4 What challenges does the House face?
88. The immediate reason for the establishment of
this inquiry was the recruitment process for the post of Clerk
of the House and Chief Executive. It did not arise from any diagnosis
of systemic failure in the management of House services. As David
Natzler told us:
I think I owe it to the House Service to say
that the Committee's establishment was precipitated not by any
particular failure in the provision of services to Members,[118]
However, sitting behind the Committee's establishment
are longstanding concerns about the administration of the House.
89. Individual failings have been brought to our
attention, some the result of poor management, some caused by
the inherent complexity of this bicameral Parliament, some simply
the consequence of different perspectives or experiences. Barry
Sheerman MP described the House as 'poorly managed'.[119]
Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Select
Committee, told us: 'I do not think the House works well.'[120]
On the other hand John Thurso, opening the debate on the finances
of the House of Commons, said:
May I also use this moment to pay tribute to
all the staff who serve us throughout the House service in all
areas? I truly think, having now engaged with them for the best
part of four years, that had I had such a staff in private life,
I would have considered it a privilege to have had them working
with me. I think they can be proud of everything that they do
for us and we should be very grateful for it.[121]
90. But good performance in the past is no guarantee
of good performance in the future, particularly not if the challenges
of the future are likely to be of a different order. For the House
of Commons it has been argued to us that in four areas they will
be:
· Political and constitutional change
· Public engagement
· The efficient use of resources
· Restoration of the Palace of Westminster
Political and constitutional
change
91. Neither political nor constitutional change are
new challenges, but several witnesses have argued that we are
in a particularly turbulent period. Rt Hon David Blunkett MP stated
in written evidence:
Substantial and projected devolution (both to
the nations of the United Kingdom and in whatever form to the
cities and sub regions of England), our present and future relationship
with the European Union and the shift of both power and relationships
in a global economy, have changed the function of the House of
Commons even if this is not formally currently recognised.[122]
92. On 27 November 2014, following the referendum
in Scotland, the Smith Commission published its proposals for
the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. The
proposals include giving the Scottish Parliament the power to
set income tax rates and bands, and the devolution of air passenger
duty. Draft clauses are scheduled to be published by 25 January
2015. In 2011, the Government set up the Silk Commission to review
the financial and constitutional arrangements in Wales. The Commission's
reports have led to the Wales Bill, which is currently making
its way through Parliament, and which will, among other things,
devolve stamp duty land tax and landfill tax to the National Assembly
for Wales. Subject to a referendum, the Bill also allows for the
devolution of some income tax powers. There has also been some
discussion, particularly in the wake of the referendum in Scotland,
of devolving further powers to Northern Ireland.[123]
In England, since 2012, the Government has announced two waves
of city deals, which will grant a range of powers to 28 cities
in England. The Government states that the deals are intended
to: "Give cities the powers and tools they need to drive
local economic growth; unlock projects or initiatives that will
boost their economies; and strengthen the governance arrangements
of each city."[124]
London is not part of the city deals, but already has devolved
powers. In May 2013, the London Finance Commission proposed greater
financial autonomy for London. Debate about how best to devolve
powers to England has intensified since the referendum in Scotland.
93. The further devolution of powers from the UK
Parliament has brought into sharp focus the West Lothian Question,
which as the McKay Commission report states, 'raises the situation
that…arises when MPs from outside England could help determine
laws that apply in England while MPs from England would have no
reciprocal influence on laws outside England in policy fields
for which the devolved institutions are now responsible.'[125]
The McKay Commission, led by the former Clerk of the House, Sir
William McKay, was set up by the Government to consider how the
House of Commons should deal with legislation that affects only
part of the United Kingdom. It reported on 25 March 2013, but
the question of whether, and if so how, to deal with the West
Lothian Question remains unresolved. Likewise, if the UK were
to decide to leave the European Union, the process of doing so
would be complicated.
94. In addition to these challenges, it is, as Tom
Watson MP noted in his written evidence, 'by no means certain
what the outcome of the next General Election will be.'[126]
It may result neither in a single party majority government nor
a stable coalition.
