Oral evidence: The Work of the First Civil Service Commissioner, HC 1041Wednesday 12 February 2014
Oral evidence, 12 February 2014.
Witness
Sir David Normington, First Civil Service Commissioner and Commissioner for Public Appointments gave evidence.
Chair
Welcome to this session on the work of the First Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who are one and the same: our witness before us this morning. Please could you identify yourself for the record?
Sir David Normington
I am Sir David Normington. I am, as you say, the First Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Chair
The hashtag for this session is rather ad hominem, I am afraid: #DavidNormington, for anybody who wants to follow us on Twitter. We will press ahead with our questions, which will be as brief as possible. If you can keep your answers crisp and short, that is very helpful as well. May I start by asking a general question: how do you combine the two roles? How does the combination of the two roles work, in your view?
Sir David Normington
I am contracted to do three days a week, and some parts of the week I spend more time on public appointments, and some on Civil Service appointments. It is worth saying, in answer to your question, that I oversee two different systems, and that can sometimes lead to confusion. As First Civil Service Commissioner, I am overseeing appointments to a non-politicised Civil Service. As Public Appointments Commissioner, I am overseeing ministerial appointments to boards of public bodies. They have different legal bases and different codes of practice, so sometimes I am a split personality, and sometimes there is confusion about which hat I am wearing. I am very clear about which hat I am wearing on particular occasions, but people who are listening to what I say are not always clear. I will keep trying to make that clear during my answers today.
Chair
On the question of your consultation on the commission’s recruitment principles, your role is to interpret the legal requirement that selection for recruitment to the Civil Service must be on merit. You have described these recruitment principles as a “shift towards a principles‑based approach to regulation”. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Sir David Normington
The recruitment principles are the legal expression—our expression—of what “merit”, “fairness” and “openness” mean. Those are the principles that we are required to uphold, i.e. that appointments must be on merit after a fair and open competition. What we try to do, in a principles‑based approach, is not to put rules in our principles that are not required to ensure those principles are met, so we are not trying to tie up Government Departments in lots of detail. We want them to use their discretion, but we want to test everything they do against whether it is furthering the aim of making appointments on merit. What we have tried to do, in the latest version of the recruitment principles, is to concentrate in one place all the must‑dos so that Government Departments are in no doubt about what they must do to meet the recruitment principles, but leave them quite a lot of discretion to decide how to run a competition, get a good field, improve diversity and so on, because ultimately they are in charge of the recruitment process.
Chair
In your work, you will have observed the debate around Civil Service reform, and you will have read our report, Truth to power: how Civil Service reform can succeed, in which we argued that the plan, as published by the Government, and the one‑year‑on plan do not really address the relationship between Ministers and officials, and the strains in that relationship, or analyse in any fundamental way why some civil servants feel resistant to what Ministers want, or why Ministers feel that. What do you think about this debate?
Sir David Normington
The Civil Service Commission has not taken a view itself on whether there should be the kind of parliamentary commission or inquiry that you have called for. I personally, though, think that it would be a good idea. The reason for that is that, as the debate about the Civil Service has opened up over the past three years, we have found those issues in your report becoming matters of public debate: matters of leadership, accountability and trust. Whether the Government like it or not, those issues are out in the public and political debate. From the commission’s point of view, we operate, if we can, on the basis of political consensus. There is a danger that that political consensus is under strain. I certainly think there would be advantage in having that discussion, debate and inquiry, hopefully leading to a political consensus on which we can all move forward.
Chair
So you feel that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act represented a consensus that is now under discussion and strain.
Sir David Normington
It seems to be; I am disappointed by that. It is only a few years ago that it seemed as though the matter had been settled in the 2010 Act, and almost immediately afterwards, the debate begins to open up again. Therefore it is right to start debating and examining these questions again.
Chair
Why do you think this debate has opened up in the way it has?
Sir David Normington
There are various reasons for it. Ministers have been dissatisfied with the performance of the Civil Service. Some Government Departments have not performed well enough in fulfilling the Government’s programme. There have obviously been some tensions and criticisms, some of them in private briefings to the press and so on. The issue of accountability, which is very complicated—it is not a clear cut issue about who is accountable—has become much under question. The idea that you can hold Secretaries of State accountable for everything done by their Department does not look like a sustainable position. All those things have started being in the public domain, and I say let’s have a proper debate about them.
Chair
How has this strain on the consensus affected your work as First Civil Service Commissioner?
Sir David Normington
We have not felt that there is as much support for the Civil Service Commission as we might have expected, given the 2010 Act which, we thought, had settled the position. We have seen things such as questions about who appoints Permanent Secretaries and whether Secretaries of State should have more say, and we have seen the development of extended ministerial offices. They are all raising questions about the balance between what Ministers and civil servants do in a way that, when I took this job three years ago, I had not expected would happen. So the commission has felt more under scrutiny and under question, and has been in danger, occasionally, of getting into a defensive position when there are some very big questions out there about how you improve the competence of the Civil Service, which we—the commission and the Government—share.
Chair
The Commission is given a statutory role to protect the impartiality of the Civil Service. How much pressure do you think the Commission has come under to compromise that?
Sir David Normington
Not too much, in reality. The surrounding debate is questioning the consensus about whether an impartial or non-political Civil Service is the right model, but it would be going too far to say that the Government want to politicise the Civil Service. We have the Prime Minister’s assurance, in front of your Liaison Committee, that he absolutely does not want to undermine the current model, so we do not feel under pressure in general terms, but some of the things that are on the table, such as the appointment of Permanent Secretaries, threaten to chip away at that.
Paul Flynn
You told us last year that the commission, in your words, “should not concede” on ministerial involvement on Permanent Secretary appointments because it was “fundamental” to the point of the Civil Service Commission. Is offering the Prime Minister a choice between candidates a concession on this vital point?
Sir David Normington
It is a small concession, but it is, in our view, not one that would put at risk the fundamental principle we are there to defend, because it is a long way short of what the Government want.
Paul Flynn
David Kennedy was approved unanimously by a high‑powered Committee, won the approval of the senior civil servant, and was enthusiastically supported by the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Select Committee. He was turned down, we were told, by the Prime Minister. Did you interpret that as politically motivated because he is not in favour of fracking and he seemed to be greener than the global‑warming‑denying Back-Bench Tory MPs?
Sir David Normington
What the Prime Minister said was that he wanted to have somebody with more commercial experience in that role, and I take that at face value.
Paul Flynn
You have seen the comment of Tim Yeo on the subject of his commercial experience, because he made the point that he had the support of both the green lobby and industry because of his involvement in the World Bank. He did have very strong qualifications in both the green lobby and in what is seen to be the commercial lobby.
Sir David Normington
That was why the Committee recommended him. This was a clear difference of view with the Prime Minister. The Committee not only recommended him, but reconsidered the list and still made the recommendation that he should be appointed. The Prime Minister, of course, is entirely within his rights and his legal powers to turn him down.
