Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Pre-appointment hearing: Commissioner for Public Appointments, HC 869
Tuesday 12 April 2016
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 12 April 2016 2016
Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair), Ronnie Cowan, Oliver Dowden, Mr Paul Flynn, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Mr David Jones, Tom Tugendhat, and Mr Andrew Turner
Questions 53 – 104
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE, Preferred Candidate, gave evidence.
Q53 Chair: Can I welcome again the Government’s preferred candidate for the office of Public Appointments Commissioner? Could I ask you to identify yourself for the record, please?
Peter Riddell: Yes. My name is Peter Riddell. I am the Government’s preferred candidate for Public Appointments Commissioner.
Q54 Chair: First, thank you for your patience with this process and I hope that the protracted nature of this has not put you off from staying the course.
Peter Riddell: No.
Q55 Chair: What thoughts have you had about the challenges facing the next Commissioner for Public Appointments, following your appearance in front of our Committee and the evidence that you have listened to this morning about the Grimstone review?
Peter Riddell: Just briefly, it is a very important job. The importance of the job in relation to reassuring the public that the public appointments are made on the right basis is very clear. Also clear, and I think it has been very interesting to discover this over the last two and a half hours or so, is the different nature of how the job has been conceived. David Normington was very much the insider, and saw it very much in terms of the Executive. As he himself said, he did not really speak out, and it is clear from the issue raised by his interview with The Financial Times this morning that we did not know of the examples. I think that is a different model, and clearly the alternative model, which I hope I will be qualified for, is very much a more public model, a more robust model. That distinction has been brought out much more clearly. I do believe it goes back to some of your recent questioning of Matt Hancock, on some of the points that need to be clarified about how a new system would work in implementation. All of that is still to play for. As you know there is no draft Order in Council and no draft governance code, so there are lots of issues about how we can pin it down. It is a different model. It is a model that involves Parliament more and I regard that as very welcome, and I was quite struck at the end when David Normington said he was worried about that, because he had worked very much under the radar partly because the assessors were working as part of the panels. It is a different type of model, one that is very much more involving more public aspects to it, and I do think involving much more the Commissioner working with relevant Select Committees, depending on the nature of the position.
I would see at various stages the Commissioner working with Committees both on signing off and alerting and so on.
Q56 Chair: One of the questions we asked Sir David Normington was about something you said to us in the previous hearing, namely that you thought the Grimstone proposals and the Nolan proposals were aligned, and he disagreed. What response do you have to that?
Peter Riddell: I think there is a distinction, and I think Mr Flynn raised the point too, between principles and execution. The principles have been expanded under Gerry Grimstone with the emphasis on diversity, which is an important issue, but the key principles of appointment on merit, and merit I define as relevant to the position without undue favouritism in that appointment, are all set out in the Nolan report that I reread a couple of times, both before the previous hearing and this one, and those principles stand absolutely with Grimstone. The difference is the model you then adopt, and there is a difference in model, between the model that has been gradually developed in the last 20 years that has been with the Commissioner and his assessors being involved in the appointment process, and more one of a regulator at various stages. This is an important difference, because one of the important points I know David Normington is worried about, is that it will all become ex post—that you will have an appointment and then the Commissioner would be sounding the alarm bell and then it would be too late. I would see the Commissioner being involved at a whole series of stages throughout it to see that it is being done in the right way, being done fairly, and so on, and at various stages also involving Select Committees in that.
That is a very different model from the model that David Normington was describing that very much reflected his background as a very distinguished public servant and Permanent Secretary, which was an insider approach. The way you applied it is a different one but the basic principles I regard as absolutely the same.
Q57 Chair: Have you had any discussions with Ministers since 21 March?
Peter Riddell: Only terribly briefly. I have had discussions with officials. I have raised some of the points I raised there and also the ones that emerged out of the questioning on 21 March, namely, a whole series of issues about what happens with the independent members of the panels, sign-off, and so on, which I am happy to talk about now.
Q58 Mr David Jones: You have heard this morning Sir David Normington’s concerns that the Grimstone proposals would have the effect of eroding the checks and balances introduced by Nolan. That of course is a concern that was echoed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. When you last appeared before this Committee you said that you broadly supported the new proposals, but that you did have some concerns that needed clarification. Could you run through those concerns before the Committee?
