Annex B: Correspondence between the Chairman
and Select Committee Chairmen
Letter from the Chairman to Select Committee Chairmen
Please see the letter which I have today sent to
Ed Miliband. If you or your Committee have any views about his
proposals, could you please let me know before Monday 25 February
so that the Liaison Committee can consider them at its meeting
on Thursday 28 February?
In any response, you may wish to concentrate on three
issues:
— his
list of names—is it correct?
— the purpose—his letter proposes
a focus on "issues of professional competence", which
is narrower than the suggestion of "professional competence
and personal independence" in the Report on Parliament
and public appointments by the Public Administration Select
Committee.
— the consultation and assessment of a
'pilot', and the establishment of guidelines for the hearings—which
PASC proposed should be drawn up by the Liaison Committee.
Rt Hon Alan Williams MP
5 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5th February
regarding pre-appointment hearings by select committees.
I would like to urge two additions to the list of
appointments subject to this procedure - the Chairmen of the Office
of Fair Trading and of the Competition Commission. These posts
fall firmly within the criteria set out by the government and
are of considerable political and economic significance.
There is also a strong case for including the politically
significant roles of Chairmanship of both the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority and of Royal Mail Group but I suspect, given their more
commercial nature, that they do not fall within the criteria.
However, both individuals are subject to regular Parliamentary
scrutiny and are involved in the delivery of very different but
significant public services.
I am not concerned about the difference in focus
between the Public Administration Committee's recommendation and
the letter from the Minister for the Cabinet Office. A minister's
expectations of a select committee's focus can not be binding
and we would expect committees to focus on those areas which they
consider most important. In practice this is likely to vary between
the different bodies under consideration and the character of
the nominated individual.
I see no need for a formal pilot period of these
proposals. Committees and Departments will learn from their own
experience and those of others as the process continues as a matter
of course. Moreover, running a pilot project implies that it will
be solely the government's decision as to whether and how the
proposals are fully implemented; I doubt this will be the case.
If the early hearings are seen to be a success then it will be
difficult in practice to terminate the arrangements; if they are
less successful, the committees will seek to reform the process
or even abandon it. This is a natural process that should be determined
by the House and not the executive.
Peter Luff MP
20 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Children, Schools
and Families Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February concerning
the Government's proposals for pre-appointment hearings by select
committees.
On the points you raise in particular:
1. The Minister only lists one post within my Committee's
remit. I certainly agree that the head of Ofsted, now the Chief
Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, should
be the subject of a pre-appointment hearing, but there must be
the opportunity for others to be added. For example, the Government
is bringing forward proposals to divide the functions of the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority, creating a new regulator known as the
Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator, and a
new agency to advise Ministers on the monitoring and development
of curriculum, assessment and qualifications. The head of the
first of these bodies should definitely be added to the list in
due course, and there is a case for saying the head of the second
should also be included.
2. I agree with you that the suggested focus on professional
competence is narrower that the Public Administration Committee
recommended. Personal independence will be a key issue, however,
and I am sure that Committees will want to make an assessment
of that when conducting these hearings.
3. On the third point, surely it is for the Commons
to proceed with pre-appointment hearings as a pilot, not the Government.
The arrangements for pilots must be drawn up by the Liaison Committee,
not by Ministers.
Mr Barry Sheerman MP
19 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Communities and
Local Government Committee to the Chairman
I understand that the Liaison Committee will be considering
on Thursday the letter from the Minister for the Cabinet Office
regarding pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees. Unfortunately
I cannot be at that meeting. I would be grateful if you would
take this letter into account during the discussion.
The list enclosed with the Minister's letter includes
just two appointments falling within the remit of the Communities
and Local Government Committee: the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser
and the Local Government Ombudsmen. A number of other appointments
falling within my Committee's remit appear to me to meet the criteria
set out by the Public Administration Committee and mentioned in
the Minister's letter, namely "major auditors, ombudsmen
and other complaint investigators, regulators and inspectors".
