Oral evidence: Work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, HC 982

Oral evidence, 11 January 2022.

Witness

William Shawcross CVO.

Chair

This is the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and this is a hearing into public appointments in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. We are joined in our first panel by William Shawcross, the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Before I begin, does anyone have any interests—any charitable interests—they wish to declare?

Clive Efford

I am chair of the trustees of Samuel Montagu Youth Centre.

Damian Green

I am a trustee of Godinton House Preservation Trust in my constituency.

Julie Elliott

I am a trustee of the CPA.

Giles Watling

I am vice chair of the Royal Theatrical Fund.

John Nicolson

I am a trustee of the Egyptian Halls project in Glasgow and a trustee of the Spitalfields Trust in London.

Chair

Mr Shawcross, thank you very much for joining us today. My first question, in relation to the appointments that are in the purview of this Committee—for example, the appointment at Ofcom, this latest appointment of the Charity Commission chair, and even before that the BBC chair and the proposal, at least in certain quarters, for a known licence-fee evader to become chair of the BBC—is: why is it that these particular appointments have proven so shambolic?

William Shawcross

I am not sure I would agree with the word “shambolic”.

Chair

How would you describe it, then?

William Shawcross

They are difficult, they are controversial appointments, and they are politically very sensitive. The BBC has acquired a very distinguished chair, as far as I know. I am not sure that the process that led to his appointment was shambolic. With Ofcom, obviously the competition failed and it has been run again. It quite often happens that competitions fail for one reason or another. It is a pity and it wastes everybody’s time. In particular, one of the things I am most worried about is putting people off applying for public service. The longer that the process of appointments takes and the more often the competitions fail—which is not that often—all these things put people off applying. It is something that I worry about—that not enough people want to go into public service. The rewards are not great and the scrutiny can be very great and very disagreeable, so it is a problem. The third one, the Charity Commission appointment that you brought up, is a great misfortune. I ran the Charity Commission for six years from 2012 to 2018. It is an organisation I put a lot of time, effort and love into. I think it is a marvellous organisation. William Beveridge famously said that philanthropy is “a golden thread in the living tapestry of our national life”. I think that is right. Beveridge, after all, wrote the Beveridge report and helped create the welfare state, but he understood that philanthropy was unique to this country. We have a more important tradition of philanthropy than any other country, except perhaps for the United States. I am very sorry to see the Charity Commission stumble in its appointment of a new chair, because it needs a new chair. It has been without a chair for a year now, and it is a misfortune that that complication—

Chair

Yes, it is a misfortune. Frankly, this Committee views it as pretty appalling that we had a candidate come before us and four days later they had to resign because sufficient checks were not made. We are going to focus first on Ofcom, which is probably the most important regulator in the UK, if we think about its role in the Online Safety Bill. It is more important, I would say, than even the Financial Conduct Authority because of its crucial part in British society, the British way of life and how we are going to protect our society going forward. Is it a huge failure that we have not, to this point, had a new chair appointed? You mentioned yourself the floating of names, and particularly that of Mr Dacre. Is that not a key reason why we have had to wait a year for this appointment to be made?

William Shawcross

There are lots of reasons why. I am certainly against the floating of names and I made that clear in my confirmation hearing before PACAC. I think it is a very bad thing to do. It suggests to the general public that decisions have already been made before competitions have been run, and that is completely improper. That must never be the case. It should never even be thought to be the case, and it discourages people from applying if they think it is a done deal.

Chair

Unfortunately, Mr Shawcross, no one is listening to you on that. We are, but I do not think No. 10 are listening to you, are they?

William Shawcross

You have picked out two very important cases, Ofcom and the Charity Commission. The failures of the competitions were for very different reasons, and it is a great pity, but it is not a tragedy in the state. We are getting on with it.

Chair

That does not really answer my question about whether or not you think that the floating of Mr Dacre’s name in particular has led to this year-long delay in getting a new chair of Ofcom. Do you believe that it has?

William Shawcross

I have said to you, Mr Chairman, that I think the floating of the names in any competition is a very bad thing. I made that clear before PACAC and I will make it clear to you again now. Names should not be floated. The names of candidates should not be revealed before the competition. The Government are allowed to have preferences, Ministers make the choices and the Government can choose, but that should not be done publicly in a way that looks as if the competition has been corrupt.

Chair

What should happen if they float names? Should there be some form of punishment, effectively, for those who decide to speak to the press?

William Shawcross

I do not know what sort of punishment you mean.

Chair

Sacking.

William Shawcross

Sacking Ministers?

Chair

Sacking those who are responsible for floating names.

William Shawcross

I don’t know how that would be done, but that is your business, not mine, Sir.

Chair

Moving on to the Charity Commission chair, who do you think is ultimately responsible for the failure of that process?

William Shawcross

The Charity Commission is something I was deeply involved in in the past and have great affection for. It is also something that we are now involved in because OCPA has called in the papers from DCMS to look at what happened. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment in any detail on that. When we have looked through the papers and we have come up with a report, I will be very happy to come back to talk to you about it.

Chair

Who is ultimately responsible, though? Who should be held to account for the failure of this process? Is the civil servant? Is it the Minister? Who is it that you believe is responsible?

William Shawcross

I do not want to point fingers without having done the research myself. I am sure you have strong ideas about it and you do not need me to confirm, disconfirm or undermine them. I am going to do an investigation into what happened and then I would be very happy to come back to you.

Chair

What checks would you expect to be made before an appointment is made to the chair of the Charity Commission? Would you, for example, expect that the previous employer would be spoken to and references taken?

William Shawcross

That often happens. It does not always happen; I do not think it is compulsory, but it often happens. I do not know whether it happened in my case when I was appointed. I gave references and I think the individuals whom I gave were called by the Department.

Chair

Roughly speaking, how big is the charitable sector in this country?

William Shawcross

The charitable sector is huge. It is one of the great benefits for this country. It raises about £70 billion a year. There are about 180,000 charities. It is an extraordinary part of British life and one that should be cherished. That is what the Charity Commission does and it is a very important job.

Chair

So for the chair of the Charity Commission, with 180,000 charities and £70 billion, there were no references taken?

