we are a little bit concerned
about the fact that there is a proposal that there should be a
select committee with the word "constitutional" in its
title because we tend to delve round these areas quite a bit ourselves.
Is there any constitutional objection to the idea of having confirmation
hearings by select committees for very senior appointments? You
mentioned you felt some constitutional unease, is there a blockage?
(Mr Alexander) Perhaps it would be helpful
if I explain where I come to this conversation from. I come as
the minister with responsibility for Cabinet Office's responsibility
in terms of providing advice and support to departments as they
seek to adhere to the guidelines set down in terms of public appointments.
I speak with suitable modesty in terms of (a) my ability to speak
on behalf of the government about constitutional issues per se
or (b) to take a wider view. The reality of how the debate has
found expression it seems to me has been within individual departments.
For example the question round the Treasury and the MPC and whether
appointments to the MPC should be the provenance of the Treasury
Select Committee and confirmation hearings, or whether it should
be a departmental matter. Government has made its position clear
in terms of its response to the Treasury in that regard. The point
I was making is a more limited one, I do think in terms of the
issues I am dealing with on a day-to-day basis, which is, are
ministers accountable for individuals who are at the head of the
NHS bodies, for example, and can a minister be called to account
for that. The danger is confusion about where the accountability
of risk could creep in and whether that line ought to be followed
which was somehow the responsibility for the appointment but was
not that of the minister but that of the legislature. I think
in that sense there is a distinction to be drawn between the executive
making the appointment, ensuring that the procedures are dually
followed and then the executive being held to account by Parliament
for the consequences of that choice as distinct from seeing Parliament
as a legislature and must itself be involved at an intermediate
stage of the appointment procedure.
1030. You are trying to keep our hands clean.
(Mr Alexander) I think Parliament has
a vital job to do and so does the executive.
1031. In terms of the other issue that Brian
White raised about the possibility of this practice, is this,
perhaps, experimenting in a limited way with using a random selection
or a lottery—the National Lottery have done some of this
itself. It is not an easy thing to do and it would be radical,
one might even say it might be bold in that it would not be the
quiet thing to do. Would it not be worth trying a little wee pilot
of this to see whether or not it would bring a little bit of spice
to the soup?
(Mr Alexander) Are you trying to tempt
me into a commitment? It seems to me the sensible way forward
on this first of all is to look at the evidence and see whether
the assertions made by individuals who have come and given evidence
before this Committee or indeed existing practices can support
what I think should be our set of objectives, which is, first
of all, merit and qualifications to do the job, and that may,
and certainly should, differ significantly from what has been
a traditional understanding of the skills or the experience that
you need to serve on a public body. Secondly, in support of that
we are absolutely sincere in achieving a more diverse range of
people and skills to devote to the body.
1032. I recommend we use that method to choose
our head of state!
(Mr Alexander) I was going to start that
conversation but I can see looming headlines as I pursue a particular
line.
1033. I will not press you any further. I was
just interested if we were to recommend pilots whether you might
be interested.
(Ms Ghosh) One of the recommendations
that the Short Life Working Group might make is that NDPBs need
to think more imaginatively about the wider pool of consultation,
it is not necessary you feed in the views of ordinary people by
having them on board, should they look at how they consult their
customers, the people out there and that is as good a way for
many members of the general public, a much more attractive way
of feeding their views in on the way the service is run than requiring
them to be a member of the board. That is something that we might
be taking up.
1034. In a sense political parties are driven
by this and focus groups, that is what we are talking about.
(Mr Alexander) I would make a couple
of observations, first of all the way focus groups tend to work
is that people are recruited locally and they are paid £10
to spend an hour and a half in a living room talking about their
views, from policy to adverts, or whatever else is being discussed
by the newspaper or the consumer groups who are seeking to establish
their views. If we want the best out of this diverse talented
group of people they need to be motivated to serve. You actually
might construct an argument per se that there is a group of people
that are willing to serve and have no idea what they want to serve
so let us put them all into a lottery and pull the names out of
a hat. My own experience suggests that people feel most equipped
to serve if there is a particular local opportunity that can be
identified. In that sense I would not underestimate the importance
of motivation alongside merit and ability. In that sense the idea
that something akin to jury service, people should be randomly
selected and told they are now serving on a particular public
body, is not the way forward.