Peter Riddell: Absolutely. If we go through some of the points that have been raised, one was the design of the governance code, and you heard what Matt Hancock said and it is certainly my understanding absolutely, if I am confirmed, and of course I am not at present, that will be a process I will be fully involved in. It is no good that a Minister will say, “Right, you have to accept this or leave it” because that becomes absurd and I would not accept that. I think that would be unworkable. Secondly, it is crucial on the point of the independent members of the panel, the Chairman used the word “veto” and this is where I think transparency comes in. The current proposal referred to “notify”. I would want it to be strengthened to “consult” and therefore before a panel is up and running I would be able to say, “Is the person properly independent?”, properly independent of the Secretary of State, of the department and so on and so forth. If not, I would express that view.
It is up to the Minister to proceed if they wish to, but if they went ahead, ignoring what I said, I would then publicly signify that to a Select Committee to say, “Look, that has been done ignoring the advice”. I think there is a deterrent effect of anything like that. That is one point.
The second one is on sign-off. The proposal at present is that an official within the department signs off. I would like to go further than that. I would like the independent member to sign it off and I think that is very important, because that is strengthening the role of the independent member on that.
More broadly, there are basically two categories. One, if a Minister chooses to ignore the names put up, and this goes back to the exceptions and exemptions point, on that case I very strongly believe that is where Parliament comes in. A Minister should then go to a Committee and justify it. Obviously in some cases it would be de minimis. I would be asked for my advice and in many of the cases there they are public sector or transitional appointments and so on, or they are highly technical ones, and the Committee would not necessarily progress it.
That is one case where it is ignored. Sorry, I am confusing. The case of exemptions, when they are seeking exemptions now, under the proposals they would not have to come to me but where an exemption was notified I would seek to talk to the Select Committee to say whether it was justified or not. Where there was an override, and sorry, I was confusing the categories, where there is an override ignoring the proposal made by the Committee, I would expect that to go to a Select Committee in virtually every case.
Q59 Mr David Jones: Sir David pointed to provisions in the Grimstone review that he said would allow Ministers to select a candidate who the selection panel had deemed to be below the line of appointability, as he put it, and that in fact was again echoed as a concern by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Is that a concern that you share?
Peter Riddell: It is a concern I share, but in the way you define it, Mr Jones, I regard it as very exceptional and equally something, as I just said, that should go before the relevant Select Committee. You have to have a damn good case to justify that, in my view. Ministers may well be able to justify it, but they have to make the case for justifying it, and nothing at present or otherwise would prevent it from happening, but they have to justify it. That is why I think it is very important that transparency comes in. Ministers having to justify things is a deterrent on irresponsible behaviour.
Q60 Mr David Jones: Do you believe that the Grimstone proposals have reduced the power of the Commissioner to do his job?
Peter Riddell: I think they have changed the role of the Commissioner. That is why I come back to a point that I made in answer to the Chairman. I think it is really brought out very clearly that how David Normington viewed it was very much an Executive view of the role. I would view it as very much a more public role. Given my background as an outsider, I am not an insider, I think it is very important in recognising, and sometimes that can be uncomfortable. David Normington raised a good point on that, that it may well be very uncomfortable but equally a few uncomfortable instances may well act as a deterrent to unacceptable appointments.
Q61 Mr David Jones: You have clearly thought carefully about these matters. Have you had discussions with Ministers over the last few weeks about these concerns?
Peter Riddell: Not with Ministers, because it has been a parliamentary recess. I have discussed it with officials, yes, and I briefly talked to Matt Hancock, but not in any depth yet.
Q62 Mr David Jones: Have you had your concerns allayed by those discussions?
Peter Riddell: What I have gained very strongly is, first, I will play a full part in the designing of the governance code over the next few months, if I am appointed, and that, secondly, on some of the specific points I have raised, for example the issue on the appointment of independent members, that what I would like to see hardened in terms of consultation is recognised. Similar, the sign-off point is recognised. I came away feeling that there is a framework but in terms of implementation there is a lot to play for and it is very open. There is not, to go back to the example David Normington uses, a code lying there for me to be presented with if I am formally appointed. It is all open.
Q63 Mr David Jones: You told the Committee on the last occasion that you had been asked to see if you could make the new appointments process work. How will we know if the Grimstone proposals, if adopted, do work?
