PC 5: Appointments

[CWard]

The problem is that Mr. Croft has become too busy playing a Hollywood version of a politician that he’s trying to now have us adopt Americanized ideas of committee and approval hearings. This is just a Kilimanjaro of red tape in the name of transparency. The problem is that the conservatives agree that we should have an inquiry, but they have already seen the results and have made a half baked solution that’s riddled with confusion and chaos

[Sir Jack Anderson]

It seems that the bill the Leader of the Opposition has tabled already has amendments waiting in the wings from its own proponents to ‘strengthen’ it.

Usually, the process of discussion, deliberation, criticism and amendment is a good one and a healthy fixture of our Parliamentary democracy. However, that it’s own side have tacitly admitted this bill is fundamentally flawed and that the Leader of the Opposition, frankly, made the wrong calls, speaks poorly as to the legislative strength of the bill.

This is why we should not be rushing to make these changes until we’ve heard back from experts after deliberation, not politicians after arguments: we’ll get it wrong, and likely made it worse, which is what the Tory-Liberal backroom dealers have admitted by presenting a draft three of this bill already.

[Amelia Lockhart]

I am interested in getting the right answers for reducing politics in the appointments process. The Conservatives are only interested in getting there quickly so they can score party political points in doing so. They want to create a Commission but implement reforms before such a Commission has had one second to consider the evidence and the necessary solutions. Unfortunately that leads to poor, sloppy and mistaken policy from the Leader of the Opposition, which creates more problems than it solves. For example, the legislation refers to positions that are impeachable by Parliament. No such positions exists as impeachment is considered an ‘obsolete’ process, thus the Conservatives legislation refers to parliamentary irrelevance. While the Conservative Party rush to draft and redraft legislation to secure quick headlines, Labour will allow independent experts to get this right from the start - and Britain will be better off for that.

[Will Frost]

First the Government complained that I hadn't put my own name on the original legislation. Then, their faux concern became about "back room deals." And now, it's the ridiculous assertion that amending legislation is typically the sign of good Parliamentary cooperation... but not if it's done by the Conservatives.

The New Labour spin machine has been working overtime this week, because since we tabled our Public Appointments Reform legislation, the Government hasn't actually been able to articulate a substantive opposition to our legislation. Ms. Lockhart says she's against the bill because we need an independent inquiry. Well, our legislation should provides for one. The Chancellor says we need to hear from the experts. Well, this legislation empowers the preeminent expert, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, with the power and independence she deserves. Mr. Ward says the bill adds "too much red tape," but to that assertion I say: why would we not want a comprehensive bill that makes it difficult for politicians like Tony Blair to sidestep?

The arguments Labour is making against the Opposition's proposal are paper thin, and they know it. More importantly, the British people know it too. While they rush in front of the cameras to share their newest theory on why this bill should fail, my party and our Liberal Democrat colleagues will soldier on with doing the people's work.

[CWard]

“While they rush in front of the cameras to share their newest theory on why this bill should fail, my party and our Liberal Democrat colleagues will soldier on with doing the people's work.”

Is he serious?? That’s the most self unaware statement he’s made

[John Baker]

The truth of the matter is very simple the new Labour project is telling you that we can't try to fix a system. They have spent the course of this debate telling the British public to not expect better. Labour's argument is until they get a report and then let their spin doctors set up and start spinning it every which way, we cannot expect better. That we shouldn't even try to fix the system before then. Is fundamentally wrong and disingenuous. Labour is acting as if they are the opposition, and not the government. Why else spend all the time and spin trying to take down the bill instead of reforming it. If Jack Anderson wants a stronger bill, he should feel free to submit one instead of wasting time, trying to figure out how an inquiry should be called when one already exists within this legislation. Jack Anderson said during the Cronyism debate, "We can work together and put political allegiances aside to build a transparent public appointments process the British people can put their faith in." Instead of trying to build on that statement he has chosen to create a political spat. I hope that instead of fighting the reforms, Jack can take a look at his speech from that debate and decide if he meant what he said.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

I am, of course, flattered that Mr. Baker has decided to pay me so much attention, and to have paid attention to my words in prior debates, I feel there are some things worth correcting. I do feel the need to put things right. I did call for cross party movement to fix the system. Mr. Baker will, however, remember I condemned his party for not focusing on fixing the system of public appointments but in just seeking to embarrass the government. I feel that this behaviour hasn't just continued, but has intensified for them.

