Select committee inquiry
Non-executive director appointments
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“Non-executive directors (NEDs) serve on the boards of Government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs). Their role is to provide challenge and expert advice grounded in experience to management boards and Government ministers. The Committee’s 2021 report on Government’s delivery through arm’s-length bodies noted controversy around the appointment of NEDs to departmental boards as raising questions about whether the public appointments process is fit for purpose, and concluded that the process does not give confidence that it is efficient, transparent and fair. In 2023, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) reported that, while many NEDs have added value to departments in several ways, their use is somewhat ad hoc across Government. The report further highlighted several examples of appointees with seemingly political or personal connections to the Government, and recommended a clear separation between the role of political or personal advisers and that of objective non-executive board members. Based on a National Audit Office (NAO) review into NED appointments, the Committee will take evidence from Government officials including from the Cabinet Office on subjects including: Challenges in the NED appointment process and actions taken to improve it; Oversight and support for Departments and ALBs in this area; The current picture on the NED population in Government. If you have evidence on these issues, please submit it here by 23:59 on Sunday 3 March 2024. Please look at the requirements for written evidence submissions and note that the Committee cannot accept material as evidence that is published elsewhere. Please note that the Committee is unable to investigate individual cases. This inquiry was closed due to the 2024 General Election.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Thirtieth Report - Non-executive appointments ↗
Non-executive directors (NEDs) provide government departments and arm’s-length bodies with strategic leadership, scrutinising performance, promoting transparency and taking a long-term perspective. However, major issues remain with the appointments process which are taking too long to resolve. In particular, appointments take far longer than they should which is deterring candidates and posing a risk to the governance of government boards: on average, in 2022–23 appointments took over half a year—203 days to be precise—from the competition close date. The Cabinet Office’s Governance Code states that appointments should be completed within three months but only 7% of appointments met this expectation in 2022–23, while nine took more than a year to complete, with the longest taking more than 400 days.
The Cabinet Office is responsible for oversight of public appointments, but only monitors and tracks ‘regulated’ appointments—those appointments to bodies or posts listed in the relevant Order in Council (see paragraph 14)—of which there were 4,476 in post as of March 2022. Some regulated appointments are for NEDs, but not all. Many other types of appointment are also classed as regulated appointments, such as trustees, commissioners, advisers, chief inspectors, and adjudicators. The Cabinet Office does not know how many of those 4,476 were NEDs. Moreover, the Cabinet Office does not currently track unregulated appointments so it cannot say how many unregulated NEDs there are across government, how diverse they are, or how long they take to appoint.
Before 2023, the Cabinet Office’s only method of collecting data about regulated appointments was a manual exercise, requesting data from departments once a year.
The Cabinet Office has recently introduced a new applicant tracking system and requires all departments to use it for regulated public appointments. This system should allow government to understand better where delays are occurring and help to improve its oversight of regulated appointments. However, the new application system is still in its early stages, and not all departments and arm’s-length bodies are using it as intended, so the Cabinet Office still does not have the data it needs. While the Cabinet Office expects some departments will also use the system for unregulated appointments—so allowing the Cabinet Office to start collecting some data on those appointments—the Cabinet Office does not currently require them to do so.
We still do not have confidence that the public appointments process is efficient, transparent and fair. The Cabinet Office does not publish clear information about NEDs or the panels which select them. It launched a diversity action plan in 2019, with the ambition for 50% of all public appointees to be female and 14% of yearly appointments to be from ethnic minority backgrounds by 2022. It did not meet these targets by 2022 and has no plans to put in place a new diversity action plan or updated targets. While government has sought to strengthen its outreach activities, it cannot yet demonstrate how effective these have been in recruiting the best candidates for NED roles.
What the government said
The government responded on 11 July 2025.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government states that it agrees with most of the Committee's recommendations, disagrees with one on the rules for appointments made without competition, and sets target implementation dates ranging from December 2024 to October 2025.
- On transparency about delays, the government agrees and will implement a refreshed approach to data and transparency in relation to public appointments "from April 2025", saying the general election meant it could not report by the Committee's September 2024 deadline.
- On unregulated appointments, the government agrees and says the Cabinet Office "will write to all departments on this issue by the end of December 2024". It says that expanding use of the digital platform to all of them will be done "incrementally over a period of time".
- The government agrees to publish a new plan to improve diversity by October 2025, and says the outcomes of its bias review and consultation on recruitment and selection will be reflected in that new approach.