William Shawcross

I didn’t say that. You are saying that; I don’t know whether that is the case. I will tell you whether that is the case when I have done my report.

Chair

Hopefully we will have it confirmed in our second session whether or not references were taken. You would expect, would you not, in all instances, in such an important job, references to be taken? Back in the day I worked as a shelf stacker in Tesco and they took references for me, so why is it that you would not take references for a £70 billion industry?

William Shawcross

I have said to you that references certainly were taken in my case and I expect that they were in this case, but I do not know that yet. When I know, I will be very happy to come back and talk to you. May I just say something else about references? References are much more difficult than they were some 10 or 20 years ago because people are frightened of data protection. I should not use the word “frightened”; people are concerned about data protection and therefore people find it more difficult to give the full and frank references that they might have done 20 years ago. That is an issue, not necessarily for your Committee, but in public life and in the private sector too. I have friends who work in the private sector and they can never get decent references any more because people are frightened of giving them. That is a real issue.

Chair

That is a fair point but it should not stop them from trying, should it?

William Shawcross

Of course.

Chair

In terms of these particular issues, if references were not taken, where does the responsibility lie for that? Is it with the Charity Commission or is it with DCMS with oversight? Surely the oversight role of DCMS should be to ask all those involved in the process if references had been taken rather than to take a “Scout’s honour” approach—“Mr Thomas, will you please tell us if you have any difficulties? Have you been photographed with ladies’ underwear, for instance?”

William Shawcross

I have said to you that I am not going to get into this particular case. As far as I am concerned it is sub judice in my position because I have to do an official investigation into it. Scout’s honour, if you do not mind my saying so, is rather a wonderful tradition in this country.

Chair

Yes, and so is bob-a-job, but I do not normally put them in charge of a £70 billion industry.

Kevin Brennan

Welcome, William, to the Committee. Thank you for being before us. Nearly 20 years ago I was a member of the then Public Administration Select Committee. I think the Commissioner for Public Appointments at the time was Dame Rennie Fritchie, one of your predecessors, and in more recent times we have had Peter Riddell. I have to say that they were both extremely helpful to this Committee in their roles, in helping us in our role to thoroughly scrutinise public appointments, the very reason your office was set up back in the 1990s. You seem a bit tetchy with us this morning; do you resent being asked these questions?

William Shawcross

I do not want to be tetchy at all.

Kevin Brennan

Am I misreading your mood?

William Shawcross

Yes, I am very happy to be here.

Kevin Brennan

Dame Rennie Fritchie and Peter Riddell were very helpful to this Committee—

William Shawcross

I hope to be also.

Kevin Brennan

And I wonder whether you would want to adopt their style, in seeing your role principally as ensuring that public appointments are done properly, thoroughly scrutinised and not done over the phone by Ministers in the way they used to be and in the way that some people think this Government is slipping into the habit of doing now. It may not be a disaster for the state, but wouldn’t any reasonable observer of what happened in the run-up to the appointment of the chair of the BBC say this? By the way, we on this Committee scrutinised him after his appointment and approved of the appointment, but the run-up to that, with the controversy about the touting of the name of Charles Moore, which came to this Committee’s attention, was completely reprehensible. The way that names have been touted in the Ofcom appointment has been completely reprehensible and has come from the Government, as any reasonable individual can see if they have eyes in their head. This Committee have been sold a pup over the Charity Commission chair and made to look like fools and subsequently blamed by the Secretary of State for not having done our due diligence when that individual appeared before us. Shouldn’t you, in your role, not be expressing a little more concern about what is going on in Government around public appointments? They may only be a few, but these are the ones that come before us. The failure rate and the delay rate so far are disastrous, aren’t they?

William Shawcross

I quite agree with you. On your first point, I apologise if I appear tetchy, and I apologise, Mr Chairman, if you felt I was tetchy—I hope not. I was just trying to answer the Chair directly.

Kevin Brennan

I was misreading your mood.

William Shawcross

I have great admiration for Peter Riddell. I talked to him several times before my appointment was accepted by PACAC and I know that he ran this job incredibly well. He regarded himself as a critical friend, I think, of the whole system. I think that is the way in which I should look at it. I certainly wish to work very closely with you all for however long I am here. Going back to the examples you have mentioned, I was not here when the BBC appointment, nomination and competition took place. I was not here for the first part of Ofcom when Paul Dacre was the candidate. I am here now and the Ofcom competition is being re-run, as you know. I cannot really talk about that because it is in process at the moment but I hope it comes out with a successful result. On the question of the Charity Commission, again, I feel constrained by the fact that I have to do a report on it and I do not want to speak ill of anybody without knowing the facts. I do not like speaking ill of people, particularly candidates. As I said earlier, it is very important that none of these processes should discourage people from coming into public service. One of the problems that we face—I have seen it in my first few months in this important job—is that of trying to attract more people from all over the country. It is very difficult.

Kevin Brennan

How many people would you expect to apply for a job like the chair of Ofcom?

William Shawcross

How many ought to apply?

Kevin Brennan

How many ought to be applying on the basis of what you just said—that people should want to apply for these jobs? Should it be more than nine?

William Shawcross

I do not know whether it should be, but it would be nice if it were.

Kevin Brennan

It is a pathetic number, isn’t it? Again, any reasonable observer to an extremely important public appointment, which carries even greater importance with the online harms Bill coming through and the additional responsibilities Ofcom has taken on—I accept that someone would apply only if they were a highly qualified individual, but the fact that nine people applied to be chair of Ofcom, as I understand it, if that figure is correct, is pathetic, isn’t it? Is that not something you should be concerned about and reading the riot act to Ministers about, given the fact that the Government’s own people were leaking information that they had already decided who was going to get that job was stopping people of real talent, ability and diversity from applying for that job?

William Shawcross

I completely agree with that. I already said to the Chair that leaking names and references deters people from applying and that is very serious.

Kevin Brennan

Have you read the riot act to Ministers about it?

William Shawcross

I have not spoken directly to Ministers about it yet, but I have spoken to senior civil servants about it and it is a very serious issue. I have said already to the Chair and I repeat to you, Sir, that one of my jobs must be to encourage more people to apply for all sorts of jobs, whether they are serious ones like Ofcom—big high-profile jobs—or whether they are small NHS appointments in country towns where people just simply do not want to apply. It is very difficult. You are quite right that one of the problems that puts people off is the allegation or appearance of ministerial interference, which discourages people. They think, “There is no point my applying; it will be a done deal.”

