Andrew
Mackinlay: I agree, of course. We are in the business of
speed-reading. I can help my hon. Friend as I know that this fellow
went to a De La Salle college, but it is not his fault that he did not
notice that—he will have noticed things that I have not. This is
not the way to do things. My hon. Friend rightly asked who else
applied. One item on my list of things that I want to know is whether
Mr. Singh, the retiring member, sought
reappointment.
I was probing
the principle that the Electoral Commission will be investigatory as
well as regulatory. Over-commitment, and financial and other interests
and influences, are its core business, so it is my core business to
know who Parliament are appointing. Although there are three pages of
information, what we have been told is woefully
inadequate. Hon.
Members who listened carefully to the Minister will have heard that the
new commission will, I think, be put in place in January, but that the
other people have not yet been appointed. There are only two more
sitting days left this side of Christmas, and we are then into January,
which leads us to ask when the other people’s names will be
brought forward, what the process will be, and who they will
be.
Barbara
Keeley: To be clear, that was not what I said. I said that
the powers under the Act would commence in January 2010. The
commissioner, whose appointment we are considering today, will replace
one whose term has ended. Commissioners can serve a term of four years,
and there has to be a replacement in
January.
Andrew
Mackinlay: I take it from that that Mr.
Singh’s term of office will expire and that he cannot seek
reappointment. I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification—it is
helpful. The
consideration of appointments needs to be much better run, if the
function of such Committees and Parliament is not to be a charade. Any
healthy Member of Parliament should have the utmost reserve about
anything agreed between the cosy consensus of the Front Benchers, which
is why we must sometimes consider forensically what has been agreed
between Front Benchers. If further appointments are to be made, I hope
that that will be made known publicly earlier, with the relevant
biographies available earlier and, secondly, that there will be an
audit of the other commitments of those
concerned. I
say that not without some justification, because I detained the House
on the occasion when the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers),
who headed up the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral
Commission, led a debate in the Chamber about the appointment of the
chairperson of the Electoral Commission. There was a very handsome
salary involved, but the good lady concerned had other outside
commitments. Some assurances were given in the Chamber, and
subsequently the hon. Gentleman had to write to me to correct and
clarify some of the things he had disclosed to the House in good faith,
so there is form here, and that is a matter of public record. The hon.
Gentleman was absolutely frank and honest with the House of Commons
and, when he found out that he needed to correct something, he did so
with me, but this is simply not good enough. I note that the chief
executive of the Electoral Commission also serves on the Basildon and
Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust—hon. Members
might have heard about that recently—and I would be interested
to know how much commitment that takes.
Everything is
not satisfactory with regards to the Electoral Commission, and I am not
happy. The commission can bleat on about transparency, openness and so
on, but we should have a greater, more critical, forensic examination
of who it is made up of, what its work is and where it is going, rather
than just rubber-stamping things, as we are doing this
afternoon. 4.48
pm
Mr.
Heath: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Sir Nicholas. I want to touch on some of the very pertinent comments
made by the hon. Member for Thurrock.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the question of process. Some two or three years
ago, when I served on a Committee of this kind, I changed the process
of the House. At that time, there was no CV and no indication
whatsoever of the background of the person we were expected to appoint.
We were simply asked to accept the assurance of the Minister of the day
that the person was fit and proper and that we should support them. I
suggested that the process was wholly inappropriate and that, at the
very least, a CV of the person in question should be circulated in
advance of consideration so that people would be aware of it.
Circulating a CV to members of the Committee immediately before the
sitting, or placing it on the table in the room, does not entirely
fulfil that requirement. I do not know whether the CV was available to
other members of the Committee, but I picked it up from my pigeon hole
about 10 minutes before the start of the sitting and I am, therefore,
barely better prepared than the hon. Gentleman. As soon as I arrived at
the House this afternoon, I went to the Vote Office to ask for the
papers relating to the Committee—it is, after all, a Delegated
Legislation Committee. I had expected the Vote Office to supply the
relevant papers, as it would for any other Delegated Legislation
Committee, but it was unable to supply anything and could only point to
the motion in the Order Paper that has been tabled by the Leader of the
House.
