Steve Richards: A fine example of how not to govern

The spat between Balls and Sheerman shows the danger of these half-hearted reforms

Share
Related Topics

Labour's chair of the Education Committee, Barry Sheerman, has started the political equivalent of a playground spat. "Ed Balls is a bit of a bully," Sheerman has declared, with a flourish that suggests he is not especially cowed by the apparently intimidating swagger of the Schools Secretary. The spat is over the appointment of Maggie Atkinson as the next Children's Commissioner. Balls recommended her appointment to the Education Committee. Sheerman and his Committee gave the appointment the thumbs down. Balls responded by insisting he was going ahead anyway. At which point Sheerman went into battle, evoking the image of a mighty Cabinet minister brushing aside the views of Parliament and sticking with his chosen sidekick who will do as she is told.

Forget about Sheerman's evocation. The actual sequence of events is far more complicated than he suggests, raising important questions about how we govern, who governs, and the role of other bodies including Parliament and quangos in holding governments to account.

The sequence begins long ago in 2004 with the legislation that created the post of Children's Commissioner for England. The job sounded grand, but the remit was vague. The Commissioner would "promote awareness of the views and interests of children," a classic example of New Labour's radical caution. The Government was bold enough to recognise that children required a champion, a big voice in national life, but would not dare to give the post much power or precise definition. Ministers had hit upon another third way, a major new Commissioner without much tangible power.

In July 2007, shortly after he became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown unveiled his plans for constitutional reform. They included an expanded role for the select committees. Brown announced that committees would be consulted about major appointments. He too was being boldly cautious, navigating his own third way. He wanted to make the committees a bit more relevant, but not by giving them specific new powers which might prove troublesome.

In relation to the appointment of key figures the limits of the committee's influence were precisely spelt out. A Secretary of State needed to consider any new material a committee had gathered as a result of its pre-appointment interview with the favoured candidate and the performance of the candidate in front of the committee. In respect of this particular issue that was the extent of Brown's overhyped constitutional revolution. Contrary to the impression that might have been formed by the accusations of bullying, Balls did not choose Atkinson for the post. She was selected by an independent panel after an intensive interviewing process, the intensity at odds with the significance of the post. Balls accepted the panel's recommendation. For Atkinson the final hurdle was an interview with the Education Committee exercising its new but limited role in the appointment process. The exchanges were bizarre. Sheerman led the way by pointing out that Atkinson's predecessor, Al Aynsley-Green, was disillusioned about the Commissioner's lack of powers.

Sheerman had a valid point but one that is irrelevant to Atkinson's appointment. She was not responsible for drawing up the remit. She cannot be blamed for the limits of the post and has no power to expand them. Obviously in response she put a case for the post as it is currently defined. She would have been perverse not to do so as she had applied for the job. Next, Sheerman questioned her public relations skills, adding that "some people were perhaps hoping to get Esther Rantzen or Joanna Lumley in the role". He did not make it clear whether he was one of those people, but it is difficult to see how either of the two celebrities would add weight to the post. Even if they were to do so it is not the fault of the chosen candidate that she was not Joanna Lumley. What Atkinson did do persistently was to assert her independence and to insist that the Commissioner had to be one of the people in the system who says "It's not good enough," "It won't do", "Are you aware it isn't legal?"

In his subsequent letter to Balls, Sheerman wrote that Atkinson should have displayed more willingness to "stretch the remit of the role". He would have been better placed discussing remits with ministers who have the power to define them. His case for rejecting Atkinson was puny, but provided him with a platform on the Today programme yesterday to accuse Balls of bullying. Balls would have been more of a bully if he had accepted the Committee's verdict and claimed credit for being a champion of Parliament, a move that would have involved a series of cowardly contortions, the mark of a political thug. Subsequently a range of independent children's charities have expressed dismay at the Committee's verdict.

So what can we learn from the sequence? Perhaps Sheerman makes his move as part of the more febrile bigger picture. Sheerman was one of the most prominent Labour MPs who called for Brown to go last summer and might stand to be chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, an election that takes place next month. Balls is Brown's close ally. Maybe this is the first sign of a renewed assault on Brown's leadership at a point when many Labour MPs are restive over the latest twists in the expenses' saga.

