10. Membership Of The Commission
10.1 In this chapter we consider issues relating to the composition of the Commission, including the views of interviewees, Government policy on membership of public bodies, and OCPA guidance on competencies. We also consider appointments procedures, code of conduct, and remuneration of members.
Composition of the Commission
10.2 The Chairman of the Commission, Sir Tom Blundell, is currently supported by 13 members, who are listed at Annex 4. This compares with a membership of eight plus chairman when the Commission was first set up in 1970, and a peak membership of 16 plus chairman in 1974 - 76. Of the current membership, the Chairman and five members are natural scientists; there are an epidemiologist, an engineer, two economists, two social scientists (a social geographer and a theologian), an environmental lawyer, and a business executive from the energy sector.Views of interviewees
10.3 In our interviews, there was general consensus on the key importance of several features of the Commission's membership:-
- the central core of scientific expertise within the Commission was seen as crucial to its credibility, authority and influence. Several interviewees suggested that FRS status of the science members was vital to the Commission's 'weight'.
- the wider spread of expertise from a range of other disciplines provided the basis for creative cross-fertilisation of ideas and innovative approaches to problems;
- the standing of the individual members and the respect which they were accorded within their profession were of the greatest importance for the establishment of trust in the Commission's work; and
- the present size of the Commission was seen as about right, balancing the desirability of including a wide range of expertise against the need for a limitation on numbers in order for discussions to be participative and manageable.
10.4 On the spread of expertise needed, there was some divergence of views:-
- although all agreed on the need for an economist among the members, some felt there should be more than one in order to encourage debate and avoid bias, whereas others felt that having more than one from any discipline was of questionable added value;
- a majority of interviewees felt that there would be value in making more appointments to strengthen the Commission's capacity to address the social dimension of environmental issues. Suggested areas of expertise included social psychology and opinion research;
- some felt a need for political expertise on the Commission, whether drawn from academia or from political practitioners, in order to counter the charge that the Commission has on occasion been politically naive. Others felt that the Commission is right to keep a distance from the immediate political arena, and that if political expertise were included amongst the membership this should not be at the expense of sacrificing the Commission's freedom from political 'contamination';
- most interviewees regarded as desirable the inclusion of members from a business background, to provide a broader perspective and a check on the practicality of recommendations. Some interviewees from environmental groups felt the inclusion of industry interests was unhelpful because of the risk of undermining the perceived authority and objectivity of the Commission;
- for the same reason some interviewees including those from environmental groups felt that the membership should not include environmental campaigners (unless they were appointed solely on the basis of personal eminence and achievement). They feared that the inclusion of people perceived as belonging to particular interest groups would risk turning the Commission into a body of representatives, no longer open-minded individuals who leave their particular 'hats' at the door. Interviewees from industry, by contrast, felt that the Commission should include environmental campaigners as well as industrialists to provide a range of different perspectives. We note that although the current membership does not include anyone from the environmental NGOs, three members have or have had close links with such groups including Friends of the Earth and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
Government statements on membership of public bodies
10.5 Under the "New Approach to Public Appointments" introduced by DETR Ministers in July/August 1998, sponsor divisions were asked to note that, taking the Department's sponsored bodies as a whole, Ministers considered current membership to be too conventional and establishment, and too narrowly representative of a limited range of specialisms, with too few people able to cover the wider interests of society. Ministers felt that many advisory bodies would benefit from the introduction of some non-specialist members to provide a broader view.10.6 The Royal Commission is of course of a different status from other advisory bodies. We have noted above the importance interviewees attached to the respect which members were accorded within their profession. In our interviews, one person favoured introducing some form of lay participation - the majority felt this would be detrimental to the Commission's standing. One interviewee felt strongly that the Commission was insufficiently radical in its approach and that this was partly due to failure to appoint radical thinkers to the membership - this was however very much a minority view.
10.7 We have described in Chapter 2 above how the multi-disciplinary composition of the Commission is central to its purpose and role, and at para 8.3 we reported the consensus among interviewees about the value of a wide spread of expertise. We welcome the attention given by DETR and the Commission to securing a wide range of different kinds of skills, knowledge and experience as seems appropriate for the needs of the particular studies planned. We suggest that in the spirit of the new approach the relevant Division and the Commission should continue to explore possible ways of adding value through broadening the range of disciplines and expertise of the membership.
