HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
Response to the Eighth Report of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life: Standards of Conduct in the
House of Commons
Introduction
1. We are grateful to the Committee on Standards
in Public Life for the care and thoroughness with which they have
considered regulation of standards of conduct in the House of
Commons, and we welcome their constructive and helpful report.
We endorse the Committee's belief that a system of regulation
should be able to meet the twin objectives of delivering public
confidence in the House of Commons and of carrying the confidence
of the House itself.[1]
We also note the view of the Chair of the Committee that, since
1995, "real progress has been made in establishing and enforcing
high standards of conduct".[2]
2. Although we naturally take an interest in standards
of conduct in the House, our formal role is limited to nominating
a candidate for appointment by the House as Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards, employing the Commissioner, and providing resources
for the Commissioner's work.
3. It will be for the House itself to decide on most
of the Committee's recommendations,[3]
with the advice of the Committee on Standards and Privileges,
the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and ourselves. We
of course stand ready to implement the House's decision on any
matter within our responsibilities.
4. Before finalising this response, we discussed
the issues with Sir George Young, the Chairman of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges, and Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards.
The Committee's recommendations
Recommendation 20 (page 53): The
post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be clearly
defined as an office-holder, appointed and paid for, but not employed,
by the House.
5. The Committee's recommendation is based upon its
view that the independence of the Commissioner could be called
into question if he or she were in the direct employ of the House
(in practice, of the House of Commons Commission).[4]
6. The Committee proposes that this recommendation
should be implemented by Standing Order.[5]
On the basis of firm advice, we believe
that it could not be implemented effectively either by Standing
Order or by Resolution of the House, and that an office in the
terms which the Committee has in mind could be created only by
statute. Implementation would thus have to await an opportunity
for primary legislation.
7. However, we believe that the Committee's aim can
be achieved in another way. First, the appointment of the Commissioner
for a single non-renewable term would meet much of the concern
about independence. This could be buttressed by a statement in
the letter of appointment that early termination of appointment
may only follow on a Resolution of the House.[6]
The post would then attract the protection of employment law,
but the Commission would not have the normal rights of an employer
to terminate a contract of employment simply by giving notice.
Recommendation 21 (page 54):
(a) The Commissioner should in future be appointed
for a non-renewable fixed term.
(b) The House should decide on a term of between
five and seven years.
8. We agree with the Committee's reasoning and accept
this recommendation. Our preference would be for an appointment
of five years' duration.
9. The Committee stresses that it is making recommendations
for the future, not commenting upon the terms on which the present
Commissioner was appointed "although we anticipate that the
House of Commons Commission and the present Commissioner may wish
to reflect upon this recommendation".[7]
10. Sir Philip Mawer was appointed by the House on
13 February 2002, initially for a three-year term, and took up
his appointment at the beginning of the following month. We have
been most impressed with the way he has carried out his duties,
and with the contribution he has already made to the authority
and effectiveness of the system. In our view, when in response
to Recommendation 21(b) the House decides upon a term for future
appointments, Sir Philip's appointment should run for that period,
beginning from the date of the House's decision.
Recommendation 22 (page 56):
(a) The House should continue to appoint the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards on a recommendation from the House
of Commons Commission.
(b) The House of Commons Commission should, as
best practice, conform with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner
for Public Appointments at all stages of the selection process.
(c) The Chairman of the Committee on Standards
and Privileges should be a member of the selection panel and attend
any relevant meetings of the Commission when the appointment of
the Commissioner is discussed.
11. We accept Recommendation 22(a).
12. We agree with Recommendation 22(b). The
selection process which resulted in the nomination of Sir Philip
Mawer was exacting. Following advertisement in the national press
and a search by recruitment consultants, a total of 63 candidates
was reduced through sifts and interviews to a short list of six.
