Public Perceptions Of The Ministerial Public Appointments Process

Key Findings and Implications

• The majority of the public know very little of the ministerial public appointments process. Only seven per cent say they know a great deal or fair amount about the way in which public appointments are made. Knowledge of the appointments process is far higher among those in social class AB - professionals and members of senior management - than among other groups of the population.
• There is widespread confusion, and misunderstanding of what a public appointment actually is. The lack of knowledge leaves the public open to assume that this aspect of public life is as scandalous as more widely publicised aspects, such as the 'Arms to Iraq' affair. Those with at least some limited experience of the appointments process - either personally, or second-hand via a friend or family member - are far more positive about the process.
• In contrast, the public is more knowledgeable about the way in which non-ministerial appointments such as magistrates or school governors are made, with one in eight saying they know a 'great deal' or 'fair amount' about this process.
• Eight per cent of the population has heard of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). Again, awareness is higher among middle-class respondents. Recognition of OCPA is lower than for any of the other seven organisations tested - which included two non-existent organisations.
• Among the small minority knowledgeable about the ministerial appointments process, only one in nine correctly identify the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments as the body responsible for the regulation of the appointments process. Even among those currently holding a public appointment, there is some confusion as to the purpose of OCPA.
• The lack of knowledge surrounding the appointments process means that the public hold very vague - but overwhelmingly negative - impressions of how the process is currently conducted. There is a widespread assumption that the process is based on personal connections, with a recurring theme that it is who you know 'at the golf club', rather than a proven track record that is most influential. It is also assumed that appointments are circulated within a small section of white, middle class society.
• When presented with a list of adjectives to describe the current appointments process, two-thirds of those who know at least a little about the process say it is currently politically influenced and over a quarter see it as bureaucratic. Only one in six describe the current appointments process as merit-based.
• In contrast, the general public taking part in both the qualitative and quantitative stages clearly specify that the process should be based on merit, be open to all, be independent, and involve a rigorous selection process - endorsing the Commissioner's guiding principles.
• Reflecting the low levels of knowledge among the focus group participants, they were able to identify the key stages of the recruitment process - advertising the position, application forms, interview process, and selection - but did not spontaneously mention, or suggest, a role for independent assessors, or audit. When explained, there is strong endorsement of the role of independent assessors and audit. These are seen as essential elements to ensure the rigour of the process.
• The clear consensus across all audiences was that the overriding criteria for recruitment should be merit. On balance, the view is that merit should take precedence over representativeness, and that links with the local community are more important than race or gender.
• The public are keen that the process acknowledge 'life time' achievements, in addition to more traditional qualifications and professional skills. It was felt that the process needed to recognise experience gathered at 'the coal face' to ensure a wide spectrum of applicants were attracted. Where an appointment had a geographical remit, they also place a stress on recruiting local people, as this is seen as introducing a greater degree of accountability.
• There is concern that Ministers are making appointment decisions about candidates they have not met. While many appreciate that this is a logistical necessity, others are concerned that political influence will be brought to bear after the merit-based shortlist has been drawn up by the interview panel.
• The experience of recruitment for those currently filling a public appointment, differed significantly between those appointed pre or post the changes suggested by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, popularly known as the Nolan Committee. Those appointed pre-Nolan describe an informal, unstructured appointments process. They were generally approached by a friend or colleague, and asked whether they would be interested in the appointment, often with little explanation of why they would make a suitable candidate, or what the role involved. In contrast appointees recruited after the suggested changes had been made, report an open and fair process, following the appointments process Code of Conduct.
• One appointee was concerned that the 'tick box' approach of the application form does not leave flexibility for less traditional applicants who do not have a track record of committee work.
• The general public feel strongly that appointments should be widely advertised in both national and local papers, or community newsletters (using a variety of languages, if appropriate). This is seen as a key method to boost public confidence that the appointments process is fair and open to all. While supporting the principle of encouraging as wide a range of candidates as possible, the involved public, appointees and assessors, are concerned that this would illicit a large volume of inappropriate applications that would waste the time of the selection panel.
• The issue of remuneration for appointees is contentious among both the public, appointees and assessors. Younger people are likely to support remuneration for appointees, favouring the argument that 'you get what you pay for'. The second group of opinion feel that there should be a token payment to acknowledge the contribution appointees make, without eating into the public purse. The third position - held by older members of the public - is that people should be motivated by public spirit, not financial gain. It is, however, worth noting that the less 'traditional' appointees, appointed post Nolan, both say that they would not have been able to take up the appointment if there was no remuneration. They feel strongly that this is the only means of ensuring wider participation.
• Appointees say they received little information on the nature and extent of the appointment at the outset, but that this had not caused them great concern. There is, however, some interest in receiving more information from OCPA, and assessors acknowledge that initial training would have been useful.
• Communication of available public appointments is a key issue for both increasing public confidence in the process, and inviting a wider spectrum of applicants. Only seven per cent of the public say they have seen an advert for this type of ministerial public appointment - and in the focus groups participants cite the fact that they had not seen an advert, as evidence that the appointments were 'fixed' and not open to all. It was stressed that the appointments should be advertised widely, not just in the 'quality' national press.
• The public acknowledge that it is a difficult issue to publicise, and attract public interest, but that aspects of the appointment process should be incorporated in the national curriculum to raise public awareness. It is recognised that perceptions will only change slowly over a long period of time, as more individuals are able to take part, and confidence can only be built by example.

Technical details

The following are the topline results of a survey conducted by MORI on behalf on the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). The questions were included on two waves of the MORI Omnibus, with fieldwork between n March and March 2000. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in home with n members of the general public aged 15+. The sample was boosted with n members of the general public from ethnic minorities. The data have been weighted to match the known national profile of the population.