Improving Parliamentary Scrutiny of Public Appointments

Bibliographic Data

ID6312743
AuthorsRobert Hazell (0000-0002-2571-1090, University College London, corresponding author), Robert J D Hazell (School of Public Policy, University College London, London, UK)
Year2019
Volume72
Issue2
Pages223-244
Publication date2019-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueParliamentary Affairs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-2290 • E-ISSN: 1460-2482
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/pa/gsy017
OpenAlexW2796168566
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited7

Since 2007, candidates for 50 of the most senior public appointments in the UK have been scrutinised by the relevant House of Commons Select Committee before ministers confirm their appointment. Committees regard pre-appointment scrutiny as a chore, but our research shows it has real impact. Candidates have not been appointed as a result, and others have been forced to resign. Since the Grimstone review in 2016 gave Ministers more scope for political patronage, parliamentary scrutiny is all the more important. Committees could be more effective if they were more selective, but also more systematic in their approach to pre-appointment scrutiny. They could range beyond the Cabinet Office list of the ‘top 50’ appointments; and they could use questionnaires to candidates to help decide the issues they wish to discuss, or whether to hold a hearing at all

Cabinet (room · Commons · House of Commons · Parliament · Political science · Politics · Scope (computer science · Scrutiny · Select committee · History · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Political Systems and Governance · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub