HL Deb 10 July 1991 vol 530 cc1399-407

3.8 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.

This was a particularly important meeting of the committee. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I draw attention to one or two of the matters in the report.

The first and perhaps most important matter is the size and membership of the Offices Committee. Noble Lords will recall that the House has agreed to the reorganisation of our committee structure with a thinned down Offices Committee and four subcommittees. Now the Offices Committee is recommending, first, that the Offices Committee itself should consist of up to 30 members, with a Back-Bench majority and the normal party balance arrangements; and, secondly, that the new subcommittees should have not more than 11 members each and that greater weight should be given to expert knowledge and relevant experience rather than to strict party balance in appointments to the sub-committees.

The second item in the report refers to the "Director of Works". I can tell your Lordships that Mr. Henry Webber has been appointed as Director of Works for the Palace as a whole; that is, for both Houses. He will take up his duties from 29th July. As regards the fourth item of the report, we have been very fortunate in obtaining the services of Miss Deborah Williams, who is on secondment for two years from Price Waterhouse, as our Financial Adviser.

Item No. 5 concerns the Refreshment Department. I believe that your Lordships are well aware that certain difficulties have arisen in finding accommodation for counsel at lunchtime. The difficulties have been such that the only way we can carry on for the moment, when we return after the Summer Recess, is to make available to them up to 20 places in the Peers' Guest Dining Room. That is not an ideal solution because, of course, it will reduce the number of places available in that room: but, on the other hand, every other suggestion has met with considerable opposition and we are now seeking to make plans, so far as we can, with further consultation, to see whether we can find a better solution.

Finally, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to Item No. 6 in the report which refers to the Library. Mr. Roger Morgan CBE is retiring. I am sure that noble Lords would like to express their appreciation of his services. He is to be succeeded by his present deputy, Mr. David Lewis Jones, who is, happily, another Welshman.

Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

1. SIZE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE OFFICES COMMITTEE

In its second report (13 March, H.L. Paper 36) the Committee agreed that from the beginning of the next parliamentary session its membership should be reduced in number, while retaining a majority of backbenchers, and that the present sub-committees should be replaced by four sub-committees with new responsibilities, as follows —

  1. (i) Finance and Staff Sub-Committee;
  2. (ii) Administration and Works Sub-Committee;
  3. (iii) Library and Computers Sub-Committee;
  4. (iv) Refreshment Sub-Committee.

In order to implement that decision the Committee now recommends that—

  1. (a) the Offices Committee should consist of up to 30 members;
  2. (b) the Committee of Selection should choose the members of the Offices Committee to produce a backbench majority and the usual considerations of party balance should apply;
  3. (c) the Offices Committee should choose the members of the sub-committees;
  4. (d) power to co-opt to sub-committees should be reserved to the Offices Committee;
  5. (e) the new sub-committees should have not more than 11 members each;
  6. (f) in deciding the membership of the sub-committees greater weight should be given to expert knowledge and relevant experience than to strict party balance;
  7. (g) the Committee and its sub-committees should be empowered to hold joint meetings and exchange papers with their House of Commons equivalents and to adjourn from place to place and appoint specialist advisers.

2. DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The Committee was informed of the appointment of a Director of Works for the Palace of Westminster and the parliamentary estate. The Committee approved a Memorandum of Understanding for agreement with the House of Commons on the funding of works and the terms of reference and employment of the Director of Works. The Committee has agreed that initially 40 per cent. of the Director's salary and staff and operating costs should be paid by the House of Lords. This percentage will be reviewed by the two Houses after the space audit of the Palace of Westminster and outlying buildings, which is now in progress, has been completed.

3. STAFF OF THE HOUSE

A report from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee was made to the Committee, which agreed—

  1. (a) to the creation of an additional personal secretary post to provide secretarial support for the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Financial Adviser,
  2. (b) to the creation of a new post of Chef Supervisor with management responsibilities for the day to day operation of the House of Lords Staff Restaurant,
  3. (c) that the two temporary Hansard word processor posts be made permanent,
  4. (d) to the extension of the temporary post of Specialist Assistant to the Science and Technology Committee for a further period of one year,
  5. (e) to a temporary clerical officer in the Sound Archive Unit for a period of up to four months,
  6. (f) to the extension for a further period of six months of the temporary appointment of one additional clerical officer, the temporary upgrading of one executive officer to higher executive officer and of one senior clerical officer to executive officer, and to the payment of the special allowance payable to a higher executive officer during the introduction of a computer in the Accountant's office.

4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE

The Committee was informed of—

5. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT

A report from the Refreshment Sub-Committee was made to the Committee.

The Committee approved a Statement of Accounts for the financial year 1990–91.

The Committee agreed to temporary lunch-time arrangements for Counsel appearing before committees of the House: up to 20 places should be set aside in the Peers' Guest Dining Room.

6. LIBRARY

A report from the Library Sub-Committee for 1990–91 was laid before the Committee.

The Committee was informed of the impending retirement of Mr. R. H. V. C. Morgan CBE as Librarian and expressed its appreciation of the manner in which he had carried out his duties and of his valuable years of service to the House.

7. REFRESHMENT FACILITIES FOR MEPs

The Committee recommends that for an experimental period until the end of the next parliamentary session British Members of the European Parliament should be entitled to buy drinks in the Peers Guest Room.

8. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS

The Committee authorised a revised subsistence allowance for delegates to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.

9. INSURANCE FOR LORDS

The Committee approved an increase in the personal accident cover for Lords whilst on parliamentary duty.