Paul Flynn
Is this not a clear case? Ed Davey said, “In four years at the head of the CCC, Kennedy’s intellectual rigour has won the support of both industry and the green lobby.” There hardly seems to be a case in which there is unanimity of view from the civil servants, the head of the civil servants and all the other people involved who were saying this person was the right man. The Prime Minister was under pressure from 100 global warming deniers and Back Benchers, and also Osborne and Cameron are keen on fracking now. That was the political imperative that decided it, because the man was an ideal candidate—so said all the other players in the business, except the Prime Minister. If this is not an example of political bias, where can we find one?
Sir David Normington
I do not think I should impute motives to the Prime Minister. He said what he said and he used his legal powers not to appoint. He did not exceed those powers; he was entirely within his rights to do so. I repeat to you that the independent appointments committee thought he was the best candidate.
Paul Flynn
What evidence would you require that would convince you that politicians had interfered in the traditional independence of the Civil Service?
Sir David Normington
I do not want to go beyond what I said, because our system is one in which the Prime Minister can exercise his power not to appoint. When he does, he has to explain why he took that decision. I do not think I should impute motives to him. What he said was that he believed Mr Kennedy did not have enough commercial experience, and I have to take that at face value.
Paul Flynn
The Prime Minister is not here, but you are. You are the custodian of the long‑established, historic, independent role of the Civil Service, and we now see an example where a Prime Minister has overruled Civil Service opinion—powerful, unanimous Civil Service opinion—and gone with what looks like a political decision. I repeat: what circumstances would convince you that the traditional rights of the Civil Service are being infringed and politicians are overstepping the mark? I cannot think of a case in which the evidence is so outstanding. There is oceanic evidence that this was a political decision.
Sir David Normington
We do not have a system in which an independent panel, or the Civil Service for that matter, can insist in contradiction to the Prime Minister. We have a system in which, ultimately, the Prime Minister, in law, appoints and can decide not to. We do not have a system in which, despite the weight of Civil Service opinion, the Civil Service can insist in contradiction to the Prime Minister. That is not the system we have.
Paul Flynn
You previously warned the Committee that Permanent Secretaries appointed by their Minister may be seen as personally associated with that Minister and less likely to speak truth unto power. How would the proposals in your consultation safeguard this?
Sir David Normington
We are consulting about two options; it is really important to say that. We are very keen to hear the Committee’s views on these two options. To answer your question, they leave the decision about whom to put forward to the Prime Minister and what action to take before that is done with the independent panel. The independent panel, under the second option, for instance, will put more than one candidate forward only in very limited circumstances. If, as often happens, there is a leading candidate, and that is the best candidate, the panel will put that person forward, just as it did with David Kennedy, in fact. It will put two names to the Prime Minister, in this case, only if there is a close call between those candidates, which sometimes happens. Most appointments are not like David Kennedy’s; most of them are non-contentious. In most of them, people are seeking a sensible outcome to appoint the best person, and we are seeking a bit of give and take in this relationship where we can say to the Prime Minister, “The panel has got to this place. It has two candidates who in merit terms are very close; one offers this and one offers this. Let’s have a conversation about which one and you can decide.” That does not happen very often, but it happens. In those limited circumstances, under option two that we are consulting about, we think that can be done. It can give the Prime Minister a little bit of flexibility about who is appointed without endangering the politicisation of the Civil Service, which the commission exists to defend.
Paul Flynn
What pressure have you had from the Government on your consultation?
Sir David Normington
On the consultation, no new pressure beyond their continued requests for us to concede ministerial choice. This has continued to be a request from the Minister and the Prime Minister.
Chair
Do you feel that comes from the whole Government, or just from bits of the Government?
Sir David Normington
I do not think the whole Government are very interested in this. There are some Ministers who are. It probably depends on whether you have made an appointment recently and whether you are satisfied with it, frankly.
Paul Flynn
There was an interesting conclusion in the IPPR research that the Cabinet Office commissioned: “direct support for Ministers in the UK is severely underpowered”. Is that something that influenced your conclusions?
Sir David Normington
Not on Permanent Secretary appointments, no. It was particularly addressing there the question of whether Ministers should have much more personal support, either through special advisers or what has now been called extended ministerial offices. I think it was addressing that. I do not think that recommendation affects our view of Permanent Secretary appointments.
Paul Flynn
It was not underpowered vis-à-vis the Permanent Secretaries.
Sir David Normington
No, not really. It does not go to the heart of who chooses the Permanent Secretary. I am on record as saying that the real issue is attracting strong people from diverse fields from whom we can choose excellent Permanent Secretaries. Some of the fields have not been very strong recently, and that is a much bigger issue than who chooses.
Paul Flynn
I will, finally, ask you again, for the third time: what circumstances would convince you that there had been undue political influence in an appointment of a Permanent Secretary?
Sir David Normington
The clear case would be if the Prime Minister, which is most unlikely, was appointing someone as Permanent Secretary with a very overt political background—a political donor and so on. That would be a sign that we were in completely different territory in terms of the politicisation of the Civil Service. We are not in that territory, and that is why the debate we are having is on the margins here. We are not really having a debate about the politicisation.
Lindsay Roy
Sir David, when the Prime Minister exercises his right of veto, does he have to explain why?
Sir David Normington
He does, and he did. He explained it to Parliament. As I say, he said he did not think he had the commercial skills. This is very, very difficult, because it puts the individual, who has been recommended and then vetoed, into the public domain. He had done nothing wrong apart from applying for a job, so it was a very difficult situation. I do not think you can have all the facts in the public domain.
Lindsay Roy
Presumably the panel thought he did have the right commercial skills.
Sir David Normington
Yes.
Chair
So this offering a choice to the Prime Minister is just at the margin of these present arrangements.
Sir David Normington
Yes.
Chair
Is it important? Why is it so important, then?
Sir David Normington
It is important because what it is showing is that the commission is prepared to be pragmatic when it does not put at risk the principle of merit. We have been characterised as being extremely unmoveable and rigid in our view; we are not.
Chair
Who has characterised you as rigid and unmoveable?
Sir David Normington
In the public debate, we are characterised sometimes by the politicians and so on as being unwilling to move and not recognising that Ministers have a legitimate role. We do not think that is true; we think that Ministers should be involved. We want to show that we are willing and able to engage properly, with the Prime Minister in this case, about appointments.
Chair
What would you say to people who suggest you might be weakening under pressure?
Sir David Normington
I do not think we are. I am expecting some people who respond to the consultation to say that we are. They can be assured that the commission exists to ensure that appointments to the Civil Service are of the best people to a non-political Civil Service. We will never weaken on that principle, and we would not have put these options forward if we thought they were doing that.
