Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act 2001 (Oppo Day Legislation 1)

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

Madam Speaker,

I welcome the interjection of the Honourable Member for Erewash but I am afraid that I must disagree with the premise of his point. Just because a provision is not intricately and explicitly defined does not necessarily make it bad law. It is a facet of our Common Law system that there are issues that the courts, as legal experts and guardians, are better placed to decide. It is also a basic truth that Misconduct is already a legally defined term when it comes to Misconduct in Public Office, which this offence would amount to, likewise corruption is a legally defined term that the courts can apply existing case law to. As with all criminal matters it will be for the courts to decide whether the actus reus, that is the action of committing the offence, and the mens rea, that is the intention to commit the offence, are present. As the offences I have listed in my amendments are not strict liability offences there does need to be an intention to commit the offence for the offence to actually have occurred.

Equally I reject the assertion from the Honourable Member that Local Governments are best placed to decide these issues. It is for the courts to decide whether an individual's conduct rises to the level of criminal misconduct or corruption and in these cases I believe that the matter should not be political. It is for that reason that the amendment I proposed made such measures automatic, rather than allowing party leaders in an assembly, council, or the House of Commons to use whips and votes to protect individuals should they be so minded to.

[John Baker]

Madame Speaker,

I rise in support of the amended bill. I also rise to call on Labour to offer amendments they think are necessary into this bill instead of trying to prevent a consensus. This bill is a first step on the road of reforming the processes, it lays out a commission to create further recommendations. We have a problem with cronyism and when you have a problem you don't leave it unfixed until the experts can get around to fixing it. There's no reason not to pursue a genuine attempt to fix the problem while letting the commission get it's report ready. To say that all efforts have to be off the table because the report hasn't come back gives an opening for the problem to remain and be exploited while waiting on the commissions report to come back and be drafted into legislation. Punting the issue into the tall grass for years is a waste of this house's time and resources. I simply request that we all remember that just a establishing a commission does nothing in the meantime to this problem. If we truly want to clean up the appointment system we need something now and we need to pass the commissions recommendations. This house needs to take immediate action and establish the inquiry. Doing one or the other is simply not handling this properly and the New Labour solution of letting the problem exist while a commission looks into the problem obviously allows them to keep appointing their friends to positions without repercussions.

I welcome the efforts of the people who have contributed to this bill, we need more cross party work, both in the drafting stage and in the amending stage. What is the point of having every single MP here if we do not all strive to serve the British public by working on legislation together. On issues that all parties have benefited from coming together and finding the correct solutions is the most important thing. On some issues with true disagreements I'm sure there is going to be less solidarity. But on this issue I believe that we should be working together to finding the best possible solution instead of partisan fighting about the conspiratorial secret meetings, backroom deals, and amendments. The important things today is that we strive to improve the legislation to give a solution this house is happy while the commission comes back with a serious of reforms that will truly fix the system. Unfortunately to all those who just want a commission the problem does not go away just because someone is looking into it and therefor we do have to institute some kind of reforms now in order to create change. I understand change is hard to create and wanting to get this perfect; however hoping that the Golden solution is a few years away and therefor we should leave the system completely broken, misses the forest for the trees. The problem exists now and it will exist until the house decides to reform the system.

I want to take a minute and focus on the arguments, I've been reading in the press today, that somehow this legislation is mangled and mismanaged because it has been infected with this horrible disease called amendments. Amendments are a necessary and welcomed part of the Democratic process and this government's dismissal of them in the press, gives me concern. Why does this government not expect legislation to be amended on the floor? Why does this government expect that somehow legislation is supposed to be perfect from day 1. I have read the records from the debates of the Health Act 1999 and it references amendment 118. One bill had 118 amendments on it, and yet the government didn't compare it to a fictional doctor. In fact this government voted for it. The Health Act 1999 is law in the United Kingdom, and most of it's provisions are in effect today. I bring this up only to ask this Government to reevaluate their arguments against the legislation from focusing on the unsubstantial stuff around the bill and instead get on board with the goal of this bill and submit amendments, 118 of them if they feel so inclined. This bill is stronger because different minds are trying to improve it, not weaker.