They are:
- the Chair of the Audit
Commission
- the Chair of the Standards Board
- the Chair of the Commission for Equality and
Human Rights, and
- the Chair of Oftenant (subject to passage
of the Housing and Regeneration Bill).
The Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate
and the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission
(again subject to the passage of the relevant Bill) also exercise
important "statutory ... powers in relation to protecting
the public's rights and interests" and might therefore
be considered for inclusion on the list.
The difference between these posts and those on the
Government's list appears to be that they are regulated by the
Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, whereas those
on the list are not. I am aware that regulation by OCPA was a
criterion considered by PASC in its report on pre-appointment
hearings. However, OCPA is not mentioned in the Minister's letter,
and it is not clear whether the Government intends such hearings
to be restricted to non-OCPA-regulated posts.
If that is not the case, it is my view that the important
posts which I identify in this letter should be added to the Government's
list.
Dr Phyllis Starkey MP
29 January 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Culture, Media
and Sport Committee to the Chairman
You wrote on 5 February seeking views from Committees
on the proposals for pre-appointment hearings as set out in the
letter of 23 January from Ed Miliband.
The Committee welcomes the proposals, and it agrees
that the list of posts for which pre-appointment scrutiny by select
committees should include the Chair of Ofcom. As you will know,
the former Trade and Industry Committee and this Committee have,
for the past two years, taken oral evidence jointly from Ofcom
on its Annual Plan for the forthcoming financial year. I envisage
that we might hold a similar joint exercise in future for the
appointment of the Ofcom Chair.
We believe, however, that the list should also include
the Chairman of the BBC Trust. Under Article 22 of the BBC Charter,
the Trust is the guardian of licence fee revenue and the public
interest in the BBC, and it can exercise powers to protect the
public interest. The House of Lords Select Committee on Communications,
in its First Report of Session 2006-07, has also recommended that
the post should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing.
We also believe that an appointee should be able
to demonstrate not just professional competence but also personal
independence. The Chairman of the BBC Trust will need to challenge
the BBC Executive when necessary and may need to resist political
pressure. We therefore favour the wording proposed by the Public
Administration Select Committee, which refers explicitly to "personal
independence" as a focus for pre-appointment hearings.
Mr John Whittingdale OBE MP
18 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Defence Committee
to the Chairman
My Committee discussed the letter from Ed Miliband,
and the attached list, at its meeting on Tuesday. Although some
Members expressed doubts as to the value of pre-appointment hearings
that did not permit the Committee a consequent veto, there was
general agreement that were a Committee to express the desire
to hold such a hearing the Government ought to give it serious
consideration. It was also important to emphasise the need for
Committees to control such hearings and not for the Government
to ordain when Committees ought to undertake them: it was clearly
vital for each Committee to retain control over its own agenda.
The Committee was disappointed that not a single
MoD post was listed by Ed Miliband. It felt that it was important
for there to be at least some attempt at parity, so that all Departments
of State volunteered a number of position for such hearings. It
was unacceptable that any Department should feel that it was exempt
from this otherwise laudable attempt to extend parliamentary scrutiny
over the Executive. It should be made clear that any pilot scheme
should be rolled out across the breadth of Whitehall and not concern
single Committees or single Departments of State.
The list as currently formulated also appears to
us to be slight. Government must be more generous in its proposals.
In terms of the MoD, posts that my Members would like to see open
for pre-appointment hearings include: the Chief of the Defence
Staff, the three Service Chiefs, the Chief of Defence Materiel,
and the Service Complaints Commissioner.
Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP
7 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Environmental
Audit Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February, concerning
the Government's proposals relating to pre-appointment hearings
by select committees.
The Minister's letter of 23 January suggests that
pre-appointment hearings are most suitable for posts "which
exercise statutory or other powers in relation to protecting the
public's rights and interests". The Climate Change Bill currently
being considered will establish a Committee on Climate Change.