95. In times such as these, it is argued, the Clerk
of the House must be able to devote sufficient time and energy
to wrestle with these issues. Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell MP told
us that 'we are about to embark in this building on a very substantial
period of constitutional reform in which the Speaker and their
role may become enormously significant in determining the way
in which the House treats with these issues.'[127]
He added: 'In those circumstances, it seems to me that the role
of the Clerk will be of enormous importance.'[128]
David Blunkett was among those who argued that the Clerk of the
House should not be distracted by the separate, and onerous, responsibilities
of being also the Chief Executive.[129]
Public Engagement
96. The challenge of engaging the public with the
work of Parliament is not new either. In recent times, it has
been considered by the Modernisation Committee in its influential
report Connecting Parliament with the Public,[130]
the Hansard Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary
Democracy—known as the Puttnam Commission after its Chair,
Lord Puttnam—and by the Select Committee on Reform of the
House of Commons—known as the Wright Committee after its
Chair, Tony Wright. Aileen Walker, Director of Public Engagement,
and Lee Bridges, Director of Public Information, commented in
their written evidence: "In recent years, the House of Commons
has significantly developed its public information, education,
outreach, and visitor services."[131]
Examples of these activities include:
a) over 70,000 children coming to the House this
year on education visits;
b) another successful Parliament Week and Youth
Parliament sitting in November 2014;
c) planning for events to celebrate the 750th
anniversary of De Montfort's Parliament and the 800th
anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015;
d) outreach activities increasingly including
select committees taking evidence outside Westminster; and
e) 13 universities now teaching a Parliamentary
Studies programme supported by the House and its staff.
97. The Hansard Society Audit of Political Engagement
2014 recorded its highest ever level for knowledge of Parliament:
48 per cent of respondents said they knew 'a fair amount' about
Parliament. However, 48 per cent is still not high. Some 67 per
cent of respondents agreed that Parliament 'is essential to our
democracy', but only 34 per cent agreed that Parliament 'holds
government to account', which was the lowest level recorded in
the five years the question had been asked, and only 23 per cent
agreed that Parliament 'encourages public involvement in politics',
compared to 30 per cent in the previous two Audits.[132]
These figures draw attention to the scale of the challenge. The
Shadow Leader of the House, Angela Eagle MP, told us that Parliament
'needs to make itself relevant in an anti-politics age, and reach
out to an electorate that is increasingly sceptical and baffled
by how we do things in this place.'[133]
98. The challenge of improving public engagement
falls partly under the responsibilities of a Chief Executive.
Improving public access to the House of Commons would principally
be the responsibility of a Chief Executive: we were repeatedly
reminded about the problems with lengthy queues to get into the
building. The Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy is currently
investigating the opportunities digital technology can offer for
parliamentary democracy in the UK and is due to report in January
2015. It is considering, among other things, the role of technology
in helping citizens to scrutinise the Government and the work
of Parliament, the House's use of social media and the internet
to disseminate information, and video and webcasting. Changes
to information and communication technology as a result of the
Commission might also fall principally to the Chief Executive
side of the role to deliver.
99. However, Members' desire to extend the public's
engagement and involvement, will also have implications for the
Clerk of the House aspect of the role, because it is likely to
result in parliamentary processes that may require new rules and
procedures, and because new technology may have implications for
existing parliamentary practices. Two recent examples of new processes
that have been intended to engage the public are Public Reading
Stages of Bills, which allow the public to comment on the contents
of legislation, and e-petitions, which are online petitions that
are eligible for consideration for debate in the House of Commons
if they reach a threshold of 100,000 signatures. The Procedure
Committee has recently published proposals for a collaborative
e-petitions system between Government and the House of Commons.[134]
100. Arguably, increasing public engagement is not
only about improving the way Parliament interacts with the public,
but also about improving what it does. Rt Hon Frank Dobson MP
commented in his written evidence: 'I have long believed that
a large part of the public disillusion with the political process
results from the failure of the House to do its job as well as
people expect.' Tackling this aspect of public disengagement involves
skills associated with the Clerk of the House. Frank Dobson continued:
we need the Clerk to take a more positive role,
helping to identify and analyse failings in procedure and offering
ways of strengthening the hands of members and improving the performance
of the House in holding the executive to account as well as law
making.[135]
Efficient use of resources
101. Parliament belongs to the people in more ways
than one: it is their Parliament in the sense that Members of
Parliament are the people's elected representatives, but Parliament
is also funded by the taxpayer. Linked to the challenge of engaging
the public in the work of Parliament is the need to use public
resources efficiently. In October 2010, the Commission set itself
the target of reducing the resource budget of the House of Commons
by 17 per cent in real terms between 2010/11 and 2014/15. In the
Commission's 2013/14 Annual Report, the then Clerk of the House
and Chief Executive announced: 'we exceeded our target, reducing
our estimate by £2 million more than the original target
of £21 million.'[136]
Both the Leader of the House, Rt Hon William Hague MP, and Rt
Hon Sir George Young MP praised this achievement when they gave
evidence,[137] but
