7 Implementation
184. If the present period of uncertainty is prolonged,
it could be damaging to staff morale and the standard of services
provided to Members and the public both in this Parliament and
the new Parliament to be elected in 2015. We set out a timetable
for the implementation of our package of proposals below. We consider
it is realistic and practicable, but it will require support from
across the House. It is of the greatest importance that these
matters do not become issues of party politics or means for advancing
other agendas. The Leader of the House, William Hague, emphasised
the importance of achieving a broad consensus. Coming to this
issue with different perspectives we have made achieving a consensus
our priority. During our work Members have expressed a wide range
of opinions but if the House as a whole is able to act consensually
to support an agreed approach, there is every chance that at least
the principal elements of this package could be in place for the
new Parliament. The Leader of the House told us that: 'if there
are almost no objections anywhere in the House, things can be
very easy to do.'[203]
185. Our report, and our proposals, must be endorsed
by the House. The Leader of the House told us:
Certainly I anticipate that we will be able to
find time for a debate on the Committee's findings. There is a
great deal of interest in this in the House and the Committee
was asked in the resolution of the House that appointed it to
report by 12 January. It will be important to be able to debate
that.[204]
We have interpreted this as an undertaking to schedule
a debate in government time, for which we are grateful. As the
timetable set out below demonstrates, it is important that that
debate is held soon after the House returns in January and is
on a substantive motion, so that actions can follow directly from
it. We set out a draft motion for the House's consideration in
Annex C.
Timetable
The current appointment process
186. Our recommendations relating to the Clerk
of the House should be implemented without delay so that a permanent
appointment can be made in time for the start of the new Parliament.
We therefore recommend that the 'paused' recruitment process be
formally terminated. We believe that this action should be taken
immediately. Whether or not the House endorses our proposals,
it is clear that a new recruitment process is needed.
TRANSITION AND TIMING
187. The transition to the new arrangements we
propose will not be immediate. The Executive Committee cannot
be formed until the Director General of the House of Commons is
in place, and the new Commission will not be formed until after
the General Election in May 2015. During this transition period
we recommend that:
a) The Commission continues in its current
form until the end of this Parliament but that the two non-executive
external members to the Management Board attend by invitation
with immediate effect;
b) The Management Board continues in its current
form until the Executive Committee can be formed;
c) Once appointed the Clerk of the House should
become the Head of the House Service but should no longer combine
that title with that of Chief Executive;
d) The Commission and Management Board must
work together to take forward issues that cannot wait for the
new structure to be in place which will include: commissioning
and supporting the implementation team, General Election issues,
staff development, financial planning and performance monitoring.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
188. Changes to the membership of the House of
Commons Commission will require legislation to amend the 1978
Act. If the House agrees to our recommendations, legislation should
be passed in the current Parliament allowing the new structure
to take effect from the start of the new Parliament. Annex
C contains instructions to Parliamentary Counsel for the drafting
of this legislation.
189. Following the establishment of a new Commission
as early as possible in the new Parliament, the delegations granted
by the Commission to the Speaker (for appointments) and to the
Management Board (to carry out their work) should be reviewed
and re-issued.
MEMBER COMMITTEES
190. We recommend that the standing order changes
in respect of the Finance and Administration Committees be passed
in this Parliament to be implemented from the start of the new
Parliament.
THE NEW CLERK OF THE HOUSE AND HEAD
OF SERVICE APPOINTMENT PROCESS
191. The House's endorsement of our report should
be the trigger for the new process for the appointment of the
Clerk of the House. It should be conducted with a view of drawing
on best practice for public appointments, leading to selection
on merit by a fair, open and transparent process. The full process,
including the Job Description, Person Specification, advertisement
for the vacancy and membership of the Appointment Panel, should
be agreed by the full Commission.
192. Longlisting for the post should be the responsibility
of a Sifting Panel, against the pre-determined attributes in the
Job Description and Person Specification. The composition of the
Sifting Panel would be determined by the Commission. It should
be chaired by an independent non-executive Chair (potentially
someone with recent experience with the Civil Service Commission,
or similar) and there would be four other Members of Parliament.
