Committee on Standards

Informs the House about procedural matters, mentioning that Mr Speaker has selected an amendment by Valerie Vaz and corrects a reference on the Order Paper to a report of the House of Commons Commission.

Claims that the Government is voting against the motion next week due to misinformation about their stance. Argues that being a member of a political party does not make someone incapable of impartiality.

Asks if it is vital for lay members of the Standards Committee not only to be impartial but also to be seen to be impartial.

Regrets supporting his right hon. Friend but believes that being a member of a political party does not make someone incapable of being impartial. Questions the Leader of the House on what was wrong with the appointment process.

Confirms that both he and his hon. Friend first raised objections before knowing which political party the candidate belonged to.

Questions why the Leader of the House did not raise concerns about acceptable political activity during the recruitment process. Argues that moving the goalposts at this point is unfair and reflects poorly on integrity.

Asks for evidence that the candidate is a member of a faction within the Labour party, beyond casting a vote in an internal election.

I express concern over the appointment process for lay members, particularly regarding Melanie Carter. I was previously blacklisted due to political affiliations, and fear history is repeating itself. The Leader of the House has made statements about Ms Carter's political views without her ability to defend herself publicly. Despite this, the impartial selection panel recommended Ms Carter based on her qualifications and experience. The process involved 331 applicants, with ten interviews and a thorough vetting by an experienced and independent panel. I also highlight Professor Michael Maguire’s credentials as another strong candidate. The criteria for disqualification must be clear and consistent; political affiliation should not inherently disqualify candidates from impartial positions.

Asked whether the selection committee provided guidance to candidates regarding political party membership as a potential disqualification factor during the appointment process for lay members.

Expressed interest in ensuring all lay members are politically impartial and beyond reproach, questioning why it was not possible to find suitable non-political candidates for these roles.

Clarified that the criteria initially provided to candidates stated that being a party member need not disqualify them, potentially making it an asset. He criticised moving the goalposts nine months after the initial application process.

It is disappointing that the debate has turned into a discussion questioning the integrity of the public appointments process. Both candidates have been vetted and approved to the Nolan principles, but if the system produces one qualified candidate and one non-qualified candidate, it raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire system. The SNP supports the recommendation of the House of Commons Commission and therefore will support the amendment tonight.

I am saddened by this debate as every member on the Standards Committee tries extremely hard to be impartial, putting their party membership aside. There are complaints about how long candidates have been kept waiting and how the Government has repeatedly changed its mind regarding motions for both candidates, causing delays in appointing new members.

I address the Leader of the House's questioning of the recruitment process integrity. The panel conducted a rigorous interview that adhered to the Nolan principles, and changing the criteria now is deeply unfair to the successful candidates and questions the perception of this House's independence in dealing with code breaches. This risks discouraging future potential candidates from applying for lay roles.

The process is flawed due to breaches of natural justice, failures in judgment regarding impartiality, and concerns about House business. The argument does not work if being a political party member undermines one's ability to make judgments.

I disagree with the notion that membership of a political party is unsuitable for lay members. However, I question the impartiality of those who join immediately before or during a political event to support a specific faction within their party.