HL Deb 18 January 1996 vol 568 cc705-12

3.35 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to. I should mention paragraph 5 on HMSO privatisation, the subject of the next Motion to be moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I should like to make two preliminary points which might be helpful to the House. Both the Finance and Staff subcommittee and the Offices Committee considered the Government's proposals for the privatisation of HMSO. Neither Committee took a view on the merits of the Government's proposals, as it is for your Lordships to express opinions in debate, as always. However, we did draw up stringent safeguards which we consider to be the minimum necessary if satisfactory arrangements are to be made for the future provision of printing and publishing services for Parliament. These are set out in the report as subparagraphs 1 to 4.

My other point is on the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 13th December, in which she confirmed that the Offices Committee will be invited to consider the detailed arrangements for a contractual relationship between the House and a privatised Stationery Office. This consideration will take place later in the year. The Offices Committee and, through that Committee's report, the whole House, will have the chance to say whether the safeguards we are discussing today have been met by bidders for the Stationery Office business.

Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to [HL Paper l2].—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

I. Appointment of Sub-Committees

The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—

Finance and Staff Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Administration and Works Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Library and Computers Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Refreshment Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Advisory Panel on Works of Art

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

2. PDVN cabling and other works

The Committee was informed of the programme for cabling for the Parliamentary Data and Video Network. To minimise disturbance and cost, this work is to be synchronised with associated works of automatic fire detection, fire stopping, electrical rewiring, telephone cabling and asbestos removal, and will for Lords' accommodation be completed by 2000 and for the state rooms by 2002. The programme for individual cabling requirements will remain flexible to allow for changes in priorities.

3. Overhaul of roofs over parts of the House of Lords

Following an inspection and survey by the Parliamentary Works Directorate, a project will be undertaken to carry out essential repairs and restoration to some of the House of Lords' roofs. The repairs will begin in summer 1996, with completion by autumn 1998. Disturbance and inconvenience to Lords and staff will be kept to a minimum.

4. HMSO Supply and Service Agreement

The Committee approved a new Supply and Service Agreement between the House of Lords and Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the provision of printing and publishing services.

5. HMSO privatisation

The Committee took note of the Government's intention to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office provided that satisfactory arrangements can be made for the future provision of services to Parliament and agreed that extensive safeguards would be necessary to protect the House's interests. Similar safeguards were being sought by the House of Commons' Commission for that House.

In any arrangements for privatisation, safeguards should be sought to secure the following:

1. Confidence that the business of the House will not be interrupted. This will require:

  1. (a) adequate time for the preparation of one or more tightly drawn contracts;
  2. (b) an assurance that overnight production facilities in inner London are retained for as long as the House continues to need them;
  3. (c) sufficient continuity in the senior management of the relevant sections of the Stationery Office to ensure that the House's needs are understood;
  4. (d) one or more individuals in the privatised Stationery Office who are answerable to the House for the service provided;
  5. (e) alternative emergency arrangements for overnight printing in the event of the failure of contractors.

2. A publication regime which protects the interests of Parliament and does not leave the pricing of its publications to commercial interests. This should include a guarantee that a privatised Stationery Office will not seek any increase (in real terms) in the rates of charges paid by the House or the level of prices to the public above those negotiated for 1996 and that the House will he credited with a proportionate share of future savings arising from technological advances. It would be desirable to achieve a progressive reduction (in real terms) in the cost of Lords papers.

3. A requirement on any prospective purchaser of the Stationery Office to accept the substance of the provisions of the new Supply and Service Agreement between the House and HMSO, including the maintenance of existing service standards and delivery schedules and the rights of the House to regulate the production and reproduction of its documents in both paper and electronic form.

4. The administration of Parliamentary copyright, and the function of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, not to be transferred to the private sector.

The Committee noted that alternative arrangements would have to be made by the House to replace its "intelligent customer" function. now performed by HMSO. This will probably require recruitment of staff by the House, to make good its competence to conduct dealings with the private sector and to commission work.

There should be a debate in the House, for the House to express its opinion on the Government's intentions to privatise HMSO.