- The government disagrees with applying the rules on appointments made without competition to unregulated appointments, saying this "would require ministers to consult the Commissioner for Public Appointments on appointments over which he has no remit".
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 10 January 2024 to 11 July 2025.
- Oral evidence 18 Mar 2024
- Report 8 May 2024
- Government response 11 Jul 2025
- Correspondence 3 letters
What it recommended 11 recommendations · 12 conclusions
2Mandate government departments to use new applicant tracking system for all appointments.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office does not yet have the data it needs to oversee the appointments process effectively. Until April 2023, the Cabinet Office’s only method of collecting data about public appointments was a manual exercise, requesting data from departments once a year, in which errors and inconsistencies were common. Its new applicant tracking system, introduced in April 2023, should allow it to build up a picture of how each department is performing on appointments, including timeliness and causes of delay. It currently requires departments to use the new system for all regulated appointments. However, the Cabinet Office does not yet have the data it needs because not all government departments and ALBs are adding accurate data to the system or using the system as intended. For instance, some departments are still running the recruitment process outside of the new system or making errors when inputting data. The Cabinet Office does not currently track unregulated appointments so cannot say how many unregulated NEDs there are across government, how diverse they are, or how long they take to appoint. While it expects departments to use the new system in the future to track unregulated appointments, it does not currently require them to do so. Recommendation 2: In response to this report, the Cabinet Office should: a) confirm in the Treasury Minute that all regulated appointments are now being run through the new applicant tracking system and what steps it is taking where departments do not comply; 6 Non-executive appointments b) write to departments mandating that they use the new applicant tracking system for all unregulated appointments.
3Publish comprehensive data on non-executive directors, panel diversity, and independence standards.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office does not publish transparent information about NEDs, the diversity of panels who select them, or the requirements for independence in these roles. The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report on regulated public appointments, of which there were 4,476 in post as of March 2022. However, this report does not break the data down by role so we do not know how many of those appointments are NEDs as opposed to other types of public appointment. Furthermore, the Cabinet Office does not collect or publish any data on either unregulated public appointments (an unknown number of which are NEDs) or about those who serve on Advisory Assessment Panels (which interview applicants and produce a list of appointable candidates, such as their diversity characteristics). Advisory Assessment Panels are required to include independent panel members, with some “significant appointments” requiring a “senior independent panel member”. The Cabinet Office has not set out what determines a suitable level of political independence for NEDs, independent members, or senior independent panel members. It says that around 3% of all regulated appointments have declared a political interest, but it relies on self-declaration by candidates of, for example, conflicts of interest or donations to political parties. Recommendation 3: The Cabinet Office should: a) Include data in its annual public appointments data report about numbers and diversity of: Ȥ non-executive directors specifically; and Ȥ unregulated public appointments. b) Centrally collect data about those who serve on Advisory Assessment Panels, including diversity data, and publish the aggregate data at least annually. c) Set out clearly the standards of independence expected of non-executive directors, independent panel members, and senior independent panel members, including what matters must be registered.
4Publish new public appointments diversity action plan and report on panel diversity data collection.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The appointments process is not set up to encourage diversity amongst NEDs. In June 2019, the government launched a Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan to focus on broadening access and improving the diversity and quality of appointees. The plan included an ambition for 50% of all public appointees to be female and 14% of yearly appointments to be from ethnic minority backgrounds by 2022. The Cabinet Office did not meet those targets, reporting that in 2021–22 47% of all serving public appointees were female and 12% of all appointments and re-appointments went to people who were from an ethnic minority background. We recognise that the National Audit Office’s analysis found that the diversity of new appointees has improved: it found that in 2022–23, 53.7% of new appointees were female and 14.6% were from an ethnic minority background. But the Cabinet Office has not put in place a new diversity targets and has no plans to do so. Nor could it point us to convincing examples of how it deals with conscious and unconscious bias within the appointments process. Without checks on any bias, the current Non-executive appointments 7 process—in which ministers appoint the Advisory Assessment Panels who identify appointable candidates on which ministers then make a final decision—risks seeming insular and circular. While Ministers can only directly appoint a non- executive director in “exceptional cases” when making regulated appointments, there is no such restriction for unregulated appointments and it is not apparent if this has occurred or how frequently. Recommendation 4: In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Cabinet Office should: a) state a date by when it will put in place a new diversity action plan for public appointments; b) set out the steps it has taken so far to review the feasibility and usefulness of compiling data on the diversity makeup of members of Advisory Assessment Panels, and the date by which it would report its conclusions to Parliam