Kevin Brennan

Let me tell you: it is a reality; it is not an appearance or an allegation.

William Shawcross

It is not always a reality.

Kevin Brennan

It is a reality in these cases. What is your plan for making sure that the pool of talent is broadened in your term of office as commissioner?

William Shawcross

One of the things that I have to do is to concentrate on diversity, of course. That is a very, very important issue and one that I will work very hard on. Every study on diversity that has been made over the last few years shows that a diverse board, whether in the public or private sector, is always more effective than an un-diverse one. Increasing diversity is part of the law of this country and it is a law that I shall seek to apply as diligently and enthusiastically as I can.

Kevin Brennan

I know you have statistics on that; the Commissioner for Public Appointments collects them and so on. Are there similar statistics with regard to social background, class background or anything of that kind? Is that a concern for you?

William Shawcross

Yes, it is a concern, absolutely. I said at my PACAC hearing that I want to go out into different parts of the country, to provincial and regional areas, to talk to leaders of business and unions to encourage people to apply. Diversity of region is very important, diversity of class—if I can use that word—is important, and so is diversity of thought. We do not want just people from London applying for these national jobs. It is hugely important and it is very difficult but it is something that I shall put my mind to. I have not been able to get out much yet because of covid. I have spoken to the First Minister in Wales. They have serious issues with recruitment and I want to help them as much as possible. I asked if I could come and see them and they said, “No, you can’t,” so it was on Zoom.

Kevin Brennan

I share a constituency with him so I am sure you will be very welcome when restrictions relax.

William Shawcross

Perhaps I can see you too when I come up.

Kevin Brennan

It would be a pleasure.

Chair

Just do not bring your own booze.

Damian Green

A couple of times you have said you do not want people discouraged from coming forward. Is that happening? Is the quality of people applying going down?

William Shawcross

I am not in a position to say that. I do not think the quality of people is necessarily going down. There have been fewer applications during covid. The numbers of applicants are going down overall. That is a problem but I hope it is a short-term blip induced by covid. In particular, the number of women applying for public appointments in the last two years has gone down across the board. That is a serious issue and I am sure it is one that the Departments worry about too. I am sure the Permanent Secretary for DCMS will share my concern about that. It is something that I and Departments have to work together to encourage. I need to go out across the country and encourage people but I would not say the quality of people has gone down. I have no reason to say that.

Damian Green

I genuinely cannot understand why fewer women would apply through the covid period. What is your theory on that?

William Shawcross

I do not know that I have a proper theory, but I suppose because everybody has been constrained. For a lot of the time, they have had to stay at home, and women have probably assumed the burden of looking after families much more than men in many cases. That may be a reason. It is an important issue and something I want to look at, certainly.

Damian Green

Do you think what we have been discussing here—the ministerial floating of preferred candidates—is in the bloodstream of the application process now? Is that proving a discouragement?

William Shawcross

I certainly hope not. It is certainly in your bloodstream, and I am very conscious of it too. Anybody who works in Whitehall and Westminster is conscious of it, and rightly so. It is something that must be stopped. I have said that publicly and I will carry on doing so, and will say it directly to Ministers as well. It is an intellectual corruption of the system, which must not be tolerated, and it is completely against the Nolan principles, obviously.

Damian Green

But you cannot point to any direct evidence? Presumably people talk to you informally. Have you heard people saying, “I am not going to bother because I know there is a preferred candidate”? Or even worse, with whatever is coming up, “I know they will have a preferred candidate and I know it will not be me so I am not going to apply”?

William Shawcross

No one has said that to me but it is something I obviously need to do more research on. If I find any research that has already been done on that I will send it to the Committee.

Damian Green

Are you planning something proactive on that? You make the point about not just individuals who may be discouraged but the need for greater diversity. I agree that enforcing diversity is quite difficult but do you have any powers to do that?

William Shawcross

I do not have any powers to enforce anything. I am here to see that the code is implemented. When I say I do not have any powers to enforce, I have powers to object if the Government does things that are incorrect, and I have already done that. Behind the scenes, I have engaged with Departments where I thought wrong things were being done with proposals for appointments and so on. That is a very useful role. But I have no powers to, in your words, “enforce” anything. It is a power of persuasion and advocacy.

Damian Green

You said you have already discussed with Departments things they were doing wrong. Can you enlarge on that?

William Shawcross

The things I was concerned about were not in total agreement with the code.

Damian Green

What sorts of things?

William Shawcross

It was just about the composition of panels and things like that.

Damian Green

In which Departments?

William Shawcross

If you do not mind, it is important to keep some conversations confidential. It worked. If it had not worked I would have gone public with it.

Damian Green

They have done what you have asked them to do in terms of composition of panels?

William Shawcross

Yes.

Damian Green

“Departments” suggests that more than one Whitehall Department was doing it.

William Shawcross

“Doing it” suggests malfeasance. I do not wish to suggest that. I just think there were mistakes being made and it is my job to point that out.

Damian Green

Indeed, that is an absolutely proper part of your job, but it is slightly disturbing if more than one Whitehall Department is getting its processes wrong.

William Shawcross

No, the Departments come to me and say, “Do you think this is okay?” Usually I say, “Yes”. If I am concerned, I say, “Have you considered x or y?” They might say, “Yes, we have, and we still think that is all right.” We will look at the code together and sometimes I will realise that my concern was misplaced and sometimes they realise that my concern was correct. I am not pointing a finger at the guilty men or women; I am just saying that is the process I have. You will see me again, I am sure, and tell me when you think I am failing, and I would be grateful for that. I have only been here for a few months, as you know, and it has been a difficult few months because of the continuation of covid. The job that I have is to advise and warn rather than to enforce. It is a hugely important job and I am very honoured to be doing it and honoured to be appearing before you.

Chair

Thank you for that. What should happen when names are leaked? I touched on this before. You say that you just speak publicly and that is the ultimate thing that you can do. Your ultimate power effectively is to speak publicly. Is that enough?

