Serious business for me began yesterday with a debate on Constitutional and Judicial Affairs. I would have loved to speak but I had already put my name down for the Health Debate on Thursday next; a peer can only speak once in the 4 days of debate following the Queen’s Speech. Much of the debate was about the larger constitutional questions, Lords reform among them but several peers referred to the three working groups which emerged from a seminar given by the Lord Speaker last year on how we might strengthen the way we do business in this House; our procedures, processes of scrutiny and internal governance arrangements. I chaired the group on governance arrangements, a role I volunteered for because I feel so strongly our governance and accountability systems in the Lords do not reflect best practice now accepted by public sector organisations and private sector companies. Our very public failures are a direct result of our poor systems. The other groups, (all included volunteers from all sides of the House) were chaired by Lords Filkin and Butler of Brockwell. I confess that I half expected our reports to be shelved by the new Government but was delighted to receive  an invitation from Lord Strathclyde, the new Leader of the House, to join my co-chairs to discuss taking the ideas further and in yesterday’ s debate there was a plug for the same from his deputy Lord McNally.

Lord Filkin commented in his speech “ It is clear that the failures of the past 18 months are failures of individuals, but they are also failures of governance. We have to face up to that fact. It was we who made the system that allowed things to go wrong and the public hold us collectively to account for that. It is a particular duty of bodies that are still self-governing-there are not many of them left-to have proper processes for periodically reviewing their governance. Otherwise, who is to do it to us? I am not aware-I stand to be corrected-that this House has ever had a formal, let alone an independent, review of the quality of its governance and of whether it meets current good practice standards. Such standards are known and most public bodies would now expect to have to meet them. This House has not reviewed its governance, let alone asked anybody to give a view of it. That is needed; we are not a club” And Lord Rooker added “Our governance is a mystery to many of us. It is not clear who is responsible for what or who is responsible for putting things right or taking a systematic view of whether the governance arrangements are appropriate to each task. I ask your Lordships to read the one quotation about how the usual channels dominate internal governance. However, their role is nowhere made explicit and it is more focused on the interests of the Government and of the political parties.” Lord Rooker referred to the Report of my group as “devastating” .

Naturally I am immensely cheered that the Lords may begin to examine its internal problems. Whatever changes are made to the function of the House and the method of appointment we can make progress on how we work now.