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

Legislation that failed in the House of Commons.
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

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

Post by Will Frost »

Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act 2001

An Act to expand the remit and secure the independence of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to order an independent inquiry into the public appointments system, and for related purposes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows-:

You can find the full text of the legislation here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qwr ... sp=sharing
(I will edit this original post later to depict the text of the legislation, but for now please consult the Google Doc. As a spacing/organization fanatic, I prefer how it is presented on that platform.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

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

Post by Will Frost »

Madam Speaker,

I am very pleased that the first Act I am submitting as Leader of the Opposition, the Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act, is a bill that directly addresses a critical issue facing our country: the lack of public confidence in the public appointments system. This issue could not be any more important, as it relates to what Government officials are doing in the name of the British people. Our citizens deserve to have confidence in the fact that those appointed to work on their behalf, that those who are paid salaries funded by the taxpayer, deserve the positions they hold. This legislation does nothing more than to ensure this goal becomes a reality.

This bill, Madam Speaker, sets out to do two things: to fix the aspects of the public appointments system that we know are wrong, and to provide for a independent public inquiry to determine the full scope of the problem and then propose appropriate solutions to fix them. Now I want to focus on that first goal, because for some reason it has proven quite controversial among the Government benches. The Prime Minister, very strangely, has said to the press that we in Parliament, "don't know the problems," that need to be fixed. Well, that of course isn't true. Any system that would allow the former Prime Minister to appoint the totally unqualified Member for Hartlepool to the same position twice is a system that is quite obviously wrought with massive problems. And while we might not the full scope of those problems, we are quite aware of many of them and how we can fix them.

We know, Madam Speaker, that under the status quo the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is housed within and funded by the Cabinet Office, making it virtually impossible for the person responsible for holding the executive accountable to be free from the executive's influence. We know that the Commissioner's small London-based staff of just 8 people are entirely chosen from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Cabinet Office. It is inconceivable that any reasonable person would believe that the Commissioner is able to act with true autonomy when they're directly dependent on the Government for funding, staffing, and office space. This legislation fixes that, by making the Commissioner totally independent of the Executive and ensuring that Parliament has proper oversight to eliminate any undue influence from the Government.

We know, Madam Speaker, that there are currently some 137 ad-hoc advisory groups, 41 task forces, and 35 policy review groups that, because of a loophole in existing legislation, fall outside the remit of the Commissioner's authority. In total, these governmental bodies employ some 1,600 people, all of whom were appointed without any oversight from the Commission because existing law has enabled Ministers to bypass the system. Our legislation patches up that loophole, by expanding the remit of the Commissioner and ensuring they have full authority over all public appointments.

And we know, Madam Speaker, that a lack of public confidence in the public appointments system is not a new problem. In fact, in a 2000 MORI poll carried out on behalf of the OCPA, it was found that a majority of the public held, "overwhelmingly negative impressions," of the public appointments system with 63% of the public stating that they believed appointments were, "political influenced." This isn't a new problem, and the public outrage at the failure of both sides of this House to take action is a long standing reality. The Government has had four years to do something about it, and they have failed. As a result, I make no apologies for lacking faith in the new Prime Minister's commitment to take the problem seriously, particularly after she voted to uphold the very system she now claims needs reforming by voting to protect the Member for Hartlepool. Fortunately, our legislation takes meaningful steps to improve public trust in the system by legislating for a fair, legitimate, and truly independent public inquiry commissioned by this Parliament.

Since this legislation was announced the Government front bench has been tripping over themselves to find a substantive policy justification to oppose it, but thus far their attempts have been paper thin. The Chancellor has argued that involving Parliament politicizes the Commissioner, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. By taking the Commissioner out from under the authority of the Government, and making its oversight public and transparent, we prevent Government Ministers from exerting coercive influence over the position. The Secretary of State for Health argues that this bill has been created through a back room deal. The very fact that we are debating this legislation in its entirety before the British people, in their House, proves that this is nothing but New Labour spin and bluster. The Member for Glasgow-Maryhill made a valiant attempt to suggest that our legislation "Americanizes" the regulatory process here in Britain by requiring additional Parliamentary oversight, ignoring the fact that the Treasury Select Committee has held confirmation hearings for nominees to the Monetary Policy Committee since 1997. All in all, these arguments have one thing in common: they are weak, and fall apart upon brief examination.