William Shawcross

It may not always be enough, particularly once the names have been leaked, but it would be very wrong for me to allow a culture to develop in which that becomes normal. It must be the exception rather than the rule. You mentioned Charles Moore, who is a friend of mine, I should say, and Paul Dacre—their names were leaked. It is wrong. I have made that clear and I shall make it clearer.

Chair

Do you think there is a role for this Committee in exploring when names are leaked in the DCMS sphere?

William Shawcross

You would have to ask the Permanent Secretary about that. DCMS is one of the Departments that has most public appointments and many of them are difficult ones, including the BBC and Ofcom. We have just done our annual audit of DCMS and it has come out of our audit extremely well. DCMS has the highest number of regulated appointments and the volume of—

Chair

Sorry, Mr Shawcross; we do know the figures.

William Shawcross

Of course you do; I am so sorry.

Chair

We can only go by what we see, and from our viewpoint, what we have seen is a complete shambles around the appointments that are in the purview of this Committee. They are crucial appointments, as you have outlined yourself—the Charity Commission chair, but also, crucially, the position of Ofcom chair. They are huge appointments for the good of this country and they have been handled in such a way that this Committee is flabbergasted about the degree of such failings. The British civil service used to be called the Rolls-Royce, did it not? When politicians were making mistakes the civil service was able to pick up the pieces and would glide the country through thick and thin. Is it now more a Reliant Robin than a Rolls-Royce, in its quality? We are seeing this writ large today with the email over the Downing Street party. Are these failures at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport another indication that there is a failure at the top of the civil service?

William Shawcross

At the top of the civil service? I am not competent to say that, but my own view is probably not at the top of the civil service. I do rather agree with you that there are a lot of failures in British public life that are important. It is my job to try to stop some of those failures, and it is your job too. We come at it from different points of view. On DCMS, I just would like to say that the work that we have done shows that DCMS is not a shambles; it is not catastrophic. Nearly all the appointments it does, it has done very well in the last year.

Chair

Forgive me; I am very sorry to talk across you here. You have also said that you detect failures lower down than the very top of the civil service when it comes to appointments. You said that less a minute ago.

William Shawcross

I did not say failures; I said there were issues in Departments that I have asked to discuss with them. A matter of concern to me does not necessarily mean a failure of the Department’s. I have not come across serious failures. The two that you pick out for criticism of DCMS—the BBC and Ofcom—

Chair

Ofcom and the Charity Commission chair are the main two.

William Shawcross

All three are very important and very different organisations, and the reasons for the competitions going wrong are different in all those cases. I do not actually think that DCMS itself was to blame—certainly not for the Charity Commission failure, as far as I can see.

Chair

Does the Department not have an oversight role in that process?

William Shawcross

Yes, of course.

Chair

You are effectively speaking ahead of your own inquiry there, by saying that you do not think that the DCMS was to blame. It is an interesting point. I wonder why you have come to that conclusion when it has oversight over what the—

William Shawcross

You are right; I should not prejudge.

Chair

Well, you have.

William Shawcross

Thank you for tripping me up, Sir, in the nicest possible way.

Chair

We aim to please.

Simon Jupp

Earlier on, in evidence to my colleague Damian Green, you mentioned that some of the powers you have are based in persuasion and advocacy. Could you summarise the powers you do have to hold Ministers to hold account, please?

William Shawcross

The powers that I have are to say that something in the public appointments process is not in accordance with the code. My predecessor used those powers very astutely. Peter Riddell is a wonderful model to follow, and he is certainly somebody whose work I admire and whom I hope to emulate. He has been a very great public servant in this regard. My powers are to hold to account and to say, “This does not fit the code, Minister. It will be very problematic for you to go ahead in this way.” That is a power of persuasion that is very important. Peter Riddell used it to great effect, and I hope I can too.

Simon Jupp

Do you feel constrained by the powers you have in the role that you currently hold?

William Shawcross

The powers are not as great as they were before the Grimstone report in 2016. Whether I feel constrained is irrelevant. The powers are less than they were up until that point, but there we are; I am dealing with the situation as it is.

Simon Jupp

Do you personally regret the changes in the powers that you hold as a result of that report?

William Shawcross

It is not whether I regret it or not; it is a change that has happened.

Simon Jupp

Would your role be more effective if those powers that were previously held by your role were still in place?

William Shawcross

I have not thought about that very greatly but if you would like me to come back to you with a written answer on that I would be very happy to.

Simon Jupp

That would be useful. Just for those of us who are particularly interested in those powers, could you outline any significant changes that that change in the appointment made?

William Shawcross

The most significant change—again, I will give you this in proper detail—is that my position is to advise and to seek consent, but none the less this is an important position. The fact that you are kind enough to want to see me suggests that you think it is a role that is important, and I mean to implement it as fully and as effectively as I can, in the spirit of Lord Nolan. Can I read you a quote from Lord Nolan? He said this in 1997 in his Dimbleby lecture: “I believe that democracy works in this marvellous country because its actions are monitored by independent institutions and individuals. Our democracy is underpinned by the integrity and political neutrality of the civil service, the judges, the armed forces and the police. The members of these institutions must be prepared to protest against the misuse of powers.” I think that is terrific. He said that in 1997 and it is still true today. That is why we are all here.

Simon Jupp

It may be still true today but of course since that time the powers that you hold have been watered down, as you have alluded to. You must have some personal thoughts on the impact of those changes. I realise that you said that covid has impacted on what you have been able to do since you were appointed, but surely you have reflected on the fact that what you are able to do generally has been rather constrained by those changes.

William Shawcross

I am very happy with what I can do, and the fact that I can be here today in front of you and talking about these very difficult issues shows that before or after Grimstone, it is still important.

Simon Jupp

If, for example, in the future there was discussion about the powers and influence that you hold within your role, and the previous powers were looked to be put back into your role, would you object or would you accept that?

William Shawcross

I would look at the situation very carefully and see why that was being discussed. I would be very happy to discuss that with you either privately later or in Committee like this.

Simon Jupp

Since you have been appointed, have there been any discussions about your role, its powers and any changes that may occur in the future?

