House of Commons - Report - House of Commons Governance - House of Commons Governance Committee

Report - House of Commons Governance - House of Commons Governance Committee Contents

6 A Modern Governance Structure

Actions to be taken now

135. Our inquiry has shone a light on areas of weakness in the House's current capability to manage the challenges it will face in the future and identified areas for improvement. The prospect of R&R has additionally focussed minds on what the House will need if it is to handle a major programme involving strategic change.

136. Some capacity building might be achieved through changes to structures and responsibilities, including introducing a greater focus on follow-up and delivery, but, if these changes are to work, there must also be a culture change both in the approach of the House service to transparency and accountability and among Members in taking responsibility for strategic decisions and supporting the staff responsible for their operational delivery.

137. The House is a unique institution in which the distinct and special constitutional position of its Members must be protected, but that must not be used as an excuse for poor management or confused decision-making and accountability. However, clear decision-making does not necessarily mean quick decision-making. There is merit, in an organisation as complex as the House of Commons with 650 Members as well as many other stakeholders,[171] in taking time to reach a decision with as broad support as possible and whose wider consequences are properly understood and managed.[172]

THE DEPUTY SPEAKERS

138. We believe that the election of the Deputy Speakers is a powerful argument for increasing their involvement in non-Chamber issues (the Chairman of Ways and Means is separately responsible for private business and business in Westminster Hall). We also believe that there would be wider benefits from developing the concept of a Speakership team. A modest first step in this direction might be a widening of the agenda of the daily conferences, perhaps initially just on Mondays which both starts the working week and is the day on which the House sits latest. This might be an effective way of bringing the Deputy Speakers' experience and wisdom to bear on wider House issues, including managerial issues.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

139. Our recommendations for reform of the Commission focus first on ensuring that its remit adequately covers those responsibilities which should properly fall to the senior governance body and second on giving it the capability to discharge those responsibilities.

140. They are that:

a) the Commission should be additionally responsible under statute for setting the strategic framework for the delivery of services to Members, staff and the public, without prejudice to the right of the House to control its own procedures;

b) its members should be:

— the Speaker, the Leader of the House and the Shadow Leader of the House (as at present);[173]

— four other Members, one from each of the three largest parties represented in the House and one from the remaining membership, elected for a Parliament by the whole House;

— two external members appointed by fair and open competition (and confirmed by motion in the House); and,

— two official members (see paragraph 156).

141. We see no need for statutory change in respect of the procedures of the Commission. The Speaker should continue to be its statutory chair. However, there may be occasions when s/he does not wish, or is for some reason unable, to fulfil that role. In such circumstances, on a proposition from the Speaker, the Commission should be able to agree to one of the elected backbench members taking the chair in the Speaker's place. The Leader of the House, William Hague, told us that the Commission proceeded on a collective basis.[174] Andrew Lansley was clear that the Commission should be a consensus-seeking body, willing to 'refer back and reconsider and consult more on things where there was no consensus.'[175] We agree and would expect the prospect of formal voting in the Commission to be an extremely rare occurrence. However, if it were to arise, we are clear that neither the external nor the official members should formally have a vote, although if necessary they should be able to record their dissent.

142. If the Commission is to take on the role of setting the strategic framework for the delivery of services and then providing strategic oversight of how they are delivered, it follows that its compass should include all matters relating to the House administration including those for which the Speaker has ex officio responsibility, such as his role as 'householder' and in respect of Freedom of Information policy. We recommend that the Speaker, as far as possible, consults the Commission in the exercise of these responsibilities and powers.

