PoliticsUK

I hate you all. Closes 28th at Midnight. All GPC comments relating to this will be rolled over into this marking.

I am incredibly proud of the legislation I have put forth this evening, and the cross-party agreement to stamp out political influence in public appointments that it represents. This legislation does one very simple thing: it empowers the relevant authorities to call out corrupt politicians who are using their office to empower their friends and allies. And more than just that, it establishes the longterm public inquiry, independent of the influence of the Prime Minister and her inner circle, to propose comprehensive reforms to the public appointments process. This bill is about peeling back the curtain on how Ministers appoints public officials, and giving every single British citizen an inside look into exactly what is happening in their name. I urge the Government to join us in supporting it.

My view has always been that we should wait for a report back from independent experts before we acted on such an important issue so quickly that vital mistakes could've been that made. To that end, I am sceptical about Mr. Macmillan's bill.

But I openly think the Leader of the Opposition's bill would be disastrous. With a big enough majority, any government will be granted the powers under this bill to shoot down a Commissioner they disapprove of, or to deprive the OCPA completely of funding if they so wished. It gives more, not less, power to the government. It makes the executive less, not more, accountable.

This is the shame of making such a crucial debate political. In a rush to undermine the government instead of enact meaningful change, the Opposition have presented Parliament with a bill that would strengthen the government's hand.

It is clear to me from discussions with colleagues of multiple parties that Section 2 of Mr Croft's Bill, that is the section which allows Parliament the chance to vote on the appointments and funding of the Commissioner (and therefore the Whips to influence the vote) is a sticking point for some. To this end I intend to propose an amendment to the Bill which shall reshape Section 2 to provide for far greater independence of the Commissioner and his/her funding from Parliament, and therefore from the Executive. I would urge all members to support this amendment to ensure that the Commissioner is truly independent rather than simply remaining a tool of the Executive but with a degree of separation via the majority controlled Parliament.

Under the status quo, that Sir Jack Anderson eagerly defends, the Commissioner is funded and staffed at the control of the Prime Minister. A Prime Minister could, with very little oversight or fuss, easily influence the Commissioner and impact the outcome of their decisions. The difference with our proposal is that MPs are required to vote to keep the office independent and fully funded, with the British public able to hold them accountable if they fail to do so. It removes the decision making process from the shadowy meeting rooms of Number 10, and places it in the House of Commons for the whole country to see. This is not a new idea; for years, Members of Parliament haver seriously suggested making more positions accountable to Parliament via a Vote of Confidence.

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. They did it with a Labour majority, and they did it because they wanted unelected public officials with significant power to be directly accountable to Parliament and by extension the British people. This is a classic example of New Labour being in favor of something, before they were against, before they were in favor of it once more. No principles, no convictions, just spin.

I was not in the Treasury Select Committee in 1997, but I have been helpfully informed that the Treasury Select Committee announced its intention to hold confirmation hearings for the Governor of the Bank of England. It did not recommend that the position of Governor be subject to a Parliamentary vote.

I am, of course, wholly supportive of cross party Select Committees using their position to scrutinise public appointments on their own volition as they have the power to do so now: in fact, doing so was my final act as Chair, and I hope that the inquiry the Prime Minister will commission will look into the role Select Committees can play. That is, of course, not the same as subjecting something to a Parliamentary vote.

Sir Jack is once again being fast and loose with the facts. 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. History, as it so often does, is now repeating itself. Today, we have another Labour Prime Minister determined to take power away from Parliament, away from the people, and vest it in the executive. Decisions about executive appointments should not be influenced by the Prime Minister, which is why the Commissioner must be directly accountable to parliament.

The Prime Minister, thankfully, does not have veto power over the conduct of committees. It is also wholly unconventional for Select Committees to vote, but if they do that would not have any sway over the Prime Minister's course of action.

If William Croft wants to scrutinise any appointments, I am beginning to suspect he may want to start with his own research department.

Labour spent the last few days saying they want an inquiry, this bill not only includes an inquiry but it goes farther and makes a first step in reforming the processes. Labour wants to obfuscate and wait out until a report comes out and the public interest is on something else to finally get some meaningful attempt from them to reforms. I have to ask if the Labour party is so determined on stopping any kind of reform before a committee spends the next two to three years creating a report. I have to ask who desperately needs a job that Labour is so keen on making sure they get an appointment before the commission comes out of their report? We cannot wait until a report is done to start making changes. This bill not only starts the process of getting expert opinions publicly, but it also makes sure that we've taken steps to limit the appointment of cronies in the meantime.

I am pleased to see Mr Croft engage on a cross-party basis to provide a genuine answer to the twin questions of partisan appointment (patronage) and corruption in elected office. I am grateful that working on this cross-party basis some amendments have been created to enhance the Bill proposed, build on its strong foundations, and achieve the mutual goals that we have set for this endeavour. As previously discussed I shall be tabling an amendment to Section 2 to ensure Parliamentary oversight is secured without granting too much power to the Executive, equally I shall be proposing an amendment to create a new Section 4 to the legislation to see corrupt officials ejected from elected office before providing for further votes on extending this provision to cover indicted criminals as well. I commend Mr Croft, Mr Wolfe, and others for working through this issue in good faith to provide a stronger Bill as a result.