[Ege]

Madame Speaker,

Today I rise to address some concerns of the Government ministers have regarding the bill. For example, member for Great Grimsby seems to be rather obsessed over the word impeachment. So much so Madame Speaker that, I might be wrong with my assumption but what I assumed to be a reference to impeachment of American President Andrew Johnson in 1868, not 1867 by the way if I have to correct member for Great Grimsby if I am correct but I might be wrong about that but Madame Speaker, unlike my colleagues in Treasury benches, I particularly do not care about this sort of triviality to make myself feel smarter or use it as an excuse to oppose an Act which many members of this government stated that they would support if the opposition brought specific measures to combat corruption and reform appointments. I guess they never expected it but even then I find contributions of the Treasury bench important so I move to amend Madame Speaker:

Section 1 - Commissioner for Public Appointments Remit
(1) The remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, as defined by Schedule 1 of the Public Appointments Order in Council 1995, shall be replaced by the following:
(a) Any non-governmental office or body appointed by the Sovereign, the Prime Minister, any Government Minister, or the Speaker of the House of Commons shall be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
(b) A “non-governmental office or body” shall be defined as any office or body that is not
(i) A position in the Government that
(1) Is Answerable to a House of Parliament or Devolved Legislature in Question period, and
(2) Impeachable by the Parliament or the appropriate Devolved Legislature.
(ii) A position in a ministerial office that does not have any power and is appointed by and accountable to the Secretary of State or member of the Devolved executive.

I hope this shall satisfy the member for Great Grimsby and what I assume to be her devoted references to impeachment of Andrew Johnson,, which she has referred to it thrice in press but never here. I am glad that I could be an assistance here

(dramatic pause here)

but oh my Madame President, I now realise I have committed another grave sin in regards to this act to another member of treasury bench, the man whose department is named after. Member for Southampton Test, engaging in a very tightrope act, he is saying that debating, amending, deliberation is a good thing except when its not, he claims a fundamental change to the bill proposed by the leader of the opposition, one amendment adding a provision for devolved administrations, a revision on reporting requirements and another that practically speaking adds a punishment for corrupt elected officials and a technical one based funding of this said amendment but Member for Southampton Test is basically scandalised over it and Madame Speaker, I certainly do not wish to scandalise Member for Southampton Test with more amendments or debating in the Parliament, we should engage in debates as his government likes them to be, in the media and with no amendments.

So therefore Madame Speaker, I must withdraw my proposed amendment. This body can not handle two scandalised cabinet ministers.

Now Madame Speaker, I fully support this act, it has the best of intentions, improved language and cross party support, at the very least on intentions. If the Government wants to criticise provisions of it sure, they can and they should be our guests to amend it, like member for Great Grimsby and her obsession with impeachment but Madame Speaker, so far apart from impeachment, I have yet to see one single solid and specific criticism about this measure. Instead all we get is weak and pathetic excuses like, oh it has been amended heavily or Leader of the Opposition has not been nice to me. This is throwing a temper tantrum Madame Speaker, not a serious way of governing. I call on the government to actually govern.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

Madam Speaker I rise again to address the concern raised by some on the Government benches in the media, namely that this legislation would block appointments to Offices of Profit under the Crown. This would be a very valid concern if it were indeed true however I must correct the record here by quoting directly from the amended legislation which states, and I quote:

Section 1 - Commissioner for Public Appointments Remit
(1) The remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, as defined by Schedule 1 of the Public Appointments Order in Council 1995, shall be replaced by the following:
(a) Any non-governmental office or body appointed by the Sovereign, the Prime Minister, any Government Minister, or the Speaker of the House of Commons shall be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
(b) A “non-governmental office or body” shall be defined as any office or body that is not
(i) A position in the Government that
(1) Is Answerable to a House of Parliament or Devolved Legislature in Question period, and
(2) Impeachable by the Parliament or the appropriate Devolved Legislature.
(ii) A position in a ministerial office that does not have any power and is appointed by and accountable to the Secretary of State or member of the Devolved executive.