William Shawcross

No. There have been discussions about my role; I have had discussions with everybody. I talk to my excellent staff every day about my role and whether I can do this, whether I am entitled to that, or whether I make certain comments. It is a fascinating and difficult job.

Simon Jupp

Let’s go through some things that might be on your wish list of future powers that you may wish to hold. Should you be able, for example, to block appointments if due process, in your view, has not been followed properly by a Department or a Minister?

William Shawcross

What do you mean by “block”?

Simon Jupp

Saying, “That can’t happen.”

William Shawcross

That would mean legislation; that is up to Ministers. I cannot say whether I should or should not. That would be a big difference.

Simon Jupp

Would that be beneficial to the role that you have?

William Shawcross

I do not know; I would have to think about that very carefully. Legislation like that is a hugely complicated—

Simon Jupp

I know, but I am giving you the opportunity to pitch for more powers. This is a great opportunity for you, if I may say so.

William Shawcross

It is very generous of you. I will come back to you on that. In the end, powers lie with Ministers and with Parliament. Civil servants like me should not have more powers. I think Parliament is what matters most and that is you, gentlemen and ladies. Ministers have rights too, but in the end it is Parliament that matters. I do not think unelected people like me should have huge powers.

Simon Jupp

It must be frustrating, for example, if your advice is dutifully ignored.

William Shawcross

None of us likes our advice being ignored but sometimes we recognise that perhaps our advice was not as good as we thought it.

Simon Jupp

You are obviously sitting in front of a parliamentary Committee at the moment. Do you think that Committees like this, which cover every single Department, should be allowed a stronger role in public appointments so that we can pursue and persuade Ministers in that way? Should this Committee, for example, or other Committees that sit in Parliament, have a stronger role in the public appointments process?

William Shawcross

A stronger role in what sense?

Simon Jupp

In terms of assessing your work to say whether a person is suitable or not and advising. Should there be a stronger role for us in that role, do you think?

William Shawcross

Where would you wish to exert that role?

Simon Jupp

At some point during the process of someone being found as the preferred candidate or appointed.

William Shawcross

Are you suggesting that the Committee should be able to block appointments or vote on them?

Simon Jupp

No, I am not suggesting that. What I am saying is: do you think there should be a stronger role for Select Committees? You made a big point about the fact that you should not be able to block appointments yourself, and I agree with that, but I also wonder whether you think that Select Committees, as a wider bunch of parliamentarians, might be allowed to have a wider role within that remit.

William Shawcross

You can and you have said that people who have been appointed are not fit for the job. That has happened in recent history.

Simon Jupp

Obviously, our advice, much like yours, could be dutifully ignored.

William Shawcross

Your advice is advisory, as I understand it. If what you are suggesting is that the Committee should be a full stop and that after an appointment process has gone ahead and a candidate has been chosen and nominated by the Minister, then the Committee has not only a confirmatory hearing but also a possibility of rejecting it, I understand why you might want that, and it does happen; you have rejected candidates quite recently. I wonder whether that would put people off applying even more—yet another obstacle in the race. It is a very challenging thing for many people to go through the whole public appointments process. If they have not spent time in Whitehall or in Westminster or in London, it is quite terrifying appearing before you. If they know that, having got through the whole public appointments process and been accepted by the Minister, they then have to be accepted by you, it is Becher’s Brook for a third time.

Simon Jupp

Maybe for particularly high-profile appointments—not for every single role that you assess, but things that are considered by this Committee, by the Department or by you as high-profile appointments. Surely, the people who are considered for those roles should be able to sit in front of us, like you are now, and be held to account on what they want to do in the role they are being considered for.

William Shawcross

They already do.

Simon Jupp

You are saying that if the Committee had any further powers, that might put people off coming forward to sit in front of us.

William Shawcross

At the moment you are able, quite rightly, to interrogate and examine anybody in a public position, including me. You have done that with the BBC, obviously, and quite correctly. Whether you should have the right of veto is a much bigger question, and that is not for me. I am saying that for candidates, it might be Becher’s Brook a third time. For many candidates, it is a very frightening process. That is one of the things that I worry about—that people are going to be put off and say, “Oh my God, it is too much.” It should not be an unpleasant process. We should be encouraging people to serve this great country, not saying, “If you make the slightest mistake it is curtains for you.”

Simon Jupp

Okay. Understood.

Chair

When did you start your investigation into the non-appointment of the Charity Commission chair? Precisely when did you start it?

William Shawcross

We called for papers quite recently; I cannot tell you exactly, I am sorry. I have not started to investigate it. I have not looked at the papers myself yet.

Chair

When did you first take an interest? Was it the day afterwards or a few days after?

William Shawcross

As I said to you at the beginning, I have been interested in the Charity Commission for the last 10 years.

Chair

That is not answering the question, Mr Shawcross. When did you—

William Shawcross

I am not trying to avoid your question.

Chair

You could try answering it, which is very simple. When did you send your email to DCMS—to the Charity Commission—asking them for the papers? When did you do that?

William Shawcross

I do not know, I am sorry. I will find that. My staff sent the email out.

Chair

How many people from the DCMS were on the assessment panel?

William Shawcross

On the panel that chose the Charity Commission chair?

Chair

Yes. On the assessment panel itself.

William Shawcross

On the interview panel?

Chair

Yes.

William Shawcross

I do not know the answer to that. From DCMS itself?

Chair

From DCMS itself.

William Shawcross

I do not know the answer to that.

Chair

Who ran the recruitment process?

William Shawcross

DCMS.

Chair

But we do not know yet how many of the DCMS people were on the panel; we understand that it was two.

William Shawcross

I do not know.

Chair

Why, if that is the case, did you state to this Committee that you do not think they are to blame for this? If they ran the process and there were members of the DCMS on the assessment panel, why have you stated that they are not to blame?

William Shawcross

I do not want to get into this. As far as I am concerned it is sub judice. I am very happy to come back to you when I have done my report. I apologise.

Chair

I am just repeating your words to you, Mr Shawcross.

William Shawcross

I apologise for being difficult, if you think I am. I do not wish to be difficult. You are trying to push me into making judgments when I am not in a position to do so.

Chair

Mr Shawcross, with respect, you did make that judgment. The worry I have—I will be frank with you—is that you have already made your mind up and you have not even seen the papers yet.

