House of Lords: Governance
Baroness Buscombe Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Desai. As other noble Lords have done, I wish to focus my remarks on the House of Lords External Management Review dated 27 January 2021, which was commissioned by the House of Lords Commission to review the governance, management and organisation of the House.
This review provided a crucial opportunity to consider the role and remit of the commission since its inception in 2016 and its place within the make-up of the Lords. Unfortunately, its authors give the impression that the commission is responsible for the overall leadership of the House. In practice, of course, the commission should avoid entirely any infringement on the constitutional element and role of the House of Lords. Contrary to the findings of the report, programmes for “change” that are essential to our workings—for example, communications and digital—should not be aligned with “organisational”, “constitutional” and “rebuilding”, whatever “rebuilding” is meant to mean. Indeed, I was not aware that your Lordships’ House was broken.
My first question to the Senior Deputy Speaker is: has the commission decided which observations, conclusions and recommendations it accepts? Prior to requests made on the floor of the House on 25 October 2021, had it occurred to the commission that we, the Members of the House of Lords, might have the right to know? The report sets out a plethora of recommendations for “change” and piecemeal implementation of those changes should surely not have begun before the commission had either rejected any conclusions and recommendations or at least remedied its own—it seems numerous—shortcomings exposed in the report. In fact, the entire report is littered with criticism of the commission yet, other than a sentence on its website, the commission has remained, until now, virtually silent as to its response.
Some fundamentals are exposed; for example, we learn that:
“It has been hard to disentangle some of the governance structures and establish where accountability lies.”
Has the commission now appointed a programme director and an oversight panel, as suggested, in order to provide commission direction and support? Judging by the findings regarding the capabilities of the commission, its members need help. In addition, while the commission is
“too large and too busy”,
the management board is clearly not fit for purpose given that, as the report states:
“Current … management style and practice is insufficiently effective or agile in dealing with an increasingly complex context of projects and change”.
So, the relationship between the commission and the management board needs attention. I understand that, until earlier this year, the two had barely met—if at all—which is a damning indictment of the current workings of the commission. The report states that:
“The Commission is invisible to most of the staff we spoke to and the Management Board is invisible to many Members of the Commission.”
In addition, a lack of transparency does not appear to have been of concern either. I wonder what the two lay members think and whether they are happy with the findings of this review—and who are they?
The principal author of the report, Keith Leslie, states that
“Leadership in the House of Lords has much in common with leading at Samaritans”.
Having chaired the advisory board of the Samaritans UK for seven years, I can confirm that the House of Lords has very little in common with the Samaritans. Nor should the House of Lords, a self-regulating institution, be in any way aligned with any corporate or not-for-profit structure. Leadership in every sense of the word is crucial. However, we are told that the leadership from the commission is “ineffective”. In addition, there is no clear reference to the role of the Leader of the House of Lords, which is quite strange given that the Leader, the Lord Privy Seal, is supposed to be the Leader of the whole House. Also, is it not extraordinary that the Government of the day have precisely two out of 12 seats on the commission? Has not anyone questioned this since 2016?
The report makes 37 recommendations for change, which are
“all well-proven across the UK public sector”.
Alarm bells should immediately ring at this point, as huge swathes of the public sector are severely inefficient and ineffective with poor outcomes and poor value for money. Dame Kate Bingham—who had a truly transformational response to Covid—recently referred in a speech to Civil Service “inertia” and a “broken Whitehall”, so I suggest that the public sector is hardly a worthy role model for instituting change to the administration and governance of your Lordships’ House.
Although the report is peppered with the word “change”, with references to committees that some of us have never heard of, including the Steering Group for Change, some proposals make complete sense in principle, particularly with regard to people development of all staff across the estate. Human resources is of course important, although the current emphasis on diversity must not remove focus from ability, skills and experience, coupled with clear pathways for career progression. In this regard, the report exposes a serious flaw wherein it states that:
“The current targets on ethnicity are to attain 38% of applications from BAME candidates with a proportionate 38% offer rate, aligned to the economically active population of central London.”
This percentage, which assumes that central London exists as an island without its 1.1 million daily commuters, equates to actual discrimination and is not positive action under the Equality Act 2010. It ignores the fact that the House of Lords is a national institution and should be open to employment from across the UK.
On a positive note, improved communications and the ongoing and frankly extremely good focus on delivery of digital support are key. Is it so complicated that we need an entire change to our organisational structure? Clarity and simplicity speak volumes.