Peter Riddell: I think there are a variety of criteria. First, because it is more open and transparent, by definition we will know. It goes back to the example that Mr Flynn raised of the regular rows. We will know that. I do have a powerful sense of deterrence in that, because things will be more open. Secondly, and I think it is a very important point, is the timescale and discouragement factor. I think it is very interesting in relation to my own appointment where the issue was less the time it took but when it was started. The real issue was it was started at a late date. The whole process was within six weeks, in fact, from advertising to me being notified that I was the preferred candidate, or less than six weeks, I think. The real issue is timeliness in getting things done. The proposal by Grimstone, which the Government has accepted, of a three-month procedure I thoroughly welcome. The fact it is open and transparent means that if I am Commissioner I will be looking at that with my staff, and I will be saying, “Okay, why is it taking longer than three months?” Now, in answer to the question the Chairman is posing, yes, I think it is frequently down to Ministers and it is frequently taking time to do and I will be asking questions on that. We will also be looking at whether particular Departments are affected and if particular Departments are going over three months, I will be talking to the Select Committee Chair and suggesting they might want to ask questions on it. I will ask questions on it, and it may well be the subject for a review. Again, being open one will be able to look at those. That is another measure.
Thirdly, I accept Mrs Gillan made some very good points on that, there is the importance of getting proper evidence as opposed to anecdote, and that is very difficult. The hardest thing of all is on discouragement. I have done a lot of interviewing in my various capacities and how do you know about someone who does not apply for a job? I think there is a case for review. It is something I have been thinking about. I hear lots of anecdotes on that. Some of it goes back to Mr Dowden’s point that there is a bias in the system in favour of people who are used to operating in the system. One of the challenges, I think it is one of the most exciting bits of the job, will be to try to reach out and with the Government’s incentive for public appointment to try to change perceptions there. I cannot offer any precise answers on that, but I regard broadening the range is an option not just of the protected categories under the Act, but socially and geographically. Geographically is really important in that respect. You are talking about non-executives on boards. It is not being executives, it is not London house prices, it is saying why should you not get someone from round the country for meetings a dozen times a year?
The other factor that I think has been under-reflected in the discussion so far is the chairs of boards, involving them and getting them attuned to having a much greater range of people.
Chair: You are giving very long and full answers, if we could make them more concise.
Peter Riddell: Sorry, I will be shorter in my answers. I will do that.
Q64 Mr David Jones: Just briefly, would these be proposals that you would expect to become apparent quite quickly?
Peter Riddell: I would hope that when I reported to the Committee on the annual report in a year’s time I would be able to report clear progress, but I do not want to set myself an artificial deadline on that.
Q65 Kelvin Hopkins: Mr Riddell, some of our concerns about the Grimstone review’s recommendations include the notion of exceptional circumstances, where the full appointment process is not required and significant appointments that require what is described as “enhanced handling”. How many posts do you envisage will fall into either the exceptional circumstances or enhanced handling procedures?
Peter Riddell: I hope by definition the former, of “exceptional”, will be very small indeed. It is very difficult to define that a priori but I think the key point there is the notifications to Select Committees will itself be a discipline on exceptional, that the Committees will be involved when that comes in.
On the “enhanced”, as you heard from Mr Hancock there will be discussions on that. I hope because all appointments are within the remit of the Commissioner we will be able to have a good discussion looking at national significance, chairs of all bodies, and so on. I do not want to say that from the beginning. I hope it will be a common-sense test, what people regard as an appointment of major national significance.
Q66 Kelvin Hopkins: You have touched on this before in earlier questions, but what happens in the event that you decide a certain post requires enhanced handling, but the appointment Minister disagrees?
Peter Riddell: Of course the Commissioner still has power to go in, spot check and look at the way the process works. If there is a disagreement, it is a matter of proportionality, and if it is a really important post and the Minister disagreed, I would go to the Select Committee. Also, I would have the power as a regulator to monitor what goes on.
Q67 Kelvin Hopkins: How strong an action would you be willing to take in this scenario?
Peter Riddell: I think that going public and talking to the relevant Select Committee is a pretty powerful action.