I think that
we might learn from that and suggest to the authorities concerned,
through you, Sir Nicholas, that it would be appropriate, when such an
appointment comes up in future, for the CV and motion to appoint to be
appended to one another and placed in the Vote Office at the earliest
opportunity. It is not only Committee members who might have an
interest, because, as the hon. Member for Thurrock rightly said, any
Member has the opportunity to look at what is proposed and to decide
whether they have any pertinent questions that should be
asked. My
second point relates to the actual appointment. The hon. Gentleman
asked some entirely correct questions about this sort of appointment.
In general, there appears to be a thriving industry among some members
of what is described as the great and good of society of collecting
quango places and then finding themselves committed way beyond what is
physically possible for any person to carry out properly. I stress that
that is not an ad hominem argument, in that I have no reason to suppose
that that is the case with Mr. Hobman, but we are entitled
to know the position. Perhaps, as I suspect, his CV does not include
other public appointments because he is a member of no other public
bodies, but my point is that we are entitled to know at least what
other commitments to public life such a person has, what they
are paid for those commitments, and what the implications are. I suspect
that people are often paid to take positions of responsibility when
they simply do not have the time in which—or, on occasions, the
energy with which—to perform their duties effectively, and I do
not want that to be the case. I stress that none of that applies to
Mr. Hobman, because I have no reason to suspect him
in any way of not being a first-rate candidate for the
job. I
wonder slightly about the fact that there is no reference in
Mr. Hobman’s CV to his having participated in any
body—voluntary or otherwise—connected with representation
or democracy. His career appears to have been entirely in banking and
financial regulation. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, that
is of value in the widening role of the Electoral Commission and in
what we expect it to do, particularly in relation to setting up, as I
hope it will do in consultation with the Government, proposals in line
with Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations on the declaration
of candidates’ financial interests. We need people who
understand such issues well, and we need a much better understanding of
the complexities of finance as it relates to political parties so that
their funding can be policed properly—that applies to all the
parties. It is important that that level of understanding is
represented in the Electoral Commission and that one commissioner does
not represent the sum of the talents and attributes available to the
commission as a whole. Mr. Hobman might well give the
commission new expertise in that area, however—his CV suggests
that he will—which I would
welcome. I
am not opposing Mr. Hobman’s candidacy, but
discussing the procedure, which is still inadequate. I wish to
reinforce some points made by the hon. Member for Thurrock by saying
that we need to be careful that when we make such appointments, we do
so in full possession of the facts and with the ability to make a
proper assessment of whether we are right to proceed in the recommended
way. If the hon. Member for Woking speaks, as I suspect he will, I will
listen with interest because he represents the Speaker’s
Committee on the Electoral Commission and will perhaps fill in some of
the
gaps. 4.55
pm Mr.
Malins: It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Sir
Nicholas. I
thought it would be helpful if I attended this sitting to explain
briefly the process that has resulted in Mr. Hobman being
put forward for appointment as an electoral commissioner and to deal
with some of the issues that colleagues might raise. I do so in my
capacity as a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral
Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon
(Mr. Streeter), who would normally undertake such duties, is
unavoidably absent due to a long-standing constituency engagement and
sends his profuse and profound apologies. I am the first, second or
possibly even the third reserve, but I will do my
best. As
is generally known, there are currently six commissioners, including
the chair, Jenny Watson. The term of office of one commissioner,
Karamjit Singh, comes to an end next month. I pay tribute to
Mr. Singh, who has been with the commission since its early
days, for his important contribution to its work. The Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes the Speaker and the
Speaker’s Committee responsible for selecting candidates for the
post of electoral commissioner. In order to fill the vacancy that will
shortly be created by Mr. Singh’s departure, the
Committee asked Speaker Martin to appoint a panel to select a candidate
to succeed
him. The
panel was chaired by Baroness Fritchie, and the other members were Dame
Denise Platt, Jenny Watson, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West
Devon and Cindy Butts, who was the independent assessor. The panel
interviewed a strong field of candidates and, among the 30 applicants,
Anthony Hobman stood out because of the qualities to which the Minister
referred. A glance at his CV shows just how well qualified he is for
the
role. I
take on board the points made by the hon. Members for Thurrock and for
Somerton and Frome. It was possible for those who were interested and
were going to attend the sitting to get hold of a copy of the CV a week
ago. Copies were provided to Committee members a little while ago. No
discourtesy was intended to the hon. Member for Thurrock or others who
were interested. He is a great parliamentarian and it is a pleasure to
see him here doing his usual duties of questioning and holding others
to
account.