10.8 On equal opportunities, the Government's commitments are set out in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 1999-2002" (Cabinet Office, May 1999). DETR has declared the intention within the life of the current Parliament to increase the proportion of public appointments held by women from 23% to at least 40% and the proportion held by members of the ethnic minorities from 3% to at least 5%. DETR has also announced that from now on there will be an increased focus on finding disabled people with the appropriate skills for appointment, though no quantified target has been set.
10.9 The Royal Commission currently includes no members of the ethnic minorities. Two of the fourteen Commissioners are women. We suggest that in future rounds of appointments the relevant Division and the Commission should continue to keep in mind the Government's commitments. The intention to do so, whilst not diluting the quality of the Commission's membership, could be included in the Framework Document which was discussed in Chapter 8.
OCPA guidance on competencies
10.10 Under the Guidance on Appointments to Public Bodies produced by the Commissioner for Public Appointments in July 1998, the competencies required to fulfil the Royal Commission's mission should be identified, and, as vacancies arise, criteria for the job and for the person should be prepared. The person specification should address the qualities, experience, professional qualifications and competencies sought.10.11 We were told that in the past appointments have tended to be made with an eye to the particular skills needed for forthcoming studies, and to the overall spread of skills within the Commission. The process has not in the past been transparent. We suggest that in order to comply with the OCPA guidance, and to ensure transparency, formal person specifications should be agreed between the relevant division and the Commission and should be in the public domain.
10.12 In summary, we recommend that the Commission and DETR should continue to explore possible ways of adding value through broadening the range of expertise within the Commission, and that person specifications for vacancies should be in the public domain.
Appointments Procedure
10.13 In 1998, OCPA produced new guidance on the application to advisory non-Departmental public bodies (ANDPBs) of the general procedures for public appointments. This allocates ANDPBs to one of three tiers depending on the level of remuneration of the Members. In the case of the Royal Commission, the appointments of Chairman and Members have been allocated to Tier 3, which means that the general procedures for NDPBs need to be followed in full.10.14 For the Royal Commission this has involved, for the round of appointments currently under consideration, several changes to past practice. Particular points to note are:-
- Making as many suitably qualified people from as wide a field as possible aware that posts are available. We understand that the Royal Commission is currently included in DETR's general annual advertisement about public appointments, and that suitable names are also sought from the Public Appointments Unit, other Government Departments, and a selection of other bodies including the National Academies.
- Ensuring the selection process is fair and transparent. We welcome the development by the sponsor unit of a new procedural checklist which covers the key requirements, including the involvement of an independent assessor on sift and interview panels; the prescribed consultations with Ministers, other Government Departments, and the Cabinet Secretary; submission to the Prime Minister; and the procedure for announcing the outcome.
Duration of appointments
10.15 On duration of appointments, although the Royal Warrant specified a three year term for Chairman and Members, in practice appointments have been informally extended for ill defined periods. The Commission and the sponsor unit are aware of the need to regularise the position and to comply with the new OCPA guidance. In particular the OCPA guidance states that:-
- appointments should normally be for between three and five years;
- reappointments for a second term can be made without open competition but are subject to satisfactory performance assessment - which should be discussed between the sponsor and the Chairman;
- subsequent reappointments should be unusual and should not be made without open competition;
- the maximum period for successive terms of office should not exceed 10 years. Any potential breach of this rule should be discussed with OCPA.
10.16 We understand that in the course of the round of appointments currently in progress DETR is arranging formal reappointments in compliance with the guidance, and the Chairman now makes annual reports on the attendance and performance of Members.
10.17 One particular issue for the Commission is the desirability of timing the departure of members to coincide with the ending of a main study, while also bringing in new members in time for them to have an input to the scoping of the next study. This would involve a period of overlap, bringing in new members before the departure of the old. However, if reappointments were related specifically to the completion of a particular study, this could cut across the OCPA requirement to have a firm end-date for appointments. We suggest that this issue should be looked at further to see if in practice, with careful timetabling of studies and very precise definition of what is meant by the 'end' of a study, planning on the basis of main studies can be reconciled with the OCPA rules.