Until the Bill is passed we cannot say what the Committee will
be asked to do. It seems unlikely that it would meet the test
set by the Minister in the terms in which it is expressed. However,
the urgency with which we need to address climate change and the
impact that the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change
should have on the economy and individuals means that the public
interest test is easily met.
In our Seventh Report of Session 2006-07, Beyond
Stern: from Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate
Change Bill, we called for all members of the Committee on Climate
Change to be appointed by an open and transparent process, in
line with the recommendations in Nolan Report. We recommended
that transparency and the perception of independence could be
increased if all new appointees were required to appear before
the Environmental Audit Committee. In our Report parallels were
drawn with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.
Since 1998, the Treasury Committee has held appointment hearings
with new MPC appointees. The Committee's role does not have a
statutory basis, and the Government does not have to take any
particular account of the opinions expressed about individual
appointees. On 3 July 2007 the Prime Minister announced a series
of reforms of parliamentary involvement in public appointments.
These directly affected 'external' appointments to the MPC with
a proposal for "pre-appointment" hearings for a nominee
suggested by the Government, which would precede the formal appointment.
I recommend that the list proposed by Ed Miliband
be extended to include the Chairman of the Committee on Climate
Change. In any event, I hope that the existence of the list would
not preclude my Committee from coming to a similar arrangement,
with respect to the Committee on Climate Change, to that which
the Treasury Committee has come to over external appointments
to the MPC, namely some kind of pre-appointment hearing between
nomination and confirmation of the appointment, even if any opinions
my Committee expresses are treated as non-binding.
It is difficult to see how a cross-cutting committee
like the Environmental Audit Committee might be directly involved
in pre-appointment hearings for any of the posts in the Government's
proposal. Given the nature and urgency of the threat posed by
climate change it would seem right that some of the pre-appointment
hearings for post such as Chair of GEMA or Chair of OFWAT pay
some attention to these issues. While we would not want to complicate
the process, perhaps a mechanism can be found for Committees,
like the Environmental Audit Committee with an interest but not
a direct lead, to have some input into the topics and questions
to be raised in any pre-appointment hearing.
Mr Tim Yeo MP
25 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February on this subject.
I see from the list provided by Mr Miliband that
only a couple of appointments of interest to the EFRA Committee
are listed: the Chair of the Food Standards Agency (a non-ministerial
government department, where the Health Committee might have an
interest too) and the Chair of the Water Service Regulatory Authority
(OFWAT).
Mr Miliband says that in selecting the posts suitable
for pre-appointment hearings, the Government has focussed on posts
which exercise statutory or other powers in relation to protecting
the public's rights and interests. On that basis, some other Defra-related
posts could be suitable too: the Rural Advocate, the Chair of
Consumer Council for Water, the Chair of Agricultural Wages Board
and the Chair of Gangmaster Licensing Authority.
In addition, I believe that those with the principal
responsibility for the work of major public bodies, such as the
Chief Executives of the Environment Agency or Natural England,
should also fall within the system.
What I think should happen is that departmental select
committees should be notified of major appointments and that committees
should then be able to decide—perhaps within an agreed period
of time—whom they see.
Rt Hon Michael Jack MP
18 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February, concerning
the Government's proposals relating to pre-appointment hearings
by select committees.
In its recent report on The Work of the Committee
in 2007, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that:
We have previously announced our intention of scrutinising
any major diplomatic or consular appointment of a person from
outside the diplomatic service. In our last annual report we noted
that the only such appointments to be made in recent years were
made during the period when there was no Committee in existence,
at the time of the 2005 general election. As the appointments
were faits accomplis by the time the Committee was nominated,
we did not hold hearings with the individuals concerned. However,
in August 2007, the Government announced that it intended to appoint
Scottish Labour leader and former First Minister Jack McConnell
MSP as British High Commissioner to Malawi when the current High
Commissioner's posting ends in 2009. We plan to hold an evidence
session with Mr McConnell in March 2008. (Fourth Report of Session
2007-08, HC 287, para 55)
Since publication of the report, the Committee has
finalised its arrangements for an evidence session with Mr McConnell;
this will be held on 23 April.