Chair
As you know, our September report gave you our full backing.
Sir David Normington
It did, and I was grateful for it.
Chair
We expect you to exercise your constitutional role as set out in the CRAG Act. Some might say that this may not be a very significant step, but it is putting you at the top of a slippery slope—that you are breaching the principle.
Sir David Normington
Some people are saying that. Again, we do not believe so. We have debated this very hard in the Commission. We have been very concerned not to be at the top of a slippery slope. You could argue that every step you take involving Ministers is a step towards that slippery slope, but I do not believe it is, because I believe that we are absolutely defending the principle of appointment on merit. We will not concede that until we are abolished or our legislation is changed. After all, it is not so long since Parliament gave us statutory underpinning, and we are not going to give away the principle.
Chair
How much do you think Parliament envisaged you might be recommending or consulting on a step like this at the time the CRAG Act was being debated? Do you think this reflects the intention of Parliament?
Sir David Normington
That is very difficult to say. There will be some parliamentarians who will think this is a sensible step, some who do not and some who will want to go much further. I do not know the answer to your question, really.
Chair
Does it not strengthen the argument in favour of a parliamentary commission on the Civil Service to consider these matters before such a step is taken?
Sir David Normington
It would be much better if we were taking these small steps against the background of a settled position on the big issues of the Civil Service, so the answer to you is, yes, it would be better.
Mr Turner
Could I just ask you a question, which I think is dealing with one of your previous answers? Did you say that the Permanent Secretary could not possibly know about everything in his Department?
Sir David Normington
I do not think I did say that. If I did say that, I do not know what I was answering. No, I do not think I said that.
Mr Turner
Why do you think Ministers feel the need for an extended ministerial office?
Sir David Normington
It probably goes back to the IPPR report Mr Flynn was quoting from which, after all, was commissioned by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. That said, as you heard, that Ministers in the UK are very underpowered in the support they get, and that led to the proposal for an extended ministerial office.
Mr Turner
What impact do you think the introduction of extended ministerial offices would have on a Minister’s relationship with the rest of his Department?
Sir David Normington
It puts it at risk, frankly. You are not going to get me to be enthusiastic about extended ministerial offices. It depends what they are like. Civil Service commissioners always believe that there is not really a problem in Ministers having some greater support from more special advisers and civil servants. What has happened is it has been turned into some sort of new device. It is a bit like a cabinet, really. The risk of a cabinet is that it could create around the Minister a lot of people and therefore separate the Minister from his Department. If you look at places like Australia, I believe that is what happens.
Mr Turner
The Cabinet Office has stipulated that a member of staff in each extended ministerial office will also report to the implementation unit in the Cabinet Office. What is your view on this?
Sir David Normington
I have always thought that if Ministers had to have somebody from the Cabinet Office in that office, it was something that might dissuade them from having an extended ministerial office. I think it is designed to try to prevent ministerial offices from becoming separated from the rest of the Government.
Chair
Can I just press on this? Why do you think Ministers go on and on about implementation? Why is there so much emphasis on implementation?
Sir David Normington
Because there is no point in being in government unless you carry through your policies and they can be implemented in reality.
Chair
But why do they feel things are not being implemented?
Sir David Normington
Because there are some examples of them not being implemented properly, I think.
Chair
Why do you think that occurs?
Sir David Normington
Sometimes because there is not the competence in the Civil Service to deliver those policies. Sometimes it is because the political objectives are not set clearly enough. There are all sorts of reasons.
Chair
So why are you not more sympathetic to Ministers who want more progress‑chasers?
Sir David Normington
I am fine about Ministers having more progress‑chasers. I am fine about having them more supported in their offices. They can do that now—they can have more civil servants; they can have more special advisers. I do not see why you have to turn it into something that becomes, if you are not careful, a device for separating the Minister from the civil servants, in which case there will be more distance between the Minister and the person who has to deliver the policies.
Chair
So you are worried about Ministers establishing a Department within the Department.
Sir David Normington
Yes, that is a risk. It depends what form these extended ministerial offices take. I have not seen any developing yet, so we will have to wait and see.
Chair
But doesn’t, for example, the Department for Education already effectively have an EMO?
Sir David Normington
Not as I understand the design of offices. It does have some progress‑chasers, but those progress‑chasers, as I understand it, report to a civil servant. They do not form the ministerial office. They are part of the Civil Service management, which is there to deliver for the Secretary of State. That is what I understand.
Chair
That demonstrates why EMOs are, perhaps, unnecessary?
Sir David Normington
I personally believe that you ought to be able to achieve all you can without having EMOs, but we will have to see.
Mr Turner
Is there a contradiction between the requirement for selection on merit to the impartial Civil Service and the Government’s new extended ministerial offices staffed by a mixture of civil servants, special advisers and external policy experts?
Sir David Normington
There could be, and that is why the commission has produced some new guidance about how civil servants are recruited to ministerial offices. One of the designs of an extended ministerial office, as I understand it, is that the civil servants are chosen by the Minister. That immediately raises the question of how they are going to choose them and on what basis, so it begins to erode the principle. The Civil Service Commission has, therefore, produced some guidance to try to ensure that the person appointed is impartial and capable of filling the job, that the job is one that should be done by a civil servant if a civil servant is being put into it, and that it is for a time‑limited period. Because we are worried about this, we have also said that somebody appointed in that way, which is effectively by exception from the rules of merit, cannot transfer to the permanent Civil Service. They can do it only for a time‑limited period. Sorry, that it is a bit complicated, but it is all designed to address this worry we have that people will be brought in as civil servants without a test of their merit.
Mr Turner
I understand that, but you are saying that you, none the less, oppose these by ministerial selection, even though they may be there for a limited period of time.
Sir David Normington
Legally we cannot stop Ministers bringing these people in, so we have created an exception, but with some conditions attached to that exception to try to ensure that, if people are being brought into what are called Civil Service roles, there are tests of whether those are Civil Service roles and whether those people can operate as civil servants. If they cannot, they should be brought in as special advisers. We are concerned that this could blur the roles of special advisers and civil servants.
Mr Turner
Someone appointed to this new role could be a special adviser; what is the difference between a special adviser and a policy expert?
Sir David Normington
There are two types of people employed by Government Departments. By law, there can be only two types; there is either a civil servant or there is a special adviser. There is nobody in between. In law, you have to bring them in as either a civil servant or a special adviser. If you want to bring in an expert, you have to decide whether they are a political expert or an expert who can fulfil a Civil Service role. The rules that we have put in place, which are in our consultation, are designed to try to ensure that people are not brought in as special advisers and called civil servants, and I suppose vice versa. Experts can be brought in now. Sometimes they can be brought in for short periods to bolster Departments that do not have that expertise. If these people are properly expert and they will be able to fulfil the Civil Service Code in terms of their impartiality and objectivity, they can be brought in as an exception from the requirements on merit, but as a civil servant appointed for a fixed period. There are some other conditions to make sure they remain civil servants. If that person is a political person, there is nothing wrong with bringing them in, but they should be brought in as a special adviser, and they can be now.