143. Increasing the backbench members to four should achieve two ends. It should increase the ability of the Commission to represent the full spectrum of views in the House and it should decrease the likelihood that any future Government will inadvertently end up with a majority on the Commission (a concern raised with us by the Shadow Leader of the House).[176] We support the idea of portfolio responsibilities for the elected members of the Commission. In respect of finance this is in effect a role already filled by the Chair of F&S. The Chair of the Administration Committee recommended that the occupant of his post should also be on the Commission. Chair of the Administration Committee would be an appropriate position to be held by a portfolio lead on services to Members and their staff. The chair of neither committee is currently subject to House-wide election. Appointing elected backbench members of the Commission to the posts would in our view increase their legitimacy and authority within the House.

144. The overlap between F&S and Administration is unfortunate, and the former's role in assessing recommendations of the latter has not worked well. Sir Kevin Tebbit counselled us against a three-tier structure.[177] If a version of the present committee structure is to work, it will be important that the two committees (F&S and Administration) have equal status and clear and distinct remits. Finance can never be separated entirely from services, but if our recommendations relating to the chairs of the committees are implemented, the Commission will be an effective place for them to come together. The existing protocol between the Commission and the Administration Committee (originally agreed in 2005) will need to be reviewed. Both the committees are essentially advisory and their remits and the delineation of responsibilities will need to be agreed with the Commission. Experience in the present Parliament, for example in respect of the savings programme for F&S and catering and retail for Administration, has shown that their advice can be compelling. Sir Alan Haselhurst told us that 77 per cent of the Administration Committee's recommendations had been accepted.[178]

145. We recommend that the Finance and Services Committee be renamed the Finance Committee to distinguish its responsibilities from those of the Administration Committee. We recommend that the Administration Committee membership be no more than 11 Members. We recommend that the Chairs of both the new Finance Committee and the Administration Committee be drawn from the elected backbench members of the Commission.

146. The portfolio responsibilities of the other two elected backbench members of the Commission should be allocated to them by the Commission and may change over time. They should reflect the Commission's responsibilities for setting the strategic framework. One of them, for example, might have a role in respect of preparations for R&R. Another area of importance is the interests of constituents and other members of the public. Our constituents sent us here: it is their Parliament. It is important to capture and act on their experience of engaging with the House, whether in person or digitally. In our view the long-running saga of queues at the Cromwell Green entrance might have been gripped more effectively and more quickly if there had been a strong voice on the Commission speaking up for those left standing in the rain.

147. If the backbench members are also to be portfolio leads, we believe it should be incumbent on any Member standing for election to the Commission to state that s/he will be prepared to devote a significant amount of time (at least two or three days a month) to Commission duties. We also expect each of them to answer oral and written parliamentary questions relevant to their portfolios. We have noted the suggestion from Lord Kirkwood, who was a member of the Commission between 1997 and 2005, drawing on his experience as a member of the General Medical Council, that members of the Commission:

179

In light of this commitment and the increased role which we envisage for the Commission itself, we believe that the backbench members of the Commission who are not select committee chairs should still have the status of select committee chairs. We propose that these members of the Commission should be referred to as 'Commons Commissioners'.

148. We have referred above to the potential for involving the Deputy Speakers more in House administration. We have not discussed with them or taken evidence on the best way of achieving this, but we note that the Chairman of Ways and Means is currently a member of F&S. There may be scope to include the others on the new Administration Committee, or possibly the Audit Committee.

149. The Commission should also consider how knowledge of its work can be better disseminated to Members and staff, including publishing papers and minutes. For example, Hazel Blears told us:[180]

Work could be done to ensure that the decisions that you make and the matters that you are considering are highlighted to Parliament. If people realised what the work entailed, you might then get more of them wanting to be a part of what is going on. It is shrouded in mystery at the moment and there needs to be much more transparency.