I therefore propose that the Government should amend
the list of appointments appended to Ed Miliband's letter of 23
January to include "any major diplomatic or consular appointment
of a person from outside the diplomatic service".
This raises a wider question relating to the independence
of select committees. Although I welcome the Government's support
for pre-appointment scrutiny, it is important that such scrutiny
should not be interpreted in any quarters as a process that is
supervised by the Government or which can only proceed if Ministers
give their approval. There must be no question of infringing committees'
rights to make their own decisions on choice of witnesses or on
how evidence sessions will be conducted. In particular, it would
be unfortunate if the incorrect impression were to be given that
committees are only able to hold pre-appointment hearings in respect
of those appointments listed by the Government.
Subject to these reservations, I would be happy for
the Liaison Committee to give a positive response to the Government's
proposal.
Mike Gapes MP
20 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Innovation, Universities
and Skills Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for giving the Innovation, Universities
and Skills Committee the opportunity to comment on Ed Miliband's
proposals with regard to pre-appointment hearings by select committees.
The Committee discussed the proposals at its meeting
this week and was unanimous in concluding that the list of names
proposed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office was too restricted.
The list should include major appointments made by each Secretary
of State. In the case of DIUS, these should include as a minimum
the Chairs of HEFCE, OFFA and the Research Councils. I should
add that our predecessor Committee on Science and Technology recommended
that newly appointed chief executives of the Research Councils
should also be subject to such hearings. Beyond our own immediate
remit, the Committee felt that the chair of OFSTED and the Children's
Commissioner were important omissions from the list.
The Committee did not discuss in any detail the other
two issues raised in your letter, relating to the purpose of the
hearings and the proposals for implementation. My own view is
that such hearings should go beyond issues of professional competence
to include personal independence as recommended by the Public
Administration Committee. I also strongly believe that it should
be for the Liaison Committee to draw up guidelines for the hearings,
rather than the Government.
Mr Phil Willis MP
20 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Joint Committee
on Human Rights to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February, about pre-appointment
hearings by select committees. My Committee discussed your letter
at its meeting on 19 February.
In our view, the list of posts suggested by the Government
as routinely suitable for pre-appointment hearings should also
include the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC). Aside from its role in promoting equality and human rights
in the UK, the EHRC has extensive legal powers and can take legal
action on behalf of individuals in relation to equality issues.
It also has significant powers to enforce the equalities duties
of organisations and authorities, including to launch official
inquiries and formal investigations. The Minister's letter of
23 January suggests that pre-appointment hearings are most suitable
for posts "which exercise statutory or other powers in relation
to protecting the public's rights and interests". We consider
that the Chair of the EHRC meets this criterion.
My Committee is well placed to conduct pre-appointment
hearings with the Chair of the EHRC. The Joint Committee on Human
Rights has consistently advocated the establishment of a human
rights commission and we have already held two informal meetings
with the Chair, Trevor Phillips. We expect to call Mr Phillips
to give oral evidence on the EHRC's work and future plans later
in the Spring and are likely to hear oral evidence from the EHRC
at least annually from now on, as well as receive written evidence
from the Commission as part of our thematic inquiries.
We agree with the inclusion of the Prisons and Probation
Ombudsman on the Government's suggested list and would wish to
be involved in any pre-appointment hearings for this post. In
our view, this is a key role in relation to the safeguarding and
promotion of human rights in the criminal justice system. Our
recent Report on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill argued
strongly against the Government's plans to put the Ombudsman on
a statutory footing in a way which we considered would compromise
the independence of the post. We have also corresponded with Government
on this issue within recent months and intend to continue pressing
for the Ombudsman's independence from Government to be guaranteed
in law.