Sir Paul Beresford MP, a Commission member, described the 17 per
cent savings target as 'pitiful' and said: 'We could do very much
more.'[138]
102. Not everyone took the view that the House of
Commons was obliged to adopt the same stringent measures as Government
in a time of austerity and there is certainly a case to be made
that the House of Commons must have the resources it needs to
scrutinise the Government effectively. Ken Gall, President of
the Trade Union Side, commented: 'I am quite surprised by how
relaxed parliamentarians have been about the savings programme
and by the way in which Parliament has followed the Executive's
policies towards the civil service.'[139]
However, the majority of those who expressed a view saw the need
for the House to continue to follow the example of the rest of
the public sector in reducing its cost to the public purse. Chris
Leslie MP commented: 'The House of Commons as with other public
bodies and government departments will be asked to find significant
cashable savings and to order their finances in a more efficient
way than ever before.'[140]
Chris Leslie, who argued for splitting the roles of Clerk of the
House and Chief Executive, stated in his written evidence:
My principal concern relates to the financial
management skills required to oversee the management of the large
House of Commons budget over the medium term, not least the very
significant renovation and repair works to the estate that are
being considered over this period. It is imperative that any capital
investment in the House of Commons estate repair is managed successfully,
delivered on time and to budget.[141]
103. The likely need to make further savings in future
Parliaments could be used as an argument for a separate Chief
Executive, who can concentrate on this issue, untrammelled by
the responsibilities of the Clerk of the House. It is, however,
worth noting that this challenge also points to the need for close
working between the Clerk of the House and a Chief Executive,
as the imperative is not just to ensure that the House of Commons
is as efficient as it can be at a time of austerity, but to ensure
that there is no diminution in its effectiveness as a legislature.
Restoration and Renewal
104. The challenge cited most frequently in our evidence
was that presented by the need for major refurbishment of the
Palace of Westminster—a project known as Restoration and
Renewal (R&R). The Palace of Westminster was built in the
middle of the nineteenth century and much of it has never undergone
a major renovation, largely due to the difficulty of undertaking
such work while the building is occupied. The most recent major
renovation took place in the 1940s, after parts of the Palace
suffered bomb damage during World War Two. The Palace is a Grade
1 listed building and forms part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
105. The Restoration and Renewal of the Palace
of Westminster: Pre-feasibility Study and Preliminary Strategic
Business Case, which was published in October 2012, stated:
Considering the age of the Palace of Westminster,
the 60+ years that have passed since the partial post-war refurbishment,
the long-term under-investment in the fabric and the intensive
use to which the Palace is put, it is remarkable that it continues
to function. The signs of wear and tear, the number and frequency
of relatively minor floods and mechanical breakdowns, the high
cost of maintaining obsolescent equipment and the large sums that
are now having to be spent on aggressive maintenance and risk
reduction all provide tangible evidence of the looming crisis.
A growing body of surveys, consultancy reports and risk registers
point to the further deterioration that will occur and the severe
hazards that could occur if fundamental renovation is delayed
indefinitely. It is hard to imagine how the Palace will survive
for future generations to use and admire without a major mid-life
overhaul.[142]
106. A decision on how to proceed with R&R will
not be taken until after the 2015 general election. The two Houses
have commissioned independent consultants to appraise the following
options: "continuing repairs and replacement of the fabric
and systems of the Palace over an indefinite period of time";
"a defined, rolling programme of more substantial repairs
and replacement over a long period, but still working around continued
use of the Palace"; and "scheduling the works over a
more concentrated period with parliamentary activities moved elsewhere
to allow unrestricted access to the Palace for the delivery of
works."[143] Implementation
of the programme is likely to begin in the 2020 Parliament. The
overall cost of R&R is not yet known. Alex Jablonowksi, a
former external member of the Management Board, referred to it
as "a very complicated, £1-billion-plus refurbishment".[144]
The Leader of the House was one of many witnesses to draw our
attention to the challenge it presented, referring to "the
immensity of the task".[145]
107. For some, R&R was an argument for rethinking
the allocation of the roles of Clerk of the House and Chief Executive.
Angela Eagle commented:
Restoration and renewal is the obvious trigger
for doing something different…It would be a good idea if
we tried to prepare for the huge upheaval that restoration and
renewal will lead to. We should get ourselves in the best possible
position to deliver it without having any major disaster strike
us, because the reputational damage will be huge if we get it
wrong.[146]
108. However, David Natzler, the Acting Clerk of
the House, told us: "one of the good reasons for creating
a chief executive role is not the need to have someone who can
oversee restoration and renewal of the Palace." He commented:
There is simply no way that we as a Management
Board or the House of Commons Commission would imagine we would
be overseeing and running such an enormous programme, whatever
decision is eventually taken about the phasing of restoration
and renewal. The generally accepted and published concept is the
creation of some sort of separate delivery organisation, broadly
on Olympic lines.[147]
The Chair of F&S, John Thurso, also told us:
'We will almost certainly have to compose a delivery body. It
will be something like the Olympic delivery body.'[148]
109. In this scenario, the challenge facing both
Houses would be that of being an intelligent client in order to
provide the delivery body with a clear brief from which to work.