But the more interesting lessons relate to the substance of the mini drama. Half-hearted reforms cause more trouble in the end than more radical change. Sheerman is right to question the limited remit of England's Children Commissioner, a role that is less significant than the equivalent in other parts of the United Kingdom. As Atkinson acknowledged in her meeting with the select committee, the Commissioner has "influence", but few powers.

There seems little point in setting up a body with the sound of trumpets blaring if its powers are non existent or imprecise. In 2004 the Government should have been less cautious. Similarly Brown has created a minor mess with these new pre-appointment hearings. He should have either given the Committees a more explicit right of veto on the basis of uncovering substantial new evidence, or not given them the chance at all to play games without any ultimate responsibility, which is what has happened in the case of the Education Committee over the last few days.

s.richards@independent.co.uk

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Primary teaching roles in Ipswich

£21552 - £31588 per annum: Randstad Education Cambridge: Randstad Education re...

Science teachers needed in Norwich

£21000 - £35000 per annum: Randstad Education Cambridge: Science teachers requ...

Semi Senior Accountant - Music

£30000 - £35000 per annum: Sauce Recruitment: A successful, Central London bas...

English teachers required in Lowestoft

£21000 - £35000 per annum: Randstad Education Cambridge: Qualified English tea...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Strikes were carried out by manned air force and navy aircraft (File photo)  

Syria air strikes: President Assad now has the enemy he always wanted – Islamist terrorism

Kim Sengupta
 

i Editor's Letter: Take a moment to imagine you're Ed Miliband...

Oliver Duff Oliver Duff
Secret politics of the weekly shop

The politics of the weekly shop

New app reveals political leanings of food companies
Beam me up, Scottie!

Beam me up, Scottie!

Celebrity Trekkies from Alex Salmond to Barack Obama
Beware Wet Paint: The ICA's latest ambitious exhibition

Beware Wet Paint

The ICA's latest ambitious exhibition
Pink Floyd have produced some of rock's greatest ever album covers

Pink Floyd have produced some of rock's greatest ever album covers

Can 'The Endless River' carry on the tradition?
Sanctuary for the suicidal

Sanctuary for the suicidal

One mother's story of how London charity Maytree helped her son with his depression
A roller-coaster tale from the 'voice of a generation'

Not That Kind of Girl:

A roller-coaster tale from 'voice of a generation' Lena Dunham
London is not bedlam or a cradle of vice. In fact it, as much as anywhere, deserves independence

London is not bedlam or a cradle of vice

In fact it, as much as anywhere, deserves independence
Vivienne Westwood 'didn’t want' relationship with Malcolm McLaren

Vivienne Westwood 'didn’t want' relationship with McLaren

Designer 'felt pressured' into going out with Sex Pistols manager
Jourdan Dunn: Model mother

Model mother

Jordan Dunn became one of the best-paid models in the world
Apple still coolest brand – despite U2 PR disaster

Apple still the coolest brand

Despite PR disaster of free U2 album
Scottish referendum: The Yes vote was the love that dared speak its name, but it was not to be

Despite the result, this is the end of the status quo

Boyd Tonkin on the fall-out from the Scottish referendum
Manolo Blahnik: The high priest of heels talks flats, Englishness, and why he loves Mary Beard

Manolo Blahnik: Flats, Englishness, and Mary Beard

The shoe designer who has been dubbed 'the patron saint of the stiletto'
The Beatles biographer reveals exclusive original manuscripts of some of the best pop songs ever written

Scrambled eggs and LSD

Behind The Beatles' lyrics - thanks to Hunter Davis's original manuscript copies
'Normcore' fashion: Blending in is the new standing out in latest catwalk non-trend

'Normcore': Blending in is the new standing out

Just when fashion was in grave danger of running out of trends, it only went and invented the non-trend. Rebecca Gonsalves investigates
Dance’s new leading ladies fight back: How female vocalists are now writing their own hits

New leading ladies of dance fight back

How female vocalists are now writing their own hits