Mr.
Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman said that a panel was appointed
and that many people applied. How did the 30 candidates find out about
the process? Where was it
advertised?
Mr.
Malins: I understand that the post was advertised in the
national press. It was certainly advertised in The Sunday Times,
and possibly in other newspapers. As is apparently common nowadays, it
was most widely advertised on the internet—the various websites
to which people log in. There was also a recruiting agent. There were
30 applications, and I think that I am right that due and proper regard
was given to issues such as gender balance. The final three applicants
were interviewed. According to the panel, there was no doubt that
Mr. Hobman stood out from a strong field as the premier
candidate. The
panel’s unanimous recommendation of Mr. Hobman was
endorsed by the Speaker’s Committee. As is required by statute,
Mr. Speaker then consulted the leaders of the political
parties with two or more Members of Parliament, who gave their assent.
I understand that the next stages in this process are for the motion
that has been referred to the Committee to be approved on the Floor of
the House and finally for the address to be made to the Her Majesty the
Queen, who formally appoints commissioners. I think that the main
motion will be taken forthwith on the Floor of the House later this
week. I
should like to address a couple of matters that have properly
been raised by hon. Members. I can confirm that appointments are for
four years, with three days’ commitment per month and a
daily rate of £354 for each day worked, which was apparently set
by Parliament. That rate is adjusted annually in line with any
rise in the pay of judges and is not pensionable. Commissioners are
entitled to claim expenses wholly and actually incurred etc., which are
published in full on the commission’s website.
Hon. Members
have asked about the process. The process was good. At the risk of
repeating myself, the 2000 Act makes the Speaker and the
Speaker’s Committee responsible for selecting candidates.
Mr. Hobman was selected by the panel appointed by the
Speaker. The correct processes have been followed. In the judgment of
the Speaker’s Committee, Mr. Hobman is absolutely the
best candidate, and I hope that this Committee will accept what has
been said by all members of the Speaker’s Committee in that
respect. Indeed, I appreciate that the observations made by the hon.
Members for Thurrock and for Somerton and Frome were in a sense
directed more at the process than at individuals, and we are all the
richer and the wiser for having heard what they
said. 5.2
pm
Barbara
Keeley: I should particularly like to thank the hon.
Member for Woking for elucidating various points that have been raised.
I shall touch on a couple of matters again in answering the questions
that I have been
asked. I
apologise that copies of the biography were not available in the Vote
Office. I take on board the points that were made about
that—they should have been available. I understood that they had
been circulated by the Speaker’s Committee. Clearly, when there
are substitutions in membership, as was the case for today’s
Committee, and additional hon. Members wish to attend, such biographies
should be made available, and I shall ensure that that happens in
future. The
hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the format of CVs or
biographies, and the information that is available. Hon. Members have
wanted to satisfy themselves about the number of quangos, public bodies
and voluntary organisations—or whatever—with which a
prospective nominee is involved. That information should be
available. This
process is overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral
Commission and hon. Members can ask the representative of that
Committee questions in the Chamber or written questions. I will pass on
the points that have been raised to the Speaker’s Committee
and try to get answers to them, but if hon. Members have additional
questions to ask, they can ask the hon. Member who answers on behalf of
the Speaker’s Committee as part of the normal cycle of questions
in the House. I hope that those questions will be
answered. Strong
points have been made. I accept that, when appointments are considered,
hon. Members wish to see CVs as soon as possible. One key issue
mentioned by hon. Members was whether a person would be over-committing
themselves. As we heard, the time commitment is up to three days a
month. We would want to be satisfied that this new
commissioner—and any other new commissioners—can take on
that commitment, because as all hon. Members who have contributed to
this short debate have mentioned, this is a key regulatory body. We
have moved through the difficulty of not having political experience in
the commission, and that will be changed in future. Hon. Members have
the right to satisfy themselves that, when we are making appointments,
they are as good as they could
be. A
couple of points seem to be hanging over on which we might be able to
supply information, and I will certainly pass them on and try to ensure
that we provide that information. That said, aside from the process,
there seems to be general support for the nomination. I commend the
motion to the
Committee.
| 
