Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome to the meeting Claire Keatinge, the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Thank you for your submissions in advance, Claire. I invite you to make some opening remarks.

Ms Claire Keatinge (Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland): Thank you very much. Good afternoon to you all. It is nice to see the Committee members whom I have met before. To those whom I have not previously had the pleasure of meeting, I look forward to working with you over the years ahead, and it is nice to see you. I was appointed in August 2025. As you will be aware, there had been a significant gap since the previous commissioner was in post. From May 2021 until August 2025, there was no Commissioner for Public Appointments and therefore no regulation, investigation or audit of public appointments.

The role that I hold is often described as that of the guardian of the public appointments process, but my functions, powers and duties as a regulator are set out clearly in legislation, in the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The Order has been amended twice, most recently in 2010. The commissioner post was established in 1995 following the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) in the Nolan report, which is particularly topical at all times but particularly so in the past couple of weeks. The legislation, as I said, has now been amended twice to take account of the progressive devolution of powers and duties to the Northern Ireland Executive and to set out in the Order the list of public bodies that the Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates. Public bodies that are listed in the Order are known as "regulated bodies". There are, however, also bodies that have been developed since 2010, and they are not listed anywhere in the legislation. As such, they are referred to as "unregulated bodies", and there are some linked to each Department.

My functions are to regulate and monitor policy and procedure for ministerial public appointments to ensure that Departments operate systems that are able to include everyone who has the relevant skills and experience and wishes to put themselves forward for public appointment to do so and also to ensure that applicants are treated fairly throughout the public appointments process, and always in a manner that is fair, consistent, considerate, open and transparent, with the goal of enabling Ministers to select on merit the best candidates for public appointments.

To deliver that regulation, I have a number of duties. I published and continue to develop a code of practice for ministerial public appointments. I audit Departments' policies and practices for making public appointments to establish whether that code of practice is being adhered to. I can require Departments to provide me with information about any public appointment process. I conduct inquiries into the policies and practices of any Department when it is making public appointments. I also provide independent assessors as panel members for all public appointment competitions. They perform an independent role on each panel. Moreover, I can investigate complaints from applicants concerning regulated public appointments. Those are people who are dissatisfied with the process that they have gone through.

The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland (OCPANI) is staffed by three civil servants, who are provided to me by the Executive Office: a grade 7, my colleague David Speer, who is with me today; a staff officer (SO); and an executive officer 2 (EO2). It is a small but, as from last week, perfectly formed team. All the staff are now in place. As commissioner, I am engaged to work 75 days a year, on the basis of a day and a half a week. I am conscious that the previous commissioner's working days were extended to 100 days a year to better reflect the nature of the work, so I will be looking to do that — that is obviously subject to budget — because that number of days does better reflect the reality of the role.

I have a small operating budget of around £6,000 after staffing costs. So far, in my role, as you would imagine after a period of almost five years with no commissioner, the priorities have been the establishment of a staffed office that can carry out statutory and regulatory functions. I set out to identify and confirm my legal standing as it relates to public bodies that are not included in the 1995 Order. I have engaged with a number of stakeholders, public appointments units, Ministers, civil servants and others, and have provided advice and guidance to Departments about public appointments, including on those matters when they want there to be exceptions to the code of practice, such as an extension to a public appointment or other variations.

The key issue that I have identified so far is that there is a significant regulatory gap. Going four and a half years without a regulator is not a good thing. It leaves a space in which audits have not been done obviously, in which inquiries have not been held and in which there has been no redress when anybody has complained about their appointment process. Four years is a long time, and I hope that that does not happen again. No audits of departmental processes or inquiries could be done during that time. Originally, the commissioner had a pool of about 40 independent assessors. I am down to seven, and, during that four-year gap, it was not possible to appoint new independent assessors, who are an essential part of any public appointment process. The wheels of the system here turn very slowly, so I am having to liaise closely with TEO to try to make sure that I can undertake a recruitment process for a new pool of independent assessors at considerably more speed than I am currently being told it will take.

The team at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments between 2021 and 2025 did an excellent job. They provided support, guidance and information to Departments while no regulatory activity was taking place. They had an exemplary reputation for being helpful, positive and constructive. Sadly for me, they moved the week before I took up post, but they did do a remarkably good job and received very good feedback.

As I said, the 1995 Order has not been updated since 2010, so the list of regulated public bodies is out of date. A number of new bodies are not listed and are therefore not regulated. My legal functions cover only regulated public bodies — I took specific legal advice to clarify my vires — which means that I can investigate only complaints from applicants for regulated public appointments. That leaves a large gap. If a post is advertised for an unregulated public appointment, complainants will not have an independent complaint route at this point.