Mr Turner
I am trying to work out what it is now that you approve of and that you would not approve of. Is it who makes the appointment?
Sir David Normington
Yes, it is one of the main things. In extended ministerial offices, the Minister makes the appointment. Effectively, as I understand it, the Minister has withdrawn the delegation power that the Civil Service has to recruit so they can make the appointment themselves. They can do that in law and, being in that situation, we are putting some requirements in there to ensure what we do not do is to mix up who is a political appointee and who is a Civil Service appointee, which is a risk.
Lindsay Roy
Exceptions at 23% seems an inordinately high number other than through fair and open competition. What criteria do you use to select them?
Sir David Normington
This is a complicated issue. The exceptions are mainly in Departments that do bulk recruitment at junior level, such as HMRC, DWP and so on. Every time we have examined those requirements and practices, it has seemed as though they are just misallocating those two exceptions, so we do not think it is 23%. One of the problems is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what is an exception, and there is a feeling that if you make a fixed‑term appointment, which is quite common, that somehow equates with an exception, whereas in fact the exception is about how they are appointed. It is perfectly possible to appoint someone on a fixed‑term appointment through a proper competition, and mainly HMRC and DWP are doing that. We say, well, they are not exceptions. We think quite a lot of that number—it does concern us—is misallocation or miscounting. One of the things that we are trying to do in our document is to be much clearer about what an exception is so that when we come to audit, Departments are very clear when they have used the exceptions and when not.
Lindsay Roy
Are you saying that they have been appointed impartially and on merit?
Sir David Normington
I am saying that we believe that, every time we have investigated this, most of those are appointed on merit and impartially through fair competition, but they are being called exceptions because they are for fixed periods.
Lindsay Roy
What about the rest? What are the criteria?
Sir David Normington
There are a smaller number that are more senior appointments, some of which have to come to the commission for approval. In those cases, it is hard to tell, but I do not think those numbers are going up very much. There has always been that group of people.
Lindsay Roy
The key question is: if it is not on merit, what are the criteria?
Sir David Normington
Sometimes you need to bring somebody in quickly to do a job. If you are in a Department that has a failing project, sometimes the Department goes out and finds the best person it can to bring in to stabilise that project. Running a competition for three or four months is not the best way of dealing with that urgent situation. Many of the Whitehall‑type exceptions we have are for those sorts of situations. We have the power to grant exceptions in those cases, and it would be very foolish of us not to allow that. Again, they are for fixed terms, so what you cannot do is bring them in like that and then make them permanent civil servants.
Lindsay Roy
Does the best not equate with merit?
Sir David Normington
They are meritorious appointments; it is just they have not gone through a fair and open competition. Remember, our legal thing is fair and open competition leading to an appointment on merit, but sometimes you have to make exceptions.
Lindsay Roy
Thank you for that clarification.
Chair
What is the problem Ministers have explained to you that EMOs are intended to resolve?
Sir David Normington
That they have neither enough support nor the ability to get things done. They feel, if they have more people in their offices who can get things done—
Chair
If not EMOs, what is your proposal to make Ministers feel more supported?
Sir David Normington
If you want to bring in experts, or if you need more civil servants or special advisers, you can do all that under the existing rules. That is my answer. The real answer to getting things done in the Department is to call in the Permanent Secretary and tell them to pull their finger out and get something done—use the management chain. That is the best way to do it. What you should not do is always try to find workarounds. It is absolutely key to get the machine working for you.
Chair
Why do you think Ministers do not trust their Permanent Secretaries to make the appointments that they want?
Sir David Normington
This is not a general problem we are talking about. There are some Departments where there is a level of distrust. I do not know why that distrust has grown up. Sometimes it is because the Department is not doing what the Minister wants quickly enough. It may be, sometimes, that they are telling the Minister things that the Minister does not really want to hear. I don’t know. Unfortunately, I am not there; I am not able to do anything more than speculate about that.
Chair
How would EMOs resolve the problem of distrust?
Sir David Normington
I do not think they will. If there is a fundamental problem there, I do not think surrounding yourself with more people will help. It may make the Minister feel more confident about having people around him or her whom he can trust. It might open up another problem in relations between that office and the rest of the Department. Trust—and I keep using this word—is the basis on which Ministers and the Civil Service have to work together. If that breaks down, you have a Government machine that does not work properly.
Chair
So your concern is that more ministerial patronage—if we want to call it that—endangers the impartiality of the Civil Service around the Minister.
Sir David Normington
There is a risk of it.
Chair
Possible politicisation.
Sir David Normington
There is a risk.
Chair
On this question of politicisation, could we deal with the politicisation of public appointments at this point? It is slightly jumping around, but I know colleagues want to ask about this.
Paul Flynn
On public appointments, are candidates required to declare their party affiliation or just their political activity?
Sir David Normington
They are not required to declare their political affiliation. They are required to declare if they have been involved in political activity—if they are a donor or active campaigner for a party. Often, in the cases that come into the public domain, they are people who have been Cabinet Ministers or councillors, so it is absolutely clear.
Paul Flynn
Since the general election, we have seen a hike in the number of candidates who declared themselves to be Conservatives or Liberal Democrats, and a decline in those who declared themselves as Labour supporters. Is there a danger in this of politicisation and that people would be appointed while thinking, as Margaret Thatcher used to ask, “Are they one of us?”
Sir David Normington
We have not seen that much of a hike in declared Conservative supporters; we have seen a slight one. We have seen quite a decline in Labour activists.
Paul Flynn
Indeed, while, on the graph I have in front of me, which is the Commissioner for Public Appointments graph 2013, Labour was certainly predominant.
Sir David Normington
There has been a slight increase in Conservatives.
Paul Flynn
Slight, so that it has passed the Labour total. The Labour numbers have plummeted.
Chair
Shock.
Paul Flynn
Conservatives are warned of an era—of a dark age—to come. It will be something that will soon be reversed, I should imagine, in 2015. The one has passed the other.
Sir David Normington
The Conservative figure has gone ahead of the Labour figure for the first time since we started counting.
Chair
How many Labour appointees are there on public bodies, compared to Conservative appointees?
Sir David Normington
I do not know the exact figure, but about 3% of new appointments in the last year—
Chair
That is new appointments, but what about the existing reservoir of appointments?
Sir David Normington
I do not know that figure.
Chair
Given that the number of Labour appointments ran ahead of Conservative appointments for about 15 years, it would seem likely that there were far more Labour appointees in public bodies than Conservative appointees. Would you agree?
Sir David Normington
Yes.