The shortlisting and final interviews should be conducted by an
Appointment Panel, chaired by the Speaker, and which would have
three other Members of Parliament chosen by the Commission, and
a non-executive member and would be advised by an external expert
on parliamentary procedure. The independent Chair of the Sifting
Panel should be an observer. It is expected that this process
would start with an Executive Search Agency, which will be used
to manage the recruitment and produce a list of candidates who
meet the minimum requirements for the post.
193. We have heard arguments that the Prime Minister
should not be the person who passes the name of the successful
candidate to The Queen. Andrew McDonald argued:
The sovereign, of course, acts on advice and
in this case, as in so many others, that advice is provided by
the Prime Minister. This is wholly appropriate for most appointments
but in this instance it is objectionable in principle. Why should
the head of the executive have a role in the appointment of the
most senior official (or officials) within the legislature? Surely
the advice should come from the legislature itself.[205]
194. We have some sympathy with this view, in principle,
but we have not been able in the time available to us, to give
it the consideration it deserves. We therefore have not recommended
any change, but it may be a matter which the House or an appropriate
committee will wish to return to in future.
195. Some Members have advocated a pre-appointment
hearing for the successful candidate for Clerk of the House. Sir
George Young however pointed out that the analogy with public
appointments made by Ministers did not comfortably apply to the
Clerk of the House.[206]
We believe that the process we have recommended which puts Members
in the driving seat should provide the House with the required
assurance of suitability.
196. If the House is given the opportunity to debate
our report in January 2015, we believe that it would be possible
to complete the recruitment process so that a recommendation could
be passed to The Queen before the House is dissolved for the General
Election.
197. We have considered whether it would be better
to leave the present temporary arrangements in place into the
new Parliament in order to allow Members of the new Parliament
to conduct the appointment. We believe that would be the wrong
course:
· The election of the backbench Members
of the new Commission may not take place until several weeks after
the start of the new Parliament, so the full Commission membership
may not be available until late June or early July.
· The House service has already been leaderless
for nearly six months, which is too long. We could not countenance
another six month delay.
· The appointment of a Director General
of the House of Commons must follow that of the Clerk, so there
would be additional delay in recruiting to that post.
THE NEW DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS APPOINTMENT PROCESS
198. The appointment of a Director General of
the House of Commons should also proceed as soon as possible and
before the dissolution of Parliament. The Clerk of the House does
not need to be appointed before the process commences but will
need to be in place for the interview process.
199. The Director General of the House of Commons
recruitment should follow a similar sifting process as for the
Clerk of the House, but the Appointment Panel, chaired by the
Speaker, should include the Clerk of the House.
An implementation team
200. As a package, our recommendations represent
a significant reform of the House's governance structures. This
report sets out the high level structural changes that need to
take place but these alone will not deliver the full benefits
of that reform. There are many other essential elements that must
be taken forward by the Commission and the House Service. In particular
by extending the responsibilities of the Commission and expanding
its membership, our recommendations will increase its importance
and visibility to Members. The House will need to take a more
active interest in its work. One of the consequences of the reforms
introduced by the Wright Committee[207]is
that there is no clear route by which House business reaches the
floor of the House: it is not government business, and it is not
backbench business. We recommend that the Procedure Committee
consider how best this gap might be filled to ensure that time
on the floor can be allocated in a timely manner to appropriate
House and Commission business.
201. If the House agrees to the proposals in this
report, the Management Board working with Commission should swiftly
establish an implementation team to work with them to deliver
the detailed changes required. The implementation team should
be staffed with a mix of skills and knowledge from across the
House.