The other obvious risk area is that of independent assessors. I need to be able to recruit a new pool of those assessors as promptly as possible to make sure that they can be allocated to assessing every single public appointment competition, because, without them in place, public appointment competitions will be held up, and nobody wants that.

That is an outline of my role and of the office's functions. Thank you very much for your time. I am happy to answer any of your questions and respond to any comments.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you very much, Claire. On the issue of the 1995 Order, have you initiated conversations with the Executive Office about getting the legislation updated?

Ms Keatinge: Yes, I have. Those conversations are ongoing. Work is ongoing in the Executive Office to revise the legislation. I have been in formal conversations with it about what some of the content needs to look like, and I have made it very clear that, from my perspective, the matter is urgent and cannot be left to sit. Things do seem to be moving at a reasonable pace, however.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Are you getting any indication that revised legislation could come to this Committee in this mandate for consideration?

Ms Keatinge: I could not say, I am afraid.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Perhaps you can chase that up.

Ms Keatinge: The only indication that I have got is that the work in the Executive Office is being done as promptly as it can be, and I have been engaged on what any revised legislation might look like.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. I am looking at the list of unregulated bodies in the annual report for 2019-2020 that relate to the Executive Office. I am conscious that, since then, we have had the appointments of the Irish Language Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression (OICE). Did you play any advisory role in the appointment processes for those three recently appointed people?

Ms Keatinge: No. The posts were advertised before I was in post. I came into post when the competitions were up and running.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Say, for example, that a new, unregulated commissioner's post were advertised next week, what role would you play, or would you not —?

Ms Keatinge: I would play a role in providing an independent assessor, but I would expect all Departments to run their unregulated competitions in the spirit of the code of practice for ministerial public appointments. Competitions are therefore run in the spirit of the code of practice, but when it comes to complaints, I have no function. The Department itself will have to work out what its complaints process will need to involve as a second-level complaint after it has had a look at the initial complaint. It is not that I am being difficult about it. Rather, I simply do not have the legal standing to act on complaints when it comes to appointments to unregulated bodies.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. On the subject of the audit to review the policies and practices of Departments in making public appointments, the Committee is very conscious of the diversity in our society. What work will you do to try to attract people from different ethnic minority backgrounds or from non-traditional communities? Is that a longer-term piece of work? What is happening in that space?

Ms Keatinge: It is probably slightly wider than that, and it is probably one of the most important mechanisms by which Ministers get the widest possible range of people to choose from in order to make their selection based on merit. In the first place, it depends on having a wide pool of people who have applied. There is poor evidence on the actual numbers of different section 75 protected characteristics groups on boards, for the simple reason that, when people fill in the monitoring form for any application, they self-identify. They can choose to put down whatever they like. On top of that, a lot of people do not fill in that form, so the actual information provided is quite patchy. There is, however, an obvious under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in particular. That is quite clear.

Part of my role will involve making public appointments better understood more widely. There are a large number of people in the third sector, people in business, people with caring responsibilities and people who are self-employed and run small businesses who are really unaware that the public appointments process is also for them and that they have something very significant to contribute. I am also looking at meeting women's organisations, disability organisations and the new cultural and language advisers — those sorts organisations and people — on a more targeted basis to try to encourage the widest possible pool of people to come forward. It is an important area of work for fairness, equality and transparency. Moreover, we need to have a merit-based selection process in which the widest possible pool of people gets through competitions for Ministers to choose from.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Dickson: I offer a warm welcome to you, Claire, to what is a very different commissioner's role from your previous one. Thank you for the information that you have given us so far. As you said yourself, there was a gap, with no Commissioner for Public Appointments between 2021 and 2025. What impact has that gap had on the integrity of the public appointments system, and do you have a plan, or, indeed, a timetable, for catching up on that missing oversight period?

Ms Keatinge: I can look back 12 months to see whether there were any complaints made. I can therefore retrospectively investigate complaints made over a 12-month period. I will establish a programme of inquiries, audits and engagement, largely for the next financial year, that will determine what we do not know. I will probably look at appointments on a risk basis as well. If particular appointments have caused challenge or difficulty, I may audit them to see whether the whole process was done properly. I may also audit thematically. For example, I may ask questions such as this: what number of people with disabilities asked for a reasonable adjustment to be made to the recruitment process over the past year or for particular competitions? I therefore plan to take that kind of programmed approach.

