Government response
Scrutiny of major public appointments
1. (Recommendation 6) The Government's original
rationale for pre-appointment hearings was based on "increasing
democratic scrutiny of public appointments" and on providing
"greater public reassurance that those appointed to key public
offices are appointed on merit". The UCL Report concludes
that this objective "has been achieved" although the
improvement brought about was "simply an incremental step
- and quite a small one". On balance, we concur with the
cautious assessment of the new arrangements and in principle support
the continuance of the pre-appointment hearings on a permanent
basis... (Paragraph 68)
The Government welcomes the Committee's support for
pre-appointment hearings. In line with our commitment to strengthen
the powers of select committees to scrutinise key appointments,
this Government will offer pre-appointment hearings for major
public appointments to select committees on a permanent
basis. It will, of course, remain a matter for individual select
committees to decide whether or not to hold hearings on a case
by case approach.
2. (Recommendation 7) We recommend that a list
of criteria governing the posts subject to pre-appointment hearings
be established and a revised list of such posts agreed between
the Government and the Liaison Committee. (Paragraph 70)
The Government agrees. The current list is illogical
and inconsistent. As an early priority, the Government will work
with the Liaison Committee to review and agree new criteria and
to revise the list of posts suitable for pre-appointment scrutiny.
3. (Recommendation 8) We recommend that departments
consult the relevant select committee on the job specification
of any post that is to be subject to a pre-appointment hearing
prior to the start of the recruitment process. (Paragraph 71)
The Government is committed to strengthening the
role of committees in scrutinising major public appointments.
However, we are equally committed to maintaining an appointments
process that is proportionate, attracts candidates of the highest
quality and represents value for money for the taxpayer. The
Government will, therefore, need to consider this recommendation
further to be satisfied that this would not result in additional
delays in making public appointments or deter good candidates.
We would also need to be reassured that such an approach was
compliant with the requirements and principles of the Code
of Practice issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public
Appointments.
4. (Recommendation 6) We recommend that existing
guidance relating to the hearings process be consolidated—if
agreed between the Cabinet Office and the Liaison Committee—in
a single document containing precise indications of the purpose
and possible content of pre-appointment hearings. (Paragraph 68)
5. (Recommendation 9) We recommend that the revised
set of guidelines governing pre-appointment hearings include provision
for a private meeting between a Minister and a committee at the
committee's discretion, in cases where a committee is inclined
to make a negative report on the preferred candidate for an appointment.
(Paragraph 72)
The Government will explore with the Committee the
need for consolidated guidance. As part of this, we will examine
further the need for new procedures in cases where committees
are minded to recommend against Ministers' preferred candidates.
| 