You asked for views on the Government's suggestion
that pre-appointment hearings should focus on "issues of
professional competence", which appeared to exclude the Public
Administration Committee's recommendation that "personal
independence" should also be addressed by such hearings.
Our view is that Committees will wish to ask about "personal
independence", and rightly so. It is a relevant consideration
for both of the posts mentioned in this letter.
I agree with the suggestion that the Liaison Committee
should draw up guidelines for pre-appointment hearings. It is
worth noting, however, that Committees are entitled to call any
newly-appointed public official to discuss any issues in relation
to their qualifications for the post and future plans, regardless
of whether the Government considers this appropriate. We welcome
the Government's willingness to engage in pre-appointment hearings
but we would not wish the work of Committees to be constrained,
or appear to be constrained, in any way. It will also be important
to make clear that the Government remains solely responsible for
appointments to posts where pre-appointment hearings have taken
place. Endorsement of the Government's nominee at a pre-appointment
hearing must not preclude robust scrutiny of performance in the
job.
Mr Andrew Dismore MP
21 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Justice Committee
to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5th February
enclosing correspondence between you and Ed Miliband.
I discussed this briefly with colleagues on the Justice
Committee at our last meeting. We will consider this matter in
greater depth in the near future. I note that a significant number
of the list of potential appointees would come within our remit.
Your letter and the Government's proposals raise
some important questions about how we would make a pre-appointment
hearing work. I note that you correctly identify one the central
points as identifying what the purpose of the pre-appointment
hearings is intended to be. Clearly we would not wish the Committee
to be restricted in the scope of its inquiries if it decided to
hold such hearings.
We also wondered how the exercise would add to the
quality of performance of the nominees and how the Government
plans to ensure that the pre-appointment process would significantly
add value to the work which we already do in taking evidence from
appointees once they have had the opportunity to take stock of
their new job. How much information would we receive about the
reasons why candidates were nominated? In particular, would the
Committee be able to recommend that they should not be appointed?
We are clear that we would not wish to blur the lines
of responsibility for making such appointments by any apparent
contribution to the process which may, however, in reality not
affect the final decision.
Rt Hon Alan Beith MP
20 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Northern Ireland
Affairs Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February, inviting
my comments on the Government's proposals for scrutiny of major
public appointments. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee discussed
this at its meeting yesterday.
The Committee notes that none of the positions listed
by the Government is a Northern Ireland appointment and has asked
me to write to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for
clarification of the Government's intentions in respect to the
posts in the Province.
Sir Patrick Cormack MP
21 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Northern Ireland
Affairs Committee to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
As a member of the Liaison Committee I have recently
been invited to comment on the Government's proposals for scrutiny
of major public appointments. We duly discussed this at the Northern
Ireland Affairs Committee but noted that none of the positions
listed by the Government is a Northern Ireland appointment. I
agreed to write to you to seek clarification of the Government's
intentions in respect to the public appointments within the Province.
Is this a matter at which you will be seeking to involve the Northern
Ireland Assembly or would you wish to involve my committee?
Sir Patrick Cormack MP
21 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Public Accounts
Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February asking for
views on Ed Miliband's letter about pre-appointment hearings.
The one appointment mentioned that would fall to
the Public Accounts Committee is, of course, that of the Comptroller
and Auditor General (C&AG). However, I feel strongly that
this is not suitable for a pre-appointment hearing with
the Committee. The reasons are that the statutory provisions for
the appointment of the C&AG provide a balance between the
executive and this House and between the Government and Opposition
through the requirement for the consent of both the Prime Minister
and the Chairman of the PAC. A pre-appointment hearing with the
whole Committee, with its inevitable government majority, would
clearly upset this balance and thus potentially compromise perceptions
of the C&AG's independence from the Government, an essential
element in the effective functioning of the National Audit Office
as a whole.