Paul Flynn
I am simply seeking the truth. The Chairman is, as usual, abusing his position to make a political point, which I have no interest in at all. Who monitors the overall composition? Is it a concern if there is a sudden hike? One of the biggest changes has been in those who declare themselves supporters of some party that is not one of the three main parties, and one could speculate what that is.
Sir David Normington
Yes, it is all within a very small number. There are about 1,000 new appointments in the year, and we are talking about 90 where people have declared political activity. Some 3.3% are Conservatives; 3% Labour; 1% Liberal Democrat; and 1.7% other. They are quite small numbers. To answer your question, though, it has always been the case—this is speaking with my other hat—that the bar against political appointees getting public appointments or positions on public boards has been much lower than it is for the Civil Service. There is still a test of merit for people who want to sit on public boards, but there is no bar on people who have declared political activity being on boards. If they pass the test of merit, which an independent panel tests quite hard, and, if in the nature of the job, political activity is no bar to doing that job well, those names go forward to the Minister, and the Minister makes the choice. As you imply, this naturally swings around depending on which Government are in power. There is something self-fulfilling about this as well. Basically, when there is a Conservative Government, people who are Conservative sympathisers are more likely to think about coming into public bodies, and the same with Labour Governments. You see that swinging around in the figures quite a bit. There is political choice, though, at the end of the public appointments process, and there is the possibility, once people have passed the test of merit, of a political choice being made. There is always the risk that this goes too far, but it is expecting a lot of a Government to appoint somebody to chair a public body who is totally opposed to their policies. That would be an absurd position.
Paul Flynn
There is a great decline in the percentage—from 19% to 9%—of those who declared any political affiliation. Is this a concern? Is it a good thing to have people who appear to be politically inert in government, rather than people who feel passionately motivated one way or another?
Sir David Normington
We are talking only about party political affiliation. Most civil servants are not politically inert. They have views about politics, but they are not party political. You can be very interested in public affairs, and very interested in politics, without having party affiliation. There is nothing wrong, as you know better than I do, with party affiliation. After all, this is public service, and people are entitled—we want more of them—to get involved in political parties. We do not want to create a barrier to people who have done good public service with a political tinge getting into public bodies.
Paul Flynn
Is there a practice of panels and candidates declaring whether they are members of the Freemasons?
Sir David Normington
Not that I know of, no.
Chair
Do you think there should be?
Sir David Normington
I don’t know. I would have to think about that; I don’t know.
Paul Flynn
We look forward to the result of your pondering on this issue.
Sir David Normington
I don’t think Freemasonry is illegal, is it?
Chair
It certainly is not illegal, but nor are political parties.
Sir David Normington
True, but there is a lot of public interest in this issue of political affiliation. That is why, ever since my role has been in place, these figures on political affiliation and activism have been collected.
Chair
Members of Parliament are not required to declare whether they are Freemasons either.
Paul Flynn
They are in my party—well, they are in my area, I assure you. It is a question I was asked before I was appointed. It is not universal, but it is practised in advanced parties.
Robert Halfon
Can I take a completely opposite stance to Mr Flynn, in terms of the political appointments to public bodies? If you look at the published figures, between 2011 and 2012, 77% of appointees said that they supported the Labour party. I have no problem with what their political affiliation is, but surely you, as a guardian of this, should think that perhaps there are too many people from one political party being appointed to our public bodies.
Sir David Normington
I need to be absolutely clear about the figures. It is 77% of about 10% or 11%. Do you see what I mean? It is a small proportion.
Robert Halfon
77% of appointees to public bodies.
Sir David Normington
No, because about 90% of appointments to public bodies do not declare political activity, so we are talking about only around 100 people, of which about 70 were Labour people.
Chair
Is this a bit of a storm in a teacup then?
Robert Halfon
There are 100 people to 100 bodies, and the picture that has been painted is that there has been a decline in the number of Labour appointees and that the Government are politicising public bodies. Yet, during the time of the coalition, in 2011‑12, 77% of appointees said that they supported the Labour party. Last year, just 37% of those bodies were filled by people with right‑of‑centre affiliations. The figures also show that Labour supporters are three to four times more likely to be appointed to these bodies than Conservatives. Surely, far from being an imbalance, public bodies are too heavily weighted, and people from or linked to one particular party, particularly the Labour party, are being appointed predominantly, and that is something you should look at.
Sir David Normington
It is a fact that more people from the Labour party have been appointed to public appointments, and that has been a trend over 10 or 15 years.
Robert Halfon
I am talking post‑coalition.
Sir David Normington
That continued until 2011‑12, and then it has reversed. It is in the process of reversing.
Robert Halfon
Labour supporters are still three to four times more likely to be appointed. Public bodies are heavily weighted in favour of one political party over another. Surely that is wrong; it should be equal.
Sir David Normington
In the latest figures, it is equal. The Conservatives are just slightly ahead. I know you want me to say this is bad and this is good but, in fact, the test is whether the people can do the jobs. If they can, their political affiliation ought to be secondary to whether they can do the job.
Robert Halfon
Although it is now equalising, it still has not redressed the imbalance.
Sir David Normington
It will not have redressed the imbalance because, as the Chairman said, over a lot of years, there have been more Labour—
Robert Halfon
Yes, but, as I have said, I am not talking about pre‑2010; I am talking about post-2010. Over three quarters of appointees will have attachments to the Labour party.
Sir David Normington
I am sorry, but I just have to correct you. It is 10%. In 2011‑12, 10% of total appointments—only 10%, but 10% nevertheless—were people who declared Labour affiliations, compared with, in 2011‑12, 1.8% Conservatives.
Robert Halfon
There have been surveys done, which have been published, that show this.
Sir David Normington
These are my figures and these are national statistics, so you can rely on them.
Robert Halfon
The other published figures show it is 77% of appointees, and you have acknowledged that yourself. Out of the 10%, it is still 70‑odd percept.
Sir David Normington
Yes, but, sorry, I do not want to go on with this. About 90% of people appointed to public boards do not declare that they have engaged in political activity. It has sometimes been 85%, but it has been around that proportion. We are talking about the 10% or 15% who do. That has been in decline; it is now 9%. Within that, we have begun to see a shift from Labour to Conservative, but only recently.
Robert Halfon
Do not the figures show that it is a complete myth to say that there has been Tory politicisation of public service appointments?
Sir David Normington
I do not think you can prove that from the figures, so I am agreeing with you.
Chair
We are going to be discussing the role of women in both public appointments and the Civil Service. Of course, we do not want to accept that there are far more men around to apply for top jobs in public life than women. We are trying to change that. How legitimate is it for Conservative Ministers to insist of their Permanent Secretaries, “I am fed up with appointing Labour appointees to these public bodies. Please will you make sure we are attracting more applications from Conservatives?” How legitimate do you think that is?
Sir David Normington
That is not legitimate.