Sir Sydney Chapman
1035. I would just like to raise two points and
first of all preface it by apologising for being late. It seems
to me that a retired industrialist or a retired civil servant
or a retired trade unionist that have very busy lives would be
ideal people to be on certain of these public appointments and
quite properly could be on two or even three. I would just like
to get on the record, your sentiments about that and whether you
think on balance that it would be seen to be fairer if nobody
had more than one public appointment?
(Mr Alexander) I agree with you. Rather
than base our claim I believe we should show the supporting evidence
for this that the system is fair, that it draws talent and it
is seen as being transparent and legitimate on the basis of the
procedure that is established rather than, as I alluded to, other
arbitrary views that you can only serve on one public body and
you cannot serve on more than one sequentially after you have
done a couple before. That does not seem to me to be the way forward.
The way forward seems to be, let us get the rules right and then
try and track the widest range of people to put in an application
through which those rules are upheld and then we will have a beneficial
result to speak of, which might be a case that a particularly
able and talented former female trade unionist in Leicester finds
herself in a position where she has both the time and the motivation
to serve on more than one body.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The second question is,
I suppose my colleagues will say I must declare a possible interest
in it, first of all, can we have assurance that there is no age
limit on any person seeking an appointment?
Kevin Brennan
1036. That is a vested interest!
(Ms Ghosh) You may have seen that one
of the cases that Dame Rennie specifically picked up in her "name
and shame" report was, was there such an age limit and there
is not.
Sir Sydney Chapman
1037. Would it be your personal view that in
this day and age it is quite wrong that a person cannot serve
as a juror, whether he or she wants to is another matter, if they
are over aged 70?
(Mr Alexander) First of all, a necessary
and important caveat, I would not seek to intrude on the departmental
responsibilities of other ministers. All I will say by way of
response is my driver in the government car service has just spent
two weeks on jury service and I have spent a considerable amount
of time between home and my department discussing the experience
that he has had—it is not something that I have done myself
being disqualified first as a lawyer and then as an MP—and
his experience was exactly that, that it was a real example of
pulling people from a very wide range not just of ages but also
of professional backgrounds and experience who found common causes
in taking forward a number of cases in the local court. In that
sense without being prescriptive as to what age you should or
should not serve we should uphold the principle that there is
a talent pool to draw on.
Chairman: You have heard Sydney's application,
he would like a nice portfolio.
Mr Hopkins
1038. I have a point about control, which I think
has got worse rather than better, control of political appointments,
the resistance of the government to abolish or have a wholly elected
House of Lords is surely only about securing control and reinforcing
control. The fact is that Wakeham was not even permitted to consider
abolition and since then there has been enormous resistance from
Downing Street to a wholly elected House of Lords, with reduced
powers to avoid threatening the primacy of the Commons. This is
common parlance and common conversation amongst many of us, so
you cannot pretend it is not there.
(Mr Alexander) I was speaking to Lord
Macdonald of Tradeston and what was common parlance was the fact
that the Government lost seven votes in the last week. It seems
to me is a curious line of argument to suggest that somehow there
is a lack of enthusiasm for reforming the House of Lords because
everything is not rosy at the moment, notwithstanding the limit
on the number of hereditary peers. The view of the House of Commons
in recent days has been rejected by the other House and in that
sense I would not wish to be drawn in to what, as you can imagine,
are highly contentious matters that are being discussed by the
joint committee at the moment, but I would question the assertion
that somehow it is solely a matter of control as you describe
it.
Chairman: It is well worth having a reply because
I think this is a byway—
Mr Trend
1039. I was rather hoping to go down another
byway! I wanted to ask how the Civil Service Bill is getting on.
I think that is fair enough. Various Secretaries of the Cabinet
and Ministers have been to see us and sometimes we are about to
have a consultation paper and sometimes we are about to have a
Bill. It may be a few weeks or a few months. As you are there,
and of course as it involves appointments in some sense, can you
give us any news about the future prospect of a Civil Service
Bill?
(Mr Alexander) Of course, the Government's
views on this matter are well-known. First of all, their views
have been given before this Committee and elsewhere. Secondly,
in terms of an updated position, I was personally involved in
terms of the responsibility that the Government gave to the Wicks
Committee. I have to say I still await the response of this particular
committee in terms of its own draft Civil Service Bill and indeed
we are awaiting the outcome of the Wicks Committee as well. But
I will end where I imagine you thought I would start which is
to say you cannot expect me to anticipate any particular piece
of legislation.
| 