At this stage, it is quite hard to quantify the actual harm that has been done. I have not yet asked Departments their view on that, but it is an interesting question. The fact that advice and support were provided throughout the process is really helpful, but it is a terrible pity to have had such a long gap in which nobody's feet could be held to the fire, particularly in instances in which complainants have not had redress.

Mr Dickson: You said that complainants in the 12 months before your appointment could get redress but not those who made complaints before then.

Ms Keatinge: That is right, except if I deem it to be an exceptional circumstance, in which case the legislation will let me go further.

Mr Dickson: OK. Will you ultimately do an analysis of the number of complaints — hopefully there were not too many — over the 2021-25 period so that we can have that information in the future?

Ms Keatinge: Probably not, and the reason for that is that, generally speaking, people did not make complaints, because they were told that they could not be investigated.

Mr Dickson: They did not bother.

Ms Keatinge: It becomes a circular conversation. Unfortunately, that kind of evidence may not be there. It may be possible to ask Departments how many complaints came through to them, but it will not be possible for my office to do an analysis of them.

Mr Dickson: In light of the fast-moving pace —. I do not know why I chose those words to describe the Executive Office, but anyway. In light of the number of public appointments made across Departments, what action are you taking to remind them that you now exist, that there is a code of practice and that you have powers to investigate?

Ms Keatinge: I have been in direct contact with all permanent secretaries. I wrote to all Ministers to advise them of my legal standing and that I am in post and invited them to meet me. I have met a number of Ministers already, with some more still to go. I have also met the staff in all the public appointments units and engaged directly with them. We keep the door as open as we possibly can. They will all know that the office is up and running again. The challenge to Departments is to match the programme of work in a timely fashion. As I said, I have had my full team of staff available since only last week, which was when they were all finally in post, so it is a slow process. Next year's plan of work will clearly address those issues, however.

Mr Dickson: When recruiting panel members, there will be a period of training for them, including on their initiation responsibilities. In turn, you will be able to roll out that training across public-sector organisations so that they can understand what your role is. A four-year gap is a big gap. Many of the HR people and others who sit on interview panels will have moved on, so there will be people who will have never come across the Commissioner for Public Appointments or know your role.

Will you be doing an analysis of the areas for which you do not have the authority to regulate? Are there responsibilities that you feel that you do not need to regulate? Will you produce a comprehensive list of the organisations and positions that urgently need to be regulated?

Ms Keatinge: My responsibilities extend to providing advice and support to Departments to enable them to get all their public appointments right, be they to regulated or unregulated bodies. I will also strongly encourage all Departments to state that they are operating those recruitment processes in the spirit of the code of practice and to demonstrate that they have their own complaints process where I cannot investigate a complaint. I therefore have that amount of lean. My responsibilities also extend to providing an independent assessor for each recruitment process. My role does not just come down to dealing with complaints but applies to all the other aspects of public appointments.

Mr Dickson: Will you be making representations to TEO to have those organisations that currently fall outside your remit included in it?

Ms Keatinge: Absolutely. As I understand it, all Departments are now collating information. The published list appeared in the Commissioner for Public Appointments' report for 2019-2020. It set out the list of organisations that, at that stage, were regulated and unregulated.

Mr Dickson: There was a big gap.

Ms Keatinge: There was a big gap after that, but it is a matter for Departments to collate information, and that is being done as part of the legislative work to update the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Nevertheless, I expect all Departments to get in touch with my office whenever a new public appointment is to be made so that they can be advised, supported and allocated an independent assessor.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, commissioner. I am looking at the list of independent assessors on page 71 of your report. How many of your current independent assessors are from that list? That is what I am trying to ascertain.

Ms Keatinge: Is that the annual report for 2019-2020?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes. It is on page 71 of that report.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is on page 45 in the annual report, Claire. That is page 71 in the Committee's pack.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You are right, Chair. It is page 45 in your report, Claire, under the heading "Annexe IV".

Ms Keatinge: I get you now, Carál. Of the independent assessors listed there, seven remain.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Seven? OK. In your report, under the heading "Diversity and Disability in public life", you mentioned that there is a lack of representation. I declare that that was something that I was uncomfortable with when I was a Minister. It seems as through the same sorts of people move from one board to another, and do so with ease. My concern is that there is a lot of under-representation of people of different classes, genders, ethnicities and abilities. That may be down to individual Departments: horror. First, what can you do to make sure that your independent assessors are not part of that ever-shifting pool of people? Secondly, how can we make sure that there is more diversity in our public appointments?

Ms Keatinge: I will address the question of independent assessors first. They are recruited specifically to be panel members for public appointment processes. They can hold only one public appointment at any time, so they cannot get all the information about how to be an independent assessor and then circulate around lots of public appointments.

