What next for the House of Commons? Institute for Government speech

Northamptonshire seems to breed Leaders of the House of Commons. The role has been previously held by at least two Northants MPs. There was Spencer Perceval, who became PM in 1809, and also holds the unenviable title of being the only Prime Minister ever to be assassinated in the Commons, and the other was Lord Althorp, who was MP for my own seat of South Northamptonshire from 1830-1834.

The job of Leader is steeped in history, but the title first formally came into its own in 1942. Before then, when the Prime Minister was in the House, he took the title of Leader - and the individual responsible for House business was referred to as the Deputy Leader.

So, the role of Leader evolved into its current duty to be the Government’s spokesman in Parliament – as well as Parliament’s spokesman in Government. It’s a unique position as the diplomatic ‘go-between’ for the House and the Government. As Leader, you are a business manager, working with the Whips and No 10 to determine the business of the day. But you are also there to take the temperature of the House and reflect the mood back to Government.

The National Theatre play ‘This House’ was a superbly funny portrayal of the challenges of getting business through the Commons in a hung Parliament. But it could also have served as a training ground for what was to happen between 2017 and 2019 when I was Leader!

At the start of the 2017 Parliament, I felt like a voice in the wilderness, trying to make the intellectual argument, not only to the Opposition, but also to many on my own side, that the elected Government - however small or non-existent the majority – has both the right and obligation to get its business through the House. So, the first big argument of the 2017 Parliament was to try and seek agreement of the House to allow the Government’s position to be reflected in delegated legislation committees.

Without this, DL committees would have always been in a minority or gridlocked – stopping Parliament’s cogs turning, and with no way forward to pass legislation as everything would have had to pass through a committee of the whole House. Nothing would have been accomplished, and certainly the vast swathe of Brexit regulations would have been unlikely to pass.

That Business Motion was highly controversial, but it was accepted by that brand-new Parliament that it was necessary. Designed to ensure that the Government would always have a tie or a majority of 1 on delegated legislation committees, it was one of the most significant reasons that Parliament was able to function at all in those early days.

I have no doubt that as that Parliamentary term progressed, and the extent of division became so marked, there would have been little hope of the motion being passed, such was the level of determination from some MPs supported from the Chair, to prevent Theresa May from delivering Brexit.

So, in my view, the roles of the Leader of the Commons and Speaker are pivotal ones, and never more so than during a hung Parliament. But perhaps the least understood - certainly the least discussed – responsibilities of Speaker and the Leader are as the two of the statutory members of the House of Commons Commission - and it is on those roles on which I plan to focus my remarks today.

The Commission was established in 1978 and in its own words, is responsible for the administration and services of the House of Commons, including the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster, and the rest of the Parliamentary Estate.

The Speaker chairs it, and the Speaker and Leader sit on it by right. The rest of the membership is made up of Whip’s appointments and the process is entirely opaque. The HoC Commission does not publish detailed minutes of its proceedings and its decision process is entirely behind closed doors. Commission decisions are published without thorough explanation or context.

The last attempt to reform the HoC Commission came with the Straw Report of 2014-2015. It did set out some changes – essential reforms including updated membership of the Commission to 7 Members of Parliament, with two external non-executives appointed by open competition, and the new post of DG who had the responsibility to set the strategic framework for the provision of services.

At the time, this was all the result of the controversy whereby the Speaker wanted to appoint a Clerk of the House who had no knowledge or experience of the UK Parliament. This was the first time in my, by then, four years as a backbencher, that I started to understand its peculiarities. How could a Speaker decide to recruit someone with no knowledge of the intricacies of how the UK Parliament works and the skillset that goes with the role?

The Report formally recommended that the ‘paused’ recruitment process should be suspended and a new one put in place with modern recruitment practices. I entirely endorse that the splitting of the role was the right one – with an effective DG, properly skilled to manage the buildings and the administration, leaving the Clerk free to pursue the often quite academic and complex discussion of the conventions, Erskine May and what decisions of the House mean for our democracy.

However, the Straw Report reforms didn’t go nearly far enough. They left the Clerk and the DG as members of the Commission without a vote - so with authority but without accountability. And whilst the report emphasised the appointment of two external members who would inject some professional advice from outside Parliament, they too have no accountability and no voting rights. All too often, during my time on the Commission, it seemed their professional views were disregarded in favour of the politics.