5Evaluate outreach activities, enhance NED training, and create a new governance code.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are not convinced that current outreach activities are helping government to recruit the best candidates for NED roles. The Cabinet Office, the Government Lead Non-Executive, and the Commissioner for Public Appointments have all publicly declared their interest in improving outreach in order to encourage diverse and talented applicants to apply for public appointments from a wide range of sectors, including the private and voluntary sectors, as well as veterans and disabled groups. The Cabinet Office has sought to strengthen its outreach activities to encourage people to apply for public appointments, for example, by holding in-person events around the UK and by running a Boardroom Apprentice Programme, whereby people with no experience on boards can serve as an observer on a board for a year to gain experience. The Cabinet Office could do more to demonstrate the effectiveness of these activities and to learn lessons to better focus its outreach work: for instance it does not have data of sufficient quality on the social and professional backgrounds of candidates. It is important that, as part of being fully effective, candidates to be a non-executive director should expect to regularly engage with ministers at all levels within a department. Recommendation 8: a) In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Cabinet Office should set out how it is measuring the effectiveness of its outreach activities and what plans it has to develop them further to reach a wider pool of candidates. b) The selection and recruitment process for non-executive directors should cover the need for them to regularly engage with ministers at all levels within a department, and there should also be in-post training to support this objective. In addition, the Cabinet Office should draw up a new code of best governance practice, which should include a requirement that all ministers and non-executive directors attend departmental board meetings as a matter of routine – this new code s
1Committee took evidence on non-executive director appointments across government.
Concluded (the committee's words)
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Cabinet Office, the Government’s Lead Non-Executive, and the Chair of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) about non-executive director appointments across government departments and public bodies.1
6Delays in public appointments deter candidates and risk creating governance gaps.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The NAO and the Commissioner for Public Appointments have noted that delays can put off candidates, leading them to withdraw their application or deterring them from applying in the first place.8 The Cabinet Office also told us that its outreach work showed that people can feel put off applying in the first place because they fear it will take too long. It said that executive search firms reported that people will take private sector posts instead of public appointments because they envisage the process for the latter will take longer to be completed.9 Delayed appointments can also lead to either gaps on boards or necessitate that public bodies resort to temporary appointments or extensions to fill those gaps. The Cabinet Office acknowledged that this situation is not desirable.10 The Government’s Lead Non-Executive told us that boards that are below strength are at risk of not being able to fully carry out their function with regards to governance. He also noted that if the chair of the audit and risk committee is vacant then there is a gap in the governance of the Department, so filling these roles promptly is important.11
7Public appointments process remains too slow, despite recent reductions in average time.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office agreed that it is not satisfactory that the appointments process takes so long. It noted that it is a ministerial priority to speed up the process. It reported that its latest data shows the number has fallen from an average 203 days in 2022–23 to 146 days, but acknowledged that additional work is needed to bring the number down to closer to the target of 90 days.12 The Cabinet Office attributed some of the delays to ministerial turnover as well as security vetting and reference checks. It is optimistic that the new applicant tracking system will allow it to identify where delays are occurring and intervene as needed.13 Poor data
8Public appointments data collection prior to April 2023 was manual, infrequent, and error-prone.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Until April 2023, the Cabinet Office’s only method of collecting data about public appointments was a manual exercise once a year, so it did not hold real-time data on delays. Departments were required to provide information about all those serving in post as regulated public appointments on March 31 of the given year. Departments would also provide data on recruitment campaigns undertaken during the previous year, including information about the candidates who applied, those shortlisted, those found appointable, and those appointed. It did not provide granular data about where and when delays took place. As the data were produced and processed manually by departments, errors and inconsistencies were common.14 6 C&AG’s Report, para 7 7 Q 59; C&AG’s Report, para 2.4 8 C&AG’s Report, para 2.6; The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Annual Report 2022–23 9 Q 65 10 Q 59; C&AG’s Report, para 2.6 11 Q 67 12 It should be noted that the latest figure of 146 days provided by witnesses (Q59) is unaudited. Furthermore, it is not clear how many appointments the figure of 146 days refers to, or when those appointments occurred. This report therefore uses the figure of 203 days throughout: this figure is an NAO calculated figure that relates to the latest complete financial year (2022–23) at the time of the Committee’s hearing on 18 March 2024. 13 Qq 59, 62 14 C&AG’s Report, paras 9, 2.3, 2.9 Non-executive appointments 11
9New centralised applicant-tracking system launched to improve public appointments data collection.