Widening the pool of is a complicated job. There is no desperately clear evidence or hard numbers for who is who on each panel, but it is clear that certain types of expertise and experience are not represented widely in public appointments and that we do not see as many people coming through with caring experience, third-sector experience or experience of small businesses. It is also clear that we do not see as many ethnic minorities and people who have disabilities coming through. Indeed, people with disabilities are significantly under-represented.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely.

Ms Keatinge: There is better representation of women than there used to be, but it is not as good as it should be.

I think that I will undertake a programme of direct engagement with the kinds of organisations that represent those people and groups, as well as some kind of programme that works with Departments to challenge them a bit but also to support them to make sure that they are doing some outreach, other than placing an advert, to encourage the widest possible range of applicants.

For one public appointment that was advertised reasonably recently for an unremunerated position, there were no applications whatsoever. All such appointments represent important aspects of public service delivery, and they are interesting roles. As well as drawing in people with a wide range of experience, there is a lot of outreach still to be done so that people better understand what a particular role is, what accountability is involved and what they will be responsible for. As best I can, I will go out to organisations with an outreach programme.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that. Based on your work when you were Commissioner for Older People, I have absolutely no doubt that you will do that.

For clarity, I am aware that someone can be on only one board at a time, but, from the list of independent assessors, I recognise some names — although I will not pick out any — of people who have been on loads of boards. I just feel that we need to be able to make other people feel that they can see themselves in a publicly appointed role. If they cannot see it, they will not be it. To be clear, I say that not to criticise anyone on that list, but I do recognise a lot of names from different boards that I have come across in my work as an MLA. I will leave it there.

Ms Keatinge: How we advertise for new independent assessors, including whom they are and from where we recruit them, is important, because they need to be robust individuals with experience who can learn about the appointment process and also engage in that process, constructively challenge it and ensure its compliance with equality provisions.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, commissioner. Welcome to the Committee. I will get straight into it. On page 3 —.

Ms Keatinge: Sorry, Mr Gaston: page 3 of what?

Mr Gaston: Page 3 of your briefing paper, not the annual report for 2019-2020. Paragraph 1.10 states:

Is that a fair summary of your office's role?

Ms Keatinge: They are important issues. A fairer summary is to say that the role is to make sure that the best people get through the selection process as fairly, openly and transparently as possible and that Ministers should choose the best person for the role, based on merit. Without a doubt, widening the pool of people gets more people through to the interview and selection process.

Mr Gaston: I will move on to the annual report for 2019-2020. I appreciate that, for four years, nobody was in post, which is five years' worth of annual reports. Come the end of the financial year, so in April, May or June, do you envisage having an annual report for 2025-26?

Ms Keatinge: It has to be published by June.

Mr Gaston: It will be the first one in five years.

Ms Keatinge: Yes, it will.

Mr Gaston: In that report, under the heading "Diversity" —.

Ms Keatinge: Is that the 2019-2020 report?

Mr Gaston: Yes. It states:

I appreciate that it was the previous commissioner who wrote that, but I get the feeling that diversity is an overriding theme that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is trying to push. Do you stand over the previous commissioner's sentiment?

Ms Keatinge: I stand over the principle that public appointments matter because public services matter. That is why it matters that we engage the widest possible range of people, whatever we call it, be that widening the pool of applicants or encouraging people from under-represented groups to apply in order to have equality, diversity and inclusion. In a sense, I am less hung up on what we call it. I am more keen that we look at whom those people are. Given that public services matter so much and that arm's-length bodies (ALBs) spend the majority of the Executive's money, it matters who comes through that pool. No, I would not say that I have an overriding commitment to one element of my function over another, but I do have a responsibility to make sure that appointment processes are fair and transparent, and, in order to exercise the merit principle, the widest possible range of people has to be encouraged to go through that process.

Mr Gaston: Under the heading "CPANI Mission Statement", paragraph 4.2 of the report states:

That was a long-running theme from the previous commissioner. I have gone back to the 1995 Order. You have referred to selection based on merit. When it comes to the functions of the commissioner, article 3(1) states:

My concern is that, since then, the whole theme of diversity has crept in. I understand the need to reach out to as many people as possible. I have absolutely no problem with that, but it comes across as an overriding theme that diversity should matter as much as merit. I am strongly of the belief that you should reach out to different communities and people with different backgrounds, but, at the same time, although you may change the make-up of a board because you believe a person will fit better, it does not mean that they are the best person for the job.