Chair
That is not legitimate, even if there is a clear imbalance among this small proportion of appointments.
Sir David Normington
No. Your question was, “Would you tell the Permanent Secretary to go out and find more Conservatives?” No, you would not do that.
Chair
We do it for women and ethnic minorities?
Sir David Normington
Yes, but 50‑odd per cent. of the population are women, but that is not true of political affiliation, is it?
Mr Turner
But it is more than 10%.
Sir David Normington
You really cannot compare diversity in terms of gender, for instance, with political affiliation. I am not opposed to people with political affiliations sitting on boards. That is the real world.
Robert Halfon
Do you not think, if one political party has a predominance of people, that that balance should be redressed? Are you quite happy for it to be dominated by one political party?
Sir David Normington
I do not think that a trend towards politicisation in public appointments is a particularly good thing.
Chair
Then why did the Civil Service not stop it under the previous Labour Government?
Sir David Normington
I do not think it is a particularly good thing that one political party should be so predominant, but the rules allow for people to put their names forward, and there is no bar on people who are otherwise meritorious, but have political activity getting those jobs. That is the system and it has always been the system.
Chair
Why do we allow one category of appointments to be driven by demand when we do not allow it in the case of ethnic minorities, disabled people or women? Where is the consistency in this? If we want our public services to be representative of society as a whole, why are we tolerating a political bias?
Sir David Normington
We do want our public bodies to reflect the population, and the mix of gender, race and so on in the population. That is desirable, because those public bodies are generally doing things that affect the public. When you are talking about political affiliation of people on public boards, you are talking about public bodies to which the Government of the day have contracted out, effectively, their spending, delivery—to use that word again—and regulation. The Government of the day are entitled, first, to make sure there are good people on the boards but, actually, not to put a bar to having people with a political affiliation and political sympathy on there. That is the system we have, and that is the system I regulate. If Parliament wants to tell me to do otherwise, I will happily accept that. I need to add that it is not just me doing this. Many of these appointments now come for pre-appointment scrutiny, so it is possible for Parliament to take a more active role.
Chair
We like to reach a unanimous view on these matters. We do not want to politicise these appointments.
Sir David Normington
Indeed so. When you are scrutinising my successor at some point, I hope you will want to insist that that person is not politically biased in any way. I do not think I could do my job if I was a political activist in some way, so Parliament is a very important defender of some of these principles.
Robert Halfon
Have you read the Policy Exchange publication on the appointments to public bodies by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky?
Sir David Normington
I do not think I have read it; I may have done. He talked to me about it beforehand, so I am not sure. I need to be reminded.
Robert Halfon
Going back to the figures I gave, in that report, which I strongly recommend you have a look at, as it looks at this very issue that we are discussing, it says, “Figures issued by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments 2011/2012” showed that “77% of politically active quango appointees last year were Labour supporters.” What I am not clear about is: are you saying that they have that wrong?
Sir David Normington
No, because he says 77% of politically active people, but only about 10% of appointees to public boards are politically active. It is 77% of the 10%, roughly. He is not wrong; it is just the way he has used it.
Robert Halfon
It is still a huge figure.
Sir David Normington
It is a huge figure but, I am sorry, it is a sensationalised figure, because it is 77% of 10%. It creates a headline, but I am afraid it is not 77%.
Robert Halfon
How many people does the 77% represent, then?
Sir David Normington
I can only tell you in new appointments, but it will represent about 77 appointments, because we are talking about 100 to 150 people who declare political activity out of about 1,000.
Robert Halfon
It is still quite a lot of people.
Sir David Normington
It is still quite a lot of people, yes, but it is not dishonourable to have been involved in political activity. The test is whether they can do the job, not whether they are politically active.
Robert Halfon
I have not said that; what I have said is that there should be a fair balance. Of the people who are politically active, three quarters of them should not necessarily be from one party.
Chair
I think we have exhausted this. We are likely to return to this subject at some stage.
Sir David Normington
I am sure you will.
Chair
We will move to Civil Service pay and skills.
Lindsay Roy
David, you said recently that the Civil Service was “recruiting with one hand tied behind its back”. What changes do you see in how the Civil Service recruits?
Sir David Normington
I was particularly referring to the ambition to bring in, at senior level, people to fill skill gaps the Civil Service has in particular areas of expertise in digital issues, finance and so on. The Civil Service and Ministers have that ambition, but very often they then do not put in place the requirements that will attract the best people from outside to do those jobs. Very often, you end up making appointments of civil servants despite the fact that you have had an external competition. The reason is not just pay, but it is partly pay. Sometimes the pay levels that are on offer are just not competitive in the market. It is very frustrating when you are overseeing an external competition and you know that we are not going to be able to appoint somebody from outside because the salary on offer is uncompetitive. This is not a plea for a general uplift in pay; it is a plea for much more flexibility. If you want the best people, you will have to go out and buy them.
Lindsay Roy
So this is an appeal for recruitment of external expertise.
Sir David Normington
Sometimes. In the long term, we would like to see a better balance between people brought up and developed in those skills inside, and people brought in from outside. At the moment, some of these skills are in short supply within the Civil Service, so there is more external recruitment than would be desirable in the long term.
Lindsay Roy
Are the Government giving high enough priority to this objective?
Sir David Normington
It is giving priority. A lot of the Civil Service reform programme—the really good bits—is about this issue. You do not create, inside, the kind of people we are talking about overnight, so you have to go on recruiting from outside. The bit they are not giving enough priority to is, if you are going to go out there, advertising it in a way and with the terms and conditions that will attract the best people.
Lindsay Roy
So it is about getting the balance right.
Sir David Normington
Yes, it is about getting the balance right.
Lindsay Roy
Lord Adonis criticised Civil Service training. He said they were very able people, but poorly trained. Surely if they are such very able people, they can be retrained and acquire these competencies and skills. What is being done about that?
Sir David Normington
You can train people. In my experience as a civil servant, there was very intensive development of project management skills. There was a new programme to attract people in and train them as finance professionals—in other words, to get them in as graduates and, instead of them being generalist civil servants, train them as specialists from a young age. There is quite a lot of that going on, but it takes time, because it is not just about training; it is about the experience you then give these people. Some of the incentives in the Civil Service are not to do those really tough jobs leading big projects. Some of the incentives are to do other things: work in a ministerial office or work on a Bill. Those are really important things, but we need better incentives to get people to take those really tough delivery jobs.
Lindsay Roy
So is there an underpinning problem of generating transformational or cultural change? To what extent is that the issue?
Sir David Normington
There is an issue there. There is tremendous effort going on to try to bring that change about. There is a frustration that it is not happening quickly enough, but they are trying.
Chair
Moving on to the Civil Service Code, can you explain your relationship to the code?
Sir David Normington
We have a legal responsibility to help Government Departments to promote and uphold the code. We also hear complaints from civil servants that the code has been breached.