150. The suggestion that the Commission might hold regular informal events to meet groups of staff and to listen to their concerns was endorsed by Lawrence Ward, Serjeant at Arms, and Robin Fell, Principal Doorkeeper.[181] The Commission might also consider meeting in public on appropriate occasions. Interestingly, the South African Parliament holds quarterly Consultative Forums to facilitate the input of Members of Parliament on matters related to Members' facilities which are attended by the chairs of committees of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces as well as chairs of party caucuses and party representatives.[182]

151. It is important to emphasise that our recommendation for portfolio leads is not a recommendation that they should be representatives or delegates for those interests on the Commission. Rather their responsibility should be to ensure that the decisions of the Commission are properly informed by those interests. Dame Rosemary Butler, Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, told us in written evidence that asking Commissioners to specialise in a part of the administration had been effective in the National Assembly for Wales.[183]

MEMBERS' ESTIMATE COMMITTEE

152. Currently the Members' Estimate Committee (MEC) has the same membership as the Commission and generally meets at the same time. Indeed meetings can move between Commission and MEC business almost seamlessly. However, because the MEC is a committee of the House, including non-Members in its membership would not be straightforward. There are three options:

a) make no changes: MEC business would need to be taken separately from Commission business, with non-MEC members of the Commission taking no part;

b) adopt a similar approach to that taken with lay members of the Standards Committee: non-Member members attend but cannot vote;

c) amend the 1978 Act to make the Commission responsible for MEC business (Members' allowances/salaries not covered by IPSA, Members' pension fund, Short money).

153. MEC business is a small and decreasing proportion of total Commission/MEC business. Option a) is a practicable solution in the short term. But if the Commission wishes to propose option b) or c), we would be happy to support their decision.

MANAGEMENT BOARD

154. Under our proposals the Commission will take a more active responsibility for setting the strategic direction while delegating its implementation to officials. The body to which that delegation is made needs

i) To have a closer but more clearly defined relationship with the Commission; and

ii) To be more directly focused on driving implementation.

155. We have heard criticisms from staff and members that the Management Board is too remote. Lawrence Ward told us that it was 'quite distant from Members' activities' and that 'on more occasions than not, it has become fairly irrelevant to the running of the House.'[184] The Speaker told us that the Management Board needed a clearer role and to interact more effectively with the Commission.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

156. Our proposal is to replace the Management Board with an Executive Committee, which would act as a sub-committee of the Commission. Its core membership would be the official members of the Commission together with the Director of Finance. Up to three other officials could be added by the Commission. The official members would be the Director General of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the House. The Director General would chair the Executive Committee.

157. The Director General of the House of Commons would be a new post. S/he would be responsible for the delivery of the resources needed to support the House in its work, including its parliamentary and outward facing functions. The Clerk would retain responsibility for the quality of support for parliamentary functions, and for development of the skills, experience and expertise to maintain the professionalism of the parliamentary service. This distinction has similarities with the division of responsibilities between the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Executive of the Civil Service, with that operating in the NAO between the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) and the Chief Operating Officer, which was described to us by Michael Whitehouse,[185] and with the arrangements in many professional services firms. The role of Director General of the House of Commons has some elements of a Chief Executive and some of a Chief Operating Officer. But it does not exactly mirror either. It is a solution which responds to the particular challenges of the unique parliamentary environment of the House of Commons. It is for this reason that we have proposed a different title, one that emphasises the authority of the post and will also allow it to evolve unburdened by preconceptions. Consideration might be given to whether s/he should be an additional Accounting Officer on the model which was adopted in the Crown Prosecution Service (see paragraph 16).

158. One consequence of calling the new role Director General of the House of Commons is that existing Director General posts for departments might be conveniently re-named as Directors. This would then reflect the fact of the seniority and status of the Director General. This would be a good moment to make this change as several of these posts are currently held by Acting Director Generals.

159. We have heard that there has been a proliferation of boards and groups below the Management Board level, but their roles and their relationships to each other and to the Management Board are not always clearly understood. The two Houses are currently in the process of establishing a new bicameral Digital Service, but there are also separate proposals for a new bicameral Investment Board which given the importance of investment in ICT could have overlapping responsibilities. The Executive Committee will need to rationalise this situation and establish clear and transparent lines of management accountability. The priority must be to reduce layers of bureaucracy not increase them.