I know, Madam Speaker, that over the course of this debate a number of my colleagues plan to submit amendments to the legislation the Opposition has proposed. The Rt Hon Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, and the Member for North East Bedforshire, have both made clear they will offer their own additions to this legislation. I welcome them, I anticipate I will accept them as friendly, and I look forward to their positive contributions on strengthening this legislation and ensuring it does everything possible to uphold the highest possible standards when Ministers are making public appointments. The British people deserve nothing less, and I am very happy to be working with both of these Members of Parliament to deliver the leadership the British people deserve.

To conclude Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to those who sit across me on the Government benches. Just a week ago, during the Motion 1 debate, your colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about the need to work together on this issue. As I recall, he said, "We can work together and put political allegiances aside to build a transparent public appointments process the British people can put their faith in." I agree with the Chancellor, we can and must work together, and now is our opportunity to do so. In that debate, the Chancellor explained that his opposition to the Motion was rooted in the fact that it got nothing done, that it "changed nothing." Well, Chancellor, today you have the opportunity to join me and my friends on the Opposition benches by being apart of the change this country needs and that you yourself have called for. Just like other Labour MPs did in the previous debate, Government Ministers have an opportunity to put aside partisan differences and do what they know is right. We know the problems that exist, we know an independent public inquiry is needed for a more comprehensive review of the problem, and we know that this legislation achieves both.

All I ask today is that each and every Member of Parliament recognize what we know to be true, and act in good faith to address it with real solutions.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

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

Post by Will Frost »

John Redwood MP, Shadow Leader of the House:


Madam Speaker,

I beg that this Bill be read a Second Time.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Sir James McCrimmon
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:27 am
Constituency: Chesham and Amersham
XP: 8
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Rick

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

Post by Sir James McCrimmon »

Madam Speaker,

I thank my Right Honourable colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, for his very nice speech and continued commitment to this issue, alongside my other colleague, the member for North East Bedfordshire for his keen interest in this issue as well.

I find it important, Madam Speaker, that we recall just what has led up to this point. Our now former Prime Minister, the member for Sedgefield, appointed his friend, the member for Hartlepool, as CEO of the New Millennium Experience. The latter proceeded to burn away not only his fine welcome and relationships with the quality staff who had been recruited for the project - he also burned away almost one billion pounds on a white elephant that is perhaps the greatest symbol of New Labour's failures. Supposedly, the member for Sedgefield made it one of his top priorities - if only he had focused that energy on not pissing off his Chancellor!

The multitude of issues left to us by the previous government aside, Madam Speaker, it was yet another recurring theme in my time in this austere House. I have been here for almost 15 years - so I have seen the former Prime Minister support one of his Cabinet members during the de Sancha affair and his trip to Marbella, the Arms-to-Iraq scandal, Norman Lamont's annus horribilis, Michael Mates's "fun" watch, Cash-for-questions, Jonathan Aitken, and of course, the Back to Basics campaign. Certainly, we've seen the fair share of issues from the other party as well - Ron Davies's "moment of madness" and, perhaps most pertinent to today's discussion, the issues with the member of Hartlepool's financial arrangement with the member for Coventry North West and his relationship with Srichand Hinduja. Again and again, Madam Speaker, we have seen issues from across the political spectrum where people have abused their powers, acted in unethical ways, or done things so mindboggingly idiotic I questioned why they were even in ministerial office to begin with.

That is where we are today. Politicians of all stripes abusing their powers, appointing their friends, making dodgy deals, and who knows what else. That is why this bill has been presented today, and that is why members of all three major parties are here to support it. It makes very clear what the standards are for public appointments - if it is a position that is not accountable to an appropriate legislative body, it must be filled, except in extreme circumstances, through an open and competitive appointment process. When the Commissioner for Public Appointments allows exceptions, they're only in rare cases - getting a quorum, providing needed stability, extending the competition process, or to, in some way, shape, or form, offer stability to the organization.

When Jennie Page was dismissed in 2000, the former Prime Minister did not attempt to find out who a capable replacement would be from inside the organisation, or to bring in a well-respected name from outside it. Instead, he picked his friend, the member for Hartlepool, a former television producer, communications director, and twice-fired Government minister. Truly, a world-class selection! And, because of the ways this process works, he got right on to it. That should not happen. In fact, OCPA's Code of Practices says that the Commissioner may grant specific exemptions where it is judged they are justified by exceptional circumstances. There are precedents when a Chair of Leader of a body resigns or is dismissed, that the Commissioner grants an exemption for an interim to take the position while a full competitive process goes on. And it rightly should have in this case - a competitive process where the then-Prime Minister would have chosen the candidate with the best vision for the future of the Millennium Dome while someone who was already up to date on the issues of the structure took care of the rest of 2000. If we can do something like this for something so small and regional, we can do it for this great white whale as well.

