More power to Parliament over the appointments to key posts?

More Parliamentary hearings before people are appointed to key posts could be on the way as the BBC’s Mark D’Arcy reports:

One of the areas where the Commons committee system has been quietly accumulating extra clout is over the appointments of key quangocrats, industry regulators and similar posts.

These are figures with enormous powers – and the pressure to legitimise them through some kind of parliamentary approval system has been building for quite a while.

Now MPs are trying to formalise their gains and set out an explicit system for approving them – both to probe their attitudes and priorities and to decide whether they are being offered a stooge, a place-person or a genuinely independent-minded figure, capable, if necessary, of saying “no” to ministers.

The Liaison Committee (the committee of select committee chairs) has published a report setting out a long list of posts that it thinks should be subject to one of three levels of hearing, ranging from Parliamentary approval being required to appoint or sack someone, to power of veto over appointment only or, at the lowest level, the ability to “call in” a controversial would-be appointment for questioning.

Personally I think this would be an excellent move, both to strengthen Parliament’s role as a check on the government and also to give greater scope for discussion and debate over what senior appointees will actually set out to do in their jobs.

A good example of this is the Information Commissioner, a post which it is proposed would be subject to the full process. Not only is the Information Commissioner an important post, but the Commissioner’s general attitude towards enforcement gets little attention. Almost unmentioned in the phone hacking scandal is that, yes, the Information Commissioner did unearth many misdeeds several years ago. But he then viewed it as his job to stop such misdeeds in future rather than to push for widespread prosecutions of those who had broken the law. That is not unusual; the Information Commissioner’s consistent approach through several holders of the post has been one of ‘forgive the past, fix the future’. When it is a small business that has strayed inadvertently, there is much to be said for that approach. But as the phone hacking case illustrates, it should be a much more debated approach than it is.

Although I think such confirmation hearings would be a good move, I fear not all Liberal Democrats will, for I remember the writing of policy for the first London Assembly and Mayor contest in 2000. The words I penned about having the London Assembly hold confirmation hearings for key London government posts was rapidly struck out in the face of widespread dislike for such an ‘American’ (as it was seen) approach to politics. Hopefully events since, such as the successful introduction of such a system for the Office for Budget Responsibility, has changed people’s minds.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Paul Holmes 8th Sep '11 - 1:42pm

    Not long before the 2010 election we on the Education and Skills Select Committee rejected the Government’s choice as the new Children’s Commissioner.
    Ed Balls, the then Sec of State for Education, ignored us arguing that the newly introduced Select Committee hearings of such appointees was essentially a formality and could not over rule the Government’s choice.
    Naturally we objected vigorously to this view and I pointed out that it was a complete and utter waste of time to hold such Select Committee hearings if they were just New Labour window dressing.
    It’s good to see the wheels of democratic change/accountability moving on -let’s hope it doesn’t take a 100 years or more to come to fruition unlike the democratisation of the House of Patronage which the Liberal Government began in 1911 and are still fighting for now (minus David Steel and some of his other none elected colleagues).

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Rob Parsons
    @Peter 6.02 pm If Germany is not buying gas from Russia, that means there's more for the rest of us, therefore the price goes down not up - I assume the law of...
  • Richard O'Neill
    De Santis is less dangerous of the two. He doesn't inspire a cult like following threatening American Democracy....
  • Paul R
    @Duncan Brack Unfortunately, my comments are not nonsense. They are entirely accurate. There is no commitment to rejoining the EU - at any stage - in the pol...
  • Alex Macfie
    Liverpool Mossley Hill was created for the 1983 GE. I believe it was a notional Liberal gain from the Tories in that election. This means that the Liberals took...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Jeff, "To pay for that huge deficit we had to borrow the money back and sell off our best companies one by one." Not really. It’s true that...