However I would not object to the C&AG-designate
appearing before the Committee, once the Prime Minster and the
PAC Chairman had agreed his or her name, but in advance of the
debate on the motion for his or her appointment.
The second issue you raise is that of the focus of
the hearings. I do not think that Committees should be precluded
from looking at the independence of the candidate, since in many,
if not all, of the appointments on the list—even with the
C&AG removed from it—independence is an important factor,
and one which Committees ought to be able to examine.
The last point is the assessment of a pilot and the
drafting of guidelines for the hearings. Given that one of the
Government's key aims is explicitly "strengthening the role
of Parliament", I would have thought that it is for Committees
to monitor hearings and to seek feed-back from Departments, rather
than the other way round.
Mr Edward Leigh MP
18 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Public Administration
Select Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February about pre-appointment
hearings by select committees. The Public Administration Select
Committee has as you know already reported on this matter, so
my comments on Ed Miliband's letter are brief and I have not been
able to discuss them with the Committee.
In general, it is pleasing that the Government has
responded positively to our recommendations, and that it seems
to have taken some of them on board. I would, however, reiterate
our belief that hearings should consider questions of personal
independence as well as professional competence. The Treasury
Committee has of course been conducting successful hearings on
such a basis for some years.
To the list of posts suggested by the Government,
which I recognise broadly follows our proposals, I would add three
within PASC's remit. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
performs an important role in ensuring public trust in government
by regulating exit from government; its Chairman would seem to
be a prime candidate for a hearing. Similarly, the Prime Minister's
Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests is effectively a
regulator, charged with investigating alleged breaches of the
Ministerial Code, and so a hearing would be appropriate.
Perhaps most importantly, the Chairman of the House
of Lords Appointments Commission is absent from the Government's
list. This is a hugely important and influential post, and was
specifically mentioned in our report. It is of particular interest
to Parliament. It would seem very strange if no hearing was provided
for in respect of this post.
Aside from these, the Government has so far not acknowledged
our final recommendation, which was that hearings should be held
on the occasions where appointments are not made on merit—as
happens particularly in the Diplomatic Service. I would draw your
attention to this as it may be a gap in the current proposals.
Lastly, I note that at least one of the posts on
the list (the Chair of the nascent Office for Legal Complaints)
is not a ministerial appointment. There may be others which are
similar. I am not sure how it is envisaged that a hearing might
influence an appointing body which is not directly accountable
to Parliament. Indeed, the inclusion of such posts may not have
been intentional. It does not seem to me that pre-appointment
hearings have been designed for appointments which are not made
by politicians.
Dr Tony Wright MP
25 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform
Committee to the Chairman
At its meeting on 5 February, the Regulatory Reform
Committee considered the letter to you of 23 January from the
Minister for the Cabinet Office on the Governance of Britain Green
Paper: pre-appointment hearings by select committees.
In terms of its own involvement in pre-appointment
hearings the Committee agreed that any future Executive Chair
of the Better Regulation Executive might usefully be included
on the list appended to the Minister's letter. It is expected
that our report into Getting Results: The Better Regulation
Executive and the impact of the regulatory reform agenda,
which I hope will be ready by the summer, will incorporate a recommendation
to that effect. The opportunity for the Committee to interview
the prospective incumbent would clearly add to the 'process which
enhances Parliamentary and democratic scrutiny of key public appointments
whilst continuing to attract high calibre individuals into public
life'.
Andrew Miller MP
5 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Standards and
Privileges Committee to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter dated February 5th.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is already
appointed by the House; and the Chairman of the Committee on Standards
in Public Life is on Ed Miliband's list. I have no suggestions
from my committee.
However, having recently served on the Housing &
Regeneration Bill, I believe that the proposed regulator of social
housing should be added to the list.
Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP
6 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Transport Committee
to the Chairman
The Transport Committee has considered your letter
of 5 February and the list of appointments proposed by Ed Miliband.
We agree that the Chair of the Office of Rail Regulation should
be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny. The Committee also considers
that the following office-holders should be subject to scrutiny.
- The London Underground PPP
Arbiter. This post is currently held by the chair of the ORR,
but this will not necessarily be the case with future appointments.
If a different person were to be appointed to this post, we would
want an opportunity to examine him or her.
- The Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority, which
is a statutory regulator with similar status to those already
included on the list.
- The Chair of Network Rail. Though it does not
fall strictly within the criteria set out in the Green Paper,
Network Rail's peculiar status as a private company wholly-owned
by Government and its central role within the nation's transport
infrastructure would justify, in our view, such scrutiny.
I look forward to discussing these proposals, as
well as those from other colleagues, on 28 February.
Hon Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
20 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Treasury Committee
to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 February seeking views
of select committees on Ed Miliband's letter to you of 23 January.
I am replying based on the experience of the Treasury Committee,
although I have not had an opportunity to discuss the contents
of this letter at a Committee meeting.
You asked for comment on the list of appointments
that it is proposed be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny. That
list does not include any appointments relating to Treasury responsibilities
(other than the Chair of the Statistics Board, responsibility
for which will soon pass to the Cabinet Office). My assumption
is that members of the MPC and the chairman of the Financial Services
Authority are excluded on grounds of market sensitivity; for such
posts, the Government envisages hearings following announcement
of an appointment, rather than following announcement of a nomination.
I have today written a letter to the Chancellor of Exchequer,
a copy of which I enclose, which seeks confirmation of this. Subject
to my receiving a satisfactory response to that letter, I have
no comments on the list.
You draw attention to the absence of any reference
to personal independence. Since 1998, the Treasury Committee has
examined appointees to the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of
the Bank of England in relation to their professional competence
and their personal independence. I am well aware of the concerns
that exist about questions relating to personal independence,
having given evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee
alongside Janet Gaymer, the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
However, I think select committees are well within their rights
to explore matters relating to personal independence, and we would
often be failing in our duty of proper scrutiny were we not to
do so. I hope that, in your reply to Ed Miliband, you will make
it clear that select committees are not bound by his expectations
about a focus on issues of professional competence.
Ed Miliband's letter makes no reference to the timetable
for nomination. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a letter to
me of 30 January which I also enclose with this letter, proposes
to allow three months between the announcement of an appointment
to the MPC and the effective date of that appointment. I believe
that you should seek a similar undertaking from Ed Miliband in
respect of the posts that are to be the subject of pre-appointment
hearings.
Ed Miliband's letter does not deal directly with
what happens when a post-holder is re-appointed for a second or
subsequent term. The Treasury Committee has found hearings in
such circumstances to be of considerable value. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer's letter which I enclose specifically acknowledges
the case for pre-commencement hearings in such circumstances.
I think that you should seek Ed Miliband's assurance that hearings
are envisaged for those re-appointed to the posts concerned, as
well as new nominees.
Rt Hon John McFall MP
21 February 2008
Letter from the Chairman of the Treasury Committee
to the Chancellor
I am writing in response to the points in your letter
of 30 January about pre-appointment hearings and also to pursue
a related matter about the forthcoming appointment of a new Chairman
of the Financial Services Authority.
I am grateful for your proposal to allow three months
for a pre-commencement hearing by the Treasury Committee in relation
to appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). I am also
pleased that you have referred specifically to the role of pre-commencement
hearings in relation to those re-appointed to the MPC. In view
of your announcements relating to Andrew Sentance and Mervyn King,
we have been able to schedule re-appointment hearings with them
in late March and late April respectively, and we will then report
to the House in each case in our usual way.