Q68 Paul Flynn: We are going to miss the advice that we have had from you in the past, and as someone who has benefited and had my views illuminated many times by you in the past we will be sorry to see you lost to journalism anyway. The world has changed since the last time you gave evidence and you said to the Committee that you would strengthen our confidence in your independence and you talked about signalling initially internally and then publicly if needs be any concerns you had about the independence of an appointments panel. Since then we have had today’s bombshell from Sir David being liberated from years of having to carefully manicure every word he said to speaking the honest, full truth. If you are in the situation that he has been in every month, as he said, that some powerful member of Government from the Prime Minister down rings up and says, “Appoint my crony to this job, and why are you not doing it?” can you tell us precisely what you would do and in what sequence?
Peter Riddell: If someone said that to me I very much doubt it would be the Prime Minister personally and Mr Dowden can advise me on how these things work, but I think it would be somewhat more indirect. I would say there are procedures. These procedures should be followed. If they are not being followed I will register my public dissent from it. That is where I say there is a difference of culture between someone operating Executive in the system and someone having a more clearly defined public role.
In answer to your question, I think the first stage would be saying to the relevant Minister, “Hold on, your procedure is not independent enough”. If that does not work, that is what I meant by then going public, talking to a Select Committee and so on.
Q69 Paul Flynn: He did specifically say in the paper the Prime Minister. He mentioned the Prime Minister first of all, members of Government intervened and so on, regardless. That is what Sir David Normington was alluding to.
Peter Riddell: Yes, I know. I read it too.
Q70 Paul Flynn: The people he put forward are donors, former MPs, former officeholders who have been shortlisted. These are people that are described as being “unappointable”. They were entirely unsuitable for the job. We know we have a system, and we mentioned the House of Lords, there are only two legislatures in the world that appoint hereditary chieftains, us and Lesotho but there are also few legislatures where you can directly buy a place in a legislature, which you can in this House in the three main parties. Won’t these reforms in fact enhance this, unless you are going to behave, and we have heard the evidence from Sir David, in a very different way?
Peter Riddell: That is my precise point. I will have to behave in a totally different way from Sir David. Leave aside the House of Lords, which is fortunately totally outside the remit.
Q71 Paul Flynn: Yes, but it is an example of where we are.
Peter Riddell: No, but what I am saying is that I will have to behave differently from Sir David, and that is one of the things that I think has been clarified this morning. It is a very different role from the one he has performed. I think it is partly to do with the proposals of Gerry Grimstone, but it is also partly to do with that I come from a very different background from Sir David, who has been a consummate inside operator. As you all know, I am very willing to engage fully with Select Committees.
Q72 Paul Flynn: No one has ever accused you in your journalistic career of being a socialist. I think you tend to go towards the opinion, and I would not call you a Tory, but you are really someone who is acceptable to Government because your views are generally right-wing.
Peter Riddell: No, I would not say that at all. I now run until two or three months’ time a non-partisan think tank that did a lot of work with your party before the last election and worked with the Conservatives for the 2010 election and has good relationships with all the main parties, and indeed with the SNP, I might say.
Q73 Paul Flynn: I think you have a very great reason to call yourself independent rather than groups like the IEA that claims to be a think tank and are disguised and paid lobbyists. There is great respect for the work that you have been doing.
Peter Riddell: You have participated in our events too, Mr Flynn, so you are well aware of that.
Q74 Paul Flynn: Yes. Can I just ask one final question and it is a serious and practical one at the moment that causes great concern? Perhaps I should declare an interest. The only quango I have ever been on was on the BBC as a non-political appointment. I, like most people in Cabinet, have a great regard for the importance of the independence of the BBC. That appears to be under threat now, and serious people have said there is an attempt to politicise it with the new structure. How would you feel about that?
Chair: That is slightly different.
Paul Flynn: Yes, well I know it is but I think if we can take it as an example. You cannot contribute to that, you say, directly but are you getting a similar attempt to politicise other jobs that Sir David says is happening all the time? I mean, how can you be the new broom?
Peter Riddell: I think there is a distinction between a structure, which is what the debate is now, my understanding is, and looking at the future and particular appointments. It would certainly be an appointment, the Chair of the BBC, which is one the Commissioner would be involved in. I agree with you entirely, it is one of those major public appointments that I think the public would rightly want maximum reassurance on the process and the way it is conducted.
Q75 Mrs Gillan: One of the things, Mr Riddell, which is really important, is going to be your approach to public engagement, particularly as you are trying to broaden the net to capture better candidates. You told the Committee that the public were not really engaged at all in the process at the moment, and then you suggested that social media would be part of your strategy if you were appointed. Can you just talk me through your thoughts on that, and then what other components you may want to throw into the mix on public engagement?