There is good news I would add to the report, which is that while more than 600 members of staff to support around 800 Peers is an extraordinary ratio, the staff are a very precious asset to us all. While it is unwritten, I hope that I speak for all fellow Peers when I say that we value their presence and their support enormously. So much of what makes this House frankly unique is that unspoken relationship, and it echoes the point I made recently on the Floor of the House that this place is ours collectively, as if it were our second home, and it would not be worth a jot without that unspoken and indefinable support.
In conclusion, unbridled change to our governance and structures without respect for our customs and traditions would be bad enough. Change without communication from the commission and allowing opportunities for open discussion and debate among all Members would be a disaster.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Baroness Buscombe Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Over the past few days, and today in your Lordships’ House, we have learned more about how His Royal Highness touched the lives of so many people across the nation and the world.
From an extraordinarily tough beginning, he became the most wonderful role model and example for his collective generation. My generation grew up looking up to and admiring the Duke of Edinburgh, always there, steadfast, at the side of Her Majesty the Queen. His Royal Highness took pride of place in our good old-fashioned scrap-books and stamp collections, and in our local and national newspapers, always with good news and forward-looking stories and events. We felt transported to those distant islands that the Duke visited across the world. His remarkable life was exciting for us. He was an enduring figure in our national and international landscape, most particularly the Commonwealth. His approach was direct, transcending all cultures, creeds and interests, and always straightforward. Indeed, he gave one the impression that he was genuinely interested, even if those addressing him were tongue-tied. He was inspirational and optimistic, the development of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme being one of many achievements that gave others the confidence to make a difference to their own futures and chances in life.
I was lucky enough to meet the Duke of Edinburgh on several quite distinct occasions, including the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince William and Catherine Middleton, as they became the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. That day was, first and foremost, a happy family occasion, to which a few were lucky enough to be invited and to share in the remarkable natural informality that prevailed following the wedding ceremony. That said, whatever the occasion, when engaging in conversation with Prince Philip, it was important to be on one’s mettle. In return, he never looked over one’s shoulder; rather, those piercing eyes watched as he listened intently, as if no one else was there. He could be very amusing, always sharp as a tack, and wonderfully direct. In recent days, some commentators have referred to the Duke of Edinburgh as the father of the nation—a good thought and a truism that he may have been surprised to hear.
As a working bencher of Inner Temple, I am proud to put on record that His Royal Highness became a Royal Bencher in 1954 and Royal Treasurer in 1961. He visited the inn on numerous occasions, including the rededication of the round in Temple Church in 1958 and, in 2008, on the 400th anniversary of the letters patent granted to the Inns of Court by James I. More recently, in 2013, he attended a special service following the restoration of the Temple Church Harrison & Harrison organ. I wish he could have seen the results of Project Pegasus, a transformational redevelopment of the Inner Temple due to complete in July this year. With respect, I sense that he would have thoroughly approved of the inn’s new focus on state-of-the-art technology, captured in a stunning lecture theatre and training rooms for the benefit of both barristers and students.
When a governor of a free school in Langley, Slough, I learned much more from others about the Duke’s involvement in local life in and around the town of Windsor. Until very recently, he was an active patron and supporter of many voluntary organisations. In particular, it is clear that he disliked bureaucracy and anything that might compromise progress. If the accounts were a constraint to just getting things done within an organisation, “get on and change the accountants” was his approach.
We miss him now—a loss to us all that will endure in a changing world that might never again quite appreciate how one person, propelled into a unique position in public life, made a real and positive difference to so many of us in our private lives. I send my heartfelt condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and her family.
Covid-19
Baroness Buscombe Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I will pass the noble Lord’s question to the relevant Minister.
Baroness Buscombe (Con) [V]
My Lords, clinically extremely vulnerable shielding patients below the age of 70 who receive some private healthcare are not being given any priority to receive the vaccine, despite their critical condition. They are told by despondent clinicians and their NHS-registered GP surgeries that they must wait in the queue for their age category. I am sure there is no intention to discriminate against these incredibly ill patients. Could my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal ask the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to address this critical issue as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
Many noble Lords’ contributions have shown how difficult this issue is. So many groups and individuals rightly have a claim to prioritisation of the vaccine, which is why we have been following the advice of the JCVI, which has taken all these issues into account and come up with its prioritisation list. Most importantly, that is why we are rolling out our vaccination programme as quickly and effectively as we can, so that we can reach the largest number of people as quickly as possible during this endeavour.