Whilst at face value this would appear to cover all positions appointed by the crown including the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead it is clear from Section 1(1)(b) that this is not the case. A non-governmental office in this circumstance is an office that is answerable to the Houses of Parliament, which neither Crown Steward is. They must also be impeachable by Parliament, and while I recognise that this turn of phrase has animated certain members of the Government it is also not true that these Crown Stewards are impeachable by Parliament or any Devolved legislature. These posts are accountable to the crown and therefore the Royal Prerogative, not this Parliament assembled or any other legislative or devolved body in this nation. Therefore I can quite comfortably say that the Government's position that this legislation would prevent Members of Parliament from resigning promptly should they wish to do so is unfounded, however I do have some sympathy to the notion that MPs should be allowed to tender resignations in a manner more befitting the 21st Century.

[Amelia Lockhart]

Madam Speaker,

What a chaotic and embarrassing debate this has been. Never in the history of opposition day debates and legislation has this Parliament been treated to such an embarrassing spectacle. Never before have we had legislation where amendments were announced before it was introduced, where an entirely new purpose to the legislation has been introduced because the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten, and where MPs have no idea what the full impact of the legislation will be.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has finally agreed to the need for an inquiry into this issue to find the solutions that work. I think every action that Members opposite have taken prove on this issue exactly why we need an independent, reasoned, politics-free approach to this issue. But wait: the Leader of the Opposition wants an inquiry only after his rushed solution has been implemented. Clearly, the parties opposite are so convinced of their own righteousness and intelligence on this issue that the inquiry should only rubber-stamp their ideas. That is not an independent process which is able to consider the facts and develop the correct solutions; it is a process designed to win the Leader of the Opposition good headlines and political points. And worse, the Liberal Democrats don’t want the inquiry to report for over three years. Well, it doesn’t want the inquiry to report for at least three years into Section 3(2)(b)… which doesn’t exist as a section. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats can point to this section? If not, I think it is only fair to assume that the parties opposite want an inquiry to rubber-stamp their ideas and to do it in between three to five years. And they have the audacity, the audacity, Madam Speaker, to claim this Government is pushing things into the long grass.  

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats have made bold claims about the ability of their staff in researching this issue and drafting this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition claimed to the media “my research team is one of the best in the business”, while the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats claimed the “best legal policy advisors in the UK [are] conveniently located at Lib Dem Headquarters”. I am not sure a single one of the staff they refer to will want to put their names to this legislation or the amendments made. This legislation is rushed and shoddy, the amendments are rushed and shoddy, and the explanations are rushed and shoddy. Now I’m sure Members opposite will want to cry claims of ‘spin’, yet this is the reality.

The legislation and the amendments define a non-government office or body as one that is not “impeachable by the Parliament or the appropriate devolved legislature”. They are attempting to define something by another process that does not exist. This shouldn’t be a surprise to the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats. After all, the Member for Beverley and Holderness informs the House that I am obsessed by this issue. But for the benefit of the parliamentary record, let me state again the issue. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 stated that "the circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that the procedure may be considered obsolete". There is a general assumption that impeachment became obsolete in 1867 after the passage of the Second Reform Act.

I have no idea, Madam Speaker, why the Member for Beverley and Holderness thinks I would be referring to the impeachment of American President Andrew Johnson in 1868. After all, we live in Britain and are British Members of Parliament, talking about British parliamentary procedures. What relevance the US Congress has for us right now, I have no idea. Perhaps the Member should borrow the researchers of the Leader of the Opposition to help explain her point.

