Select Committee on Governance of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

When I was a member of the House of Commons Commission, we agreed in April that there should be a review of governance, in order to determine in the future whether the post of Clerk of the House should continue to be combined with that of chief executive. The Commission also concluded that it was neither legal nor practical to make a change at that time. We therefore agreed to advertise the post of Clerk and chief executive on the same basis as happened in 2011. I remind the House that in this Parliament, in 2011, an open competition took place for the post of Clerk and chief executive. Both Clerks and non-Clerks applied and were interviewed. Robert Rogers, of course, was appointed and proved a successful occupant of the post. We may have wished, with good reason, that he would have continued on in post and not retired, but that was not to be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, the combined post of Clerk and chief executive developed in response to the Ibbs report of November 1990, which found profound failings then. When the Braithwaite report looked again in 1999, it reported substantial improvements and said that the leadership of the Clerk of the House, acting as chief executive, had been instrumental in that progress. Paragraph 4.63 summarised the situation well:

“The Clerk is armed with most of the skills and attributes needed for the role…He has the authority of his office; demonstrable leadership at a high level; deep knowledge of the political context and process, and all the skills required to operate effectively in this environment; and a profound understanding of the business of supporting the House and its work.”

The Tebbit review in 2007 looked again at whether an outsider should run the House service and recommended that the Clerk should continue to perform the dual role of Clerk and chief executive. I encourage hon. Members to read paragraphs 86 to 88 of the Tebbit review.

Why did I support the need for a review at the Commission in April? First, while the restoration and renewal project from 2020 onwards must have discrete project governance, it would certainly benefit from having one client, not two. A chief executive acting for both Houses of Parliament would bring clarity and coherence in the years during which the R and R project is under way. Such a review would need to be undertaken together with the House of Lords. That is not in our gift this evening, but we can seek for that to happen.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a small technical matter, am I not right in thinking that the director-general for resources is already responsible for the Commons end and the Lords end?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, there is joint working in some respects. That is one area. Information technology and security are others. But generally there is not joint working in relation to the Parliament and the estate as a whole. Under those circumstances, one would have to forgo the possibility of the Clerk also being chief executive as this House and the House of Lords would have to retain a separate Clerk of the House and Clerk of the Parliaments. There would of course be attendant risks in separating out those functions, but a potential efficiency gain of a significant kind overall.

I support the motion and look forward to the Select Committee considering it. None the less, I urge the Select Committee to take evidence and to consider that wider potential context within which it could work. However, the Select Committee cannot resolve the current impasse in the appointment process, which is “paused”. I saw the case for a pause—I often do—but it cannot now be continued. The Commission has the authority to cancel the current appointment process. It should do so now. It is no criticism of Carol Mills, who interviewed well, to say that her knowledge of the constitutional and procedural issues, as required of the Clerk of the House, would not suffice. I took that view, but was not supported by the majority of the selection panel. It is particularly regrettable that Mr Speaker sought expressly to water down the 2011 requirement in the job description that the Clerk should have

“detailed knowledge of the procedures and practices of the House.”

Mr Speaker sought to replace “detailed knowledge” with “awareness”.

By way of compromise, the word “detailed” was left out. But the selection panel was not therefore asked to subject candidates to the same test as in 2011. The process for appointment was, therefore, ill-founded, and any internal candidate with the procedural and practical knowledge but less opportunity to be a chief executive of a large organisation was at a disadvantage.

I propose that the current appointment process be scrapped; that an internal temporary appointment to the post of Clerk of the House should be made; and that an internal appointment to the post of chief operating officer could be made. That was proposed to the selection panel, but not supported. It is now the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Hodge]

As a member of a committee that promoted an international candidate, of course I agree with that.

We were very mindful of the importance of the procedural duties associated with the job. There are, however, well over 100 people working in the House who are knowledgeable about and familiar with procedure. We were also mindful that the post holder is responsible for spending more than £200 million of taxpayers’ money and employing 1,750 people. This palace lies at the heart of our democracy, yet the way it is run is wasteful and shambolic. We are asking our constituents to bear substantial expenditure cuts and cuts in services, and while they suffer that we are swimming in inefficiencies. Yet, because some Members concern themselves only with what happens in this Chamber, they are willing to downgrade the vital job of ensuring best value from the expenditure of more than £200 million of their constituents’ hard-earned money.

Things are so shambolic that, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, it can take our constituents an hour to get through St Stephen’s to see us. We overspent massively on the building of Portcullis House, yet managing capital projects seems less important than who is sitting in a chair in the Chamber. It is as important to our democracy to run this place well as it is to have somebody in the chair who is knowledgeable about, and experienced in, procedure. However, because we were mindful of the importance of both roles, we held two rounds of interviews. It proved impossible to find a single individual capable of fulfilling both roles, but several of the members of the panel thought that Carol Mills was the only appointable candidate.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry but that was not the view we took. We found more than one candidate appointable, but the panel took a judgment about which candidate should be recommended. I am afraid it is not correct to say that other candidates were not appointable.

[Margaret Hodge]

We will have to disagree. I think a different view was expressed at the second round of interviews from that at the first.

However, we were mindful of the fact that advice on procedural matters was vital and that Carol Mills would take time to develop her knowledge and skills. That was precisely the reason we proposed that Mr Natzler’s role should be retitled to provide greater status and that his salary should be increased to reflect that status. The successful candidate excelled at interview, and the fact that she has not walked away despite totally unwarranted personal attacks on her integrity and record confirms in my mind that she has the toughness required to bring the House into the 21st century.

I hope that the motion before the House will be carried, but the way we have got here has been unparliamentary and shameful.