6. Lords' reimbursement allowances

The Committee took note of new rates of subsistence and secretarial allowances, following the annual uprating on 1 August in line with the increase in the Retail Price Index:

Overnight subsistence by £2.50 to £74.00

Day subsistence by £1.00 to £33.00

Secretarial costs by £1.00 to £32.00

7. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

The Committee agreed that the current joint funding arrangements with the House of Commons, whereby this House contributes 22% of the running costs of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, should be continued for a further five years from I April 1996.

8. Staff of the House

The Committee approved the extension for two years of the post of additional Temporary Clerk in the Committee Office. The Committee took note of the following:

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. On 19th October 1992 the House debated an Offices' Committee report and I drew attention to the fact that two people who had been seconded from English Heritage were now being taken on to the full complement. I did wonder at the time what two full-time people going around this Palace would find to do. I wondered whether in fact the tail would start wagging the dog. I also felt that it was time that somebody pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to two examples of what I meant at that time. The first comes from The Mail on Sunday and the feature article entitled "Black Dog" published last Sunday. One of the paragraphs states, My friends in the Commons catering department are wasting money again—but this time it's not their fault. English Heritage has ordered them to remove canvas pavilions on the terrace for six weeks a year because they are not part of the original palace. The annual cost of this gesture? £10,000". I gave the Chairman of Committees notice that I was going to raise this in the fervent hope that he will be able to tell the House this afternoon that this is a lot of nonsense, because if it is not I really do not know how we can look the taxpayer in the face.

The second example I found during the Recess. I come into the House quite a lot during the Recess because of my duties with the BBC and the Docklands Development Corporation. One day I found someone photographing every tile in the Peers' Lobby. I enquired what was going on and I was told, "Some of the tiles are getting worn". I said, "There is a very good reason for that". The question was asked, "What is that?" I said, "They are being walked on". This is a place of work. If we try to turn it into a museum, it is ludicrous. We should make proper allowance for the fact that it has to be used as a workplace.

As regards paragraph 3 of the report entitled "Overhaul of roofs over parts of the House of Lords", I should like to ask, first, how extensive is that work and, secondly, what is going to be the cost of it? The report continues, a project will be undertaken to carry out essential repairs and restoration". Are we really going to have restoration in the sense of restoring the roof to its original condition in places where nobody ever goes and where nobody will ever see it? Can we have some clarification on this?—because again, if that is so, it will be ludicrous.

Lastly, paragraph 3 concludes, disturbance and inconvenience to Lords and staff will be kept to a minimum". We hear that phrase from time to time and it has now assumed just the importance of a punctuation mark because I see very little sign of it. During the Recess, Lift HOP13 was refurbished and finally it was working again. That work was done during the Recess in order not to inconvenience noble Lords more than necessary, but of course, Library staff and others have to go up to that second floor on a regular basis. Perhaps some consideration can be given to them sometimes.

On Monday 25th September, I came into this building early and was delighted to find that the lift was again in service. I made a very happy journey up to the second floor. I had a visitor coming at 11 o'clock and I went to take the lift down. There was a sign across the lift saying, "Lift requisitioned for removals". I went down to the ground floor. It is possible to get there from the second floor despite the enormously expensive staircase, which is now being put in and which is unnecessary. I found on the ground floor that a contractor was loading bricks into the lift. Not only was he loading bricks into the lift, but that was in full view of a very senior officer of the House who was standing two yards away. When I remonstrated about this and pointed out that this was how the lift had become damaged in the first place I was told by the senior officer, "If we do not use the lift, we shall need a scaffolding tower or have to carry the bricks up the stairs".

I do not accept that at all because that lift was ruined not so long ago by the people installing the air conditioning in the upper corridor of the Commons using it for materials and gear. When I was told that there was no alternative at that time to using the lift I made an expedition down the other end and I found a very much more substantial lift which could have been used if heavy articles had to be carried. But also it is the easiest thing in the world to sling a boom and a block and tackle out and the stuff could have been hoisted up without damage to anything. I am very unhappy about this because if contractors are told not to use these lifts and they disobey the instructions they should be dismissed, and we should make sure that they do not get work in the Palace again.