In fact, when I asked why only the MPs were the decision makers, the Speaker told me that this is because the HoC Commission doesn’t have votes, but reaches consensus by the mood of the MPs that sit on it.

One of the other big challenges in that very divided and at times angry Parliament was that the Speaker, the only Chair of the Commission, would frequently cancel or delay Commission meetings. This meant that vital agenda items which needed urgent attention would be either delayed or cancelled, sometimes at 5 minutes notice. For me as the Government’s spokesperson on the Commission, that occasionally meant I was unable to attend the hastily rescheduled meeting.

Was this intended? Quite possibly. Whilst we now have a new Speaker who is a champion for both democracy and courtesy, it cannot be the case that we simply rely on the benevolence of the individual in the Chair. Commission meetings need to have a permanent deputy and fixed meeting times.

So, in my experience, with the majority of MP appointments to the Commission made by Party whips, there was no confidence that Commission discussions would be driven other than party politics.

One anecdote illustrates this clearly. Fresh into my new role as Leader, I received a call in August recess 2017 from David Natzler, the Clerk with whom I was to enjoy a good collaborative relationship. His call took me by surprise as he was asking me out of the blue to provide the political cover to approve a significant overspend and overrun on the restoration of Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben. This was the first real insight I had into the restoration project plan and I was astonished to be asked to approve such a large sum without any detail.

My response? This should wait until the Commission meets properly to consider the proposals. Fast forward to the meeting, as I recall it was my first or second as Leader – and I was fully expecting colleagues to be as concerned by this request as I was. They were not. My - what I thought to be sensible - demand that the restoration team cost out each element and identify sections to ensure value for taxpayers’ money was overruled. We were told that the project would provide disabled access – this was billed as a key reason why the project should go ahead in spite of a trebling of the cost. My concerns were overruled by the other MPs and when the decision was finally published, there was no elaboration for the public to see why the project was approved in spite of the overspend.

Fast forward to today – Elizabeth Tower does indeed have a 300% cost overspend and a 200% time overrun from the original plan – but sadly without the disabled access we were promised. This is a clear example of why greater transparency is vital and the current set-up is undesirable from every perspective.

My concern about the House of Commons Commission grew as I learned more of its structure. The two sub-Committees that support the Commission – Administration and Finance – are also appointed along party lines by the Whips, with the Chair of Admin a Conservative MP and the Chair of Finance a Labour MP.

The two sub committees exist to carry out investigative work and make recommendations to the Commission. It is only the Commission that can make final decisions. It used to be the case that Whips would appoint the Chair of each committee as one of their political appointments to the Commission so that those Chairs could explain their detailed investigations, such as the cost of renewing the encaustic tiles in Central Lobby, or the glass clock face of Big Ben, or even why they felt licensing hours should be reduced in the Commons to sitting hours only.

During my time, I discovered that whilst Sir Paul Beresford, the Chair of the Admin Committee was appointed to the Commission, the Labour chair of the Finance Committee, Chris Bryant, was not appointed by the Labour Chief Whip who instead gave the slot to Rosie Winterton, an excellent colleague with whom I have a good relationship, but as a Deputy Speaker did not have the same ability to represent Labour backbenchers nor to represent the detailed views of the Finance Committee.

Unfortunately, my experience was that the HoC Commission too often simply rubber stamped the decisions of the Finance and Admin Committees without a proper level of scrutiny. All of this highlights the weakness of not having elections.

The selection of the particular Lib Dem and Scot Nat MPs likewise made no sense. Neither appeared to have a clear long-standing interest in or commitment to the improvement and preservation of our Palace.

And since returning to the backbenches, the opaque proceedings of the Commission have also delved into the ability of Members like myself to scrutinise the Government during the pandemic.

I understand that the recent decision to suspend Friday sittings and Westminster Hall debates was at the instigation of opposition Members on the HoC Commission. Well, you might ask yourself why on earth the opposition would reduce opportunities to scrutinise the Government? But of course, you would not be entitled to any answers because the Commission will not publish detailed minutes, or records of which Members took which views.

As a backbencher I have enjoyed several recent Westminster Hall debates ranging from one I led on the early years, to others I took part in on the importance of our decarbonisation ambitions and also providing better support for businesses during the pandemic. In these debates Members can press for government action and get an immediate and direct response from Government Ministers.