Peter Riddell: It is very tentative at this stage because I want to discuss, for example, with the Centre for Public Appointments and the Cabinet Office, which I have only done in a very preliminary way ahead of these sessions, what they are doing to try to spread the net. There is an argument about how much you use head-hunters and how much the Centre for Public Appointments do it. Head-hunters are used for specialist roles and they tend to be rather conventional in what they do.
I think the advantage of social media is really just alerting people. It is a point Gerry Grimstone made. Do you just want people who go on the Cabinet Office website to look at public appointments who tend to be in a rather small category of a certain age looking for something to do? From my experience of social media at the Institute for Government the key thing is linking it with other bits of social media, so with ethnic, women, disabled groups, just so the people know the jobs coming up. I would want to explore that so people are aware of jobs coming up, the attraction to the job, the interest to the job, and that is what I would want to explore. Government tends to be rather conventional about these things, and that is what I want to explore, how one reaches out. There are millions of people who are on various social media sites of various kinds, and I would want to connect into those. That involves being more adventurous. Being an independent person one can be a bit more adventurous in connecting and talking to people.
The other aspect of it is the chairs of bodies, for them being more willing to think more adventurously about the people they want on, as well as Ministers, of course.
Q76 Mrs Gillan: Are you not running the danger of engaging with a media that is sometimes extremely poisonous and results in some terrible exchanges between individuals? Are you not throwing open this process to something that could be abused a great deal by people who wished ill towards whatever body it was that you were looking for a candidate?
Peter Riddell: Absolutely. There are massive risks. It is one problem of democratisation, but broadening out, yes, of course there are risks but I think the benefits outweigh the risks.
Q77 Mrs Gillan: Okay. What about the budget for this? Surely this approach is also going to increase the costs, because if you are broadening the net to invite people to apply and have much more contact from a very broad swath of the public, that is going to affect your budget.
Peter Riddell: Not necessarily my budget. I hate to shift the buck to the Cabinet Office, but a lot of the work on that will be the Centre for Public Appointments and the Cabinet Office who are the people who try to encourage a broader range. I would see myself working with them, just as I would be in a different capacity working with Select Committees. I would be working with them and a lot of the activity on that would be by them, but I would be encouraging and stimulating and also doing a bit myself. I do not see that as a major threat to what is a fixed cash budget.
Q78 Mrs Gillan: What sort of budget do you have for your own promotional activities?
Peter Riddell: I know what the overall budget is for the Commissioner. It is about £340,000 at present. Something that I have not done yet, quite rightly, but will be looking to do is to explore how that money is allocated and so on.
Q79 Mrs Gillan: How is that £340,000—
Peter Riddell: I do not know. It is staffing, mainly, but that is something I have not gone into yet.
Q80 Mrs Gillan: Can I ask, because everybody has been focusing on transparency, how you came to apply for this job?
Peter Riddell: I was always going to leave the Institute for Government this year, after four and a half to five years. I was looking around. I talked to various civil servants and I talked to a range of people. Then I saw this job advertised and I applied.
Q81 Mrs Gillan: Nobody picked up the phone to you and suggested you apply?
Peter Riddell: I did talk to a couple of people on the phone when it came up.
Q82 Mrs Gillan: You did?
Peter Riddell: No one who has been here today.
Q83 Mrs Gillan: But it was suggested to you that you should look at it?
Peter Riddell: It was a conversation.
Q84 Mrs Gillan: No, I am asking for transparency.
Peter Riddell: No, no. I mean, it was not a kind of—but I did have a conversation. “Would it be an idea to apply?” They said, “Why not?”
Q85 Mrs Gillan: It is not improper, I think, for a Minister to suggest—I hope not, anyway.
Peter Riddell: No, no, no. It can sound more sinister than what it actually is.
Q86 Mrs Gillan: Just before I come to the end of my little section, I was struck by your chairmanship, which you drew attention to, of a rather wonderful little club called the Garrick Club.
Peter Riddell: Yes. Ex-chairmanship.
Mrs Gillan: Would you like to tell us what you had done to try to increase the diversity of the membership of the Garrick Club in your time as chairman?
