WIREDGOV

Current scrutiny arrangements over the appointment and dismissal of top public appointments put too much power in the hands of ministers, according to the independent think tank Institute for Government.

The Institute names 25 top positions that parliament should have powers over – one is the post of BBC Chairman. This week Chris Patten will appear before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee for a 'pre-appointment hearing', to be questioned on his suitability for the post.

He was nominated for the post by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt but the committee has no powers to block the appointment; it can only request that the government think again.

New report

The report from the Institute for Government argues that this system should be strengthened. Balancing Act: the right role for parliament in public appointments, by Akash Paun and David Atkinson, proposes that parliament should be granted an effective veto power over appointments to and dismissals from an 'A List' of 25 top public appointments.

Lord Adonis, Director of the Institute for Government, said:

"The credibility and authority of people in top public sector posts such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the Information Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Schools rest upon their independence from ministerial control, so it is quite right that parliament should have the final say over their appointment and dismissal.

"In a parliamentary democracy, effective parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are vital to the legitimacy of government. Our proposals build on existing good practice and serve to enhance that legitimacy."

'A-List'

Our proposed 'A List' includes the heads of major economic and utility regulators, public service inspectorates and constitutional watchdogs, such as the:

• Chair of the Competition Commission
• Chief Inspectors of Schools
• Prisons and Police and the Public Appointments Commissioner
• the Chair of the BBC Trust.

To entrench their independence, the Institute proposes strengthening the existing system of 'pre-appointment hearings' conducted by select committees, which suffer from a perception that they provide little more than a rubber stamp for the executive.

This is not helped by the fact that on the two occasions a committee has recommended against a nomination – for the Children’s Commissioner in 2009, and for an MPC member in 2000 – the government pressed ahead with the appointment regardless.

Lead author Akash Paun argues that:

"Cross-party select committees are well-placed to assess whether those appointed to major public jobs will display the necessary independence from executive control.

"They can also test the ability of candidate to stand up to robust public scrutiny, enhance the transparency of the appointments process, and strengthen the democratic accountability of regulators and watchdogs across the public sector."

Blueprint for better scrutiny

The Institute for Government's blueprint for better scrutiny says the system would be strengthened in the following ways:

1. Ministers required to appear before the relevant select committee regarding any serious concerns about the proposed candidate or the conduct of the selection process - for instance, if there were a perception that a former minister or senior civil servant had been handpicked for a job through patronage, rather than following an open and merit-based recruitment process.
2. Role of parliament - We would expect that in most cases, the minister would withdraw the nomination if the committee was firmly opposed. If minister and committee remain at loggerheads, then the House as a whole should take the final decision.
3. Dismissal process - The Institute further proposes that ministers should not be able to dismiss holders of “A List” jobs without the consent of the relevant select committee (again with the House having the final say if necessary). Committees should also be consulted at the start of the recruitment process for these posts over the job specification and criteria that will be advertised.
4. Power of veto - we recommend building upon the precedent set by the government last year when it granted a veto to the Treasury Committee over appointments to and dismissals from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The Institute concludes that it is equally vital to guarantee the independence of bodies such as the UK Statistics Authority, the new Financial Conduct Authority, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the health service regulator Monitor. In January, the government in effect conceded that the OBR is not one of a kind in this regard by announcing its intention to grant the Justice Committee a veto over future appointments to the post of Information Commissioner. The Institute welcomes this announcement and simply extends this principle to other similarly important posts.
5. Public Inquiry Chairs - Select committees should be given the right to scrutinise appointments of chairs of major public inquiries. This would have meant, for instance, that Sir John Chilcott would have appeared before a committee to be questioned about his appointment as chair of The Iraq Inquiry.

More information