By Lucy Phillips
8 March 2011
A leading think-tank has called for more powers over key public appointments to be vested in Parliament rather than individual ministers.
A report by the Institute for Government, published today, says ministers currently have too much power over the appointment and dismissal of critical public appointments and names 25 top positions that Parliament should have say over instead.
It recommends that existing pre-appointment hearings by select committees should be strengthened in the same way that the Treasury committee was given apower of veto by the Chancellor last year over the selection of the chairof the Office for Budget Responsibility.
The new ‘A list’ of posts includes the heads of major economic and public service regulators such as the Bank of England, Ofcom and Monitor and public service watchdogs such as the inspectorates of prisons, schools and constabulary.
IfG director Lord Adonis said: ‘The credibility and authority of people in top public sector posts such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the Information Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Schools rest upon their independence from ministerial control, so it is quite right that Parliament should have the final say over their appointment and dismissal.
‘In a parliamentary democracy, effective parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are vital to the legitimacy of government. Our proposals build on existing good practice and serve to enhance that legitimacy.’
The appointment of the BBC Trust chair is also on the think-tank’s A-list. This week Lord Pattern will appear before the Common’s culture, media and sport select committee for a pre appointment hearing, having been nominated for the post by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. But the committee of MPs have no powers to block the appointment, only to request that the government thinks again.
Akash Paun, IfG senior researcher and author of the report, Balancing act: the right role for Parliamentin Public Appointments, added: ‘Cross-party select committees are well place to assess whether those appointed to major public jobs will display the necessary independence from executive control. They can also test the ability of the candidate to stand up to robust public scrutiny, enhance the transparency of the appointments process, and strengthen the democratic accountability of regulators and watchdogs across the public sector.’