I also in my initial speech called for an independent inquiry to fix the appointments process, as a starting point, before declaring the cross party movement continue from there. The Opposition are not following in that spirit, but have come to a strange place where they accept the government's call for an inquiry but have decided to already reach conclusions in some places before we get any findings from such an inquiry.

What I'd also say is I have not created a political spat. I have simply taken a position the Conservatives do not find savoury, which is why they have advanced personal, not political, arguments as Mr. Baker has. Let us not forget they created this and turned it into a political spat long before I took to the government benches - and are not just continuing but exacerbating that spat. If they had simply reached a different position to me, I could accept that.

Instead, I have been called a spinner, a liar, someone with no convictions and principles - and many other unpleasant accusations have been levelled against me. This reached a particular low point when the Leader of the Opposition told fundamental mistruths about my period on the Treasury Select Committee and the conduct about the Committee. While I approach arguments in good faith and believe Mr. Croft made a mistake, this mudslinging from the Opposition remains petulant and unpleasant. I am simply taking the position I always have had: that we should be careful and deliberate on policy before we rush to a course of action that could have unintended consequences. If this offends Mr. Baker so deeply, I apologise, but I will not waver from my conviction in reasoned and balanced judgments.

[Will Frost]

There was no mistake, and I am sorry to see that the Chancellor is still confused about the historical role of the committee he used to chair. The Treasury Select Committee, since 1997, has held confirmation hearings for candidates seeking to be appointed to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. That is a fact, and it's one the Chancellor should know given he joined the Committee just one year later. What matters is this: the concept of ensuring senior public officials are held accountable to Parliament is not a new one, and that our legislation seeks to build off that precedent by making the Commissioner for Public Appointments report to Parliament and not to the people they are charged with holding accountable. The person charged with being a Government watchdog should not be dependent on Government Minister for funding, staffing, and office space - yet that is the reality of the system today. The Conservatives have proposed legislation to change that, and I encourage the Chancellor to join us in our efforts.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

That is not what you said, Mr. Croft.

You said: "In fact in 1997 the very Committee that Sir Jack just recently chaired, the Treasury Select Committee voted in favor of requiring Bank of England nominees to be subject to a confirmation vote of Parliament." And: "The proposal would have required, under law, that candidates for the position be subjected to nomination hearings before they were permitted to be formally appointed. Those hearings would have included a vote, which would have undermined the sitting Prime Minister's ability to move forward with the nomination. The Committee's decision was eventually vetoed by then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, because he didn't want to see his authority weakened by a more powerful Parliament."

These are, as has been pointed out by someone who sat on this very Committee and has scrutinised multiple public appointments included Mr. Mandelson's, fundamentally untrue statements. Any responsible Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge this, especially if they wanted to work in cross party and in good faith.

[Will Frost]

And the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee wanted to mandate their practice into law, which is why they wanted the provision included in the 1998 Bank of England Act. It was not, because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown vetoed it, in yet another act of preserving the power of the executive over the House of Commons.

But to be honest, none of this really matters. It is a minor, minor point in a much bigger debate. Because as I said this evening when I introduced the Conservative's reform bill to the House, there is work to be done; we know many of the problems the system faces and can solve them today. We know it is wrong that the Commissioner for Public Affairs reports to the executive, and that they are dependent upon the executive for funding, staffing, and office space. We know it is wrong that some 1,600 appointments were made outside of the Commissioner's oversight purview because of current loopholes in the law. We know the British people want change, because they have told us so time and time again.

Contrary to what the Chancellor may think, I genuinely would like to work together to make headway on this issue. I am passionate about making Government work better for the people it serves, and I believe he is too. So let's do it. Let's pass this legislation that fixes the problems we already know exist, and then orders a public inquiry into the wider system to determine additional long term solutions. It's a commonsense proposal, it holds Ministers to account, and we should pass it together.