9 July 2020

Those present:            

• Mostaque Ahmed, Finance Director and Managing Director, Finance, Portfolio and Performance  
• Ian Ailles, Director General of the House of Commons (Chair)  
• John Benger, Clerk of the House 
• Isabel Coman, Managing Director of In-House Services and Strategic Estates  
• Sarah Davies, Clerk Assistant and Managing Director of Chamber & Committees  
• Mandy Eddolls, Managing Director of HR and Diversity  
• Eric Hepburn, Director of Security for Parliament  
• Tracey Jessup, Chief Information Officer and Managing Director of the Parliamentary Digital Service
• Edge Watchorn, Acting Managing Director of Participation  
• Penny Young, Librarian and Managing Director of Research & Information 

In attendance:   

• Dominic Bransden, Head of Accommodation, IHSE [item 4]
• Marianne Cwynarski, Head of Governance and Central Services and Secretary to the Commission  
• Michael Ekpe, Chief Technology Officer, Parliamentary Digital Service [item 6 and 7]
• Rhiannon Hollis, Secretary to the Commons Executive Board  
• Alice Holmes, Director of Communications
• William Newing, Business Change Manager 
• Sarah Petit, Cultural Transformation Director [item 3]
• Patsy Richards, Decant Director [item 4] 
• Charlotte Simmonds, Restoration & Renewal Director, House of Commons, [item 7] 
• Katharine Williams, Governance and Compliance Manager  
• Josephine Willows, IGCS Director [item 8]

Meeting

1. Updates

The Commons Executive Board noted the following updates: 

• Actions arising from its previous meetings and the work of its sub-groups.  
• Tidy-up: Isabel Coman noted her team had taken advantage of lower footfall on the Estate to tidy and dispose of rubbish. The Board congratulated her on the work. The difference was very noticeable.
• LDAPP: Tracey Jessup called attention to the fact the first Bill had been processed in the new LDAPP (Legislation Drafting and Amendment Parliament Project). It had been a collaborative effort, jointly with the Scottish Parliament and others, and the project had faced very serious challenges. It offered great benefits. Sarah Davies added her congratulations on the amazing work and successful project management, highlighting the great potential for the future. It was agreed to send out communications on the achievement.
• Pay offer: Mandy noted that a pay offer had gone out. As well, a very collaborative meeting had been held on SCS pay. HR would return to CEB with options.

2. Covid-19 Update

John Owen reported on what he had heard from Whitehall Departments, the Civil Contingency Secretariat, and Public Health England. Staff in some departments would return to work in central London from autumn onwards, far sooner than they had expected. The likely scenario, if no significant increase in cases occurred, was that the House would restart the majority of onsite services from September. The risk assessment which said only essential staff could attend was being refreshed in the light of up to date guidance. This best-case scenario could be disrupted at any point. The advice would still be for desk-based staff to work from home. The key factors would be increased capacity on public transport, availability of childcare and a low-moderate number of cases. The Covid Group was now looking at preparation for September, including further protective measures that could be put in place and staff numbers needed onsite to deliver services,. Democratic access was not likely to return in September, but that could be subject to change depending on circumstance and Member opinion.

Board members agreed this was a realistic appraisal. There were 3 weeks to finalise the plan. Quite a few staff would need to return. The reference to a “30 person per team cap” in a recent communication had confused some. The limit had in fact referred to numbers who should participate in orientation days in August.

There was a need to clarify pathways to return for teams, and to avoid pressure on catering and security. Desk-based teams could come in for orientation days. These would be managed at Departmental level, MDs should inform the Covid planning team.

Some staff would benefit greatly from a return – for example those whose mental health was suffering and those in poor working conditions. The present approach would need to soften and a limited number of people who were being seriously damaged by working from home could return to the site. This would be communicated from recess.

3. Service restrictions

Sarah Petit presented a framework for restricting or adapting services to passholders (presented in the form of guidance for managers and heads of service) and next steps for implementation.

The CEB had considered the proposal at an earlier stage, when it had stressed the importance of ensuring consistency of approach and giving support to management. The guidance presented was a first step and the bulk of the work would come next. The Cultural Transformation team would now work with individual teams to get the detail right, considering how it applied in context and to decide the level at which restrictions would be signed off. There would also be consideration of training that might be needed to support the proposals, for example on assertiveness or unconscious bias. Work was needed to make guidance more accessible and readable. The House of Lords would consider the paper after the summer and this might cause limited delay.