Ms Keatinge: No, it does not, and I do not get a sense at all of any desire for tokenism. I have been a board member, and I do not want to be there because I am female. I do not want somebody to be able to say, "Well, she only got the job because she is female". I have no interest in that, nor do I detect an interest in tokenism or that kind of attitude around Members of the Assembly at all. However, the evidence is reasonably clear. I would argue that the wider the pool of people that we draw from and the range of experiences that people come from, the wider the range of thinking that it produces and the more likely it is that people will lift the stone, turn it over, have a look, question something differently and bring different expertise to a board than if we draw people from the same professional backgrounds, same parts of geography or same of any other categories of people. It is about merit, but it is about making sure that we recognise that merit exists in a very wide range of places.

Mr Gaston: So you accept that the only legally binding principle in the 1995 Order is indeed merit?

Ms Keatinge: It is to make sure that they are transparent, fair, open and on the merit principle.

Mr Gaston: We have heard quite a bit about diversity in the questions so far. What does diversity look like to you?

Ms Keatinge: Can you be a bit clearer in your question? That is quite a wide-ranging question. In relation to my role, how can I help you?

Mr Gaston: Essentially, there have been a number of questions about diversity as a whole, and I want to unpick what diversity looks like in your view. What is your definition of "diversity"?

Ms Keatinge: My definition of "diversity" is at every stage of the process, right through, we recognise what our society looks like; we recognise who is in it; and we recognise that in order to reach or identify all those people and their interests and what is likely to encourage them to apply for a public appointment. We may advertise in different places. Sometimes we may place local advertisements and do engagements with particular sectoral interests. For example, if you had a farming-related public appointment, people might go and talk to some of the farming organisations, and comparably with all sorts of other organisations, so that when you get to the appointment and you get a range of people on those boards, they represent, as widely as possible, the interests, aptitudes and abilities of the widest possible range of people. That is what diversity means to me. It does not look tokenistic and it does not look shallow. It looks like the best expertise drawn from as many places as possible to represent selection on merit and then the best decision-making around a board table. That is what it looks like to me.

Mr Gaston: On page 42 of your 2019-2020 annual report, it says:

Is that a case of promoting equality of opportunity or equality of outcome, if you are trying to work to the gender targets of the Northern Ireland Executive?

Ms Keatinge: As I understand it, those targets are no longer in place.

Mr Gaston: So they have been done away with?

Ms Keatinge: As I understand it. My focus has not been entirely on diversity and equality inclusion. I have not yet dug as far as I intend to into exactly what happened to those targets, but my understanding is that they are no longer there.

Mr Gaston: Under "TEO unregulated" bodies, the list has your office, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, on it. Do you want it regulated?

Ms Keatinge: I cannot regulate myself.

Mr Gaston: I am glad to hear you say that. I just see that as the unregulated bodies. Essentially, the only ones who regulate themselves who have an interest are MLAs when it comes to their pay or the trustees for their pension. In the week that it has been, it is refreshing to hear that. On that basis, who should regulate your office?

Ms Keatinge: That is a really interesting question, because I do not know what the answer to that is yet. I have got engagements to have within TEO to see what happens to complaints procedures. For example, if somebody had a complaint in relation to the appointment process that I went through, where did they go? I am not sure. Going forward, once we get the Order updated and public bodies included on it, with a mechanism for me to be able to regulate as soon as new public bodies come on, this will be one of the outstanding offices. I am interested to hear what the Executive Office thinks that the way forward is as regards having the proper, fair complaints procedure, because it will not be able to be investigated by my office.

Mr Gaston: The last area that I want to explore with you is that there is no mention of religion in your submission.

Ms Keatinge: In which submission?

Mr Gaston: The submission that you have put in today. In 2012, Conor Murphy was found guilty of discrimination when Alan Lennon, a Protestant, took a case after being overlooked for appointment by Northern Ireland Water. It was shown that there was material bias against the appointment of candidates from a Protestant background. When I researched it, that was the only case that I could come out with. Yet there is no mention of religion where there is a live case where it is shown that discrimination took place in a public appointment.

Ms Keatinge: I am sorry; I do not understand what the actual question is. What would you like me to —?

Mr Gaston: Back in 2012 —.

Ms Keatinge: I understand the issue that you are talking about.

Mr Gaston: What would your office do differently to ensure that that does not happen?

Ms Keatinge: If there is an investigation of a public appointments process and a complaint has come in or an issue has arisen with a public appointments process, I will carry out an audit or a complaints process investigation. I will publish the findings of both of those. The complainant will have redress, if the case is found in their favour, through the industrial and fair employment tribunals. If there are findings in relation to Ministers, those come back through Assembly processes.