Finally, about this lift—if I seem obsessional to your Lordships it is because I am obsessional about it—when I inquired I was told by the director of works that there would be a complete refurbishment this summer and that it would include facilities for disabled people. Yesterday I tried to get a wheelchair into this lift. It is possible to get a wheelchair into the lift only if it goes in absolutely straight and then there is no clearance at all on either side. So someone who has to propel himself in a wheelchair by his own effort cannot possibly use the lift. How it has been adapted for the disabled, I do not understand. We now have a voice which tells us which floor we are arriving at, supposing it is working, so that may be helpful to someone who is blind. But if that is the only change that has been made, then it is sick.

I really do think that we are failing in our duty if we let reports like this go through on the nod when we know of abuses like this which have occurred.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for having informed me beforehand of the first matter to which he referred. I have to confess that I am always in some difficulty in your Lordships' House in dealing with matters which do not arise from a particular report. If I were to seek to assist one noble Lord, I would perhaps be in danger of offending all other noble Lords. However, with your Lordships' permission, I am prepared to make an exception in this case because it is a matter which has reached the public view and therefore it would perhaps be appropriate to use this opportunity to say something about it.

I am aware of and have seen the article in the Mail on Sunday to which the noble Lord referred. I know, too, that the Parliamentary Works Directorate made calculations two years ago to establish whether it would be more economic to put a permanent structure here or to erect and then take down at the end, as it were, of the useful season the terrace awnings. Perhaps to some noble Lords somewhat paradoxically, it is the case that it would be more expensive—indeed substantially more expensive: around one-third to two-thirds more expensive—to have a permanent structure than to have the structure put up and taken down each year. Furthermore, I would venture to suggest—I think this view is shared by the committee as well—that it would be very unlikely indeed, even if it were to be desired, that permission would be given for the creation of a permanent structure. I do not have to hand separate figures for the cost of dismantling and re-erecting the awnings, but I have given some indication of the difference in the costs which would be likely to arise.

The noble Lord referred to photographs being taken of the tiles in the Peers' Lobby. I am not able to help him about that. However, I would only share his view that this place is not a museum. It is very much a working place. As we know from the duties which noble Lords perform in your Lordships' House, if I may speak on your Lordships' behalf for this end of the Palace of Westminster at any rate, it is very much a place of work and service to Parliament and the nation.

The noble Lord asked about the roofs. Yes, indeed, it is an extensive operation but it has to be done. I would not wish to take—I am sure no noble Lord would expect me to take—any undue risks which might affect your Lordships. It is essential that this workplace, reverting to the previous point, should be adequately maintained.

I take the noble Lord's point about avoiding disturbance. Although there was disturbance from time to time in the course of the very extensive operations carried out during the last Summer Recess—the largest the Palace has so far ever seen—that work was, if I may give a personal view, very successfully carried out on schedule. Very determined measures were taken, which I think were largely successful, to keep the promise we gave to keep disturbance to a minimum. I cannot pretend that there will be no disturbance when extensive restoration work is carried out in your Lordships' House and in the Palace generally, but on the basis of our past experience, I can say, I hope with some confidence, that the disturbance will be kept to a minimum. If any of your Lordships has reason to require additional steps to be taken, they will certainly be sympathetically considered by those concerned.

I shall have to let the noble Lord know outside the Chamber on the lift point because, again, I do not have any details about that to hand. But if there is any useful information I can pass on to him, I shall of course do so.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he care to comment on sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 5? It states: The administration of Parliamentary copyright, and the function of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, not to be transferred to the private sector". Would he care to comment on that, or would he prefer to leave it to the next item?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps it would be best if I were to leave the noble Lord's point to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who will be dealing with these matters generally.

As a point has been raised on the debate which is to follow, perhaps I may add to what I have already said on this point. A welcome and encouraging consensus emerged at the meeting of the Offices Committee on the safeguards which are sought for preserving and protecting the service of HMSO to Parliament. The tone was set in the first intervention—I am sure the committee would allow me to say this—in our debate on that matter by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, followed and supported by the other leaders and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. That is encouraging. I would also add this personal point about welcoming that and finding it encouraging. It is this. Although your Lordships would not expect me to venture anything on the merits or otherwise of the privatisation proposals, I found it welcome and encouraging that the second half of the Motion to be moved this afternoon by the noble Viscount contains words about safeguards. I felt that that was an excellent part of the Motion to be moved this afternoon.

On Question, Motion agreed to.