Sarah Davies noted the proposal had been iterated. Withdrawing services was not a new idea, but getting to a thorough approach represented a big challenge for our cultural transformation. This proposal sought to support a conversation about doing restrictions properly. The proposal would not create a parallel system to the IGCS, but a better framework for managers to have difficult discussions. The values had provoked good discussions and it was hoped this would support the same. This was a complex area, hence the framework had taken a while. Sarah Petit and her colleagues should be congratulated on their successful work, and the bicameral aspect of the proposal was an asset.

The Board discussed the update. Issues considered included how to measure the impact of restrictions; future regular review at Board level; the likely reception by the Commission; the importance of consistency; the fact any restriction of service would apply only to direct contact between individuals, not, for instance, to comments made as part of Chamber debate or on social media to which others objected; whether visitor conduct would be in scope. Existing grievance procedures were in accordance with the ACAS code of practice, and applied only between staff, not to visitors or office-holders.

Sarah Petit would seek to attend team management boards to introduce the plans and also to set up workshops. She would also encourage teams to follow up cascade actions from Values workshops held the previous year.

The Board agreed the new guidance, subject to the points raised, and agreed the paper should go to Commission in October. Planning and training could proceed until then.

4. Our Future Workplaces: Post COVID-19 – Recommended Property and Accommodation Options

The Board considered an update from the Moves Programme and IHSE outlining a potential scenario for re-aligning the property portfolio and accommodation provision in light of COVID-19’s impact on working culture, timeline of programmes, and financial optics, as well as a vision for developing future workplaces.

The brief for the Moves programme had been set based on a growth assumption that was not now expected to materialise. The outcome was a 1:1 staff:desk ratio which was a very traditional model. Each workstation in Central London cost about £12,000 a year to provide. The Impact survey had shown a strong appetite to work from home, in some cases primarily. Desk occupancy studies showed a maximum occupancy of 0.5:1. Comparators in private and public sector showed our planned 0.8 occupancy rate was already very generous – the trend was downward. Studies also showed working from home needed to be properly supported and to be something people were happy to choose. In-person collaboration was key to innovation – in a revised model collaboration might be the reason why people came to work in the office, and this had been supported by evidence from the survey too. The appetite to work from home varied by team. The evidence showed a large proportion of people had worked from home some of the time before, but that the House was not yet taking full advantage of that. The Moves programme team proposed a reduced ratio.

The CEB discussed the proposal. It was intended to take effect following the Covid-19 crisis. Issues considered included: how to fairly distribute a lower number of desks; the desirability of accommodating individual preference if business need allowed; how activity-based use of space could work; the need to make a clear value-for-money case to the Finance Committee for any proposed acquisition; the space requirements of the R&R programme; the use of a blended desk ratio which would vary across teams; the importance of teams being able to work together; likely peak demand for office working on Tuesday and Wednesdays and how that could be accommodated; the need for proper support to home working, and clarity on the legal and contractual position for individuals and the House; whether like the Scottish Parliament the House could offer an “office in a box”. If a changed approach were agreed, business change and communications would need to be carefully planned.

The CEB agreed that more detailed work and a better understanding was required to determine whether the proposal could succeed before a decision could be made but that it was broadly supportive of the direction of travel proposed. The Moves team would consult MDs directly as required and another survey would be carried out in September. The Chair asserted the need to make progress and that by the end of two weeks all CEB members should have a clear understanding of the approach being taken. Ian Ailles would meet with the Moves Team to pin down details.

5. Communications update

The Board considered an update on how the Communications Team was building corporate communications capability and capacity; on what had been delivered over the past six months; and on recommended priorities for the next six months. Temporary funding of £200,000 had been used to fund three posts. The team also had invited departments to fund positions in the team that directly related to their work. The size of the team was now about 30 FTE and the Communications Directors advised it was still smaller than equivalent teams in central government departments. Work on the General Election, Values and Cultural Transformation, Elizabeth Tower and Coronavirus was recapped. Proposed priorities for the next six months would be: internal communications with non-desk-based staff; joining up communications to Members; the intranet; central communications office size and scope; communications transport and capacity building; and collaboration with the wider business. The Communications Directors would request extra funding to sustain these as part of the challenge process.

The CEB agreed to support the proposed priorities, noting the importance of stepping away from divisions between desk based and non-desk-based staff. Streamlining about decision making would be desirable. CEB members thanked the Comms team for their professional leadership and all their successes. It would be desirable to demonstrate the added value of the extra posts.

6. Sub-boards

• Digital Strategy Board and Joint Investment Board terms of reference

The Board considered proposed updates to the Terms of Reference of both the Digital Strategy Board and the Joint Investment Board to reflect an adjusted division of responsibilities between them, and DSB’s relationship to the Transforming Digital Programme.

The changes to the Terms of Reference was agreed to subject to an equality analysis being completed, which should be done in collaboration with the Lords.