William Shawcross

I have not made my mind up.

Chair

The problem I have is that you stated to this Committee that you do not think they are to blame despite the fact they ran the process and two DCMS people were on the assessment panel.

William Shawcross

I am sorry. I have not made up my mind. There are individuals involved in this process whom I do not wish to damage further, perhaps, by speaking publicly in this way. You are perfectly at liberty to challenge me, to attack me—whatever you wish.

Chair

I am not attacking you. I am challenging your own statement; that is the point.

William Shawcross

I have said, on the basis of our report, which is a very detailed and considered report on DCMS, that DCMS is not, as you have said, shambolic.

Chair

From where we are sitting they certainly look shambolic.

Clive Efford

When the selected candidate for the chair of the Charity Commission had to step down, what action did you take in response to that immediately? That must have been quite a shock, particularly for somebody who held the post themselves.

William Shawcross

I do not think I took any action immediately. What action do you think I should have taken?

Clive Efford

Did you contact the DCMS, or did you instruct any of your staff to find out what had been going on?

William Shawcross

My staff certainly contacted the DCMS, yes, but it was all in the public domain very quickly.

Clive Efford

Are you clear that there is no fault at all with your team at all in that appointment process?

William Shawcross

Where do you think the fault might be?

Clive Efford

Were you party to any information that should have been passed on, for instance?

William Shawcross

Not to my knowledge.

Clive Efford

Have you asked those questions?

William Shawcross

Yes.

Clive Efford

In the process of appointing the chair of the Charity Commission, if you went back and reflected on it, do you think you might find any changes to that process that you might require, or perhaps even any changes to the powers or responsibilities that you have?

William Shawcross

I do not really understand the question; I am sorry.

Clive Efford

If you were to reflect on that process, is there anything you could learn from it? Let’s put it simply like that.

William Shawcross

My appointment, or this?

Clive Efford

The process that we have just been through with the appointment of the chair of the Charity Commission. Do you think there are any lessons that we should learn from that process and the way that it has turned out?

William Shawcross

I think the overall lesson—as I say, I do not want to get into the question of individuals—is transparency, transparency, transparency from everybody.

Clive Efford

From everybody. Given that you have just said to this Committee that you do not think DCMS was at fault—you have clearly made that statement—do you think you are now the right person to carry out any investigation into this process?

William Shawcross

Yes, I think I am the right person to gather the papers to see what happened. I am sorry if you thought my attempt to speak fairly about DCMS was inappropriate.

Clive Efford

I do not know what other conclusion you expect us to draw from that. You said that you do not think that DCMS is shambolic, you do not think that floating names should happen, you do not—

William Shawcross

Excuse me; those are two different issues. I am very much against the floating of names.

Clive Efford

I am just quoting what you said to us. But these things have still gone on, in spite of your views. Do you think there are any changes to your job that should be made to give you more influence—if that is the right word—or more powers to intervene in these processes than you currently have?

William Shawcross

That is a very generous question. When I have been there a bit longer—several of you have asked this question—I would love to come back to you and say, “These are the changes and the extra powers that I think I need,” if I come to that conclusion. I appreciate your offer.

Clive Efford

It is not an offer; I am just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter. Do you think that the current powers that civil servants have—the role that they have in these processes—need changing in any way?

William Shawcross

Not at the moment. As I have said to you, the leaking of names is intolerable and the delays are awful for candidates, in particular. One of my issues is candidate care. Candidates must be looked after. They have to be encouraged to come forward. I want to do everything I can to protect that.

Clive Efford

You gave an example earlier, albeit not a specific one, of where you had intervened and said that you had privately contacted Departments because you were concerned about whether things were in compliance with the code, and asked them to make changes. You had discussions with them and generally there were satisfactory outcomes. Were there any unsatisfactory outcomes where people did not listen to what you had to say?

William Shawcross

Not so far. I have only been there four months, but none at all.

Clive Efford

You were also asked earlier by one of my colleagues about the fact that fewer people were applying for positions at the moment, and you seemed to put that down to covid. There have been some appointments that have been so openly politically charged. Do you think that is going to put a damper on some people applying, because they think it is not worth it?

William Shawcross

I think I have already said that. Yes, the idea that competitions are a done deal before you enter them puts people off.

Clive Efford

I am talking specifically about the issue of political bias. Do you think that that has had a negative impact on some candidates coming forward?

William Shawcross

My predecessor, Peter Riddell, whom you have all rightly praised, spoke to this. Only 10% of appointees and re-appointees had prior significant political activity in 2020-21. Peter Riddell said last year: “It is true that recently some roles have gone to those with obvious political sympathies but my role is to ensure the process that every candidate goes through is genuinely fair and open.”

Clive Efford

I do not think that answers my point. I could give you the example of the current chairman of the BBC, who told us that he gave significant amounts of money to the Conservative party, and that he was no longer a member but was still working for a significant Conservative think tank right up until that appointment. That is not as clearcut as Peter Riddell’s comment would suggest. My question again: do you think that where overt political bias is evident in the process, that prevents some candidates coming forward, and that that could be adding to the problem of a lack of people coming forward to apply for jobs?

William Shawcross

I am not quite sure how you mean “political bias” is being shown in such cases.

Clive Efford

It is pretty obvious when you see the processes that have been taking place.

William Shawcross

As I said, only 10% of appointees and re-appointees have had significant political activity.

Clive Efford

I will leave it there.

Giles Watling

You mentioned that the public appointments process is daunting, and you also mentioned, as Clive Efford just said, that people are put off coming forward and you would like to encourage them.

William Shawcross

They may be, and I want to help them to come forward.

Giles Watling

I accept that; you want to encourage more people to come forward. What would you suggest would be a positive way of streamlining the process to make it less daunting and more appealing, and make more people come forward?

William Shawcross

One of the things is that the process is much too slow. Three months is the ideal between the end of the advertisement and the actual appointment. I want to emphasise to Ministers all through Whitehall that that is the ideal. It should be not more than three months. It is very rarely as little as three months now. Sometimes it takes six months and, in the case of the Charity Commission, it has taken a year already. That is just completely unacceptable. We have to speed that up.

Giles Watling

We have talked extensively about the powers that you have or do not have, but what can you do to shorten that time, for instance?

