House of Commons Liaison Committee
Select Committees and Public Appointments
First Report of Session 2010–12
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 July 2011
HC 1230
Published on 4 September 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited
£14.50
Liaison Committee
The Liaison Committee is appointed to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees; to advise the House of Commons Commission on select committees; to choose select committee reports for debate in the House and to hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy.
Current membership
Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair)
The Chair of the following Select Committees are members of the Liaison Committee:
Administration – Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden)
Backbench Business – Natascha Engel MP (Labour, North East Derbyshire)
Business, Innovation and Skills – Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-op, West
Bromwich West)
Communities and Local Government – Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield
South East)
Culture, Media and Sport – Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon)
Defence – Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Education – Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)
Energy and Climate Change – Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) Environmental Audit – Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Miss Anne McIntosh MP (Conservative,
Thirsk and Malton)
European Scrutiny – Mr William Cash MP (Conservative, Stone)
Finance and Services – John Thurso MP (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Foreign Affairs – Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative, Croydon South) Health – Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell MP (Conservative, Charnwood) Home Affairs – Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) Human Rights (Joint Committee) – Dr Hywel Francis MP (Labour, Aberavon) International Development – Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat,
Gordon) Justice – Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Northern Ireland Affairs – Mr Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative,
Tewkesbury)
Political and Constitutional Reform – Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham
North)
Procedure – Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, East Yorkshire) Public Accounts – Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP (Labour, Barking) Public Administration – Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North
Essex)
Regulatory Reform – Mr Robert Syms MP (Conservative, Poole) Science and Technology – Andrew Miller MP (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) Scottish Affairs – Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour/Co-op, Glasgow South West) Selection – Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Standards and Privileges – Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Statutory Instruments – Mr George Mudie MP (Labour, Leeds East)
Transport – Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-op, Liverpool Riverside)
Treasury – Mr Andrew Tyrie MP (Conservative, Chichester) Welsh Affairs – David T C Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Work and Pensions – Dame Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South)
Powers
The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No 145. The Standing Orders are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons- select/liaison-committee/.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Jacqy Sharpe (Clerk), Philippa Helme (Second Clerk), Paul Evans (Clerk to the National Policy Statements SubCommittee), Kevin Candy (Senior Committee Assistant) and Lee Chiddicks (Committee Assistant).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Liaison Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5675; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]
Select Committees and Public Appointments
1
Contents
Report
Page
- Summary
- 3
- 1
- Background
Introduction
5
56677777
The Constitution Unit findings The Institute for Government findings Recent developments
A Statutory Veto Joint recruitment by Parliament and Government An “effective veto” Broadening the scope
2345
What are pre-appointment hearings for? Agreeing the job specification
8
10
- 12
- Information about other candidates
- Power of veto
- 14
14 15 18
The Office of Budget Responsibility - an exceptional case? An “effective veto” A power of dismissal?
67
Which posts should be subject to the hearings?
The current list
19
19 19 19 20 21
The IfG’s proposals The Government’s proposals Our proposals Political appointments
- Consolidated guidance
- 22
- Conclusions and recommendations
- 23
Annex 1: List of pre-appointment hearings held, July 2008 to July 2011 Annex 2: Table of proposed categorisations of posts to be subject to preappointment hearings
26 31 32 35
Annex 3: Indicative list of posts to be subject to pre-appointment hearings Annex 4: Joint Guidance for Departments and Select Committees
- Formal Minutes
- 46
47 47
Witnesses List of printed written evidence
Select Committees and Public Appointments
3
Summary
In this report we consider the experience of some three years of holding “preappointment” hearings by select committees to examine the “preferred candidate” for certain public appointments, before a Minister proceeds to confirm an appointment.
The experiment has been a success and the procedure represents a modest step forward in securing democratic accountability of ministerial decision-making. However, we recommend a number of changes to the system as it stands.
The list of posts to which the procedure applies should be refined. We propose, for the purposes of further discussion, a three-part list. Posts in the first tier are those we consider to be of sufficient constitutional significance as to require a process which is effectively a joint appointment by Government and the House of Commons. Posts in the second tier are those which we propose should be subject to an enhanced and improved version of the current process, and which should be subject to an “effective veto” by the House of Commons or its committees. For posts in the third tier we propose that a pre-appointment hearing should be at the discretion of committees.
The procedure for pre-appointment hearings should be refined to provide for:
•••
greater consultation between Ministers and committees at the outset of the recruitment process on the definition of the post and the criteria for selection;
more information to be provided to committees in advance of hearings about the field of candidates from which the preferred candidate has been selected;
a recognition that it may be appropriate for the Chair of a committee to discuss privately with a Minister any reservations the Committee may have about a candidate before issuing its report and before the Minister proceeds to a decision;
•
a resolution of the House of Commons confirming appointments in certain cases.
