Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-89)
RT HON
JOHN MCFALL
MP AND MS
JANET GAYMER
CBE
6 DECEMBER 2007
Q80 Mr Prentice: They fall completely
outside your responsibility.
Ms Gaymer: That is right. There
may be very good reasons for this. There may be very good reasons
why things should have their own particular grouping and work
in a particular way but it seems to me if you are in a democracy
and you want to be open and transparent about it, you should be
very clear about why you are opting out. It is also compliant
with modern governance, this notion of comply or explain, it is
absolutely at one with that approach. I have always found it strange,
it is probably a function of history, because of Nolan and the
way the bodies were initially chosen because I think Lord Nolan
took the view that he could not possibly do everything in six
months because he was not given much time to produce this report
so he said to himself, "Okay, I am going to concentrate on
this particular group of bodies, this particular group of ministerial
appointments". I think we have moved on since then, we have
been doing this now for 12 years and I think the time is now right
for us to pause and say, "Okay, we have learnt from this
now, it seems to be working, what can we do now to bring it into
a much better framework".
Q81 Mr Prentice: Okay. Maybe I should
know this but when is the Cabinet Office going to conclude its
review?
Ms Gaymer: You will have to ask
the Cabinet Office, I cannot answer that.
Q82 Chairman: On this consultation
you are doing, which is to be welcomed and it brings in a number
of things, including things we have set, what do you hope to get
out of it?
Ms Gaymer: In a way it is part
of this taking stock that I have mentioned in relation to the
list. I was very conscious that a number of people, including
yourselves, have expressed views about ministerial involvement.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 10th Report was
very clear that I should consult about the whole issue and try
and see whether the current process was working or not, particularly
in the context of certain departments showing shortlists to ministers.
As you will have seen from that document, my predecessor set up
a working group that produced proposals but they coincided with
the Graham Committee's 10th Report. There have since been further
pronouncements about ministerial involvement in various quarters
that I refer to in the paper and when I sat down and looked at
all this I thought, right, before we do anything, let us get this
all down in one place, let me go to the people who are at the
coalface, the users, ie, ministers, permanent secretaries primarily
at that point, and ask the question, "Well, okay, everyone
has expressed these views, what do you think?" I have carefully
not expressed a view myself in this paper because I want to hear
from them first. I then want to put that into the context of what
everyone else has said and ask myself is the current process that
we are using in the code still fit for purpose, should we amend
it and I may go out to still further consultation after that.
I want to hear what people say first. I am a great believer in
speaking to the users.
Q83 Chairman: Who are the users that
you are asking?
Ms Gaymer: Primarily I am asking
ministers, well permanent secretaries and in effect ministers.
I want to hear ministers' views about how they see ministerial
involvement now in the light of all these pronouncements, that
is what it comes down to.
Q84 Chairman: You roll together permanent
secretaries and ministers.
Ms Gaymer: I am working on the
assumption that the permanent secretary is going to speak to the
minister and I am going to have the ministers' views. I am hoping
I am going to speak to some ministers as well.
Q85 Chairman: That is quite important,
is it not?
Ms Gaymer: Yes, very.
Q86 Chairman: Ministers and former
ministers.
Ms Gaymer: I have not extended
it that far. We are a small team in OCPA. We use our resources
tightly so I decided I would start first with current departments
and permanent secretaries and those to whom they report.
Q87 Chairman: Okay. Obviously we
shall talk to you more about that.
Ms Gaymer: It will conclude in
the middle of January. Then we will be collating results and we
will decide whether we ought to go out perhaps to the next group
which will be the people who implement the process because if
there are new ideas coming out of that consultation we will need
to ask them whether they will work in practice.
Q88 Chairman: Just to go back right
at the end to where we started, we have got this little list at
the moment of government suggestions of posts which might involve
pre-appointment hearings. The chances are that various committees
inside the House will want to get in on this act in some way.
We have already seen examples of this and there will be pressures
to extend this list in a number of ways. Would that in itself
pose difficulties, do you think?
Ms Gaymer: I think I would just
make a general comment and it is a comment about trying to preserve
the quality of what we have achieved so far. I think quality is
much more important than quantity and this is a new process in
a way. Obviously it has been operated in some cases in the past
but we are moving into new territory. I would have thought it
was sensible to concentrate on a comparatively small group of
appointments to start off with to see how it works, to learn from
it and then to extend it if one wants to extend it to a further
group. I can understand there may be an appetite for going for
a big bang effect and going for lots of appointments straight
away. I would urge a bit of caution about that and the reason
is a commonsensical one. These processes are going to require
resourcing, it is going to require time. There is the danger,
I think, and it is something which has happened in the United
States actually, that if you have lots of different committees
conducting this process you sometimes run the risk of inconsistency
in approach and practice because they will have the ground rules
but they may slightly refine it and do it slightly differently.
Speaking entirely personally, I would urge a step-by-step approach
and I would go for quality over quantity. I would watch resourcing
and consistency.
Q89 Chairman: I think the argument
is that the posts that we are talking about have a kind of specialness
in terms of their public position, their place in the political
firmament and so on. That is a justification for doing it and
I think there is a strong case of that kind. You are absolutely
right to be robust in insisting upon clarity. Contrary to what
Ian was saying to you, I think you are extremely robust in forcing
us to be clear about what it is that we are engaged upon here
to make sure that we can answer some of these tough questions
and then to be sure that we get the processes done in an acceptable
way as well. The fact that you are a kind of reluctant not an
ally in this process but a reluctant observer in this process
is helpful because it is easy to be carried away with the enthusiasm
of a new idea. You asking the tough questions forces us to ask
the tough questions so we finish up with a system that we feel
comfortable with. We would like you to get slightly more enthusiastic
about it but not to stop asking the tough questions. Thank you
for sharing some of your fantasies with us too this morning.
Ms Gaymer: Thank you. I just want
to get things right, it is very simple, and I am sure you do too.
Q90 Chairman: Thank you very much
and I am sure we shall see you again about this and other things.
Ms Gaymer: I am happy to come
along because I think it is a very important subject.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