Concluded (the committee's words)
In April 2023, the Cabinet Office launched a new, centralised applicant-tracking system that consolidates the selection process for all regulated public appointments and some unregulated appointments. The centralised system makes it possible for the Cabinet Office to collect richer, real-time data on the appointments. The recruiting department is expected to manage the entire process through the applicant-tracking system and the system will keep detailed records of each step of the process. This should allow both the appointing body and the Cabinet Office to have a better idea of how long campaigns take and where the bottlenecks are, and to notify ministers of delays, where or when candidates might drop out, and which campaigns fail to fill the required posts.15
10Departments fail to consistently use new system, resulting in inaccurate and delayed data.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The NAO reported that some departments were still running the process outside of the new system and entering data into the system after the fact, instead of in real time. The NAO also noted that basic errors in data entry, such as inverting dates, meant that the data generated by the new system were not accurate.16 We asked the Cabinet Office what it was doing to address these problems: it told us that it agreed that this was not satisfactory and shared our disappointment. It told us that it had written to all departments and all public bodies reminding them how to use the system correctly. It also told us that it had strengthened its guidance on how to properly use the system and had organised a series of training events.17 The lack of published information
11Cabinet Office lacks comprehensive data on total non-executive directors serving across government boards.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office does not know how many NEDs in total are serving on all government boards, including ALBs and government companies. The Cabinet Office and the Commissioner for Public Appointments collect data on regulated public appointments. However, the available data do not differentiate between types of public appointments, so they do not show how many appointments are for NEDs. The government’s Public Appointments Data Report 2021–22 reported 4,476 chairs and members in post at regulated government bodies as at 31 March 2022, of which NEDs were a subset.18
12Cabinet Office does not recognise non-executive directors as a distinct appointment category.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We challenged the Cabinet Office on how it can provide effective oversight if it does not know how many NEDs there are serving on all government boards. The Cabinet Office responded that it does not recognise NEDs as a distinct category of public appointment. It told us that the vast majority of public appointments are non-executives but not all of them would be described as non-executive directors. They could, for example, be trustees, commissioners, advisers, board members, chief inspectors, adjudicators.19
13No central list or mandatory system use currently exists for unregulated public appointments.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office told us that it does not have a central list of how many unregulated appointments there are.20 It said that it does not currently have central oversight of any aspect on unregulated appointments and it is not mandatory for departments to put unregulated appointments on to its new applicant tracking system.21 It stated that it would imagine that as its new applicant tracking system matures departments will start to use it for unregulated appointments, noting that 127 unregulated appointments had already 15 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.3–3.5 16 C&AG‘s Report, para 3.9 17 Q 90 18 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.2, 1.3 19 Qq 6, 9 20 Q 25 21 Qq 26, 40 12 Non-executive appointments been run through the system since April 2023. The Cabinet Office told us that, as more departments use the system for unregulated appointments, it should start to build up a picture centrally of unregulated appointments.22
14Cabinet Office yet to outline a plan for improving transparency of appointment data.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked when the Cabinet Office will decide what information it will provide to Ministers, and to Parliament, in order to improve transparency of the appointment process. The Cabinet Office acknowledged that the system was not working perfectly yet and said that it would be introducing some enhancements.23 The Cabinet Office stated that it expected to outline a plan to Ministers on how the data should be used later this year, noting that the more confident it could be in the data the quicker it could look at how to share the data with the public and Parliament. It added that it hoped it would not be long before the data could be used to improve transparency and drive accountability.24
15Explicit standards of independence for NEDs are lacking; political donations not tracked.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We questioned the witnesses about what standards of independence they would expect from NEDs, in particular how independent they should be from ministers with whom they will be working. The Cabinet Office told us that this is not set out explicitly and that it is a judgment call. It further clarified that “independence”, in this context, does not mean that they should be immune from politics, but it should be declared. The Cabinet Office told us that it relies on self-declaration. The Cabinet Office noted that about 3% of regulated public appointments have a declared political allegiance.25 We further questioned the witnesses about whether NEDs could be political donors. The Cabinet Office told us that appointees would be expected to declare donations above £5,000 (from 1 January 2024 the limit was set at £11,180).26 When we asked how many had done so, it told us that it did not track that information specifically. The Cabinet Office noted that public appointees are bound to follow the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies and there is an expectation that they will abide by the Nolan principles.27
16Ministers ultimately select independent and senior independent panel members for appointments.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We also questioned the Cabinet Office about the requirements for independent panel members and senior independent panel members who served on the Advisory Assessment Panels (“Panels”).28 All Panels are expected to have an independent member. “Significant” appointments, as laid out in a particular list, are required by the Governance Code to have a “senior independent panel member” (SIPM) on the Panel. The Governance Code states that a SIPM should be independent of the department and of the body concerned, should not be currently politically active, and must be agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.29 The Cabinet Office told us that ministers select the independent Panel members. It also told us that there is usually a list of candidate SIPMs but Ministers ultimately select the SIPM for each Panel.30 22 Q 25 23 Qq 94, 95 24 Qq 96, 98 25 Qq 48, 51, 52 26 Q 50; Correspondence from Cabinet Office to Public Accounts Committee, 2 April 2024 27 Qq 51, 52 28 Qq 42–44 29 Governance Code on Public Appointments, 6.1 30 Qq 42–43 Non-executive appointments 13 2 Recruiting the best candidates Diversity
17Cabinet Office failed to meet 2022 diversity targets and lacks future aspirations.