And that's what this bill, in its most pure essence does. It seeks to penalize corruption, to ensure competition, and take away the stench of this last decade of sleaze. But it must be done within the proper legal channels as well. With that in mind, Madam Speaker, and with thanks to the best legal policy advisors in the UK, conveniently located at Lib Dem Headquarters, I present the following amendments to ensure that everything is clear, legally sound, and ready to move to the Other Place.
Wolfe Amendment 1 - to Section 1.(1).(b)
(i) A position in the Government that
(1) Is appointed by the Prime Minister,
(2)
(1) Is Answerable to a House of Parliament or Devolved Legislature in Question Period, and
(3) (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.

Wolfe Amendment 2 - to section 3 title

Authorization of an Independent Inquiry on the Public Appointments System

Wolfe Amendment 3 - to Section 3

Striking section 3.2 and adding the following and renumbering accordingly:

(2) The remit of the inquiry shall be all aspects of the public appointments system, including, but not limited to: the governmental bodies and individuals that currently are or are not subjected to it, the authority of the OCPA, the autonomy of the OCPA, the standards by which appointments are judged, and past instances of potential violations of the existing OCPA standards. This may be altered or expanded at will by the chair of the inquiry.
(3) The inquiry shall provide the House of Commons and other relevant bodies with an interim report into Section 3(2)(a) within one year of the beginning of the inquiry.
(4) The inquiry shall provide the House of Commons and other relevant bodies with an interim report into Section 3(2)(b) not less than 3 and not more than 5 years after the beginning of the inquiry.

Wolfe Amendment 4 - to section 4

(3) This Act shall extend to England and Wales. the whole United Kingdom.
(4) Section 3 of this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland as well.

(OOC: UNDERLINE = STRIKETHROUGH)
Sir James McCrimmon
Conservative and Unionist
First Secretary of State
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury
Secretary of State for Transport

MP for Chesham and Amersham (2015-present)
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

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

Post by Will Frost »

Madam Speaker,

As the author of the legislation, I accept the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat's amendments as friendly.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Alexander 'Alec' Dundas
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:21 am
Constituency: Ochil and South Perthshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None

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

Post by Alexander 'Alec' Dundas »

Order! I thank the Shadow Leader of the House.

OOC: To account for semi-hiatus the debate will be open until Saturday 9th January, 23:59 GMT
Rt Hon. Alexander 'Alec' Dundas QC MP
Secretary of State for the Union (2019-Present)
Member of Parliament for Ochil and South Perthshire (2017-Present)
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

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

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

Madam Speaker I rise from the backbenches for the first time in nearly eight years to welcome the noble aims of this legislation, even if in its original form it did require amendments as posed both by the Honourable Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey and myself to build on the strong foundations provided by the Right Honourable Member for Chipping Barnet. To that end Madam Speaker I offer the following amendments to the legislation in front of us:

I move that Section 2(2) and 2(3) be struck and replaced with the following:
2) An independent body shall be instituted to set the funding of the OCPA.
(a) Appointments to this body shall be made in accordance with Section 1.
(b) This Body shall publish all data and considerations used to set the Budget for the OCPA.
(c) This Body shall take representation from the House of Commons Liaison Committee before it makes a decision regarding funding for the next year.
3) An incoming Commissioner shall be appointed by the previous Commissioner as his final appointment
(a) Potential appointees must be interviewed by the House of Commons Liaison Committee before they are eligible to be considered for the role.
(b) The Committee shall offer public feedback to the Commissioner on each candidate following their interview.
Madam Speaker I further move that a new Section 4 be added and the subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:
Section 4 - Punishment for Corrupt Elected Officials
1) Any person found guilty of misconduct and corruption while in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the devolved legislatures, and/or local government shall be immediately removed from the office
2) Any person removed from office in accordance with Section 4(1) shall have their position filled in the way usually accorded by their position.
3) Any person removed from office in accordance with Section 4(1) shall be barred from holding public office for a time not less than 5 years.
Finally Madam Speaker I offer a clerical amendment to the new Section 5:
Section 5 - Short title, extent, and commencement
(1) This Act may be cited as the “Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act 2001”;
(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of one day beginning with the date on which it is passed.
(3) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.
(4) Section 3 of this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland as well.
(5) Sections 3 and 4 shall extend to Scotland as well.
Madam Speaker, as I have said in the Press I believe that there is a great sickness underlying British politics, a sickness that has afflicted governments of both parties I might add. Elected officials have, for too long, believed themselves to be above the law. Whether they be a local councillor favourably impacting a planning application for a kickback or a Prime Minister appointing their friends and allies to public office as a reward for past loyalty and protection against the consequences of past failure. It is clear that there is a need to remove these temptations from the path of elected officials, and punish those who act out of turn and in an illegal manner. That is where the strength of this amended legislation comes in when my amendments are agreed to by my Right Honourable Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Madam Speaker the power of this amended legislation is two-fold. It eliminates the possibility of political patronage in high and public office by removing these decisions from the hands of the Prime Minister and political decision makers, and vesting those powers in a new body completely independent from the political process. The House of Commons will get a new voice in proceedings through the House of Commons Liaison Committee who shall have statutory input into the appointment process for new Commissioners and the annual funding for his or her office. It shall be at these hearings that Chairs of Select Committees will be able to put their views across, cross-examine potential candidates for the vacant Commissioner role, and make their views known on funding. These interjections will be persuasive only, they will have no legal right to be implemented, ensuring once again that the Commission remains politically independent and politically neutral. I would like to commend the Right Honourable Members for Chipping Barnet and Southwark North and Bermondsey for working constructively to recognise the importance of this amendment and strengthening both the Bill and the Commissioner.