Mr Gaston: Religion is not mentioned in your submission. Is that something that you are going to actively promote?

Ms Keatinge: I look at equality across all the section 75 groups, including religion.

Mr Gaston: You have plenty on diversity, but there was a live case where discrimination was found, but it was not mentioned. I am just making sure that you are aware that it is high on your list of what to go after in your new role as commissioner. I am happy enough. Thank you very much.

Ms Keatinge: I will pick up on your point. Previous commissioners have generally operated what they called a risk-based approach to auditing. If a particular competition caused concern for whatever reason, they would have carried out an audit against the process that was gone through. They would also have looked thematically across issues, for example, in relation to disability. I will look to see where the evidence takes me when it comes to issues that have been discovered before, as well as the risk-based approach that I need to take currently and which thematic approach would be helpful.

Mr Brett: Congratulations on your appointment, commissioner. Just a couple of things at the start. You said that you had written to Ministers following your appointment. Some have met you and some are yet to be scheduled for a meeting. If you do not mind, can you give the Committee an overview of which Ministers you have met to date?

Ms Keatinge: I have met Ministers Archibald and Long, I have an appointment pending with Minister Muir, and I have had correspondence from at least two other Ministers saying that they are content with the briefing that they have had and do not need to meet me at this time, although their doors are open. I have briefed all the permanent secretaries, so the Ministers can reasonably be understood to have been briefed and may not feel the need to meet at this time. My correspondence is clear that my doors are open.

Mr Brett: Perfect. Are you currently investigating any complaints in relation to public appointments processes?

Ms Keatinge: No.

Mr Brett: When was the most recent investigation carried out by your office?

Ms Keatinge: By my office? That would have been in 2019-2020.

Mr Brett: Have you looked back historically at the average number of complaints?

Ms Keatinge: I have not reviewed the number of complaints coming through compared with the number that were actually the subject of investigation and the outcomes of those investigations. I have not done that piece of work yet. Going forward, the more important thing will be to make sure that Departments and applicants are clear about what the complaints process is and that they feel confident to approach my office with a complaint if they have one, and that it will be properly investigated.

Mr Brett: Are you aware of examples of when the commissioner has found that there has been a breach?

Ms Keatinge: Yes. Those are all published on my website. They are anonymised, but they are available to the public.

Mr Brett: What would be the most recent example?

Ms Keatinge: I cannot give you a date. I can certainly get the most recent example sent to you.

Mr Brett: I want to pick up on the case that Timothy highlighted, which was the fair employment tribunal's finding in 2012. Dr Alan Lennon OBE took a case against the then Department for Regional Development when he was overlooked for the position of chair of Northern Ireland Water. The tribunal ruled that Dr Lennon had been subject to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. The findings were that Mr Sean Hogan, a Catholic, was appointed as chair of Northern Ireland Water because he was not from a Protestant background and because he was known to Minister Murphy and Minister Murphy's ministerial colleagues. What are the implications for a Minister or a Department if they breach the code?

Ms Keatinge: If they are in breach of the code, I will make a formal report that sets out what my findings are in relation to the process and the actions that have been taken. The complainant in the process will have redress through the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET), and any matters involving a Minister will come back through Assembly processes.

Mr Brett: What does "Assembly processes" mean or look like? For example, that case in 2012 was the first in the history of the state of Northern Ireland in which a Minister was found to be in breach of the code by a fair employment tribunal on the grounds of religious discrimination. If that were to happen again, what would be the implication or consequence for a Minister who discriminated against someone based on their religion, political belief or protected minority rights?

Ms Keatinge: My role is to do with the process and the investigation of complaints from complainants about the processes and auditing those processes. What happens to an individual Minister is out of my jurisdiction.

Mr Brett: You would make no recommendations?

Ms Keatinge: I would about the process that has been undertaken. As I audit a complaint or an issue, I would go from top to toe in the process about what happened and what evidence is in relation to my code of practice. That is where my role stops.

Mr Brett: So, it stops there. I am just reading the concluding remarks in the statement at the time from the Equality Commission, which supported the applicant. It said:

That was after the investigation. What did those discussions look like?

Ms Keatinge: I have not reviewed the case in detail.

Mr Brett: No, of course. I understand that.

Ms Keatinge: In a case such as that, it would involve asking, "What additional advice, support and information do you need? Do you understand what the code of practice for ministerial public appointments requires you to do? Do you need any further training, assistance or information before you can go ahead with the next appointment? What is the additional support and guidance that you need in order to be able to do your function properly?" It would be on the front foot in providing that advice and support, and I would then probably expect that that would be a risk-based assessment through an audit. It might be that, at the end of the process, I audit how good compliance had taken place.

