HC Deb 22 October 1973 vol 861 cc706-11
Mr. Speaker

If I may now make my second statement, the arrangements for organising and staffing the administration of the House of Commons have grown up over a very long period. It has become increasingly clear in recent years that they are in some ways ill-fitted for providing the House with a thoroughly efficient and effective service. The features of those arrangements which are currently causing concern include:

A feeling which appears to be fairly widespread among Members that there is a lack of co-ordination between the five largely independent departments of the House;

The system of making appointments, not only at top level, but further down the scale with consequent problems over career structure and personnel management.

The division into five self-contained departments, and the absence of a regular retiring age for most senior officers, are factors in these matters.

Following a preliminary inquiry, at the Clerk's request, into his department by the Management Services Division of the Civil Service Department, I am of the opinion that a review conducted on a wider basis than that of one department would be of value.

After consulting the Leaders of the main political parties, the Leader of the House, and others concerned in these matters, I have arranged for a review to be undertaken of the administrative services of the House, with the following terms of reference: To consider and make recommendations if necessary involving legislation) on the organisation and staffing of the House of Commons, including

  1. (i) the structure, organisation and coordination of the services now provided by the five Departments, namely, the Departments of the Speaker, Clerk of the House, Serjeant at Arms; the Library and the Administration Department,
  2. (ii) recruitment, terms of service, promotion and appointment of all staff, including those in the highest posts."
I am glad to say that Sir Edmund Compton has accepted my invitation to undertake the review: he will be supported by a team drawn from the Management Services Division of the Civil Service Department. I hope that the recommendations of the review will be available to me by the end of the next Parliamentary Session.

I propose that the recommendations should then be considered by a small committee of Members before being submitted to the House for decision.

Mr. Wellbeloved

On the second statement which you made, Mr. Speaker, concerning the appointment of a successor to Sir Barnett Cocks, may I, as a back-bench Member, express my utmost protest that this appointment has been made without any consultation with Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker

The appointment has been made in accordance with precedent. The hon. Member will notice that I have included this very point in the terms of reference. I think I was right—in fact I have no doubt that I was—to act in accordance with precedent. Now this point will be wide open for consideration, although it will take some time for the result of that consideration to reach me.

Mr. David Steel

While welcoming the main statement which you made to the House, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it would be in order, or expected, for hon. Members themselves to give evidence to Sir Edmund Compton rather than simply wait for the outcome of his report and then have it sent to a committee?

On a separate matter, could you say whether the inquiry is intended to be wide enough to include consideration of the terms of Early Day Motion 397 about the status of Members' secretaries, or is it intended that the review should not be as wide as that?

Mr. Speaker

On the first point, I have discussed this with Sir Edmund Compton and I am clear that he will seek the opinions of hon. Members. I shall require notice of the second point.

Dame Irene Ward

May I ask whether, in the new administrative arrangements which are proposed for helping the House of Commons, you would include the services which have been rendered by Ashworths? This is a matter of great importance to hon. Members, and I am not at all pleased at some of the things which I have heard recently. In fact, I am very annoyed indeed. Not nearly enough attention has been paid to the work which Ashworths do for Members, and this is a wonderful opportunity for me to say so to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I think that follows closely on the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about secretarial services.

Mr. Sheldon

Would not another way of looking at this have been to appoint a Select Committee which should have been allowed to produce a management report from the Management Services Department of the Civil Service Department? Would not this have been a solution somewhat akin to the Fulton Committee method, rather than the procedure which has been outlined?

Mr. Speaker

These are matters of opinion and judgment. I think the House will be well served by a report from Sir Edmund Compton. But I have insisted that it should be considered by this House before the Government or the usual channels make up their minds.

Mr. William Hamilton

May I ask where all this originated? As far as I know, no back-bench Member of the House has been consulted in any way. These are matters which very much concern us. Sir Edmund Compton, with great respect to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why great respect?"]—well, with due respect to him, is not competent to deal with matters which concern us as individual Members of this House, and I should have thought that a proposition such as this might have been put down in the form of a motion in the name of the Government for debate by the House. I hope that this is not in any way decided, and that we shall not be presented with a fait accompli.

I mean no disrespect to the Clerk whose appointment has been announced, but this is a matter for the House and for nobody else. We ought to have some say in who is to be the Clerk of the House. It should not come from Buckingham Palace or from anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker

That may emerge, but that is not the present position. The present position is clearly laid down. I am to be consulted. The Prime Minister is to make a recommendation and then the appointment is made. That may be the wrong procedure—I do not know—but it is the present procedure and we have always acted according to the procedure.

The hon. Member suggests that the proposition should be put to the House. I have to try to discharge my duty as best I can. I know that there is a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction or uncertainty about these five departments of the House and the way in which their activities are co-ordinated and managed. And I am certain that a report by Sir Edmund Compton will be helpful. It does not exclude these other matters. People may speak to him. It does not exclude anything and there will be no fait accompli.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

The question of the services rendered by the departments of the House to hon. Members—Government and Opposition, Front Bench and back-bench Members—is of considerable importance, and I should have thought that the terms of reference of a committee such as you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, should certainly have been a matter for considerable consultation between both sides of the House. It is certainly not a matter for the Government Front Bench alone. Judging by the nodding of heads which I have seen going on in front of me, I question very much whether consultation through the usual channels and a cursory exchange of words with the Lord President of the Council is an acceptable procedure. As a back-bench Member, I protest at the way in which this has been done.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member may certainly protest, but I do not think the terms of reference exclude anything.

Mr. George Cunningham

Reverting to the suggested appointment of Sir Edmund Compton, are we to take it that that is a decision which has already been taken and that there is no way in which the House could invite you to reconsider so that the House itself could take a decision on that point? Speaking for myself, I would be greatly opposed to the appointment of Sir Edmund Compton, not only because he is not a Member of this House and does not necessarily understand its ways, despite his previous appointments, but also because he was the author of a report on a totally different subject which called his judgment into question, in my view.

May I suggest that you reconsider the matter in order to find a way of putting to the House for its decision the question who is to carry out a preliminary inquiry?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that is not possible. I consulted the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, and I formed my own judgment. I have considerable knowledge and experience of Sir Edmund Compton and I think it is a very good choice indeed. Any hon. Member will be able to put forward his point of view; nothing will be excluded from this examination.

Mr. Harold Wilson

I think there has been a slip up, Mr. Speaker. I agree that you asked me to see you on this matter and explained how your mind was working. I thought that I was going to receive a document about this which I could discuss with my hon. Friends. It looks as though the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Liberal Party have got a document, and it may be that one has been sent to my office and that I have not seen it because of my absence from London. If there were a document, it ought to be capable of fuller discussion by the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker

I am very sorry about this, but the Leader of the Opposition did see a document. I have asked him about the matter. I do not think that it is wise for me to reveal what happens at that type of confidential discussion. The House would be better advised to leave the matter where it is.

Mr. Thorpe

May I say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that you courteously consulted me on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Harold?"] No doubt this point was not heard by some hon. Members when you made your statement. However, I did not receive a document, nor did I have any expectation of receiving one.