Madam Speaker it is essential that such measures are kept away from the power of the Executive. Traditionally there are two ways that the Executive can exercise power over officials, appointments and financing, so I am glad that the Right Honourable Member for Chipping Barnet has pushed legislation that tackles the issue of finance. The amendment I have proposed further isolates the Executive from the process because while before the funding settlement went before the whole House for discussion, and therefore could be subject to Parliamentary whips and executive meddling, it is now in the hands of an independent body that will consult with this House’s Liaison Committee and make all relevant documentation and decision making public. This has multiple advantages over the current system and indeed the original system proposed. This House has an annual ability, on a statutory basis, to have an input into the funding decision making process providing democratic legitimacy, something I know the Right Honourable Member for Chipping Barnet is most concerned about. It also provides transparency in the publishing of documents and considerations used to set funding levels for the new year allowing everyone to know what has happened and keeping the new body accountable another way without the overbearing whips and party leaders choking it.

Thirdly, finally, and just as importantly, Madam Speaker this legislation will now consider what happens when individuals do step out of line and act in a corrupt or criminal manner. At present there is no requirement for an individual found guilty of corruption to leave the House of Commons, a devolved assembly, a local council, or even the Other Place, yes they can lose the whip and almost certainly get ejected at the next election but they continue to be paid a salary, continue to be entitled to pension benefits, and in the case of the House of Commons will be paid a payment based on the length of their service. Such pecuniary interest and compensation in the face of corrupt action is, in my opinion, morally bankrupt and an individual who partakes in corrupt activities should lose those benefits on the way out. This legislation makes provision for immediate by-elections where necessary, immediate replacement via the next individual on the party list where necessary, etc.

Madam Speaker in light of the amendments made by myself and the Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey, and to be accepted as friendly by the Rt Hon Member for Chipping Barnet, I will support this legislation. It provides excellent reforms to the system of appointments, secures the independence of that reformed system, and provides punishments for those who breach the rules that befit the crime. I urge all members to join this cross-party movement against corruption and patronage in support of this twice amended Bill so we can put the last ten years behind us and move forward with a singular vision of regaining the British people’s trust.
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

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

Post by Will Frost »

Madam Speaker,

As the author of the legislation, I accept the Member for North East Bedforshire's amendments as friendly.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Sir James McCrimmon
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:27 am
Constituency: Chesham and Amersham
XP: 8
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Rick

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

Post by Sir James McCrimmon »

Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act 2001

An Act to expand the remit and secure the independence of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to order an independent inquiry into the public appointments system, and for related purposes.

BE IT ENACTED
by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows-:

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.

Section 2 - Independence of the Commissioner
(1) The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) shall become legally and financially independent of the executive.
(2) An independent body shall be instituted to set the funding of the OCPA.
(a) Appointments to this body shall be made in accordance with Section 1.
(b) This Body shall publish all data and considerations used to set the Budget for the OCPA.
(c) This Body shall take representation from the House of Commons Liaison Committee before it makes a decision regarding funding for the next year.
(3) It shall be within the power of the Commissioner for Public Appointments to write to the Funding Body to request additional funding, decisions on which shall be taken in accordance with Section 2(2)
(4) An incoming Commissioner shall be appointed by the previous Commissioner as his final appointment
(a) Potential appointees must be interviewed by the House of Commons Liaison Committee before they are eligible to be considered for the role.
(b) The Committee shall offer public feedback to the Commissioner on each candidate following their interview.

