9 The Appointments Process
54. In its written evidence the Appointments Commission
described the test it applied when scrutinising nominees for propriety.[39]
These are firstly that the individual should be of good standing
in the community in general and with particular regard to HM Revenue
and Customs and other regulatory authorities and secondly be a
credible nominee. These appear reasonable criteria. However, as
the subsequent paragraphs of the Appointments Commission's memorandum
make apparent, interpreting these two tests requires further definition
in turn. It thus goes on to describe additional considerations.
Although ensuring the credibility of a nominee is principally
for party leaders, the Appointments Commission has a role in assessing
whether the nominee would enhance the workings and reputation
of the House of Lords and the honours system.
55. The Appointments Commission also acknowledges
that "a central concern" in judging the credibility
of nominees is whether they have made a significant political
donation and whether they have been the subject of controversy.[40]
56. These criteria are essentially value judgements.
As Lord Stevenson conceded, "Propriety is in the eyes of
the beholder. It is a matter of judgement …".[41]
Inevitably this therefore raises questions about due process and
fairness and the legitimacy and visibility of the criteria on
which judgements about the probity of individuals are made. Implicit
in the failure of the Appointments Commission to advise in favour
of a particular nominee for a peerage is that there are areas
of controversy surrounding an individual's career or that they
are judged to lack the skills and experience necessary to make
an adequate contribution to the House of Lords. Lord Hurd was
candid about the difficulties involved in exercising such judgements
and the difficulty of discussing these with the individuals concerned.
He thought the process would have to "remain a confidential
business. It is actually in everybody's interest".[42]
57. The process is, of course, intended to be totally
confidential. The rejection of one individual would therefore
be a private matter and should not rebound on their public standing.
In fact, as the events of the last few months have shown, a negative
opinion by the Appointments Commission does leak. Nor, despite
the Appointments Commission's protestation to the contrary, is
this unprecedented. Doubts over conditions placed on nominees,
for example in relation to residency requirements, have become
public before. Having such information become public may damage
the reputation of the nominee without any form of redress or any
possibility of defence.
58. It is this concern which led Dr Chai Patel to
write to and then publish a letter to the Appointments Commission.
In his letter he complained that, "At no time have I ever
had the opportunity to present the evidence from my standpoint".
He claimed that, "There can be no other outcome than that
this will seriously affect my ability to continue working within
the health and education sector". He concluded that he was
now, "…in the position whereby I can neither be offered
the opportunity to undertake public service, nor be able to defend
my reputation in day-to-day life".[43]
He was not alone. Mr Barry Townsley in his letter to us explained
how he was prompted to withdraw his name from consideration because,
"much of the ensuing media coverage, so far as it concerned
my family and me, has been grossly offensive, inaccurate and unfair".[44]
59. The Appointments Commission, in its reply to
Dr Patel, was sympathetic but could offer scant comfort. Lord
Stevenson explained to us that it is not the Commissioners' decision
to refuse a nomination, they are merely advisers. He also told
us that Prime Ministers have never rejected their advice although
he agreed that, in the event of a Prime Minister refusing to accept
it, the Commissioners would feel bound to consider their position
very carefully.[45] So
in practice the distinction between adviser and decision taker
is slight.
60. Although honours systems are inherently subjective,
the criteria used should be as explicit as possible. This applies
as much to the general honours system as to appointments to the
peerage. The criteria should be kept under continuing review.
For example, the most recent honours list contained awards to
leading business figures who allegedly had taken steps to avoid
paying UK taxes, something which might be thought inappropriate
for an honours system. It is essential that the criteria for awarding
honours, and for not awarding them, above all in relation to propriety
matters, are clear and command public support.
61. The Appointments
Commission is quite candid about the judgements it is required
to make and how it interprets the criteria it has set for itself.
However, because these are necessarily value judgements, we believe
the Appointments Commission—and those responsible for the
general honours system—should consult with the political
parties and more widely about the criteria that ought to be applied
in assessing propriety and how they should be interpreted. Ultimately
decisions about the probity of individual nominees must rest with
the Commissioners and the Committees but we believe that wider
consultation about the basis on which judgements are made would
help to reinforce the legitimacy of the process. It is also important
that confidentiality is maintained in relation to individual names.
62. Honours systems enable a society to recognise
achievements and service that it values. This is an important
role and deserves to be taken seriously. This makes it essential
that the system for awarding honours of all kinds commands public
confidence. Judgements are inherently subjective, but the criteria
used should be as clear as possible and the machinery should be
robust and independent. It is particularly important that the
integrity of the system should not be compromised by its association
with patronage and the reward for partisan favours. Our observations
and recommendations are designed to help achieve this.
63. They build upon the recommendations we made following
our review of the honours system in 2004. We regret that many
were not acted upon, in particular the setting up of an independent
honours commission. In view of the controversy which has engulfed
the award of peerages and honours, including an unprecedented
police investigation, we trust the Government will now want to
respond more positively to our recommendations.
39 Ev 25 Back
40
Ibid. Back
41
Ev 12 Back
42
Ev 15 Back
43
www.press-office.blogspot.com Back
44
Ev 32 Back
45
Ev 14-15 [Lord Stevenson] Back
| 