And I’m sure Members opposite may say ‘so what?’ One line in a bill that is wrong doesn’t mean anything, they may claim. Except it does mean something. As legislators, we should not pass a single line of a bill if it is clearly incorrect or refers to something that is obsolete. In doing so, we create ineffective legislation - and ineffective legislation infringes on the freedoms of our constituents, something I know the Leader of the Opposition cares deeply about.

Turning to the point rightly articulated by Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It is deeply concerning that an attempt to tackle how appointments are made in a certain circumstances through this bill will actually impact how appointments are made in the widest sense because of the poor way this bill has been drafted - and my Right Honourable Friend makes that point well.

The Member for North East Bedfordshire attempts to assuage the Government of our concerns. But his explanation, for me, only seems to confirm the point of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The Member for North East Bedfordshire is right, I believe, to say that the Crown Stewards is not answerable to Parliament, they are not impeachable by Parliament or any devolved legislation, and are accountable to the Crown. According to this legislation a non-governmental office, which is covered by this legislation, must be appointed by the Sovereign or others. It is also a body or an office, the bill states, that is not either a position in Government that is answerable to Parliament or any devolved legislation, or impeachable by the same, or a position in a ministerial office. The Crown Stewards are not such a position, as the Member for North East Bedfordshire suggests, and therefore do come under the definition of a non-governmental office or body.

In fact, Madam Speaker, can you confirm that as a office appointed by the Sovereign, and also not a position within Government answerable to Parliament or impeachable by the same, the Speaker would be considered a non-governmental office under this legislation? This legislation is vaguely drafted as such to cause significant confusion and uncertainty as to which positions are included. And it doesn’t create public trust.

Of course, Madam Speaker, the parties opposite know all of this. They know their legislation is shoddy and won't work. They know it won't be a long-term solution because it isn't a solution at all. The Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Transport and Social Mobility admitted that it isn’t a solution to the press. He wanted the experts to give us the long-term solution, while his solution does nothing at all. And there’s no analogy about a plumber that will redeem it.

Indeed the Leader of the Opposition has practically admitted this as well. In his words, all he is interested in is "doing something", anything at all because that is what the British public want. But what the public want is for us to do the right thing, the thing that tackles the problem for the long-term and in a way they trust. That is not what this legislation delivers - as the Conservatives admit - because they aren't interested in doing the right thing, just anything for the headlines.    

Madam Speaker,

No doubt after I sit down, members opposite will stand and demand the Government proposes amendments to fix this legislation. They claim it is the Government’s job, not to govern, but to bail out opposition parties for the mess they made. Well, I am reminded by a famous phrase: you break it, you own it. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats have broken their legislation, and they will own this bill – it is not up to us to make it work. It is up to the Government to start properly from the start, with the independent and party politics-free process to develop the solution to appointments that the British public trusts. And that is what we will do.

[John Baker]

Madam Speaker,

I wish to clarify the statement the Deputy Prime Minister made, I had stated that the reforms in this bill are not the complete long term solution. Which I had made while supporting that this bill also called for the inquiry that is the policy of the Labour party. I will not make another analogy directly about the legislation at the moment; however I will make one comparing our policies. Your at home and your dishwasher broke, well you could wait to buy a new dishwasher until next week, and not do the dishes till then. That's the New Labour's policy, do nothing now because we plan on fixing it later. However, you still have dirty dishes, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats have decided that no, we'll do the dishes in the meantime and go and get the dishwasher next week. The long term solutions are the same, the difference is in the policies are what do in the meantime, to leave the system broken or try and fix it. The New Labour clearly wish to continue with the system broken as is. That's there prerogative but I have to wonder why they want the system to remain broken.

New Labour has no interest in trying to fix this issue, and the opposition party's will. New Labour including the Deputy Prime Minister, are happy to allow the system of patronage to continue as long as they are in charge. Simply put the public wishes for the system to be fixed and I do not know how we can say, "we are only going to look into it." We have to try and fix a broken system now, the difference between Labour's and the Conservative's policy has not changed from the Conservatives wanting to do something now and do something when the report comes back, and Labour wanting to continue to make appointments under the old system until the report comes back. We have to remember that not every decision can be perfectly game planned by a committee, sometimes you do have to take action in the moment. The Conservative party has been happy to stand up and lead instead of being dragged by our feet to accept that change is needed, today and not tomorrow.