Peter Riddell: I have resigned from the chairmanship.
Mrs Gillan: What a shame.
Peter Riddell: No, because of this. I strongly believe in women members. I argued for it when there was an annual meeting last July. I was one of the most prominent speakers for it. We got a narrow majority for it when you needed two-thirds. My view was, like in many organisations, you carry on arguing for it, but when this came up I decided and took advice that there was a clear conflict of perception. It would be a distraction. People would keep on asking me about it and that is a total distraction.
Given I am totally committed to diversity, at the Institute for Government, where I do have control rather than just being one voice, we now have nearly 60% women and my senior leadership team is roughly half and half. We have about 10% ethnic minorities, depending on how you categorise it, although I am afraid to say we do very badly on disability. That is something we have been trying to address. Where I have had control, I fully defend my record. In other cases, I am an advocate of diversity. What I have done is resign the chairmanship of Garrick because I thought it would be a distraction.
Q87 Mrs Gillan: What a shame, as I say, but I very much hope the day will come when Garrick members—
Peter Riddell: Well, my vote will be there.
Mrs Gillan: —will see the wisdom of allowing women members, as the RAC Club did when I was the Minister for Equal Opportunities and encouraged them to carry out the ballot.
Q88 Ronnie Cowan: You have described the rather closed selection process that they currently have in place, but that is the selection process you have come through to be here today. Does that not cast some doubt over your own selection?
Peter Riddell: It depends on the nature of the posts and the qualities required for posts. I applied like anyone else. You have the data on how many people were shortlisted. I have not a clue who any of the rest of them were, obviously. I thought I had a pretty rigorous interview, asked some good questions, and so I thought it was a perfectly fair process. I am an independent person, I have independent views and so I do not think there is any case of favouritism, cronyism or anything like that.
Q89 Oliver Dowden: With regards to improving the quality of public appointments, you suggested that you would work with Ministers and the chairs of bodies. Is that a sufficient strategy?
Peter Riddell: I am sure it is not sufficient but it is a beginning. To go back to Mrs Gillan’s point, there is both supply and demand. You want to encourage more people to apply but also it is crucial that when they do apply, they are taken seriously. I would be working a twin strategy, to talk to Ministers and talk to the chairs of public bodies, to encourage them themselves to bring forward more people and to be more open-minded about potential candidates. One of the problems is there can be—and it goes back to your question a couple of hours ago—rather a conventional view of possible candidates. I have experienced that one or twice myself when I have applied for things and been told, “Oh no, you have been a journalist. You cannot possibly be suitable”. It may be right, may be wrong. That was a long time ago.
Therefore you need to work on both sides. It is persuasion. After a bit, I hope it goes back to one of the earlier questions: when you have evidence you can just point to it and say, “Actually, it works”.
Q90 Oliver Dowden: Specifically on that point, what would your strategy be for increasing the diversity of candidates who are appointed, and particularly increasing the diversity of backgrounds, so it is not just the same old public sector people who keep getting recycled round but bringing in that wider commercial experience?
Peter Riddell: There are two things, encouraging a wider range of people to apply and then a range of people to be appointed. They are not the same. That is why I said it is a twin track thing of going out, talking to people in business, talking to people in unions—I would hope to go around the country a bit—just saying, “It is worthwhile applying”.
The key thing there is that when people do apply, they feel that first, it is an efficient process. It does not last forever. That is very important because I think that is a big discouragement. Secondly, some of them do get appointed. That means talking to the people who are doing the appointing, which is partly Ministers but for many bodies, it is the chairs of the bodies, to say, “You have to broaden your range too”. It is a bit of proselytising, going around the bodies, going to the Public Chairs’ Forum, things like that, which I know well, and that type of thing.
Q91 Oliver Dowden: Sir Gerry Grimstone, in his evidence, talked a lot about the need for the person taking this role to be sufficiently robust. How would you go about being sufficiently robust in ensuring that change took place? It is not just persuasion, sometimes you do actually need a bit of aggression.
Peter Riddell: I would start off by trying to develop, indeed partly with the Centre for Public Appointments in the Cabinet Office, some kind of strategy for encouraging a broader range of applicants. Also, insofar as they are talking to departments, I would go around some of the key departments—obviously there are various numbers of public appointees per department—encouraging them to take a broader view. It is encouragement but also, at various stages, analysing. It goes back to the audit point, which is an interesting one. I would want to change the audit, to change some of the data we get so that we get a clearer idea of outcomes. It is fairly conventional, the data at present. I would be able to say, “Hold on, we are not getting enough people with a wider social background or the right business experience or whatever”. We would have proper data to substantiate that.
