The former journalist, author and chair of the Charity Commission William Shawcross is set to take up the role of Commissioner for Public Appointments tomorrow. This position sounds quite dry but plays a vital role in upholding the integrity of appointments to bodies from NHS England to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Many appointees lead public bodies which deliver essential services or regulate key sectors. Their independence from government, and how they are selected, is crucial.
Political attention on who is appointed to these positions has been increasing—as has criticism of how the system operates. The new commissioner’s in-tray will be overflowing.
Under the current system, ministers can suggest candidates, write selection criteria and choose who sits on the panels which interview candidates and report on their suitability for the role. They also make the final decision on whom to appoint. But they must follow appropriate procedure. In particular, selection panels are able to rule on whether each candidate is “appointable” or not. Ministers must publicly declare if they appoint an “unappointable” candidate (something they have never done).
The commissioner has few direct powers, although the government is required to consult them when making a temporary appointment without competition and when appointing senior panel members for key positions. Beyond this, the position involves reporting on how the system is working, considering complaints about appointments processes and admonishing ministers and civil servants where they deviate from the public appointments code—at first in private and then, if necessary, in public.
The outgoing commissioner, Peter Riddell, has increasingly had to lean on this public voice. In a speech in April, a series of letters to Michael Gove and others, and recent interviews, he has pointed out flaws in the system. A large number of “unregulated” ministerial appointments currently fall outside of the commissioner’s remit, including non-executive roles on departmental boards (the position occupied by Gina Coladangelo at the Department of Health and Social Care, before she resigned in June) and appointments to 36 public bodies.
Riddell has also been critical of public briefing in favour of certain candidates before selection processes are complete, which can undermine the process and put other candidates off applying. The most prominent example of this is for the post of Ofcom chair, where Downing Street sources reportedly briefed that Paul Dacre was the favoured candidate. Riddell has also publicly criticised the government for attempting to put forward political figures as independent panel members, and for the delays in the appointments process (less than half of appointments are completed within the government target of three months).
The current government is clearly more interested in public appointments than previous administrations, with many now apparently channelled through No 10. On the face of it, this interest is to be welcomed—public appointments are important. But this political attention is too concentrated at the top, meaning controversies erupt for high-profile appointments while recruitment for less prominent roles is hampered by poor long-term planning and delays in getting ministerial attention. Though Downing Street might care about some key appointments, many others are towards the bottom of ministers’ to-do lists, and the requirement for all appointments to have more senior political sign-off slows the process down and increases the number of temporary appointments to cover delays.
This lack of political attention was on display when Shawcross appeared in front of the Commons’ Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs committee for his pre-appointment hearing in mid-September. While his predecessor was subject to 104 questions from MPs over two sessions before he was appointed in 2016, Shawcross faced just 37. Only one opposition MP attended the hearing.
Before the hearing, the Institute for Government set out ten questions for Shawcross to answer. Some of these remain unresolved. Shawcross clearly voiced his opposition to both pre-briefing and the appointment of people with clear party affiliation as selection panel members. He also rightly pointed to his success at the Charity Commission, where the National Audit Office praised the progress made under his leadership.
But he did not set out how he intended to make the appointments process faster—or better. He also seemed more cautious than Riddell regarding the need for constraints on ministerial involvement.
When asked about unregulated appointments, Shawcross only spoke about temporary appointments and those decisions delegated by departments to other bodies, like local NHS positions. This ignores the significant number of long-term ministerial appointments to bodies like the Insolvency Service, which are also unregulated. He was not pressed on this point. Whereas Riddell used his pre-appointment hearing to suggest changes to the appointments system, Shawcross seemed largely satisfied with the system in its current incarnation.
Shawcross has a political background as a former employee at two right-leaning think tanks and an outspoken public commentator, including on Islam. This does not make him a bad choice for commissioner, but means he will have to work hard to convince the public (and prospective appointees) of his independence. He will have plenty of opportunity to do this however, and early on, as difficult cases like Ofcom present looming headaches.
To achieve trust, Shawcross must stand up for the propriety of the process and the principle of merit-based judgment of candidates, going public on concerns where necessary. He should also lay out far more clearly where the system is failing and whose responsibility it is to fix it—whether on delays to appointments, diversity of appointees or ministerial interference with due process. The public appointments system is in need of a rigorous defender: Shawcross must show he is the right person for the job.
Correction: this piece originally stated that the commissioner has responsibility for appointments to the Electoral Commission. This is not the case and the article has been amended
Read more—Peter Riddell on how to fortify the system of public appointments
