... Government plans to increase scrutiny of public bodies ... which will involve strengthening the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments.

This Report welcomes and responds to the Government's proposal to involve select committees in public appointments by inviting committees to hold non-binding pre-appointment hearings with nominees for key positions. The Report clarifies the purpose of these hearings: to expose nominees to parliamentary and public scrutiny before the final ministerial decision on the appointment, to increase the likelihood that those appointed will be effective in their accountability to Parliament and the public. The Report also establishes criteria to determine which posts should be subject to these hearings, and identifies major auditors, ombudsmen, regulators and inspectors, as well as those responsible for the appointments system itself; along with appointments normally made on merit but where Ministers have chosen not to follow the usual processes. Finally, the Report responds to concerns about involving select committees in public appointments, including several raised by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and proposes ways of managing the risks identified, largely through a framework of clear protocols to be agreed between the Government and the Liaison Committee, and also by monitoring and reviewing the effect of the hearings on public appointments over time.

This report considers the experience of some three years of holding 'pre-appointment' hearings by select committees to examine the 'preferred candidate' for certain public appointments before that appointment is confirmed. Whilst the committee considers the experiment a success they do recommend a number of changes. They propose a three tier list: Posts in the first tier are those considered to be of sufficient constitutional significance as to require a process which is effectively a joint appointment by Government and the House of Commons. Posts in the second tier are those which the committee proposes should be subject to an enhanced an improved version of the current process, and which should be subject to an 'effective veto' by the House of Commons or its committees. For posts in the third tier, pre-appointment hearings should be at the discretion of committees.

There is growing recognition of the need for new approaches to the ways in which donors support accountability, but no broad agreement on what changed practice looks like. This publication aims to provide more clarity on the emerging practice.