• Transforming Digital Programme – update from the Digital Strategy Board

The Board considered the proposed vision for the Transforming Digital Programme and an update on work to develop the blueprint and to design an intelligent customer function.

Michael Ekpe updated the Board. Transforming Digital was about all of Parliament not just PDS. It would in fact be a portfolio of programmes. A detailed blueprint for change was under construction. Vision statements shared represented the outcome of extensive engagement through a series of workshops. They identified the potential and ambition for digital to make a much greater strategic contribution to Parliament. Parliament needed to exploit the value of its data to help it innovate.

The Stance report had identified key challenges and the proposals were intended to address them. The programme would be a success if it was seen as being led by the business, for the business – with clear communications so that colleagues knew how it would benefit them. As with any transformation programme, and given previous efforts to reform, there was the risk of cynicism which would become a liability. Leaders needed to play a role in addressing this.

The Board discussed the importance of focussing and having separate resource for the programme so that it was not threatened by short-term priorities. A “plain English” version of the vision should be produced and the outcomes should be measurable to support benefits realisation. Parliament needed to understand and have realism around the investment decision – a programme of this nature would be complex, lengthy and would not be cheap. It would be important to learn lessons from similar programmes elsewhere. There was a tendency to think of “digital” as “something separate over there” which needed to be challenged.

The CEB approved the vision for the Transforming Digital Programme and noted an update on work to develop the blueprint and to design an intelligent customer function.

7. R&R review response

The CEB discussed whether to send back a consolidated response or allow teams to produce individual responses. It was noted that the Sponsor Board had been established to carry out wide ranging engagement work. It was agreed that Eric Hepburn and Charlotte Simmonds would check the time frame for the review and determine the best way to contribute any factual information it might require. Individual team responses should be shared with Charlotte Simmonds to avoid any inconsistency.

8. ICGS update

Sarah Davies updated the CEB on the working of the IGCS and plans for the 18-month review. The IGCS existed in a complex situation. The review would be useful to resolve some of the complexities in the running of the scheme. It had been initiated by the Leaders of both Houses and would report to both commissions. The draft TOR for the review continued to evolve in a collaborative effort with stakeholders and in both Houses.

Jo Willows noted there would be an unavoidable pause as cases would not be referred to the Committee on Standards pending the establishment of the IEP. Many decision-making bodies were involved in the IGCS, creating complexity, and the General Election had also led to delays. The scheme was carrying out a tendering process for new investigators which had had lots of interest. Alongside the review an internal assessment was also being carried out. The scope included the overall quality of the IGCS, its investigations, the distinction between strong management and bullying and harassment, decision making bodies meeting with IGCS, and the position when employees were respondents and the House had a duty of care.

The CEB discussed the update. It was noted that joining up helplines was a positive step. A guide would shortly come out from HR on what was good management and what was bullying. CEB asked whether an equality analysis was being carried out on the review. Settlement agreements should be considered, as a settlement should mean there could not be an IGCS complaint. The present situation was very difficult for respondents.

The CEB agreed to note the draft TOR and general approach.

9. Performance reports

The Commons Executive Board noted the latest Performance report and Portfolio performance report. Following a Finance Committee decision there would be no Financial Monitoring Reports while the team prioritised providing a new plan to report against. 

10. Minutes of the Sponsor Body Board – May 2020

The Commons Executive Board noted the minutes of the Sponsor Body Board meeting.

11. Internal audit report: Value for money efficiencies

The Commons Executive Board noted the Internal Audit team’s report.

12. Future meetings

Ian updated on the upcoming board meetings including a workshop, “Let’s talk about race”, on the 23^rd July. The workshop would be facilitated by Cherron Inko-Tariah, a former civil servant who now ran the consultancy The Power of Staff Networks, and had supported a number of prominent public and private sector organisations on the issue of race; and her associate Rob Neil. They were recommended by Maxine Albert and had been briefed by Sarah Petit.

The aims of the session were to support CEB in their:

• Understanding of the lived experience of the BAME community in Parliament
• Understanding of the positive and negative impacts their behaviour as senior leaders can have
• Confidence to talk about and take action on race in the workplace

There would be a follow up workshop in the autumn. It was a pilot, but with the potential for wider roll-out, if it went well and fitted the wider work being steered by the Clerk’s BAME Advisory Group.  

A CEB meeting was planned for 6 August. Following challenge, Ian would review the timing and what needed to be covered.

13. Gender identity guidance

There would be a Comms announcement on gender identity guidance. A Q&A would be developed and circulated. It would be desirable for the organisation to be introduced to the new Head of D&I, Claire Harvey, through Communications before the Summer Recess.