PC 5: Appointments

[John Baker]

Mr. Anderson, let's not mince words, what is the problem with trying to fix the problem while waiting on the report? This bill calls for the inquiry that you want and has the cross party support you called for as a solution. Trying to make an argument that somehow doing both isn't exactly the kind of thing we need, is ridiculous and self serving. I think the British public is smart enough to know that New Labour's problem with this bill is, and that it prevents them from continuing to reward their friends. The reason I called for you to look at your speech is to ask you to redefine your approach, are you wanting us to work together or turn this into a partisan fist fight? Because this is a cross party solution and I'm sure if you actually wanted a solution to this problem you could help with it. This simple fact is this Mr. Anderson, if you are trying to fix a pipe, you don't let it keep leaking until you've gotten an expert opinion, you do something to improve the situation before the plumber arrives. Saying we should do nothing before the inquiry reaches it's conclusion is an odd way to solve a problem. I've said all along this is a first step, a first step for before the inquiry gives back it's report and then we institute those reforms.

[Brown]

There is an important reason that major reforms should be taken with deliberation and that major Constitutional changes should not be made without significant reflection, vetting by experts, and considering the potential impacts of these reforms which might have grave unintentional consequences that would harm everything from the ability to have prompt appointments to various Royal Household positions all the way to functionally providing a scenario where an MP may not be able to promptly resign from Parliament having their appointment as Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Chiltern Hundreds. The myriad of "fixes" the Opposition has tabled to attempt to plug the holes in this sinking ship of suggested statute show the wisdom in allowing the experts to consider this issue thoughtfully. This Government has made clear that it intends to deal with this issue with deliberation, not through novel quickly-thought innovations which will create more problems than it solves. It is far better that we do reform correctly than to do reform for the sake of saying that we reformed things--and this Government will make sure that reform around appointments are done correctly considering the opinions of experts, not pandering politicians.

[John Baker]

I'd like to ask if Mr. Ward, if he thinks that the Health Act of 1999, is sloppy work? The Bill focusing on the Deputy Prime Minister's department at the time had 118 different amendments tabled in the House of Commons alone. The New Labour spin doctors have spent so much time focusing on the circumstances around the bill that they mostly forgot to try to spin the substance of the bill. In their spin they have continued the double standard of their projects, all the legislation they proposed that had to be amended, are fine legislation that should remain law; anything the opposition proposes that has an amendment added on to it, is compared to a fictional doctor. I personally am tired of the double standards that the New Labour project imbues. Amendments are a key part of the Democratic process and pretending amendments are the worst thing that can be attached to legislation is a real waste of time and effort. I commend the efforts of people trying to improve the bill and actually address the problem than the disingenuous actions of those trying to attack anything but the actual content of the bill.

[CWard]

My issue isn’t amendments it’s the rushed manner in which the bill was introduced and then amended without debate. The bill as written originally is nothing like what it is now. I have serious issues with us telling newly created devolved parliaments that our rules for their members are valid. I think it sends the wrong message. I think this is a do nothing bill that adds red tape and Americanized political roadblocks.

Meanwhile we’re going through the 5 Stages of Croft. We’re past anger and denial. Now we’re in the polite bargaining

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

I was honoured today to rise in the House and offer two key amendments that have now enabled the Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act 2001 to be a stronger piece of legislation. My amendments take the power to fund the Commissioner away from Parliament, and therefore the Executive, with only an advisory capacity for a Select Committee ensuring the Commissioner's independence and financial security and they ensure that those who commit Misconduct in Public Office or are corrupt will be ejected from their legislative body. It is not controversial to say that corrupt individuals, wherever they may be found, are unfit to hold public office and should be ejected. I would urge certain Members of the Government to stop protecting corrupt individuals by blocking this legislation and engage constructively on the matter at hand.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

New Labour are tripping over themselves to find reasons why we should not take swift and decisive action to protect public office from political interference and patronage, or take action to eject corrupt officials from their positions. They say the Bill would prevent MPs from resigning, this is factually untrue as shown by myself in the House of Commons through Section 1(1)(b) of the legislation. I would urge New Labour to stop trying to cover for their old boss and start looking to a future where the public can actually have confidence in their public officials and their elected representatives acting in the public good rather than repaying favours to old friends and former allies.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

The bill proposed by the Conservatives-Liberal Democrats appears to get messier as the days go on. And it is, if I may say so, thoroughly unconservative and rides roughshod through our entire Parliamentary structure to prove a point.

The sudden change in tone by most of the Conservative benches is an improvement, but what I would gently say to them is for meaningful cross party work we need to find if the parties are on the same page or not – and to be frank, we have made it clear we are not on the same page in regards to when we should act. I do not want to tread on delicate constitutional matters until we hear input back from constitutional experts and others.

That means I must politely decline any invitation to offer amendments to fix the bill. The bill is a mess, with its proponents changing the provisions and boundaries time and time again, before it had even been presented to the House. I want no part in it.

While the opposition have spun around in circles on this, I am reminded now more than ever that patience remains a great virtue. The government’s position has not changed. We will establish an inquiry, we will look into the matter and we will come up with considered and deliberated reforms.

[Will Frost]

In a 2000 MORI poll, ordered by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the majority of the British public held an, "overwhelmingly negative view," of the public appointments system. Since then, the only meaningful action the Government has taken to address the lack of public confidence in the system was to rally around Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson and shield them from any accountability. The ask being made by the British people is quite simple: do something. If the Prime Minister and her Government won't, which appears to be their present strategy, than I will. I have tabled the Opposition's commonsense reform legislation to fix what we know needs changing now, and to provide for an independent public inquiry into the system at large. This isn't radical, it shouldn't be controversial, it's just commonsense.

If working to change the system means I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party will be subjected to daily name calling and vicious political spin, so be it. I will always prefer being attacked for trying to get something done, than remaining unscathed for doing nothing at all.

[Brown]

Mr. Croft seems to have ignored the fact that the Prime Minister and the Government are doing something to address this issue, and have already committed to an inquiry on how we can do this better. Sometimes the only thing worse than doing nothing at all is acting recklessly--and I'm pleased to say that Labour is not proceeding on either of these dangerous fronts, unlike the opposition. Labour will always listen to the experts and ensure that we address problems properly rather than rushing through half-baked legislation in an attempt to score political points. This underscores, yet again, why Labour is the only party that can be trusted with Government.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

We don't need experts to restate what we already know. The Appointments System is broken because it rewards failure and fealty to the Prime Minister, that issue is solved by taking the powers at play away from the Prime Minister and creating an independent system. It is not enough to punt this issue into the long grass, the public demand results and they are going to get them from this amended legislation.