THE ROLES OF CLERK AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

160. The Leader of the House, William Hague, emphasised the importance of the role of the Clerk of the House:

186

None of our witnesses has dissented from this view. Although formally the Clerk's accountability is to the Crown in Parliament, in practice his or her performance is subject to daily scrutiny in and by the House. In this respect absolute constitutional independence is tempered by political and parliamentary reality. We have taken it as a matter of first importance that any changes we might recommend do nothing to undermine the position of the Clerk in this respect.[187]

161. If our recommendations for the reinforcement of the role of the House of Commons Commission and for the introduction of clear and public delegations of decision-making authority are accepted, the House administration will be better led and more capable of delivering responsive and effective services to Members, staff and the public. These changes should go a long way to address the problems of confused decision-making and slow and inadequate follow-up which have sometimes been cited in support of the case for a separate Chief Executive equivalent or senior to the Clerk.

162. Under our proposals the Clerk and the Director General of the House of Commons would operate visibly as a team/partnership. Michael Whitehouse emphasised that one of the strengths of the NAO model was that he and the C&AG were 'very much a team.'[188]Being able to demonstrate the skills and aptitude necessary to do so effectively should be a key element of the job specification of each role:

189

163. Staff from whom we received (formal and informal) evidence varied widely in their opinions as to whether the Clerk, or a Chief Executive should be the senior, but were generally agreed that there would be considerable problems of accountability if neither was even primus inter pares. Many of them argued strongly for a single unified service and believed that two equal heads would militate against its achievement.[190] It is apparent that significant progress has been made towards this objective in recent years, but, as others have told us, there is still a long way to go. A single head of service was urged upon us by most of our outside witnesses, who also argued that the post should be filled by someone focussed on the organisation's primary purpose. We fully support the objective of securing a fully unified House service. Indeed, we have seen its benefits at first hand: the staff supporting this committee were drawn from different departments across the House service.

164. The temporary arrangements put in place following the retirement of Sir Robert Rogers should not be allowed to continue any longer than is absolutely necessary. As Dame Janet Gaymer told us, the House service is 'effectively leaderless'.[191] Our first priority, therefore, must be to find a way of resolving this situation as soon as possible. The primary purpose of the House of Commons is to fulfil is role as a democratic parliamentary assembly. To introduce a Chief Executive above the Clerk would require the development of mechanisms to ensure the Clerk's continuing independence in matters relating to parliamentary procedure and privilege. It is not clear how this would be achieved;[192] or what unintended consequences of trying to achieve it there might be. Direct interaction between the House and the judiciary is and should be rare. Rt Hon Lord Judge said he could remember 'only one occasion when such an issue had arisen.' He told us that 'from the point of view of the judiciary … I would say that we need somebody who exercises the functions that the Clerk currently exercises'.[193]

165. Furthermore, as Sir Alan Beith explained, the Clerk's independence is 'reflected in the authority held by the Clerk of each Select Committee… you need not only very good knowledge of the procedures and rules, but unquestioned authority: if the Clerk of the House says this, it must be acted upon.'[194]

166. We have therefore concluded that the Clerk should continue to be the Head of the House service (and thus formally the line manager of the Director General). However, since delivery will be the responsibility of the Director General of the House of Commons, s/he should chair the Executive Committee and take lead responsibility for its agenda. Membership of the Commission will also give him or her direct access to the Speaker and other Commission members. S/he should be a very visible presence to Members. We recommend that the Commission consider what arrangements might be made to enable the Director General of the House of Commons to be visibly present in his or her official capacity in the Chamber when business relating to his or her responsibilities is under consideration.