William Shawcross

I can go round talking to Ministers individually and collectively and speak publicly, as I am to you, saying that this is a serious issue. A lot of people do not have a year to waste thinking, “Am I going to get a job or not?” Three months is bad enough, and it is hardly ever three months. When it comes to over a year, it is just awful. It is the power of persuasion that I have. You obviously have a much greater power than I have to criticise things when they go wrong, as you do.

Giles Watling

Do you feel that people are listening? Are you being listened to?

William Shawcross

Yes, I think so. I am listened to but then things intervene, and covid has made things much more difficult. I hope we are coming out of covid in the next three months and things will revert to something like normality and things then can go faster. I know covid slows everything down, but obviously it is not an excuse for all the delays. Speed, for the sake of candidate care if nothing else, is important.

Giles Watling

Thank you; I wanted to get that out in the open.

John Nicolson

I would like to go back to the question of the Charity Commission chair. The process has been a debacle; with the person concerned, who appeared before this Committee, information from the vetting process and discoveries were withheld from us. You spent the first half of your evidence saying that you did not want to prejudge this in any way and then you came out with the devastating line to the Chair—I wrote it down as you said it—“The DCMS is not to blame.” You are conducting an inquiry into this and you have prejudged your own inquiry. What is the point of your inquiry?

William Shawcross

I apologise if you think that, and your colleagues have made that point. I apologise. I am not prejudging it.

John Nicolson

It is not a question of apologising. In a way, I am glad you said it; you have told the whole Committee what your view is before your inquiry, so we know what you think. You think that the DCMS is not to blame. Can you imagine being the judge in a court and saying before the trial begins, “Of course, the defendant is clearly innocent, but I am not prejudging in any way; let us proceed”?

William Shawcross

I have not started my inquiry. If I discover during the course of that inquiry that DCMS did make serious mistakes, that will be in my report.

John Nicolson

But nobody is going to take you seriously.

William Shawcross

I was responding, if I may say so, to the rather broad-brush attacks on DCMS that have been made in this Committee, which I do not think are fair.

John Nicolson

No, you were specifically answering the Chair’s question in the context of the Charity Commission chair debacle. That is when you said that.

William Shawcross

I have also said to the Chair, and throughout this session, that I cannot speak about the Charity Commission and I have already said too much. The reason I do not want to speak about it is because I have to do an investigation and there are individuals, who are not in this room, whom I do not wish to have hurt unduly by anything I say.

John Nicolson

That is a red herring.

William Shawcross

It is not a red herring.

John Nicolson

I think it is. What you said was is that the DCMS is not to blame.

William Shawcross

I did say that.

John Nicolson

You did say that, so you have told us your view.

William Shawcross

That is not my view. Let me qualify it, if you wish. On the basis of what I know so far, I do not think that DCMS is to blame.

Chair

You have only just sent the email so you have not seen the papers.

John Nicolson

You have now repeated it twice; you have said to the Chair, and now to me, that on the basis of what you know so far, you do not believe that DCMS is to blame. You do not think the DCMS is to blame. This disqualifies you from conducting any kind of report on this debacle.

William Shawcross

Thank you. I am sorry you feel that.

John Nicolson

I do not think any reasonable person would think otherwise on the basis of what you said.

William Shawcross

I apologise.

John Nicolson

I am not looking for an apology; I am highlighting the fact that you cannot be taken seriously now on this issue, given what you said. On the question of who applies for jobs, you have said that you are concerned about people being put off from applying, but isn’t the problem that the criteria are narrowing? I will give you a specific example. Oliver Dowden, the then Secretary of State for DCMS, said he did not want anyone applying who was “seeking to burnish their woke credentials”. Do you know what “woke credentials” are?

William Shawcross

No, I do not.

John Nicolson

I think in this context he does not believe that people should remove statues of slavers and put them into context, as Edinburgh has done, for example, in a very prominent spot. He does not think that people should have a view on this and he does not think that gallery owners or gallery directors should be able to determine what they do with their own statues. Given that he said that, a whole group of people—probably a majority of people who have views on this subject—are disqualified from applying for a job in the Charity Commission as chair.

William Shawcross

I think that all public appointments should be made on the basis of merit and merit alone.

John Nicolson

Clearly the former Secretary of State does not, so that will be having a dampening effect. You spoke very highly of the BBC chair. He is a huge Tory donor, as we have heard. He got his job after donating substantial funds to the Conservative party. Does not giving large amounts of cash to a party—any party—before being appointed by that party to a grand position seem a little banana republic?

William Shawcross

I do not know much about the new chairman of the BBC. I think he has done his job well so far.

John Nicolson

You volunteered praise of him.

William Shawcross

I do not recall exactly what I said but I hear good things of him. As I said, I would have no reason to believe that he will not be a very good chair.

John Nicolson

If you were looking from outwith this country, or indeed in parts of this country like Scotland, where the BBC is not always held in the highest standing—that is what the BBC itself acknowledges about Scotland—can you imagine hearing, first of all, that the director-general of the BBC is a former Conservative party candidate, and then, that the Government went out to try to find a BBC chair and chose somebody to join the Conservative director-general who is a Conservative party donor? Don’t you think that will massively lessen the levels of trust in the BBC as an institution?

William Shawcross

Did you ask the chair these questions yourself?

John Nicolson

Yes, I did.

William Shawcross

What was his response?

John Nicolson

He basically said, “I am a grand fellow and I have given lots of money to lots of different organisations and I only gave a few hundred thousand pounds to the Conservative party” and implied that was not a huge amount in the context of his other giving.

William Shawcross

What conclusion did you come to, that he was not appointable?

John Nicolson

I came to the conclusion that I always do about these matters, that I do not think you should receive a public appointment from a political party to which you have given large amounts of money, regardless of the political party, and I am seeking your views on that.

William Shawcross

I think everything should be transparent, transparent, transparent, as I said, and if the fact that he gave a lot of money—I do not know how much it was—is clearly in the public record—

John Nicolson

The appointment was just coincidental.

William Shawcross

No, I do not know if it was coincidental or not. He obviously satisfied the Committee and the independent member on the Committee, and that is not for me now to judge. It was before my time that he was appointed.

