General Press Comments

[Elizabeth Tanner]

I have been clear on multiple occasions that I will be be commissioning an independent inquiry into the appointment systems in the United Kingdom, and while I appreciate Mr Macmillans efforts to introduce legislation this legislation placing the apple cart before the horse. The inquiry will make recommendations, and we will implement those recommendations. What we do not need are Members of Parliament trying to fix a problem when they don't know the problems they need to fix.

[Will Frost]

The Prime Minister is now arguing that Parliament doesn't yet know the problems that need to be addressed when it comes to the public appointments process. Well, of course we do: an overwhelmingly lack of oversight and transparency that allows Minister to get away with making bad decisions. The fact of the matter is this: the Prime Minister lost her authority to speak on this issue the moment she against Motion 1, voting to protect her former boss and the New Labour status quo. The Government must allow this legislation to be given a second reading, and to allow for a serious debate on these commonsense proposals. If they refuse, I will ensure that the Opposition brings forth similar legislation within the coming days.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

While I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's patronage of my PMB it is within his gift to grant it a Second Reading during an Opposition Day. I would urge him to do so if he agrees with me that this legislation is urgently necessary.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

Labour are attempting to hide behind a Parliamentary inquiry to let the heat die down and fudge some reforms. We don't need an inquiry to know what the problems are, we know what the problems are. The problems are Prime Ministers appointing their friends and allies to positions of public importance and MPs acting as if they are above the law. Now is the time for action, not for platitudes. I urge the Prime Minister to move my legislation forward to Second Reading, or failing that perhaps Mr Croft could do so instead.

[Sir Tristan St. John]

We all know how this works. They set up an inquiry, that takes a year to report. Then they will study its report for another year. In the meantime, nothing changes as the job carousel keeps turning and turning, dropping off their friends and cronies in various profitable appointments. We need oversight now, which we all know the PM is not keen on, or shed have supported the motion to begin with.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

I think it's understandable that some Members of Parliament wish to tackle the problems inherent in a flawed political appointments system urgently. But, however much they say the answers are simple, the sad truth is there are no simple solutions to endemic and long lasting problem. In fact, I've noted how curious it is that when asked what is wrong with the appointments system the Leader of the Opposition just says there's a lack of transparency and accountability: broadly true statements that are vague and don't appreciate the complexity of the system he wants to change.

Furthermore, this hurried together legislation made as a result of a Tory-Liberal backroom deal is flawed in many places. I know the Committee on Standards in Public Life already has not just the authority, but the responsibility, to report corruption, and the legislation operates on too much of an 'assumption of guilt' model to make me comfortable with it.

Instead of rushing to flawed solutions, I think policymaking should be about carefully reaching the right solution. And I trust independent experts to deal with how we hold Members of Parliament more than I do... well, Members of Parliament. So while there is more urgency for change, I would personally plead with the Opposition and public to have some patience so we can work together to reach the correct, not the easy, path forwards.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

While I thank the Chancellor for his observations the very simple reason that this legislation appears to presume guilt is because it is only concerned with an occurrence where there is guilt. If an individual is not guilty of a crime then there is no need for the law to get involved, therefore the law does not mention that eventuality. Equally while it is true that the Committee does have to report corruption the legislation includes the provision again so that the law can be kept up to date and concise, with the previous requirement being dealt with through the judicial doctrine of implied repeal. It is already difficult enough to understand the law when it's all in the same place, let alone when it is divided across a dozen statutes. Keeping the section as it stands in the legislation I have proposed allows for the law to be more accessible.

The Government's attempt to try and slow the process down is all well and good, but the public demand answers and solutions, not more of the same old New Labour spin and bluster.

[Amelia Lockhart]

The British public are concerned about undue political influence over public appointments. The answer is not a political solution, or a solution created by MPs, as the Conservative Party wants. There should be an independent process to ensure that the solution is more trusted than what we have now. It is not clear that a backroom deal thought up by Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs is the solution to the challenges our political system faces. Instead the Government is creating an independent inquiry into public appointments to identify the necessary solutions, without political favour, point scoring, or bias. An independent solution, free from party politics, is what the Government will be implementing, not the Conservative and Liberal Democrat offer from a backroom deal.

[Elizabeth Tanner]

I have been clear on multiple occasions that I will be be commissioning an independent inquiry into the appointment systems in the United Kingdom, and while I appreciate Mr Macmillan's efforts to introduce legislation this legislation placing the apple cart before the horse. The inquiry will make recommendations, and we will implement those recommendations. What we do not need are Members of Parliament trying to fix a problem when they don't know the problems they need to fix. I do, however, find it ironic that despite potentially offering the job of Shadow Chancellor to Mr Macmillan, apparently reading and working with Mr Macmillan on the bill before the leadership election, and now supporting the bill that Mr Croft didn't take the opportunity to introduce this legislation himself as Leader of the Opposition. What is clear, is that Mr Croft is more than willing to take the credit for the work of others but is incredibly workshy himself.

[Owain Jones]

Its quite clear what the problem is people are able to fail upwards and grease their way into positions they are never fit to hold both in quality of mind and morality, the recent appointment to the Dome and the lords is a testament to this failure in Britain. The bill has merit and shouldn't be so quickly rejected.