Chair
Or from members of the public?
Sir David Normington
No, we only have powers—
Chair
So, if an MP writes to you about a breach of the code, that is not in your remit.
Sir David Normington
Not unless it is on behalf of a civil servant.
Chair
That is a bit odd, isn’t it?
Sir David Normington
It is, in a way. There was an amendment when the Bill was going through to this effect—to widen it. It was defeated, so our power is very limited to the Civil Service.
Chair
If a member of the public or a Member of Parliament thinks a civil servant has breached the code, what does he or she do?
Sir David Normington
They have to take it up with either the Head of the Civil Service or the Minister. They do write to me, and I try to deal with it in as helpful a way as possible, but I cannot investigate unless it is a Civil Service complaint.
Chair
So, in fact, you refer it to the Head of the Civil Service?
Sir David Normington
Yes, I would do.
Chair
Do you think Damian McBride breached the code?
Sir David Normington
Very probably, yes. He did lots of things, didn’t he? I have not investigated it, but I do not think it would take very long to discover that he had.
Chair
I think he would accept that he had broken the code. To what extent do you think spads are often breaching the code by leaking or briefing? They are covered by the code, aren’t they?
Sir David Normington
Yes, that bit of the code. They are not covered by the code’s requirements on impartiality and objectivity, but integrity and honesty, yes, and indeed all the things that go with that.
Chair
Do you think briefing is fundamentally dishonest?
Sir David Normington
Do you mean briefing the media or briefing external—
Chair
I suppose there are briefings and briefings, but backhand briefings are presumably not part of the code. You cannot be briefing behind somebody else’s back or against another Minister or official. That would be a breach of the code.
Sir David Normington
Yes, and that applies to civil servants and special advisers. Whoever is doing it, it is a breach of the code.
Chair
Unfortunately Ministers do it too sometimes, don’t they?
Sir David Normington
Yes, but they are covered by their own code.
Chair
That is a relief.
Paul Flynn
Are you concerned that Ministers’ conduct now is such that they can obtain absolution by resignation; that, if they resign, they are not investigated? I am thinking of Liam Fox, because we are still not clear what his activities were. He was the Defence Secretary and, by resigning, the adviser on the ministerial code actually resigned as well, because he thought he should not have been involved. We exchanged the Rottweiler for a poodle. The actual job seems to have disappeared now; there is no supervision of bad conduct by Ministers, who can be over the hills and far away.
Chair
Does this fall within your scope?
Sir David Normington
Fortunately no. I should not be tempted into this area at all.
Chair
I am terribly sorry, Mr Flynn. You made your point.
Paul Flynn
I was just provoked by the political line that the Chairman was taking and felt retaliation was appropriate.
Chair
Understood. In a way, the code seems a little bit toothless if somebody, a former civil servant—in this case it was a special adviser—
Sir David Normington
He had been a civil servant, of course.
Chair
—should admit that he has broken the code, and then nothing happens. What do you think we should do about this?
Sir David Normington
We are talking about something that is quite a while ago.
Chair
I know, but it is an example.
Sir David Normington
The first responsibility for enforcing the Civil Service Code is the Civil Service management, so the Head of the Civil Service, the Cabinet Secretary and/or the heads of Department should be enforcing that code, and they should be doing it with the support of the Government. That clearly did not happen in Damian McBride’s case.
Chair
So there needs to be a new mechanism to support Permanent Secretaries in that role.
Sir David Normington
They should be fulfilling that role. There are some very difficult cases, and I imagine Damian McBride’s case is a difficult case where it is hard to do that. I do not know precisely what happened at the time. I think, actually, one of the things was an insistence that he became a special advisor, but I am right at the limits of my knowledge.
Chair
Yes, and we are not going to cross-examine him or give him an opportunity to reply, so I do not want to indict him in this Committee for anything he may or may not have done. In principle, though, I think you are saying that it should be possible for anybody to complain to you about a breach of the Civil Service Code. That would seem to be a reasonable function for you to undertake.
David Normington
I am perfectly prepared to consider that, because I do think sometimes it is very restrictive just to be from civil servants. I do not quite know what I am letting myself in for.
Chair
It is a matter for Parliament, but you are expressing a sense that there is a lacuna in the enforcement of the code at the moment.
David Normington
There is a gap, yes.
Chair
That is very helpful; thank you very much. We are possibly going to do an inquiry that covers aspects of the code.
David Heyes
You are not doing very well in tackling the low representation of women in senior jobs in the Civil Service. In fact, at the most senior level, you are doing very badly indeed. Why is that?
David Normington
At Permanent Secretary level, it is currently about a quarter of appointments who are women. It is not good enough. We had a run of—not this year, but the previous year—nine straight appointments at Permanent Secretary level that went to men. I am glad to say that, in the last four, three have gone to women, so that is a small step in the right direction.
David Heyes
After a very large step.
David Normington
After a large step, yes. This is something I talk about with the Head of the Civil Service and others quite a lot. A lot of work has gone into trying to develop the pipelines of people at the levels below in the Civil Service—women with the capability and the motivation to be Permanent Secretary. I think that is bearing fruit. Over a number of years, the proportion of women in the Senior Civil Service, which is the feeder grade to these top jobs, has gone up quite significantly. It is now 36% of women in the Senior Civil Service, and at the level below that it is 42%, and of course overall it is 53%. Yes, it is tapering, but it is getting better.
David Heyes
But it is not getting better, is it? It is getting worse.
David Normington
At Permanent Secretary level, it has got worse, but only at that level. It has not got worse at the other levels. When we talk about Permanent Secretaries, it is quite a small number, so it is affected very sharply by swings one way and another. But it is not good enough. We have not had many women applicants for those jobs. We do not get many women applicants from outside for those jobs, because there are not so many women in senior posts outside. It is a problem.
David Heyes
I accept what you say—that there are fairly marginal improvements in women at the lower levels in the Senior Civil Service and that that is your recruitment pool for the more senior jobs—but the situation has actually got dramatically worse. That is not working as a feed‑through from below; it is clearly not working. There are obstacles in the way. What are those obstacles and, most importantly, what are you doing about it?
David Normington
There still are not enough women in that pool feeding the top level.
David Heyes
But it has been increased, at the same time as the most senior level has been diminishing.
David Normington
What I was going to say was, just up to 2010, there was a big increase in the number of women in Permanent Secretary posts. We had a period where, actually, of new appointments, the majority were women, and in the main Departments in Whitehall we had 50% of women. What that did was to take a lot of the best women out of the pool and to leave the pool below with people with less experience. A lot of work is going on to ensure that there is development of the people at the next level so that they can compete for the jobs, and that is what is going on in the Civil Service. I think it will bear fruit. Actually, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of DCMS, and the Second Permanent Secretary at the Treasury are all evidence that the work being done to develop the next generation of women Permanent Secretaries is just beginning to bear fruit.