Q92 Oliver Dowden: Why do you think it is that women and people from ethnic minorities are still, relative to their proportion of the wider population, deterred from taking these public appointments?
Peter Riddell: With women it is less true because it is 44% women being employed. There is an issue there of social background too. One should be quite careful and get behind some of the data to see which women, where from and so on. There are some quite powerful things there.
It is partly the process. The process can appear cumbersome and can be a discouragement. It is partly the sense of remoteness. “Is it for me?” All those things have to be combated. I cannot say I have a solution at present but I recognise there is a problem and, as I say, the problem needs approaching in two ways. One is to encourage people to apply. The second is that they are seriously considered.
Oliver Dowden: Thank you.
Q93 Mr Turner: On the previous occasion when you appeared before to Committee you mentioned that being a member of a public party should neither be a qualification nor a disqualification. You then suggested that it was perfectly understandable that, in relationship to certain bodies, Ministers will want to appoint people who will carry out their policies. Which bodies are you referring to?
Peter Riddell: I was thinking more there about the executive-type bodies. For example, the Environment Agency was mentioned earlier on. That would be the type of body where I am sure the Secretary of State would want someone who is broadly in sympathy with their views, but that is just one aspect of it. The other aspect is: do they have the right experience, skill set and so on and so forth?
There is an argument, and it is a separate argument this Committee did a significant report on 18 months ago, or its predecessor Committee did, on characterising different types of public appointees. They are all regarded as one type of thing at present. In certain roles, the non-regulator roles, the executive roles, it is perfectly understandable that a Minister will want someone who is in tune. However, it should not be, to go back to Mr Flynn’s point, someone who gave money or anything like that. They should be someone who has the relevant skills.
Q94 Mr Turner: Surely that would mean, even though they may not be members of the Conservative Party, fairly conservative people who would pursue what the Ministers want?
Peter Riddell: In some respects, in some bodies—if you look historically, Chris Smith and Jeff Rooker were appointed under the Labour Government to run bodies. They are people with lots of Executive experience as Ministers and very qualified at that. What I am saying is they have to be qualified to do it. You should not say to someone, because they are an ex-Minister or because they are sympathetic to the Tories or Labour or whatever, you should bar them. In some respects it is perfectly understandable that a Minister will want, in some roles—and we need to specify the roles much more tightly—someone who is sympathetic with their broad approach. That does not mean it is a donor. That does not mean that just because they happen to be a Tory or Labour, they qualify. They have to have the right skill set.
Q95 Mr Turner: I understand that. How do you prevent this becoming cronyism?
Peter Riddell: It is scale, active monitoring and the nature of the appointment process. What is crucial there is having the independent member who signs off the process, as well as a civil servant, that someone who had the right characteristics was there and it was not just, as you say, cronyism or whatever. That is a matter of active monitoring and, as Commissioner, being willing to alert the relevant Select Committee to say, “I am worried about this”.
Q96 Mr Turner: Can I ask you a further question? We are aiming to get more women and more disabled in particular involved. Are you saying that this will emerge with appropriate help from the Minister? How long will it take? Are women and the disabled as active in those bodies that would be appropriate?
Peter Riddell: First, there has already been progress on women, as pointed out earlier. The key thing, as David Normington himself said in his interview, was that the lead from the Prime Minister and other Ministers that ensures that. You have to have a ministerial lead because Ministers are making the appointments and they have to give a clear lead on that.
It goes back to the earlier question that Mr Jones asked on timetable. I would hope to be able to report progress within a year or so but these things can be quite slow-moving because you have to persuade people. It goes back to Mr Dowden’s question. You have to persuade people to put themselves forward and then you have to work on the chairs and Ministers to say, “Right, you ought to be much more broad-thinking in who you appoint”. Also, social and geographic factors are really important in that. There is no reason why it has to be upper middle class men, or women for that matter. It can be much broader for many bodies.
Q97 Kate Hoey: Mr Riddell, by the end of your appointment, if you get this appointment, do you think there will be any chance of a manual worker, a very intelligent manual worker with no qualifications academically, getting a job like yours?
