The process that saw Martin Thomas appointed as chair of the Charity Commission did not break any rules and was “consistent and fair”, an investigation concluded.
Thomas resigned before even taking up the role after negative newspaper reports on events that occurred while he was chair of a charity went live.
William Shawcross, a former chair of the Commission who is now the commissioner for public appointments, then opened an investigation to identify any failings in the way the competition was run.
In his report, Shawcross said: “The commissioner finds that this competition did not breach the government’s Governance Code on Public Appointments (the Governance Code). The assessment of candidates was consistent and fair, based on the knowledge of the panel at the time.”
The report concludes that the reason the appointment failed was Thomas omitting information about allegations made about his conduct while he was chair of Women for Women International.
In an earlier letter to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Thomas apologised for the oversight and explained: “I assumed I had been exonerated.”
Last week the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport named Orlando Fraser as its preferred candidate for the Charity Commission role.
The department has not re-run the competition and selected Fraser from the reserve list of appointable candidates interviewed last year.
Lessons to be learned
Nonetheless, Shawcross said that the department had lessons to learn.
In particular, Shawcross criticised delays during the process. He said: “The commissioner notes this competition was subject to media speculation and interest from the start. Delays meant speculation grew. The Governance Code proposes that departments conclude competitions within three months of the advertisement closing.
“This provision has candidate care at its core. This provision seeks to ensure that both candidates and panel members are treated with respect. Timeliness also provides confidence in a well-run, robust system.”
He acknowledged that sometimes delays are unavoidable, such as due to a change of minister, as happened in this case, but said that there were other factors “much less understandable”.
Taking references
MPs on the DCMS committee had been surprised that DCMS officials had not sought references, prior to Thomas being offered the role.
As part of his investigation Shawcross assessed the different approaches to pre-appointment screening. The report notes that the public announcement and DCMS committee session took place “in advance of the full completion of pre-employment check”.
He recommends: “Following this incident, the commissioner suggests that appointing departments should reconsider how to best manage the pre-employment checks which can be lengthy. Departments should consider when it is most appropriate to announce their preferred candidates, and should discuss with select committees how they are managing these checks in relation to the committee’s pre-appointment scrutiny.”
Specifically on taking references from previous employers, Shawcross found that DCMS was one of four departments never to seek them. Seven government departments routinely seek references and six sometimes do.
“The commissioner's view is that obtaining references may provide ministers with a fuller picture of candidates. Therefore it might be sensible for departments to explore carrying out reference checks in line with established recruitment practises. However, the commissioner acknowledges that this is not guaranteed to uncover detailed information about an applicant,” the report says.
Related articles