Section 3 - Authorization of an Independent Inquiry on Public Appointments
(1) Parliament will commission an independent Public Inquiry, subject to the statutory obligations laid out in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, into the Public Appointments System.
(a) The Public Inquiry will begin no later than 3 months after the passage of this legislation.
(2) The remit of the inquiry shall be all aspects of the public appointments system, including, but not limited to: the governmental bodies and individuals that currently are or are not subjected to it, the authority of the OCPA, the autonomy of the OCPA, the standards by which appointments are judged, and past instances of potential violations of the existing OCPA standards. This may be altered or expanded at will by the chair of the inquiry.
The inquiry shall provide the House of Commons and other relevant bodies with an interim report into Section 3(2)(a) within one year of the beginning of the inquiry.
(3) The inquiry shall provide the House of Commons and other relevant bodies with an interim report into Section 3(2)(b) not less than 3 and not more than 5 years after the beginning of the inquiry.
Parliament will be required to implement in full the recommendations made as a result of the Public Inquiry.
(4) The Inquiry will make their formal report to the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, which will be responsible for ensuring the Government implements all proposed recommendations.

Section 4 - Punishment for Corrupt Elected Officials
(1) Any person found guilty of misconduct and corruption while in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the devolved legislatures, and/or local government shall be immediately removed from the office
(2) Any person removed from office in accordance with Section 4(1) shall have their position filled in the way usually accorded by their position.
(3) Any person removed from office in accordance with Section 4(1) shall be barred from holding public office for a time not less than 5 years.
(4) Any person removed from office in according with Section 4(1) will lose entitlement to financial support usually paid to outgoing members of that body including, but not limited to, pensions

Section 5 - Short title, extent, and commencement
(1) This Act may be cited as the “Public Appointments Comprehensive Reform Act 2001”;
(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of one day beginning with the date on which it is passed.
(3) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.
(4) Section 3 of this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland as well.
(5) Sections 3 and 4 shall extend to Scotland as well.
Sir James McCrimmon
Conservative and Unionist
First Secretary of State
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury
Secretary of State for Transport

MP for Chesham and Amersham (2015-present)
User avatar
Brown
A-team
A-team
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:27 pm
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: Brown#6350

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

Post by Brown »

Madam Speaker,

With your indulgence I would like to briefly intervene with my grave concerns as the relevant minister in charge of overseeing Communities and Local Government with the wording of Section 4 proposed by the Honourable Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. What constitutes and defines "misconduct and corruption"? While I would certainly agree with the Honourable Member that someone found guilty of extreme corruption ought to be removed by the relevant assembly for said offenses, we must also recognize that not all offenses are created equal. If an Honourable Member of a particular assembly makes a mistake in their obligations for reporting out of recklessness or ignorance rather than deliberate corruption or malfeasance, it would be well and appropriate that member be counseled by the respective assembly's presiding officers, and, in cases of recklessness, potentially censured. Not every offense may rise to the level, however, and not every action would warrant removal from the relevant assembly and barring from office for a period of 5 years.

I am a strong believer that local Governments--and for that matter--devolved assemblies, should have the ultimate say about discipline for any member that may sit in that relevant assembly. They are best equipped to examine the facts of the situation, assess the culpability of the member in question, and the appropriate remedy. I fear it is an overreach of this House to tell the members of local assemblies everywhere when they ought to expel their member without any consideration by that body of the relevant facts.

I fear this illustrates, yet again, the rushed nature of this bill that would have grave impacts that would ultimately create more problems than this bill seeks to solve. The right thing to do ought to be to let the experts examine this matter that touches on several items of Constitutional Importance. I must also add my fervent belief that we ought to, as a general rule, allow devolved assemblies and local governments to administer discipline concerning their own members--and I am gravely concerned at the precedent that it would set if this Parliament were to act to the contrary.

(OOC Addendum afterwards: Ric messaged me and informed me that his quoting of the bill was not an amendment but an attempt to merge all the amendments into a single post so we all knew what the bill was. If the a-team allows, I'd like it to be understood that the member I identified as moving the amendment was Mac rather than Ric.)
What can Brown do for you?
Post Reply

Return to “Failed Legislation and Motions”