Sir David Higgins, the former Chief Executive of the Olympic Delivery
Authority, told us: 'The key thing about the client role is that
the client has to be clear on what the client…wants in terms
of scope, but, having authorised the delivery partner to proceed,
there is no point in having the client…trying to watch over
the delivery partner's shoulder or trying to meddle.'[149]
The challenge of being an intelligent client for R&R would
call for both adept managerial acumen and a deep understanding
of Parliament and its processes. It would be about delivering
not simply a building in which thousands of people work and which
thousands of people visit every day, but a fully functional Parliament
for the 21st century. Rt Hon Sir Alan Duncan MP told
us: 'The Palace of Westminster is a Parliament first and a building
second.'[150] We discuss
later in the report how the challenge presented by R&R, and
in particular, the possibility of creating a statutory delivery
body to deliver the programme, might also create opportunities
for the governance of the House of Commons in the longer term.
Overall
110. The challenges facing Parliament are not new,
but they are arguably of a different magnitude to the challenges
of the recent past. Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP suggested: 'the
challenges before us in the future are going to be enormous.'[151]
Some—the constitutional and political changes—will
call more on the skills associated with the Clerk of the House
and others—the efficient use of public resources—more
on the skills associated with a Chief Executive. The size and
number of challenges suggest that one person may struggle to find
the time to deal with them all, even if they had the necessary
skills. But none of the challenges can be tackled in isolation.
In every case, the challenges will need to be tackled by a Clerk
of the House and Chief Executive working closely together, with
a shared outcome in mind. Sir David Higgins's description of his
close working relationship with Paul Deighton, Chief Executive
of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic
Games, provides an example of working jointly to achieve an agreed
outcome: 'When I was at the Olympic Delivery Authority, my key
relationship was with Lord Deighton—Paul Deighton at the
time—and just the two of us would meet every week for half
an hour to talk about any agenda.'[152]
118 Q180 Back
119
Q490 [Barry Sheerman MP] Back
120
Q154. See also Andrew Miller MP (GOV004) para 2, David Winnick
MP (GOV006) para 2, Barbara Keeley MP (GOV038) para 5, Dr Julian
Lewis MP (GOV058) Back
121
HC Deb, 11 November 2014, col 1334 Back
122
David Blunkett MP (GOV009) Back
123
See the HM Treasury, Autumn Statement 2014, Cm 8961, December
2014 Back
124
HM Government, Unlocking growth in cities: city deals - wave 1,
July 2012, p1 Back
125
Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons,
March 2013, p77 Back
126
Tom Watson MP (GOV052) Back
127
Q286 Back
128
Q287 Back
129
Q176 [David Blunkett MP]. See also Q272, Tom Watson MP (GOV052) Back
130
Modernisation Committee, First Report of Session 2003-04, Connecting Parliament with the Public,
HC 368 Back
131
Aileen Walker, Director of Public Engagement, and Lee Bridges,
Director of Public Information, Department of Public Information
(GOV060) para 1 Back
132
Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 11, 2014, p3 and
p5 Back
133
Q264 Back
134
Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2014-15, E-petitions: a collaborative system,
HC 235 Back
135
Frank Dobson MP (GOV027) Back
136
House of Commons Commission: Thirty-sixth report of the Commission, and annual report of the Administration Estimate Audit Committee Financial Year 2013/14,
July 2014, p5 Back
137
Qq252, 311 Back
138
Q304 Back
139
Q430 Back
140
Chris Leslie MP (GOV045) Back
141
Chris Leslie MP (GOV045) Back
142
Houses of Parliament, The Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster: Pre-feasibility Study and Preliminary Strategic Business Case,
October 2012, p27 Back
143
Houses of Parliament, 'Restoration and Renewal Programme: FAQs',
accessed 15 December 2014 Back
144
Q101 Back
145
Q248. See also: Chris Leslie MP (GOV045), Frank Dobson MP (GOV027),
Peter Davis (GOV050) para 1 Back
146
Q272 Back
147
Q181 [David Natzler] Back
148
Q90 [John Thurso] Back
149
Q560 Back
150
Sir Alan Duncan MP (GOV046) Back
151
Q733 Back
152
Q578 Back
|
