Should Parliament have a greater
role?
35. Ensuring less Ministerial influence over
the appointment of the Chairman of the BBC Trust should go some
way to ensuring public trust but the appointment needs careful
scrutiny. The interests of licence fee payers must be represented
at some point in the process. The obvious way to achieve both
these goals is to give Parliament a role. MPs are the only
democratically elected representatives of the licence fee payer.
36. On 3 July this year the new Prime Minister
published a Green Paper on the Governance of Britain.[6]
Through this document the Prime Minister has made clear that he
too believes that Parliament should have a greater role in scrutinising
public appointments "the Government believes the time is
now right to go further and seek to involve Parliament in the
appointment of key public officials".[7]
The Green Paper goes on to state that "Government nominees
for key positions such as those listed below should be subject
to a pre-appointment hearing with the relevant select committee".[8]
However, the Chairman of the BBC Trust is not one of the positions
listed.
37. We were pleased to see Government support
for parliamentary scrutiny of public appointments. This type of
scrutiny may help avoid future problems with appointments.
38. However, we are concerned that the BBC is
not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Green Paper. The paper
does state that "The Government, in consultation with the
Liaison Committee,[9] will
prepare a list of such appointments for which these hearings will
apply".[10]
39. The Government's proposals for pre-appointment
hearings are that they "would be non-binding, but in the
light of the report from the committee, Ministers would decide
whether to proceed. The hearings would cover issues such as the
candidate's suitability for the role, his or her key priorities,
and the process used in selection".[11]
We think that this is the right way to conduct such hearings.
Hugo Swire MP (the then Opposition spokesperson for Culture,
Media and Sport) gave evidence to us before the Government announced
its plans. We agree with his view that the role for parliament
should not be to impede the appointment, but to have a public
session and make its report public. He suggested that it would
be "a very brave Secretary of State" that appointed
any candidate not reported on favourably by Parliament (Q 444).
40. We note that there is some concern that public
hearings might deter suitable candidates. Much of this concern
is based on observations about how the United States Senate holds
confirmation hearings for a large number of public posts. These
hearings have attracted much criticism for concentrating on issues
other than the candidate's qualifications and aptitude for the
job. In 1998 the House of Commons Treasury Committee advocated
confirmation hearings for certain public appointments in the UK
but were mindful of what has happened in the US and therefore
suggested the following resolution, "when the Committee is
taking evidence at a confirmation hearing … questioning will
be restricted to issues of the appointee's personal independence
and professional competence, including the possession of knowledge
or experience likely to be relevant … This resolution will
justify an intervention by the Chairman if questioning strays
outside the areas mentioned".[12]
41. When we took evidence from Michael Grade
he was concerned that public hearings would "deter a lot
of very talented people from putting their names forward"
(Q 65). We believe that a resolution like that outlined above
would ensure that candidates were not put off. With such safeguards
in place we question whether the type of person who would still
be put off by the prospect of a Committee hearing is the type
of person who should be chairman of the BBC. Sir Michael
Lyons told the Committee that, although he did have concerns about
pre-appointment hearings, post-hoc parliamentary scrutiny of his
appointment would not have deterred him from applying (QQ 369-371).
42. We recommend that the House of Commons
Liaison Committee and the Government agree that the Chairman of
the BBC Trust should be one of the appointments that Parliament
vets. This vetting should focus only on the candidate's qualifications
and aptitude for the job. Both Houses should have a role in this
vetting. We therefore propose that a method be found whereby
a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament should carry out
the pre-appointment hearing. The Government should undertake
to respond to the report of the Joint Committee before the appointment
is finalised.
43. For those members of this Committee who were
previously on the House of Lords Select Committee on BBC Charter
Review, it has been a long standing objective to address the democratic
deficit that exists with reference to parliamentary scrutiny of
the BBC. The first report of that Committee noted the process
for agreeing a Royal Charter meant that the Government of the
day had almost unchecked power to change the entire constitution
of the BBC. The Committee therefore recommended that the BBC should
be based on a statutory footing by an Act of Parliament. The second
report of that Committee recommended that Parliament should have
greater involvement in setting the licence fee. We support these
recommendations.
44. We are pleased that the Government's attitude
towards the role of Parliament seems to be changing. The Prime
Minister has made it clear that he wants several powers that are
currently in the hands of Ministers to transfer to Parliament.
We therefore hope that in the long term the Government will
address the democratic deficit that exists over the BBC.
5 