We annex to this report a draft of proposed guidance to be agreed between this Committee and the Government setting out the new procedures.
Select Committees and Public Appointments
5
1 Background
Introduction
1. In 2008, following an undertaking made in the Governance of Britain Green Paper1 and negotiations between the Cabinet Office and the Liaison Committee, a system of “preappointment hearings” by select committees was introduced.2
2. In its final report of the last Parliament, the previous Liaison Committee looked at the findings of research which it had commissioned (jointly with the Cabinet Office) from the Constitution Unit at University College London (UCL) on the operation of the preappointment hearings system.3 The research found that the hearings had met their purpose and that they should continue. The Committee agreed with these findings and recommended: a review of the criteria for determining which posts should be subject to pre-appointment hearings which were generally agreed to be inconsistent; that committees should be consulted on the formulation of job descriptions; that there should be provision for a form of conciliation process when committees were minded to recommend against an appointment; and that there should be agreed guidelines between the Liaison Committee and the Government on the purpose, scope and conduct of the hearings.4
3. The new Government, responding after the election in November last year, broadly accepted these recommendations, and agreed to further discussions.5 We decided to hold a short inquiry into how to implement the changes on which there appeared to be consensus, taking account of new research published by the Institute for Government (IfG, an independent think tank) in March 20116 and other recent developments.7
4. We received written evidence from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Chair of the Public Chairs’ Forum and the Constitution Unit, UCL.8 We also held an evidence session on 16 June with Lord Adonis and Akash Paun of the Institute for Government and Professor Robert Hazell and Peter Waller of the Constitution Unit as well as the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office.9 We thank all those who contributed to our inquiry.
12
Cm 7170, July 2007 Liaison Committee, First Special Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment hearings by select committees:
Government response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2007-08, HC 594, p 1
345
Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2009-10, The Work of Committees in Session 2008-09, HC 426 ibid, paras 60-72 Liaison Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2010-11, Pre-Appointment Hearings: Further Government
Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2009-10 (The Work of Committees in 2008-09) , HC 564
6
Institute for Government, Balancing Act: the right role for parliament in public appointments, March 2011,
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk (hereafter “Balancing Act”)
789
See paras 9 to 13 below QQ 1 to 45 QQ 45 to 89
6
Select Committees and Public Appointments
The Constitution Unit findings
5. The Constitution Unit’s research found that the candidates themselves were generally content with the process, both in principle and in practice. Many welcomed the public endorsement of their appointment, which had provided “additional legitimacy” in their new role. Contrary to the fears of many (including the Government), there was no evidence that the addition of pre-appointment hearings had acted as a deterrent to prospective applicants to the posts concerned. The reservations expressed within Government departments about the process mostly related to the addition of an extra stage to what is already a lengthy timetable. Otherwise, they were largely neutral.10
6. The main reservations about the new arrangements were expressed by committee members themselves to the researchers. The UCL report found that some Members were uncertain about the precise purpose of the hearings and expressed some frustration at the apparent lack of a decisive role in the process of appointment. However, most candidates interviewed by the research team said that they probably would not have taken up the post in the event of a negative report. There were few complaints about how committees had conducted the hearings: “in general the candidates were complimentary about the way the Committee had set about their task”, according to the report.11
7. The UCL research team suggest four options for the future development of preappointment hearings:
••••
a greater role for Parliament: for example, engagement with more than one candidate and a power of veto;
the status quo, perhaps with some modest adjustments to the appointments subject to hearings and the current process;
a slight step back: effectively to replace pre-appointment scrutiny with postappointment or pre-commencement scrutiny;
a hybrid approach: a greater role for Parliament in a smaller number of appointments.12
The Institute for Government findings
8. The IfG report, published in March this year, examined the operation of preappointment hearings so far. It recommended four criteria (which it set out) which should be applied to produce a three-tier list of posts. Category A appointments (about two dozen in their calculation) would be subject to an enhanced process including: early consultation on the definition of the role; an “effective” (not necessarily statutory) veto by a select committee over the appointment; scrutiny of re-appointments; an effective veto by the committee over dismissal; plus a version of the “mediation procedure” proposed by the Liaison Committee. Category B appointments would be subject to procedures which were broadly the same as the present system (plus a requirement for Ministers to justify before
10 See Second Report from the Liaison Committee of Session 2009-10, op cit, Annex 3, pp 68-133, para 3.8 11 ibid, para 3.2 12 ibid, Chapter 6
Select Committees and Public Appointments
7
the committee any decision to ignore their recommendation not to appoint). Category C appointments would be those where committees would be asked whether they wished to invoke the procedure (with an implicit expectation that in most cases they would not). 13
Recent developments
9. There have also been a number of developments in relation to appointments to certain posts.
A Statutory Veto
10. The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 makes the appointment and dismissal of the Chair and independent members of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) subject to consent by the Treasury Select Committee.