202. Implementation is about more than structures.
In our view, the crucial element in making change work is managing
perceptions and ensuring role descriptions reflect the skills
and personal attributes required. The implementation team should
be supported by the current Office of the Chief Executive which
our proposals are likely to change. The team should be given clear
terms of reference by the Management Board which should include:
a) The development of a structure below the Executive
Committee under the direction of the Clerk of the House and Director
General of the House of Commons, with a system of communicating
responsibilities and authorities to staff and Members;
b) To consider the appropriate levels of support
for the new enhanced Commission. It is likely that the existing
secretariat will need reinforcing;
c) To develop the support mechanism required
for the Clerk of the House and Director General of the House of
Commons. We expect the Office of the Chief Executive to be formed
into an Executive Committee Office. It will be for the implementation
team to identify a suitable location and structure for this enhanced
office. We are clear that the Director General of the House of
Commons should have an office readily accessible to Members;
d) To agree how the reporting lines of the Parliamentary
Digital Service and Parliamentary Security Director should operate
with the Executive Committee and to whom the heads of each area
should report;
e) To work with counterparts in the House of
Lords on preparation for the review of shared services proposed
by the Clerk of the Parliaments;[208]
f) To consider how the respective responsibilities
of Members and officials for making and implementing policies
can be set out more clearly and communicated more effectively;
g) To identify methods to improve communication
and engagement between Members and staff;
h) To review the arrangements for the publication
of Erskine May. The Committee believes that this important work,
central to our constitution, should have an audience beyond parliamentary
experts. Opening the publication to all in Parliament and beyond
will demonstrate the determination of the House to make the workings
of Parliament understood by a wider range of staff and the public.[209]
203. The schedule for the implementation team must
be time-limited and swift. We expect progress to be monitored
closely by the Commission and the Executive Committee. The Commission
cannot report back to this Committee so it should report progress
to the House regularly. We recommend that the Commission publish
regular implementation updates on its website and by means of
written statements to the House and ensure progress is tracked
in the annual report for 2014/15 with a programme closure report
in 2015/16.
204. We have actively encouraged the involvement
of staff and Members in our work. It will be important that they
are equally able to engage with the implementation process. Staff
reported to us that they found the staff event helpful and feel
it should be repeated in the future. Good communication will be
key to ensuring effective governance. Members of the Finance
and Administration Committees, House of Commons Commission and
Executive Board should undertake to hold regular staff events
and report on these in the annual report.
205. Once appointed the Clerk of the House should
take forward immediately and lead our recommendations for staff
development given his or her clear responsibilities in the new
role description.
COSTS
206. In the short term our proposals involve the
creation of an additional senior position with associated private
office costs. To some extent this is an inevitable consequence
of splitting the Clerk/Chief Executive role. The combined role
was widely perceived to be more than one job. Splitting it will
improve the House's capability to deliver the services Members,
staff and the public expect. It will also give the Clerk of the
House more time to devote to the very considerable parliamentary
and constitutional challenges that lie ahead. In the context of
the House's total budget these are modest sums, but we recognise
the force of the Leader of the House's advice:
The final principle I would advocate is not to
increase the cost of the overall system. The House has done very
well to achieve 17% savings, in no small measure due to of the
efforts of our last Clerk, and I do not think that the House or
the public would want to see an additional new, expensive position
created.[210]
- The post of Director General of the House of
Commons will, of course, be open to House staff as well as to
external candidates. We would welcome internal candidates, and
if one was successful an immediate reallocation of responsibilities
might be possible. But we do not accept that the short term cost
of an additional post with new and additional responsibilities
should be a decisive factor in any consideration of our proposals;
not least because with increased capability should come an increased
focus on efficiency and value for money. We have already recommended
that a reduction in senior posts be made (paragraph 171). The
new leadership team should be set the target of making the changes
cost neutral within one year of their implementation.
203 Q256 Back
204
Q253 Back
205
Andrew McDonald (GOV048) Back
206
Q325 Back
207
House of Commons Reform Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09,
Rebuilding the House, HC 117 Back
208
Q435 Back
209
Q400. For further information see David Natzler, House of Commons
staff (GOV092) Annex A Back
210
Q252 Back
|