Mr Brett: OK. So you would give recommendations on training people in how not to be sectarian and not to engage in sectarian discrimination?

Ms Keatinge: It is not so much about giving recommendations not to do that. It is about giving advice, guidance, support and assistance so that they are able to demonstrate that they comply with the code of practice for ministerial public appointments. That may include information, training and advice.

Mr Brett: This is the final question from me. The Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill is going through the Assembly at the minute. It is a catch-all Bill — on many occasions, Departments use those to bring legislation up to speed on a number of issues that may not qualify for a stand-alone Bill. Has your office given any thoughts to making some amendments to the Bill in order to allow for regulation of some of the public appointments that have developed since the previous Order?

Ms Keatinge: No, that is not the way that it seems to be going forward. The Executive Office is working on updating the Order and checking that it is fit for purpose in its language and the bodies that are in it. It is also looking to find a mechanism by which my regulatory functions can apply to new bodies as they come in, rather than having to continually come back and update the Order. I am not aware of that being looked at through the Bill.

Mr Brett: I understand. The Committee may wish to take that up, because — and, listen, my party sits in that office — it is not the quickest office at doing work. It is clear that the Order is out of date and needs to be brought up to speed as quickly as possible, so the Committee may wish to look at that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, commissioner, for coming in and briefing us today. I have a number of questions, though others have covered some of them. Has the new recruitment process commenced yet?

Ms Keatinge: For the independent assessors?

Ms Murphy: Yes.

Ms Keatinge: No, it has not commenced yet. Work is being undertaken on my office's side to ensure that the paperwork is in order, the candidate information books are ready, and the money has been allocated to us in this financial year. Sadly, the HR Connect processes, as I understand it, run quite slowly. At the moment, it looks as though those processes will not be able to deliver the recruitment process in this financial year. I am advised that I will then have to bid in June monitoring for money, which I may or may not get. Frankly, that means that nobody will be in post before September at the very earliest. As colleagues referred to, there will be training and induction to do. That puts at risk a significant number of public appointments, if that cannot be addressed and those processes cannot be speeded up or the money be provided across financial years on some kind of at-risk basis so that I can carry out the recruitment exercise earlier. It is a risk.

Ms Murphy: I assume that you will go back to TEO about that allocation when we come into the next financial year and put that ask to it, as well as possibly, though hopefully not, in the lead-in to the June monitoring round.

How many audits have taken place since you came into post?

Ms Keatinge: None. The chap who has just been appointed to deal with audit and compliance started last week. Nobody was in that position up until that point, so it has not been possible to carry out any audits yet.

Ms Murphy: I will go back to updated lists within Departments and their ability to update those lists based on any new bodies and even unregulated bodies. Do Departments have the ability to do that via statutory regulation?

Ms Keatinge: If I understood you right, they do not seem to think so. The 1995 Order is very short and really specific. I have taken independent legal advice, which is very clear that if something is not a regulated public appointment, then it is not a regulated public appointment. There is no grey area in it. It seems that the only way forward is to update that Order by putting in some kind of provision to make sure that I can regulate bodies as they are developed.

Ms Murphy: OK. Just one final question. I cannot remember which annex it is in, but I read in the report that, in 2018, there were exemptions to the code in relation to emergency appointments in light of the fact that no Ministers were in post. Quite a few emergency appointments were made over that period. What safeguards were put in place when making those emergency appointments?

Ms Keatinge: My responsibility as commissioner is to be both reasonable and proportionate, as well as to ensure adherence to the code. Exemptions to the code are requested usually in an emergency situation. It may be that the chair of an organisation is unwell and needs to be replaced quickly by someone else on a short-term basis, or it may be that an extension of a chair's role for a couple of months is needed, where someone has been appointed to that role but does not want to take it up for another four months, because they are finishing something up. That is the usual way of it. A lot of the time, the safeguards rest in the evidence that is provided to me by the Department about why it is looking for an exception. It then depends on my reasonable judgement to see what is proportionate, fair, reasonable and value for money. There is a difference between an extension of a chair's role for a couple of months because there is a particular issue and the extension of a chair's role — nobody has asked for this — for two years. I look at proportionality. It needs to be an emergency or unexpected situation that is otherwise very difficult to manage.

There are a number of different circumstances that emerge in public appointments. I am sure that you are familiar with what some of those have looked like over the years. People may become unwell, and sometimes people are not reappointed by Ministers. That can cause a little bit of a glitch in the system. There is something to be done across all Departments to best plan public appointment processes to make sure that there are clear plans of actions in all Departments and that they know the dates on which different appointments are coming up and need to be done to make emergency appointments less likely. Certainly, recent exemptions to the code were included when Ministers chose not to make reappointments. That caused the hiccup.