Recommended (the committee's words)
In June 2019, the Cabinet Office launched a Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan (the Plan”) to focus on broadening access and improving the diversity and quality of appointees.31 The Plan set out ambitions for 50% of all public appointees to be female and 14% of all public appointments to come from ethnic minority backgrounds by 2022.32 The Cabinet Office did not meet these targets. Its Public Appointments Data Report for 2021–22 reported that 47% of all serving public appointees were female and 12% of all appointments and re-appointments were people from an ethnic minority background. However, the NAO’s analysis found that the diversity of new appointees had improved in recent years. In 2022–23 53.7% of new appointees were female and 14.6% were from an ethnic minority background. The Cabinet Office has not set aspirations beyond 2022 and does not have any plans to do so.33
18Government lacks comprehensive diversity data for NEDs, particularly on social background and disability.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We questioned the witnesses about their current approach to diversity. The Government’s Lead Non-Executive noted that he thought the only target that would make sense in the long-run would be a 50% split of gender between men and women.34 The Cabinet Office told us that currently 48% of NEDs in post are women. The Cabinet Office also told us that the most recent numbers showed 14.5% of appointments made in the year were to people identifying as from an ethnic minority, slightly below the corresponding 15% of the economically active population.35 The witnesses told us that they were also focused on increased diversity of thought, regional diversity, and social background. When we queried what data they used to measure diversity of background and what data they held on disability, the Government’s Lead Non-Executive noted that government did not hold this data for all NEDs because the system to collect the data was not in place for the entire population of current NEDs.36
19No requirement or tracking exists for scrutinising job advertisements for unconscious bias.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked about what was done to address conscious or unconscious bias in the way jobs are advertised and described. The Cabinet Office said that the written description and criteria were vital and, indeed, served as the basis for judging who would be appointable.37 It told us that it would expect job advertisements to be scrutinised for such bias before being provided to ministers for approval but it was not a requirement or something it tracked. It also said that it should include such considerations in its guidance and training.38 The Cabinet Office undertook to review alternative options for applicants to supply information on their relevant skills and experience when applying for roles that did not rely on traditional CV and personal statement formats, in particular the use of anonymised application forms.39
20Ministerial responsibility for Advisory Assessment Panel composition affects diversity in public appointments.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Advisory Assessment Panels serve an important role in the appointment process. The panel determines the shortlist, interviews candidates, and produces a list of 31 C&AG’s Report, para 14 32 Cabinet Office, Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan 2019, page 5 33 Q 72; C&AG’s Report, para 14 34 Q 68 35 Q 72 36 Qq 62, 68–71 37 Q 74 38 Qq 82, 83 39 Correspondence from Cabinet Office to Public Accounts Committee, 26 March 2024 14 Non-executive appointments appointable candidates. The appointing minister than chooses from among the list of appointable candidates.40 We challenged the Cabinet Office on whether it was committed to making sure that Advisory Assessment Panels are diverse and reflect the experience and background that it wants to see in applicants for public appointments. The Cabinet Office responded that Ministers are responsible for agreeing the composition of Advisory Assessment Panels.41
21Cabinet Office does not monitor diversity of Advisory Assessment Panels, contributing to insular processes.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked the Cabinet Office if it monitors and publishes a breakdown of the diversity of panel members, including gender and ethnicity details. The Cabinet Office said that it does not monitor the composition of Advisory Assessment Panels. It told us that Advisory Assessment Panels are dealt with within each department. However, it told us that there may be ways in which it could monitor panel composition more effectively that it could take away to consider.42 One of the ways it could do this would be to proactively provide feedback for unsuccessful candidates.43 The Cabinet Office undertook to review the feasibility and usefulness of compiling data on the diversity makeup of members of Advisory Assessment Panels, with a view to examining any diversity trends in the composition of those panels.44 We challenged the Cabinet Office on whether the process by which the minister appoints the panel, the panel produces a list of appointable candidates, and the Ministers then selects from that list is an insular and circular process. The Cabinet Office responded that it could see how it could appear this way.45 Outreach activities