167. For this model to work there will need to be clear delineation between the responsibilities of the Clerk and the Director General of the House of Commons together with transparent and detailed delegations.[195]

168. The Director General of the House of Commons will have responsibility for resource allocation and delivery across the House service. In this respect the role will achieve what Sir Kevin Tebbit told us he would have liked to have been able to do:

196

But, as a member of the Commission, the Director General of the House of Commons will also be its executive arm, accountable to it, but also acting with its delegated authority. The Director General of the House of Commons will be responsible for determining the level of resources required to support the House across all its functions and to provide assurance to the Clerk, as Accounting Officer, that they have been used effectively and efficiently.

169. A key role of the Clerk of the House, as Head of the House service, will be to provide strategic leadership to the service overall. S/he will need to develop his or her role as the representative and figurehead of all parts of the House and a thorough understanding of how the challenges facing each area of service delivery might impact on the core work of Parliament. Members and staff should be able to recognise a step-change in the wider knowledge this role displays in the future.

170. We have heard evidence that the post is currently overloaded; that neither part of it is therefore given the attention it deserves. Two important areas which would benefit from more attention (and for which the Clerk should be responsible) are stewardship and strategic thinking. The weakness of both functions in the House has been raised by several witnesses;[197] the Clerk would be well-placed to support the Commission in the development and effective communication of an overarching framework in both areas. The Clerk will need to be demonstrably expert in parliament's core business and s/he will have more time to devote to procedural and related issues. It is likely in the context of the parliamentary and constitutional challenges (described above) that this will become more acute. Two other important matters for the Clerk will be R&R (for which s/he will have shared responsibility with the Director General of the House of Commons) and relations with the House of Lords. However, we recognise the strength of the argument, which informed the Tebbit recommendations, that in a unified service the Head of the Service should not also be a head of one of the component departments.[198]

171. We have therefore concluded that there would have to be strong countervailing arguments if the Clerk of the House were to revert to being the Head of the DCCS. However, s/he will be much more closely engaged in the day to day Chamber-related work which is currently the primary responsibility of the Clerk Assistant. The Clerk of the House of course will remain 'Head of Profession' and guarantor that the legislative and scrutiny roles of the House are protected. We take very seriously the Leader of the House's argument that we should not 'increase the cost of the overall system'[199] and we come back to this point in paragraphs 206 to 207 below. We expect the House service to ensure that the changes in the responsibilities of the most senior posts in DCCS are fully reflected in the number and grading of those posts. We recommend that within six months of the appointment of the Director General of the House of Commons, the Executive Committee submits proposals to the Commission to restructure the senior management of the House which should include reductions in the number of senior posts both in DCCS and elsewhere.

OUR PROPOSALS AS A PACKAGE

172. Our proposals for reform to the Commission, to Member committees, to the Management Board and to senior posts are intended to be a coherent whole. They are a package in which each part supports the others. Overall they will deliver the following key benefits:

· A coherent management and strategic leadership structure in which the Member and official elements are properly integrated for the first time;

· Clarity in the respective roles of Members and officials;

· The Clerk and Director General of the House of Commons are explicitly a leadership team;

· The small size of the Executive Committee will require a clearer and more transparent system of delegations to individuals including heads of departments with responsibility for particular services;

· They can be implemented without immediate organisational restructuring: the Executive Committee would be expected to review structures and implement any changes within a specific timescale;

· An Executive Committee focussed on corporate leadership should reinforce the message that the House is supported by a unified service (and the Clerk and Director General of the House of Commons should give a joint commitment to moving staff between departments and to collaborative working).

173. However, there will also be challenges. Our proposals introduce significant changes which will need to be carefully and sensitively managed. The non-departmental structure of the Executive Committee may be perceived as diminishing the roles of Heads of Departments. This could be a challenging change of culture for staff who have invested much of their loyalty in their departments. We discuss implementation in more detail in the next chapter.

174. In due course, as part of or following R&R, this structure would be well placed both organisationally and individually to evolve into the Commons components of a Parliamentary Services Department.

DELEGATIONS

175. The Executive Committee must be an effective decision-making body. It must also be at the head of a structure of delegations: delegations both of authority and responsibility to key members of staff, who can then be accountable for their exercise of those delegated powers.