I do have to laugh at the notion that somehow a legal practice that only can affect a select subset of the British Government limits the freedoms of your constituents Deputy Prime Minister, while not a modern legal practice, which of course if you have such an issue you could submit a bill to this house removing it as a legal process on the books, it still is a legal practice that exists in the law, just not the custom of this house. So in essence because it has no other use, and it applies to only the British Government we could use it to determine what positions that need the highest character, or we can repeal that legal practice and find a new way to outline it. Since it is still part of the legal code there's no stipulation that states that it shouldn't be referenced or repurposed. As obsessed as the Deputy Prime Minister is with impeachment, I would like to remind her that, the process still exists legally an act of parliament would be needed to fully remove it from the books. Obsolete and no longer the law are different things. One could argue by the Deputy Prime Minister's own logic that because Impeachment exists on the books doing nothing that it is more harmful to the freedom of her constituents than giving it a new purpose. Nonetheless, New Labour's spin has taken over and they are trying every which way to get any traction on this bill that will allow them to oppose it and not look like they are trying to keep the current system in place, but there's no real way of doing that and the sooner the Labour party realizes that the better.

[Will Frost]

Madam Speaker,

As the Rt. Hon Member for Great Grimsby has made the most significant intervention in this debate on the part of the Government front bench, I find it appropriate and fitting to provide a line by line rebuttal of the argument she has presented. It shouldn't take me too long, as with all arguments made by New Labour, the Deputy Prime Minister's are classically paper thin.

Allow me, Madam Speaker, to begin by addressing the Deputy Prime Minister's assessment that the submission of this legislation has been somehow embarrassing. Embarrassing for whom, I wonder? For the Government, that has spent days and days testing out attack lines in the press, only to come up with some antiquated argument about the legal terminology behind the word, "impeachable"? Because yes, I would be embarrassed if I was leading with that argument as well.

I am entirely proud of the Opposition's performance in this debate thus far, and in our willingness to do what the Government should have done years ago. We have submitted legislation that provides a straightforward and commonsense approach to the problem, and we have accepted amendments that strengthen the focus of the bill. If the Deputy Prime Minister is looking for the true source of embarrassment in today's debate, I'd suggest looking in a mirror.

Because it indeed quite embarrassing, Madam Speaker, that the Government front bench is totally opposed to the idea of working across the aisle to fix a problem that matters to the British people. We are not asking the Government to submit amendments, or to somehow do our work for us. We are inviting them to participate in this process, encouraging them to remember that it is they who are in power and they who have the privilege of governing on behalf of the British people. If they don't choose to participate in this legislative process, that is their prerogative. But why would they not? The Liberal Democrats have. The scores of Labour MPs who voted in favor of Motion 1 have. This Opposition Day legislation provided a phenomenal opportunity for Government and Opposition to work together to achieve what I still believe are mutual goals. Sadly, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government were never really interested in working together with the Opposition.

The Deputy Prime Minister then continues her speech, where she pretends as if I was ever opposed to holding an independent inquiry. I've always supported an inquiry, just not one designed by a Prime Minister and Labour front bench who just a week ago voted in near unanimity to shield the Member for Hartlepool from any accountability. That is why the legislation I've introduced on behalf of the Opposition calls for one, and does so in a way that is clear, comprehensive, and legitimate. If there's a clerical error in Section 3, then we will fix it. But the crux of the section, the public inquiry and the remit it is given, delivers on our mutual goal of providing for said inquiry. So for any MP who shares my conviction for a truly independent and fair public inquiry, you can join me in securing one by voting for this legislation.