An interview Board chaired by the then Clerk Assistant, and consisting
of a Member of the Commission (the Rt Hon Eric Forth MP), the
House's Director of Finance and Administration, and two external
members (The Lord Newton of Braintree OBE and Sir Gordon Downey
KCB, a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) interviewed
those candidates and recommended three for final interview by
the Commission.
13. We were keen to ensure that the selection process
followed best practice. An independent element was provided by
Lord Newton and Sir Gordon Downey. Ms Sheila Drew Smith, an assessor
recommended by the Commission for Public Appointments, attended
the later stages of the sifting process, the meetings of the interview
Board, and the final interviews by the Commission. She concluded
that, on the basis of what she had seen, the process "seemed
to have been as robust as it could have been made" and that
"everyone associated with the process was determined that
it should be handled rigorously and that the Nolan principles
should be brought to bear at all stages".
14. The Committee on Standards in Public Life notes
that "the appointment process did not fully follow the Code
of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments to the
letter, in that the independent assessor was not involved in the
initial sift of applications, although she took part in subsequent
proceedings".[8]
15. We were keen to involve an independent assessor
from the outset of the process, and the then Clerk of the House
wrote on 6 November to Sir Nigel Wicks, the Chair of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life, asking if he himself would act as
that assessor.
16. Sir Nigel replied on 19 November saying that
as it was a "standing principle of the Committee not to involve
itself in individual cases or appointments" he would have
to decline. However, he emphasised "the Committee's whole-hearted
support for the Commission's wish to involve independent advice
in the appointment to this important post".
17. A further delay resulted from the unavailability
of assessors initially suggested by the Commission for Public
Appointments; thus the independent assessor was not part of the
process until after the first "longlisting" meeting.
18. We have already implemented Recommendation
22 (c). Sir George Young, the Chairman of the Committee on
Standards and Privileges, was a full member of the panel for the
final interviews conducted by the Commission. It is our intention
that this should be standard practice from now on, and that the
Chairman of that Committee should attend the Commission for any
discussion relating to the nomination and appointment of the Commissioner,
as well as being involved in framing the job- and person specification
and in the preliminary interviews.
Recommendation 24 (page 58): The
process for setting the resources for the Commissioner's office
should be transparent; the Commissioner and the Chairman of the
Committee on Standards and Privileges should be involved in arriving
at the budget.
19. A transparent process was in place before the
publication of the Committee's report. In December 2001 we instructed
the House's Internal Review Service to carry out a new assessment
of the workload and the resources required. At the same time we
undertook to provide whatever might be judged to be necessary.[9]
20. This assessment was carried out with the full
involvement of the incoming Commissioner. In May 2002 we discussed
the Review Manager's report with the Chairman of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges and the Commissioner for Standards.
The Chairman (and, shortly afterwards, his Committee) and the
Commissioner expressed themselves content with the report, and
we approved its recommendations. We then sent a copy of the report
to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and published it
on the Internet.[10]
21. This transparent process closely involved the
Commissioner and the Chairman of the Committee. We regard Recommendation
24 as being fully implemented.
22. We remain committed to providing whatever resources
are judged to be required. The Internal Review Service will carry
out a verification review in the course of this year, and resources
will be reviewed regularly as part of the House's budgetary process.
We think it would be useful if, as suggested by the Committee,[11]
details of the budget were to appear in the Commissioner's annual
report.
1 Paragraph 2.44, page 16. Back
2 Letter
from Sir Nigel Wicks to the Prime Minister, page iii. Back
3 Recommendation
6 relating to the Ministerial Code is a matter for the Prime Minister. Back
4 Paragraph
8.13, page 53. Back
5 Paragraph
8.66, page 62. Back
6 If
necessary, S.O.No.150(3) could be amended in the same sense. Back
7 Paragraph
8.19, page 54. Back
8 Paragraph
8.23, page 55. Back
9 Official
Report, 18 December 2001,
col. 213W. Back
10 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmcomm/review.htm Back
11 Paragraph
8.58, page 60. Back
| 