22Cabinet Office prioritises and conducts varied outreach activities to diversify public appointment applicants.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office told us that one of its priorities is outreach, to develop a talent pool of potential applicants. The Government’s Lead Non-Executive and the Commissioner for Public Appointments have also declared their intention to improve outreach. The Cabinet Office told us that it has reached out to private-sector professionals, volunteers, veterans, disabled peoples’ forums, and faith communities.46 The Cabinet Office has also held “roadshow” events for prospective applicants, including in Darlington, Exeter, and Edinburgh.47 A Boardroom Apprentice Scheme has been rolled out, led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which offers opportunities for people with no previous board experience to learn how a board works, both receiving classroom training and practical experience.48
23Outreach measurement for public appointments remains incomplete, lacking social and professional background data.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We questioned the witnesses about their outreach initiatives and how success will be measured. When we asked how they measured success of “roadshow” events, the Cabinet Office told us that it tracks whether people sign up on the website and noted that 84% of attendees to the outreach events it has held so far strongly agree that they would recommend interest or involvement in the public appointments process to friends or colleagues. It told us that it was continuing to measure data against gender and ethnicity, but that its measures are less good for social background and it has not analysed by professional background either. The Government’s Lead Non-Executive noted that hosting outreach 40 C&AG’s Report, para 3 41 Q 73 42 Q 81 43 Q 88 44 Correspondence from Cabinet Office to Public Accounts Committee, 26 March 2024 45 Q 75 46 Q 77; C&AG’s Report, paras 13, 3.12, 3.13 47 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 48 Q 84; C&AG’s Report, Figure 12 Non-executive appointments 15 evens is a big cost to Government so it needs to be sure that what it is doing is working. He told us that it is important that Cabinet Office measures the impact and holds itself to account for whether these activities are successful.49 When we asked how the new website might help broaden outreach, the Cabinet Office told us that it was recycling candidates from past searches who were found appointable but were not appointed. When we asked what was being done to reach new talent, the Cabinet Office assured us it was seeing fresh talent coming through but also want to make use of ‘near misses’ from past campaigns. When we asked if it was advertising opportunities in places where they would be seen by diverse audiences, the Cabinet Office told us that it was primarily using the official government website. It told us that 12,000 people had registered for the government website and approximately 5,000 had uploaded their CVs.50 49 Q 80 50 Qq 77–79 16 Non-executive appointments
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 18 Mar 2024Non-executive director appointments4 witnesses, listed belowparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 4 witnesses
- Elizabeth PasseyChair, Rural Payments Agency
- Michael JaryGovernment Lead Non-Executive, Cabinet Office
- Simon MaddenDirector of Policy & Strategy, NHSX
- Sir Alex ChisholmPermanent Secretary, Cabinet Office
Correspondence 3 letters
- 16 Apr 2024Correspondence from Simon Madden, Director of Propriety & Ethics, Cabinet Office, re Public Accounts Committee – Oral Evidence update Non-Executive Director appointment, dated 2 April 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Correspondence from Simon Madden, Director of Propriety & Ethics, Cabinet Office, re Public Accounts Committee oral evidence session on Non-Executive Director Appointments - 18 March: transcript change requests, dated 2 April 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Joint correspondence from Sir Alex Chisholm, Civil Service Chief Operating Officer and Permanent Secretary, Cabinet Office, Simon Madden, Director, Propriety and Ethics, Cabinet Office, and Michael Jary, Government Lead Non-Executive, Cabinet Office, re Public Accounts Committee oral evidence session on Non-Executive Director Appointments - 18 March: Cabinet Office follow up actions, dated 26 March 2024