Peter Riddell: It is very difficult to say “a job like mine” but I would certainly hope that even quicker than that there would be manual workers on some bodies, absolutely, and manual workers, I would say, from 150 miles from London. Whether it would be the right person to do this role is another question but certainly in some roles, absolutely.
Q98 Kate Hoey: You do not have to go to private school or university, to Cambridge or Oxford, to get your job.
Peter Riddell: No, absolutely not. I am not saying that but I am saying it is probably useful, to be a Commissioner, to have some familiarity with the workings of Whitehall and so on, to demonstrate robustness. Certainly for membership of bodies, if I might take one point, it is very important—without getting a quangocracy—that some people would start off in a body and then develop experience of it. One of the things one might say is with what trade unions did rather well in the past was developing people’s experience of working on committees and so on and so forth—I am not sure that is any longer so true—and working with public bodies. That is something that is very desirable, so people from a manual background or whatever would be more involved.
Chair: Mr Riddell, I am afraid you have provoked another question from a fellow Scot.
Q99 Ronnie Cowan: Very briefly, you did talk about diversity and talked about geographically. 150 miles barely takes us north of Watford by my calculations.
Peter Riddell: There is a tiny hamlet called Riddell near Lilliesleaf in Selkirk so I am well aware of Scotland.
Ronnie Cowan: Selkirk? You have just fallen over the border.
Peter Riddell: My great-grandmother came from the Highlands, but I take your point.
Ronnie Cowan: I am not interested in a genealogy. We are talking about recruiting people way beyond—
Peter Riddell: I know the point. What I am saying is I am well aware of that because the Institute for Government does a lot of work in Scotland and Wales. There is also quite a specific point. The remit of the Commissioner does not cover Scotland. That is the point David Normington made. It does cover Wales. That is something I will duly address and take forward at some stage.
Q100 Kate Hoey: And Northern Ireland, or not?
Peter Riddell: No, Northern Ireland is separate apart from UK-wide bodies. But no, when I said 150 miles I was truncating. As a Devonian, yes, that is about 150, 200 miles.
Q101 Chair: From what we have heard this morning some would say that the role of the Public Appointments Commissioner has been changed from an executive role to a regulatory role but it is a regulatory role that has fewer powers. It is replacing direct power with merely the power to expose and to publicise. Is that a fair description?
Peter Riddell: I would not use the word “merely”. It is stronger than that. You underrate the power of exposure and speaking out.
Q102 Chair: In the event that these direct powers are no longer available to the Commissioner, what are the countervailing balancing checks and scrutiny that Parliament can offer? Our pre-appointment hearings are purely advisory.
Peter Riddell: They are but, as I can testify myself, they are very powerful.
Q103 Chair: Yes. Okay, you are very generous. There are some appointments that are subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This Committee, for example, set a new precedent with the appointment of the UK Statistics Authority by just suggesting to the Minister it should apply in that case, and the precedent has been set and it applies in that case. The same kind of process occurred with the creation of the Chairman of the Office of Budget Responsibility. Would you agree that in order to bolster your role, without proposing that we retro-engineer your particular appointment, and were it to be approved, that your role and the office of Civil Service Commissioner should both be subject to that kind of additional check because they are appointments of such enormous significance?
Peter Riddell: I am in danger of stepping into what Mr Flynn and I previously discussed. That is something for Ministers but personally I would be strongly supportive of that. First, it is something that we in the Institute for Government have advocated. We have said there is a class of positions that have a broader constitutional significance, and you could take it further than that. I would personally be very happy with it but that is way outside anything I would have a say in.
Q104 Chair: I am not sure it is. Whoever is Public Appointments Commissioner, we want to be the critical friend. We want to use our role to bolster that office and we would expect recommendations that this Committee makes that the Public Appointments Commissioner agrees with would be robustly—
Peter Riddell: As I say, I agree but the decision lies way outside my—I am strongly in favour of that. I have advocated it over many years. It is also the reality of reporting to Committees, particularly obviously this Committee but also to the other Select Committees. Obviously I would have a very active role with other Select Committees.
Chair: You have been very patient. Thank you very much. If there no other questions from any other member of the Committee, we will now go into private session.
Oral evidence: Commissioner for Public Appointments, HC 869 2