176. A proper system of delegations is fundamental to transparent decision-making and accountability. Decision makers at all levels need to understand the extent of their delegated authority, be clear on their accountability for their decisions and be confident of the support of those above them in the exercise of that authority.

177. Delegations should be published so that Members, staff and others can see who is responsible for what. They should be accompanied by clear timetables for delivery. And in order to demonstrate that the responsibility is accompanied by authority, the overall system of delegations should be reviewed and approved annually by the Executive Committee.

PEOPLE

178. The staff of the House are its most important resource. We have heard tributes to their professionalism and expertise from many quarters. Many of our witnesses, and in particular Members, told us that the House employs capable and talented staff with a wide range of skills. They noted that the House is not the only place that employs people for life: long service and experience can often be positive.

179. We discussed earlier the range of development opportunities available to staff. We have heard from many staff how important it is to them that the most senior posts should not be accessible only to staff who have entered the service by a particular route or into a particular department or directorate. It is equally important that the House should make every effort to remove any barriers, or perceived barriers, in respect of diversity. We recommend that the Commission and the Executive Committee make a joint commitment to the development of all staff and the active promotion of diversity throughout the House service. In particular we recommend that the opportunities for external secondments, to government departments and to the wider public sector including local authorities, but also to the private and third sectors, should be substantially increased. It should be a strong expectation that members of staff seeking promotion to the Senior Commons Service (SCS) should have been encouraged to have undertaken at least one such secondment and that SCS staff should undertake at least one secondment every ten years. If this is balanced with a willingness to receive secondments into the House service, and we were pleased to hear that this is also an area of growth, the net costs will not be great. As Andrew Kennon told us, 'It costs a bit of money, but not a lot.'[200]

180. David Natzler told us that the Management Board was in the process of consulting on a strategy for the House service which would have 'customer service' at its heart.[201] Our own inquiry has, we believe, opened up a valuable dialogue between Members and staff. It is clear that many Members would welcome and find useful more opportunities to engage with staff, as would staff with Members. We have made a number of recommendations which we hope will further encourage such developments. We welcome the Management Board's decision to pilot the use of name badges by senior staff. A key theme of our report is the need to find more and better ways for staff and Members to get to know and understand each other.

CULTURE

181. Our recommendations for structural changes will need to be underpinned by cultural change. For some witnesses cultural change was the first priority. Bernard Jenkin told us:

202

182. We believe that the two need to go hand in hand. In the course of our recommendations relating to governance structures we have drawn attention to the cultural changes which will be needed to make them effective. Underpinning all these changes is a requirement to move to an environment in which clarity and openness, in terms of decision-making and accountability, are the key elements. This is a significant change, not least because it challenges some of the features and consequences of the House's traditional collegiate and consensual approach. The promotion of a collegiate approach and consensual decision-making is not itself a bad thing, but the evidence is that it has too often translated into a lack of accountability and a tendency to pass the buck.

183. No system in which officials are encouraged to take responsibility and to be accountable for decisions within authorities delegated to them can work, if accountability becomes synonymous with blame. In our discussions with staff, we were told about some examples of disrespectful behaviour by a few Members. In the summer all parts of the House agreed to a new Respect policy covering both sides of the Member/staff relationship. We welcome this but policies alone do not solve cultural problems.

171 Q72 Back

172 Q713 Back

173 The 1978 Act provides for one member to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. In practice this has always been the Shadow Leader. Back

174 Q242 Back

175 Q312 [Andrew Lansley MP] Back

176 Q258 Back

177 Q793 Back

178 Q86 Back

179 Lord Kirkwood (GOV061) para 5. See also Simon Cramp (GOV079) para 8 Back

180 Q309 [Hazel Blears MP] Back

181 Q386 Back

182 Masibulele Xaso, Secretary to the National Assembly, South Africa (GOV095) Back