Joint recruitment by Parliament and Government
11. The recruitment process for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was changed better to reflect the parliamentary nature of the role. The recruitment was led by Parliament, in close co-operation with the Government (Cabinet Office and Department of Health). The Government tabled two motions to allow the House of Commons to approve the appointment and remuneration of the candidate which were debated once the Public Administration Select Committee had conducted a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate.14
An “effective veto”
12. The Justice Minister announced to the House in February 2011 that, as part of the wider measures to strengthen the independence of the office of the Information Commissioner, the Government would accept the Justice Committee's conclusion from its pre-appointment hearing on whether or not the preferred candidate for the post of Information Commissioner should be appointed.15
Broadening the scope
13. Although the post of Chair of the BBC Trust is not on the current list of preappointment posts the selection of Lord Patten as the new Chair was made subject to a preappointment hearing which took place on 10 March.16
13 Balancing Act, pp 26-30
14 Ninth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2010-12, Pre-appointment Hearing for the
Post of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, HC 1220-I and II; Votes and Proceedings, 18 July 2011, item 8
15 HC Deb, 16 February 2011, cc 87-88WS 16 Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Session 2010-12, Pre-appointment hearing with the
Government’s preferred candidate for the Chairman of the BBC Trust, HC 864-I
8
Select Committees and Public Appointments
2 What are pre-appointment hearings for?
14. The Government’s original rationale for proposing pre-appointment hearings was based on “increasing democratic scrutiny of public appointments”17 and providing “greater public reassurance that those appointed to key public offices are appointed on merit”.18 The Liaison Committee expected committee hearings to focus on “the professional competence and personal independence of the candidate”.19
15. The evidence we received and the research undertaken by the Constitution Unit and the IfG shows not only that these aims have been met but that the pre-appointment hearings have generated some additional benefits. These include adding to the appointee’s legitimacy within their organisation and with the media and the public, and enabling the appointee to meet the select committee at an early stage to discuss their plans and priorities, particularly where accountability to Parliament though its committees is likely to be a significant element of the post.
16. Lord Adonis argued that a select committee scrutiny hearing:
[...] serves another key aspect of the public interest, which is to see that there is proper parliamentary accountability for major appointments, and that there is an acceptability test that is met, policed by parliamentary Committees in respect of the most significant of those public appointments.20
17. There is still residual concern in some quarters about the risk that exposure of appointees to select committees will lead to “politicisation” of the process.21 The main reservations have come from the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The current Commissioner, Sir David Normington (himself having been subject to a pre-appointment hearing), believes that “If [select committees] do question the merits of the candidate, they are not only challenging the decision of the panel and the appointing Minister, they are also calling into question the regulatory system itself”.22 Select committees have a dilemma “... reviewing a decision which has already been taken by a properly regulated process”. His predecessor, Dame Janet Gaymer, expressed similar reservations.23
17 Public Administration Committee, Sixth Special Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and public appointments: Pre-
appointment hearings by select committees: Government response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007-
08, HC 515, p 3
18 Liaison Committee, First Special Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment hearings by select committees:
Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2007-08, HC 594, p 1
19 Liaison Committee, HC 384, 2007-08, para 13 20 Q2 21 Public Chairs Forum evidence, point 10, Ev 21; Constitution Unit, An Evaluation of Pre-Appointment Scrutiny
Hearings, 22 January 2010 pp 31-32; Balancing Act, pp 20-22
22 Ev 17-18 23 Public Administration Select Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and public appointments: Pre-
appointment hearings by select committees, HC 152,Ev 16-18
Select Committees and Public Appointments
9
18. It is a proper function of Parliament to oversee the role of regulators. In any event, we do not see any contradiction between the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) to ensure the conduct of a fair and transparent selection process and select committee scrutiny of how Ministers have arrived at their decision about who the preferred candidate should be for particularly significant posts. They each perform a specific and distinct function.
19. However, the purpose and objectives of pre-appointment hearings would benefit from greater precision which we would characterise as:
••
scrutiny of the quality of ministerial decision-making, which is a proper part of ministerial accountability;