Chair

That concludes our first panel. Thank you very much, Mr Shawcross, for attending today. We will take a short adjournment of two or three minutes as we set up and invite our next panellists to come before us.

William Shawcross

Thank you. I am sorry if you think I appear testy. I was just trying to express views. Anyway, I am not testy.

Chair

I certainly did not think you were testy. You were probably like me without coffee in the morning. Thank you very much.

William Shawcross

It is an honour and a pleasure and I will come back as soon as you wish me to. Examination of witnesses

Witnesses

Sarah Healey, Polly Payne and Gemma Brough.

Chair

This is the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and this is a special hearing into public appointments in the DCMS. We are joined for our second panel by Sarah Healey, the Permanent Secretary at DCMS; Polly Payne, Director General, Culture, Sport and Civil Society at DCMS; and Gemma Brough, Deputy Director, Public Bodies, Appointments, Honours and Awards, DCMS. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. You must be relieved, Sarah, that William Shawcross has effectively already cleared you of any wrongdoing whatsoever when it comes to the shambles of the Charity Commission chair appointment.

Sarah Healey

We were very pleased that the Commissioner for Public Appointments requested the material on this particular appointment. We have supplied him with all those papers, as he has requested, and we look forward to receiving his comments on the process. I should start by saying, as the commissioner said, that DCMS conducts a very large number of public appointments. Last year we conducted 90 appointments overall during the course of the year, split half and half between appointments and re-appointments—

Chair

It is just bad luck that those that this Committee deals with have been utterly shambolic?

Sarah Healey

The outcome of the Charity Commission process was deeply disappointing for everybody involved. Martin Thomas has acknowledged—including, I believe, in writing to you—that he made an error of judgment in not disclosing an investigation that had been undertaken at a charity that he was chair of, and as a result of not disclosing that and that error of judgment, he resigned shortly after he—

Chair

On that point, Polly Payne, you were the joint chair of this panel. Did you take references for Mr Thomas from his previous charity? Yes or no.

Polly Payne

No, we did not take references.

Chair

Is there any particular reason for that?

Polly Payne

The DCMS departmental policy is not to take references.

Chair

Why is that?

Sarah Healey

It might be better if I answered that. To be completely honest with you, I think references are a bit of a red herring on this one. Everybody takes references from people who are suggested by candidates. We do not do proactive independent investigation into candidates and therefore—

Chair

Just to clarify, do they give you referees?

Sarah Healey

That is the way referencing works. As Polly has said, it is DCMS policy on public appointments that we do not routinely take references.

Chair

You do not talk to previous employers?

Sarah Healey

It is not an employment relationship, but can I just say something really clear about this particular instance? We have reflected on the experience of this appointment and it is the case that we could have checked with the Charity Commission on their records, on any charity that any of the shortlisted candidates were involved in, to see if anything was flagged. While that is not currently part of the formal appointment process—

Chair

Sarah, forgive me. I am absolutely astounded that your Department has not spoken to previous employers. You seem to do fewer checks for a £70 billion sector of the UK economy—180,000 charities—that has been without a chair for a year than you would if you were employing someone to do a paper round. You say you have done 90 appointments. How many of those did you take references for?

Sarah Healey

It is not departmental policy on public appointments to take references. The position across Government on the taking of references varies. My contention on referencing is that referencing in this instance would have taken references, as is completely normal in employment processes, from somebody suggested by the candidate. Increasingly, references are not seen as a helpful part of recruitment processes in the private sector broadly, because they tend to simply confirm the terms of someone’s appointment.

Chair

You would find out whether or not the individual left under a cloud.

Sarah Healey

Not necessarily, because we would only speak to the people who they suggested referencing.

Chair

Why would you not speak to previous employers?

Sarah Healey

Because we do not take—the way referencing works in an employment relationship, which of course this is not, is that you take the references the people have suggested.

Chair

I would always take references from someone who employed someone else. For example, if I employ someone else from another MP, I will call that MP and I will say, “What is the situation here?”

Sarah Healey

That tends not to be the case. It tends to be the case that, for various reasons to do with data protection and other restraints, you take references from the people suggested by the candidate. If I could explain what checks we do think we need to make part of the formal process for the Charity Commission in future, we could have gone to the Charity Commission and asked them for any information related to the charities that the shortlisted candidates were associated with in any way. We could have let candidates know we were going to do that. While that has not up to now been a formal part of the DCMS process, with regard to appointments to the Charity Commission we do think it should be part of that process in future.

Chair

Will you do this retrospectively? You stated that you have made 90 appointments. Will you now go through those and apply exactly the same rules you are doing for the Charity Commission retrospectively to those employees? We are concerned as a Committee that proper checks have not been made—proper processes we would consider to be absolutely bog-standard in the private sector—and as a result there could be people in high positions in public life who, frankly, have got there by cooking up their CVs and without being in any way bona fide, and thereafter rely on a Scout’s honour system when they come before your panel.

Sarah Healey

We will not be checking with the Charity Commission except for Charity Commission appointments.

Chair

I am asking about all the others.

Sarah Healey

All the others we would not check with the Charity Commission. I am saying in this instance, because it was a Charity Commission appointment, we would check about the charities the shortlisted candidates were associated with.

Chair

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I am not asking you to check a particular appointment with the Charity Commission if they are not involved with the Charity Commission. I am saying to you that if you recognise there are issues in the way this process was handled—you have done so; you have said so in front of this Committee—will you be applying those same lessons retrospectively to the other appointments you have made in the Department over the last year?

Sarah Healey

No.

Chair

Why is that? What risks do you run by so doing?

Sarah Healey

In most of those cases there is no such thing as the Charity Commission that you could run this kind of check with. I have set out for you the Department’s position on references. We will obviously keep that under review but it is not currently likely to change. We will consider whether there are any other organisations that are similar to the Charity Commission—other regulators, for instance—where it would be worth doing these kinds of checks. We will not be going over every single public appointment and taking references, because we have not changed our policy on references, for precisely the reasons that I have set out to you already.

Chair

Have you restarted the process for the appointment of the chair of the Charity Commission?

Sarah Healey

Advice about the next steps is with Ministers at the moment.

Chair

When can we expect that?