Next, the Rt. Hon Deputy Prime Minister makes the very warn out, tired argument about the language in the legislation surrounding impeachable offices. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, the actual practice of impeachment has not been used in this country for some time. But this legislation is not proposing we impeach someone, it is using the legal distinction of an office that is impeachable by Parliament to provide the widest possible scope of authority for the Commissioner of Public Appointments. The argument the Deputy Prime Minister is making is, therefor, totally irrelevant to the actual legislation being proposed.

Then, the Deputy Prime Minister argues that we on this side of the House know that our legislation does, "nothing at all." The Deputy Prime Minister is an adept legislator, with a storied career, and I have much respect for that. It is my respect for her reputation that leads me to believe she is just willfully ignoring the legislation, because no person with the capacity to read would look at this bill and say it, "does nothing." The legislation grants the Commissioner unprecedented autonomy and authority. It makes the Commissioner legally and financially independent of the Government, a long overdue and needed reform to the system. It authorizes the most substantial public inquiry into the public appointments system since the Nolan Report.

The Government is entitled to oppose our legislation, but they are not entitled to oppose a fictional version of it that exists only in their minds. You can argue against our proposals, Madam Speaker, but you can't pretend they don't exist.

And finally, I'd like to conclude my remarks by referring to the comment I made earlier in the press that was mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in the conclusion of her speech. Yes, I do think it's time this House do something. But in my comment I wasn't talking about my own personal opinion, but about the views of the British people. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the 2000 MORI poll I cited earlier in this debate. The British people want action taken to restore their confidence in the public appointments system. They don't want us to kick the can down the road just because we can, they want us to recognize the problems we already know exist and solve them. That is what this legislation does, and whether or not they're willing to admit it, the Government knows this to be true. Their surface level arguments, rooted in technicalities and Parliamentary minutia, expose the reality that they have no substantive opposition with which to form a compelling counter argument. I think the British people would have far more respect for this Government if they just acknowledged that fact, and got serious about working across the aisle to achieve commonsense reforms.

[Sir James McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, I feel as though I must correct my Right Honourable colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and her point about royal sinecures, specifically the positions of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds and Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. As it is, the text of this bill denotes what positions have to go through the process of open competition or getting an exemption. These positions are always open for application and the way the process has worked in the past suggests it would be very easy for the Chancellor to receive an exemption for these appointments.

The Commissioner for Public Appointments is allowed to grant exemptions for positions that are not filled through open competition for a variety of reasons, which may include an urgent need or a failed competition process. In the past, Commissioners have been willing to exempt positions where only one person has applied, and allow that person to receive the appointment. Since I joined this House in 1987, the shortest amount of time I have seen MPs receive the same resignation stewardship was the six months between Bruce Millan's resignation to serve as a European Commissioner in October of 1988 and Stuart Holland's resignation to become a lecturer at the EUI in May of 1989. That is more than enough time for the Chancellor to duly post a job description, get one applicant, and then request an extension. If I were, hypothetically, going to resign to do something else with my life, I would just fill out the application, send it to the Chancellor, and then he would request an exemption to fill that position with me, citing failed competition and only one qualified applicant. Of course, that is not something I plan on doing, but it does illustrate how the process can work.

But Madam Speaker, the real issue here is not that. The real issue here is the fact that the members over on the Treasury benches are being unwilling to contribute to discussions around this bill. It is fine to criticize it, that is not my problem. The problem here is that corruption, cronyism, and sleaze that has infected our political system has made its way to the highest levels. We must remove this cancer before we turn, bit by bit, into a pay-to-play system. This bill sets some initial guideposts for combating this issue and commissions an inquiry on this issue to consider further ways to stop these issues. If the Government really cares about dealing with this issue, they must either join us in the Aye lobbies and/or suggest amendments. We must act, and we must act now. And with or without the Government's help, MPs on this side of the Commons, from all sorts of political parties, will do their job. Will the Government?

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

BB: Order! DIVISION CLEAR THE LOBBIES!

[Rebecca Flair]

Aye