Conclusions and recommendations
What are pre-appointment hearings for?
1. It
is a proper function of Parliament to oversee the role of regulators.
In any event, we do not see any contradiction between the role
of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA)
to ensure the conduct of a fair and transparent selection process
and select committee scrutiny of how Ministers have arrived at
their decision about who the preferred candidate should be for
particularly significant posts. They each perform a specific and
distinct function. However, the purpose and objectives of pre-appointment
hearings would benefit from greater precision which we would characterise
as:
- scrutiny of the quality of
ministerial decision-making, which is a proper part of ministerial
accountability;
- providing public reassurance (in addition to
the private processes of the OCPA) that those appointed to key
public offices are selected on merit;
- enhancing the appointee's legitimacy in undertaking
their function;
- providing public evidence of the independence
of mind of the candidate.
In addition, the hearings provide opportunities for
exploring the priorities of the candidate on taking up post and
for allowing the candidate to understand Parliament's expectations
of the post-holder. It is an appropriate outcome of the kind of
discussion which takes place at a pre-appointment hearing for
the committee to set out priorities, approaches to the job and
areas of interest which it has discussed with the candidate. It
may also be appropriate for the report from the committee to refer
to any resources, or support, or in-service training needs which
the hearing has brought to light. (Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20)
Agreeing the job specification
2. We
welcome the Minister's willingness to involve committees at an
early stage of the recruitment process. It is important, however,
that committees are not over-burdened and that it remains clear
that this is consultation rather than endorsement. Arrangements
should be put in place for committees to be consulted at an early
stage of any pre-appointment process on the specification of the
job and the criteria against which candidates are to be assessed.
The consultation should be neither onerous nor bureaucratic but
we would expect it to become generalised and accepted good practice
for all major public appointments subject to the pre-appointment
process. (Paragraph 28)
Information about other candidates
3. We
recommend that departments should provide committees with an oral
or written brief about the conduct of the selection process and
the nature of the shortlist in advance of a pre-appointment hearing.
(Paragraph 36)
Power of veto
4. There
are number of posts over which the House should exercise formal
control on the pattern provided by arrangements for the appointment
of the Comptroller & Auditor General or the Chair of the Office
of Budget Responsibility. These should relate specifically to
posts where the remits are associated with the functions of Parliament
or to holding the Executive to account as a constitutional proxy
for Parliament. (Paragraph 40)
5. We recommend that
for a top-tier of the most significant public appointments the
appointment process should involve not just a pre-appointment
hearing but should clearly engage the House as an equal partner.
This should include agreement over the terms and conditions of
the post including remuneration arrangements before the start
of the recruitment process and before the post is advertised.
(Paragraph 49)
6. For the next layer
of appointments, we recommend that the model of an "effective
veto" is the right one to follow. The arrangements which
underpin such a model will need to make clear that Ministers must
properly take account of the advice of a committee in reaching
their final decision on appointment. (Paragraph 50)
7. We recommend that,
where it concludes that it is appropriate, the committee should
raise concerns about a preferred candidate in private discussion
with the Minister, as an alternative to issuing a report in the
first instance. Depending on the outcome of these discussions,
Ministers will want to consider whether or not it is advisable
to press ahead with approving the appointment. (Paragraph 51)
8. We recommend that
the holders of posts falling into our category A should, having
been approved by Parliament, require parliamentary control over
their dismissal. Where a Minister is minded to take such a step,
he or she should as a matter of course consult the appropriate
committee as to its view on whether a further resolution of the
House is required. (Paragraph 55)
Which posts should be subject to hearings?
9. If
enhanced parliamentary scrutiny for a small number of top tier
posts is to work effectively there is a need for a more discriminating
list of particularly significant posts. We therefore recommend
a tri-partite list of posts in which select committees and Parliament
more widely will be involved in the selection and appointment
process in different degrees.
- Category A posts should become,
effectively, joint appointments between Parliament and the Executive
(where they are not already). They should be confirmed by a vote
on the floor of the House of Commons, and the dismissal of a post-holder
before the expiry of his or her term of office should also require
ratification by the House if a select committee so recommends.
We recommend that gradually, as legislative opportunities arise,
arrangements for appointments to these posts should be put on
a statutory footing (or that this be done by means of a specific
Act of Parliament).
- Category B posts should be subject to an enhanced
form of pre-appointment scrutiny, and be subject to an effective
veto by a select committee (in other words, if the committee recommended
against the appointment of the preferred candidate the onus would
be on the Minister to show why the appointment should proceed
if they were so minded). It would be open to either the Minister
or the committee to seek a resolution on the floor of the House
if they were unable to agree on the choice of candidate.
- Category C posts should be those which are offered
to the appropriate committee at the outset of the process of filling
the vacancy, so that the committee could choose whether or not
to require a pre-appointment hearing. (Paragraphs 59 and 61)
Political appointments
10. We
recommend that persons who are offered political appointments,
other than appointments of Ministers, made under the exercise
of prerogative powers, should have their appointments submitted
to scrutiny by an appropriate select committee before the appointment
is confirmed. (Paragraph 63)
Guidance on the process
11. We
recommend that the guidance on pre-appointment hearings should
be reviewed and updated to reflect what has now become accepted
practice as well as these further reforms. It is not acceptable
for the Liaison Committee and the Cabinet Office each to give
guidance which does not fully correspond. Therefore we reassert
our predecessor Committee's position in favour of a single consolidated
guidance document. We provide a first draft at Annex 4 as the
basis for further discussion. (Paragraphs 67 and 68)
| 