I have seen Ed Miliband's letter to Alan Williams
of 23 January and the enclosed list of appointments that it is
proposed be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny. I note this does
not include any appointments relating to Treasury responsibilities
(other than the Chair of the Statistics Board, responsibility
for which will soon pass to the Cabinet Office). I presume this
is because—as previously indicated in paragraph 79 of the
Green Paper on The Governance of Britain and in your Written
Ministerial Statement of 3 July—you view it as important
for the initial announcements relating to the membership of the
MPC and the Chairmanship of the FSA to be about an appointment
rather than a nomination on grounds of market sensitivity. It
would be helpful if you could confirm that this is the reason
why the MPC and FSA appointments do not appear on that proposed
list.
Finally, you will understand that the Treasury Committee
will wish to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the new Chairman
of the FSA prior to the Summer Recess. I would be grateful if
you could let me know the proposed timetable for that appointment
and confirm that that timetable will accommodate the Treasury
Committee's needs.
Rt Hon John McFall MP
21 February 2008
Extract from the Chancellor's letter to the Chairman
of the Treasury Committee
The Monetary Policy Committee
While recognising the successes of the past decade,
I want to emphasise that the monetary policy framework should
continue to evolve and innovate when there are clear benefits
to doing so. Our reforms to the system of appointing external
MPC members demonstrate our intention to enhance the transparency,
clarity and openness of the appointments process for Monetary
Policy Committee members. I am taking the opportunity presented
by submission of the Government's response to announce to the
Committee additional details on how the appointments process reforms
will operate in practice.
In future, the Treasury will, as far as possible,
publish a timetable for appointment of an external MPC member
before a vacancy becomes available on the Committee and announce
details of who it has decided to appoint, in sufficient time to
be consistent with allowing the Treasury Select Committee three
months for their pre-commencement hearings. I agree with the broad
attributes the Committee highlights as those a member of the Monetary
Policy Committee should possess, and believe that they form a
sound basis for the person specification I have committed to producing
as part of the process for selecting a new external Committee
member. In addition, I will continue to take into account the
existing balance of skills and backgrounds present on the Committee
in setting out the attributes being sought in a new member.
Second, in the event that I judge that reappointing
an individual to serve a further term is in the best interests
of the Monetary Policy Committee, I will
aim to announce my intention to do so in good time before their
existing term is due to come to an end. Reappointed members will
undergo a pre-commencement hearing in the same manner as new members,
ensuring that all members are subject to a regular process of
Parliamentary scrutiny. I also agree with the Committee that the
idea of a confidential pool of candidates to help fill unexpected
vacancies in the event that they should arise is worth further
examination.
In keeping with these reforms,
and to ensure that the Treasury Committee has adequate time to
plan for a pre-commencement hearing, I am
today announcing my decision to reappoint Dr Andrew Sentance as
an external Committee member when his current term of office expires
in May 2008. Andrew has both business expertise and macroeconomic
forecasting skills, having previously held posts at British Airways,
the CBI and the London Business School. The then Chancellor highlighted
such skills as being desirable in an external member in his evidence
to the TSC in June. I
am pleased that Andrew has agreed to remain
on the Committee for a further term, and believe that his expertise
will continue to be an asset to the work of the Committee.
I believe that the details I am announcing today
of the reforms, which go beyond standard practice by the both
Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, will provide certainty
to MPC appointments, thereby improving the process for appointees,
Government, and Parliament as a whole.
I welcome your report as a valuable contribution
to these issues and look forward to continuing to work together
with the Committee in ensuring that the monetary policy framework
in the UK remains leading edge.
Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
30 January 2008
E-mail from the Chairman of the Work and Pensions
Committee to the Chairman
Governance of Britain Green Paper
DWP Select Committee considered the above at its
last meeting. We feel very strongly that the positions of the
Chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Independent
Case Examiner should be added to the list. We also feel that as
a matter of principal the Chief Executives of the agencies of
the Department should also be included.
Mr Terry Rooney MP
25 February 2008
| 
