Public appointments: what role for parliament?

This Monday a pair of senior economists spent two hours defending their professional competence and personal independence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee. Stephen Nickell and Graham Parker are the Chancellor’s proposed candidates to join Chair Robert Chote at the new Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR).

The Coalition government committed in its Programme for Government (PDF, 475KB) to "strengthen the powers of select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments". Since then it has granted the Treasury Committee a veto over appointments to the OBR, making Monday's hearing a rare example of a committee wielding real and direct power over the executive.

The pre-appointment hearings system

This was the latest 'pre-appointment hearing' held by select committees under a system set up in 2007-08. 23 hearings have now been held, covering posts including the Information Commissioner, Local Government Ombudsman and Head of Ofsted.

Previously, government would simply have announced such appointments following an internal recruitment process regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Today, select committees summon and question candidates for several dozen senior posts (particularly those where independence from government is crucial) before they take office.

The committee then recommends whether or not government should go ahead with the appointment.

The arguments for and against committee scrutiny

Some commentators believe committee scrutiny risks politicising (or 'Americanising') the appointments process and deterring good candidates. Committee chairs have argued that it strengthens accountability and the independence of appointees.

As occurred on Monday, Committees usually give unanimous blessing to nominated candidates. Divisions are rare, and only once has an appointment been rejected. On that occasion – the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner – Children’s Secretary Ed Balls appointed the candidate in any case.

But the system does seem to provide more than a rubber stamp. Research by the UCL Constitution Unit found many candidates appreciated the "additional and welcome public endorsement" and that most would have withdrawn their application if the committee had rejected their appointment.

An evolving system

Nor are changes at an end. The Cabinet Office and Parliament are discussing how to reform the system and update the list of appointments subject to scrutiny hearings (PDF, 69KB). The precedent of the OBR vetos is likely to figure in these discussions, with some chairs keen on similar powers.

These developments also come in the wake of procedural changes (including direct election of chairs) designed to increase the autonomy and influence of committees more generally.

Institute for Government research

In this context, the Institute has launched a research project on scrutiny of public appointments. With David Atkinson, I will be exploring:

• whether committees should have a veto over certain appointments (as recommended in the Institute’s Read Before Burning report) – or a right to choose between multiple candidates
• the pros and cons of alternative models such as giving the final say to the House as a whole (as occurs for the head of the Electoral Commission)
• whether the list of posts subject to parliamentary scrutiny should be expanded – perhaps even to cover ministerial appointments.

We will be speaking to many of those involved in the appointments process, but please do post your comments about these issues below, or email us.