10.18 In summary, we welcome the development of procedures for the current round of appointments which comply with the guidance. We see advantage in building in a planned period of overlap between the arrival of new members and departure of the old, with the timing of departures coinciding with the ending of a main study, and we suggest that this should be looked at further to see whether it can in practice be reconciled with OCPA rules.
Conduct of members
10.19 A Code of Conduct for Commission members, in line with Nolan recommendations, has been in place since December 1996.10.20 We suggest that minor amendment is needed in the references to confidentiality, to reflect the move to greater openness following the Internal Review of Working Methods. Since minutes of Commission meetings are now made available on its web site, there is no reason to debar Members from passing copies to people.
10.21 On the handling of potential conflicts of interest, the operation of the procedures set out in the Code of Conduct does not seem to have given rise to any practical difficulties within the Commission. We offer two observations:-
- we welcome the register of members' interests posted on the web site;
- several interviewees suggested it would be useful for Commission reports to include - perhaps on an inside cover - a list of Members' interests, to provide background context for readers. We note that reports already include biographical notes on Members which make clear their significant interests. We suggest there might be value in including a reference in the notes to the register on the web site.
10.22 On awareness of public sector values and standards of probity and accountability, the Nolan report recommended that new members of public bodies should make a commitment to undertake induction training. The Commission's Code of Conduct sets out the standards expected by reference to various principles including the Citizens' Charter and Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. It is not clear to us whether Members have sufficient awareness of these to be able to put them into practice. The Internal Review of Working Methods did touch on the question of training for Members but did not extend to these aspects of conduct. We recommend that the Secretariat should ensure Members have access to sufficient up to date information about the values and standards with which they are expected to comply.
Remuneration of members
10.23 Commission Members are currently paid on a daily fee basis. Since 1995, the level of the fee has been determined annually by DETR's FSP Division and agreed with the Treasury, and is currently set at £178 per day. This is the same rate paid to, for example, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. The Chairman is also paid a daily fee; is provided with secretarial support when he is in London; and is given assistance towards the additional costs falling on his main office in his academic department.10.24 In our interviews, the following points emerged:-
- the level of remuneration does not seem to be a determining factor in the willingness of Members to serve on the Commission - most see their contribution to the Commission as pro bono. We found no evidence of the current level of remuneration having narrowed the pool of potential Members up to now;
- for those in academic life, however, there was a widespread feeling that the climate is changing. Whereas in the past universities regarded staff appointments to bodies such as the Royal Commission as a badge of honour, the preoccupation with income generation means that it is becoming more difficult for staff to justify service on public bodies. It was suggested that if this trend continues, it might be necessary to consider paying the employing body as well as or instead of the individual. The DETR perspective on this is that it would not be legally possible to pay the employing body since the contract is with the appointee, but that an appointee can decide where his or her fee should go. However, there would potentially be a double tax burden unless the Inland Revenue agreed to payment by the Commission of the gross fee;
- several Commissioners mentioned that the German equivalent of the Commission pays its Members a salary of DM35,000 - 40,000, and that each member has a half-time research assistant at his/her home base, paid for by the Council. The flexibility to have work carried out was seen as a benefit, but with disbenefits in terms of loss of cohesiveness of the body as a whole;
- the difficulty of securing high level business expertise on public bodies generally was frequently mentioned. However there is no evidence that the Commission has experienced particular problems in this respect;
- there was no lack of commitment by Members under the current regime.
10.25 We make no recommendation for a move away from the current basis of remuneration. Work by both the DETR's FSP Division and by the Cabinet Office has shown that pay rates of board members on similar type bodies are similar. No major review of remuneration of board members of NDPBs is planned, however should this occur at a later date we would welcome the inclusion of the Commission in that review.
Provision of ad hoc expert advice
10.26 We understand that from time to time the Commission asks people to provide specialised advice on an ad hoc basis, where it seems useful to supplement the expertise of Commission members. An example is the appointment of three experts to help with a recent statement on GMOs, by serving on a working group which also included Commission members. The appointed experts were paid daily fees on the same basis as Members. We consider this a helpful means of supplementing the Commission's expertise and adding to its capacity to produce high quality outputs at short notice.
Published 19 April 2000 / Updated 11 May 2000
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page