David Heyes
Can you describe to me the actions that have taken place? You have had discussions with the Head of the Civil Service, and a lot of talk about this. You are on record as saying how disappointed you are, so clearly you understand that it is a major problem. I just want to understand what actions have been taken, other than bringing more people in at a lower level.
David Normington
The action is for the Civil Service, and for the Civil Service management. What they are doing is working with the women who are talented at director and director‑general level. They are giving them training in what it is like to be a Permanent Secretary. In other words, there is positive action going on to build the capability and confidence of women in that group so that they have the ability to compete for jobs; because in the end, of course, it has to be an appointment on merit, and we need to make sure that the women are able to compete on equal terms. That is what is going on. All I do is to make sure that we have panels that are properly diverse in terms of gender, that we describe the jobs in a way that attracts men and women, and also that when we are going outside—which we often are, in Permanent Secretary appointments—we are casting the net as wide as possible. If you look only in particular sectors—the private sector being one, of course—there are very few senior female executives in many private sector jobs. There are many more in the charitable sector and in other parts of the public sector, so casting the net as widely as possible helps.
David Heyes
I do not doubt for a moment your sincerity and your commitment to doing something about this, but I have been a member of this Committee and its predecessor Committees for more than 12 years now, and I have heard this same argument recounted over and over again. It is the same story that is trotted out every time.
Chair
May I ask a question? Do you think the Civil Service has a woman problem?
David Normington
I do not think so.
Chair
Do you think women in the Civil Service feel discriminated against?
David Normington
I do not think so, but I should not speak for them. Probably you ought to ask them.
Chair
Did you ever have gender awareness training, which is what they give people in modern corporations these days?
David Normington
We had some diversity and equal opportunities training. We did not have gender awareness training as such, no.
Chair
Are you aware of gender awareness training programmes in the Civil Service today?
David Normington
I do not think so; I do not know. I do not think there is specific training on gender awareness, but I may be wrong. I do not think so. There was a lot of work that went on regarding unconscious bias in selection and development when I was in the Civil Service, which was about how you try to examine the biases you did not know you had that you brought to the table when you were making selections.
Chair
When you are sifting CVs for senior appointments, is the panel aware of the sex of the applicants?
David Normington
Yes.
Chair
Why do you think it is necessary that they should be aware of the sex of the applicants?
David Normington
I just think it is not very practical or realistic not to know who is there in front of you and what they have done. You could take away all reference to gender, but I really do not think that is real. It is better to work on making sure that the panel is treating people fairly.
Chair
In selecting candidates, we found it can make quite a dramatic difference.
David Normington
Can it? Well, I stand corrected, but I am still very sceptical about it.
David Heyes
You have the same problem in relation to public appointments. There are not enough women coming through and not enough women being appointed. What are the numbers? What proportion of the total number of public appointments are women?
David Normington
It is around a third. Just over 30% of members of public boards are women, but when you look at new appointments, which is what we count, and reappointments, in the last year, it was 35.6% of appointments who were women, which is a bit better than the previous year. The other thing to say is that the one thing I have taken encouragement from, which is quite related to the current debate about whether people should be reappointed, is that there has been a trend towards appointing more women through new appointments. When you take new appointments and strip out the reappointments, 40% of new appointments are women.
Chair
In public bodies?
David Normington
In public bodies.
David Heyes
But there seems to be a trend with reappointments in favour of getting rid of women. There have been some high‑profile cases recently.
David Normington
That may be so, but it is only a few cases that have hit the headlines. Overall, the figures show that just a fraction under 40% of new appointments to public bodies in the last year have been women, and that is a very, very good figure.
Chair
Is that reflecting 40% of applicants, or are we still in a situation where, in fact, most applicants are men?
David Normington
Generally, you get fewer women applicants for public appointments, but it varies so much from sector to sector and job to job. We have not got a complete dearth of women applying. If we could sustain it at 40%—and it is sustaining that is required—it would be a major breakthrough in terms of public bodies.
David Heyes
But the Government are on record as having a target of 50% by next year.
David Normington
Yes.
David Heyes
Are you saying that that is a hopeless aspiration?
David Normington
It is a good aspiration, but it is going to be very hard to achieve. If they can get over 40%, that will be a big breakthrough. This Government take a lot of criticism, but the Government have given a lot of leadership on this issue in trying to get more women into public bodies.
Chair
The Cabinet Office appoints 50% of women to public appointments, but the Treasury has not appointed any women to public appointments. Does it have very few to appoint anyway?
David Normington
It has few to appoint, and you see that it often appoints from a financial sector that is dominated by men. It is often to do with the sectors from which it is recruiting.
Chair
Even the MOD manages 17% of women to public appointments.
David Normington
Yes, but that is very low, isn’t it? That is the same issue again.
Chair
What do you think are the barriers for getting women into public appointments?
David Normington
Some of it is about the fact that the number of women in senior roles in other sectors is quite low. We work quite hard on how you describe the types of skills and competencies you are looking for for those roles. If you say—this is very common—“We are looking for people who have senior board‑level experience in the private sector,” you will not get many women, because there are not many. You have to look harder for how you bring on to boards different kinds of experience. It does not always have to be senior management experience. You might want consumers’ experience; you might want people who have experience of the healthcare sector. You just have to think more broadly about what you are looking for, and we do a lot of work with Departments on trying to get them to loosen up their advertising and requirements.
Chair
How confident are you that the 50% target is achievable?
David Normington
I think it is going to be very, very difficult. As Mr Heyes said, it does not look attainable within one year, but the figures are moving in the right direction. What that 50% figure has done is to pin the Government’s colours very clearly to that aspiration, and it is having an effect through the Civil Service. We see Government Departments making much greater efforts as a result.
Chair
What assessment have you made of the overall effect that the presumption against reappointment has had on a) women, and b) the quality of management of public bodies?
David Normington
That new policy was brought out fairly recently. It appears to be having some positive impact on the numbers of women appointed, but we have not done any assessment of what it is doing to the competence of public boards, because clearly it is not desirable if everybody turns over on a public board. Three years is a very short time, actually.
Chair
If you take the Charity Commission, for example, Suzi Leather did two three‑year terms. It is a very, very demanding role, and it is intended that the present chair of the Charity Commission should do only one three‑year term. It seems that he will hardly have got his feet under the table in such a complicated role. Do you think a hard and fast rule against reappointment is sensible? How sensible is it to have this hard and fast rule?
David Normington
I do not think you should have a hard and fast rule. My understanding of the Government’s position is that you should not automatically reappoint; you should assess whether you should reappoint on the basis of the performance of the individual, which is clearly a sensible thing to do, and the overall composition of the board. When it was introduced, I had understood it to be just making sure that this automatic rolling over of people was avoided, and that is clearly sensible.