Ms Murphy: That was the crux of my question: how do you strike the balance between a two-month extension due to sickness or another ongoing issue and a two-year extension without much of a justification?

Ms Keatinge: Without a clear justification, I would have conversations with departmental representatives to push them hard to maximise normality, if you like — the proper due process — and to understand what the emergency is and restrict it as much as possible so that the exception covers the emergency or the urgent situation rather than just making something a lot easier.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Commissioner. You are welcome here, and I wish you well in your post.

A gap of four and a half years is pretty significant. There is a lot of catching up to do, and you have been in post only six months. It seems that you have come into a very depleted office and you are in the build stage. When will you have an operational plan in place? I am well aware that you have said that you have 75 days and that you need that increased. Is it important to get that increase sooner rather than later, when you are in the build stage of trying to get your office in shape and fight-ready in order to deliver the work that you need to do? I am concerned that you are constricted even by your own admission: 75 days is not a lot.

Ms Keatinge: It is not. I have used them up already.

Ms McLaughlin: I can hear that from the evidence that you have been giving. You are rebuilding something that has fallen by the wayside, and that takes significant work. You are starting from scratch. Look at those independent assessors: you said that there are only seven of them still there, and you have only just last week appointed auditors. There is a lot of work to be done, and you do not seem to have enough time. Will you talk us through that?

Ms Keatinge: That is very kind of you, and I appreciate that. I am sorry if my tone came across as sounding as if I was doing too much work. It is a job in which I expect to do more than I am contracted for. That is how it looks. It has been exceptionally busy, and I am pleased to see a team of three staff now in post. The way that I see it, it would be sensible to increase my hours in the same way that the previous two commissioners' hours were, so that you see like for like. If you work two days a week on average, it is much more engaged, and that seems to be the right amount of time to be across the decision-making, the planning and the outreach, which are where a lot of my responsibilities sit. Setting up the office again is about re-establishing the regulatory functions. I have no issue with the staff who were in the office while there was no commissioner in post; they did a fabulous job. However, setting up the new office and getting staff in post takes time. There has been a bit of staff turnover, with people in and people out, but I now have a team of three. It takes a while to get those staff in place, but I have a plan of action. We have just finished looking at our end-of-year planning and at what the plan for next year looks like. My business plan and operational work will fall directly out of my statutory functions, so they will be quite straightforward and clear. We will look at the statutory functions and plan a programme of outreach, audit, complaints handling and engagement inquiries with Departments, and will make sure that those things are done in a conclusive way so that there is something material to report on at the end of the first year that moves forward the gap in regulation.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you. As a Committee, we probably need to pick up with the Executive Office on the number of days that you are working to see whether TEO has a plan to increase them. When you are setting up or starting back in an office where there has been no commissioner for years, it is important to get it right and get on our feet sooner rather than later. There has been enough downtime.

Ms Keatinge: To be fair to people in the Executive Office, I have put it to them already. They have indicated that they are not unsympathetic, but they have no money.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Commissioner, for your time today.

This is not really a question: I just want to thank you for your time at the Committee and wish you all the best. You clearly have quite a role to perform in those short hours, so I wish you and your team all the best with it. I have a quick query. We noted that you do not yet have a social media presence. Will that come in time?

Ms Keatinge: It will come in time, but generating social media activity has not been number one on my list. Number one on my list has been trying to steady the ship; making sure that Departments know that we are up and ready for business; and making sure that we can deliver independent assessments, advice, support and training. That, rather than generating social media noise, is my priority.

Mrs Cameron: It is not always helpful, but it would be useful for outreach purposes and providing knowledge about your role.

Ms Keatinge: It is. The plan for next year is to do in-person outreach and public workshops so that people who are interested in public appointments can come, on a virtual or in-person basis, to a conversation about what public appointments are. I will go out to a range of groups and organisations. I have already met organisations such as the Public Sector Chairs' Forum, so I am already out in the world. However, generating social media noise has not been on the top of my list, to be honest.

Mrs Cameron: That is great. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much, Claire. I appreciate your time at Committee. Like others, I wish you well in the months ahead. We have a few things to decide and agree on to follow up with the Executive Office. We will hopefully be able to provide you with those updates.

Ms Keatinge: Thank you for our time and interest. It matters that public appointments are done right, because public services matter. They matter to all of us. Good luck, and thanks very much.