Likewise, Private Member’s Bills brought forward on a sitting Friday have delivered some incredibly welcome changes to laws ranging from the Children’s Funeral Fund promoted by Labour backbencher Carolyn Harris as well as the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths Act promoted by my friend Tim Loughton. Private Member’s Bills are one of the key ways in which backbenchers can make a real difference on behalf of their constituents.

So, the decision to remove these opportunities to serve our constituents deserves a clear explanation from the HoC Commission, one that with their current arrangements will never be forthcoming.

So, I hope I have persuaded you of the urgent need for change - the current day to day workings of the HoC Commission are sadly lacking in democracy, scrutiny and transparency.

And there is one other area I want to touch on today, another issue which in my view, is fundamental to our great heritage - and that is the Palace of Westminster itself.

The last time the Palace underwent a fundamental restoration was because it burnt down in 1834. It took 6 years for the new construction to begin and 36 years before the current Palace was completed. Charles Barry’s inspiration was to create a large basement running the entire length of the Palace with a thousand chimneys through which in summer, cool air could circulate from open gates at either end of the basement, and in winter, large steam generators could keep the Palace warm. He was way ahead of his time. To be safe and effective, the basement needed to be kept empty and clean. But since the advent of electricity, mains water, sewage and broadband, the basement has become the place for Parliament’s gubbins, with asbestos lagged pipes and a real spaghetti of wires installed over decades without instructions.

As Leader, I chaired a monthly project meeting on restoration and renewal, determined to sort this out once and for all. The strategic Estates team would air the litany of potential disasters - asbestos leaks, frequent fires and masonry falling off high towers onto unsuspecting vehicles and footpaths. On my own first trip to the basement, there was raw sewage spraying from a leaking pipe. I was assured this had not just been set up for my benefit!

It was always clear to me that staying in the Palace whilst it was restored would be impossible. I am really concerned at the limited contingency arrangements should there be any one of a number of disasters. I witnessed the full dress rehearsal of an emergency pop-up Parliament and whilst it was impressive in its organisation, it would only work for a few weeks at most. Finding a place to stay whilst the Palace is restored is vital, but so too is having a permanent contingency site for our democracy to keep functioning - this is after all what every other critical organisation seeks to have. And furthermore, when the horrific murder of PC Keith Palmer took place within our grounds, the security review that followed made clear that the only solution for decant was for MPs to remain within the secure perimeter, to keep not just us safe, but also all those who bravely protect us.

At significant estimated cost and once again without detailed minutes, the Commission chose to rebuild Richmond House as its permanent contingency plan. In spite of many reservations about the need to keep the costs down it seemed to be the only practical solution. Fast forward to today and the issue of whether to remain or leave is extraordinarily back on the table. We now have a Sponsor Body in place that is allowing a second referendum.

It feels like Ground Hog day – surely the review of the joint committee in 2014, and then the R&R debate in 2018 settled the matter? And if that wasn’t enough, we had the tragic Notre Dame fire to help concentrate minds on the need to protect this UNESCO World Heritage site - one of the most famous buildings in the world.

The SNP are clear their policy is for us all to pack up and leave the Palace for good – their vote on the Commission does not have heritage in mind, but rather political advantage. And many other MPs across all parties just don’t want to move out of the place they campaigned for years to earn the right to occupy. It’s understandable, but we’ve gone round this subject too many times and for too many years - now’s the time to get on with it.

If there were full transparency in our Commission dealings then we might be far closer to the preservation of our iconic Palace than we are today. And what’s more, we might be cutting the spec of our decant plans according to our cloth.

I hope that in my remarks this morning, I have set out clearly some of the shortcomings in our House of Commons Commission. And whilst a comprehensive review is clearly needed, I will leave you with a few brief thoughts on changes I would like to see:

First, members of the Commission and the Finance and Admin Committees should be elected by their peers, with the exception of Speaker and Leader as statutory members;

Second, the Chairs of the Admin and Finance Committees, once elected, should also have a seat on the Commission;

Third, the Clerk and DG should each have a vote, thereby ensuring they have both authority and accountability;

Fourth, there should be a permanent deputy Chair of the Commission should the Speaker be unavailable because of House business. Commission meetings should be at fixed times and dates;

Fifth, detailed minutes should be published, and where there is disagreement, votes should be declared;

Sixth, The Commission Spokesperson should be elected by members of the Commission;

The strength of our United Kingdom democracy is that it evolves to face new challenges. We need to keep challenging ourselves to be more accountable and to restore a real connection and trust in politics. Parliament must be at the heart of this mission.