10. OFFICIAL TELEPHONE CALLS, FAX MESSAGES AND MAIL TO EUROPE

The Committee has approved arrangements to enable peers to make free official telephone calls and to send free official fax messages direct to certain European institutions. The Committee has also approved the introduction of pre-paid envelopes for peers writing on parliamentary business to addresses in European Community member states.

11. COMPUTERS FOR LAW LORDS

The Committee has approved the acquisition of portable personal computers which are to be allocated on loan to the Law Lords.

12. PRIVATE BILL FEES

The Committee recommends that with effect from the beginning of the next parliamentary session the following Table of Fees shall apply to bills for which petitions are deposited, Provisional Order Confirmation Bills presented, and Hybrid Instruments and Special Procedure Orders laid before Parliament.

Table of Fees to be charged at the House of Lords agreed to by

the House, 2 July 1991

[Referred to in Standing Orders 202, 215 and 217]

I—FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL

On the First Reading of the Bill £2,500.

Following the Third Reading of the Bill £2,500.

The promoters of Personal Bills may be charged one-twentieth of the preceding fees.

The promoters of the Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage is derived, and of Bills other than Bills promoted by local authorities from which the promoter appears unlikely to derive substantial personal or corporate gain, may be charged one-quarter of the preceding fees.

II—FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORIALISTS

On presentation of any Petition relating to a Private Bill or any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, provided that no Petitioner or Memorialist shall be charged more than once under this head in respect of any one Bill £20.

III-FEES TO BE PAID BY APPLICANTS FOR AND PETITIONERS AGAINST A PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, the applicants shall be charged a fee of £2,500.

On the deposit of each Petition £20.

IV-FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER

On appearance before a Joint Committee on a Special Procedure Order, an applicant (other than a Minister) shall be charged a fee of £1,250.

On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, or copy of either £10.

V—FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A HYBRID INSTRUMENT

For a hybrid instrument on which an applicant other than a Minister appears before the Hybrid Instruments Committee or a select committee of the House £1,250.

On deposit of a petition against a hybrid instrument £20.

VI—FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE LEGISLATION

For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer £1.

13. CANCER SCREENING FOR WOMEN PEERS AND STAFF

The Committee has agreed that an on-site cancer screening programme for women peers and staff should take place jointly with the House of Commons and has approved the necessary expenditure.

14. WORKS OF ART—TEN YEAR RULE

The Committee has resolved that no portrait, bust or other representation of any living person or of any person deceased less than ten years shall normally be accepted for exhibition within the precincts of the House of Lords. A waiver of this rule requires the approval of the Offices Committee.

15. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES

The Committee confirmed the application of the following civil service memoranda to staff of the House of Lords—

  1. (a) CM/954—Pay for the Senior Open Structure.
    2. 1403
  2. (b) DEO letter dated 13 March 1991—Remuneration of college based sandwich course students.
  3. (c) DEO letter dated 2 April 1991—Local Pay Additions.
  4. (d) CM/956—Pay of Clerical Grades and Proficiency Allowances.

16. SUPERANNUATION

The Committee was notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme—

  1. (a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. W. J. Reid, Assistant Editor, who retired on 3 January 1991.
  2. (b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. D. V. R. Sharp, Cleaner, who retired on 23 March 1991.
  3. (c) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. M. Jobson, Cleaner, who retired on 29 March 1991.
  4. (d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. Jones, Cleaner, who retired on 20 April 1991.
  5. (e) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. Davey, Cleaner, who retired on 23 May 1991.

17. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends that a Questionaire be circulated by the Lord Chairman to establish what demand there is for services of the kind provided or planned by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST).

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, speaking as a Back-Bencher in this Chamber, I must say that the report contains some extremely important items to which it behoves every Member of your Lordships' House, whatever exalted or less exalted degree he or she may occupy, to devote very considerable attention indeed.

As regards the noble Lord's point about the necessity for providing accommodation for counsel, I cannot see why this must be done. They have been without lunch accommodation here for some considerable time. They draw very considerable, and probably very well deserved, remuneration. While I am, as a matter of courtesy, all for accommodating them as much as we possibly can, I do not think that your Lordships should agree to this arrangement without assessing the result on Members of this Chamber. The matter needs further consideration.

On the question of parliamentary delegations, I observe that Item No. 8 of the report refers to the fact that the committee has authorised, a revised subsistence allowance for delegates to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union". I should be glad if the Chairman of Committees could inform us of the daily rate which will be allowed in this respect, preferably expressed in pounds and not in ecu. Perhaps he could also give some indication as to whether the Select Committee considered another type of delegation from your Lordships' House; namely, the delegations which from time to time go from your Lordships' Select Committees. Members of our Select Committees are sometimes bound to visit the EC and other countries. Therefore, are the delegations from your Lordships' House to the EC, and those in connection with other EC business, to be granted facilities and a subsistence allowance, bearing in mind the fact that the daily subsistence allowance as at 1989 for European Members of Parliament amounted to no less £113 per day? If such allowances are to be made to Members of your Lordships' House, surely they ought to be made on a comparable basis.

I observe also from Item No. 10 of the report that the Committee has, also approved the introduction of pre-paid envelopes for peers writing on parliamentary business to addresses in European Community member states". However, does the term "European Community member states" include the United Kingdom? If it does, it will be most welcome to Members of this House, many of whom have very considerable correspondence indeed on parliamentary business within the United Kingdom.

My final question relates to the matters set out in Item No. 3 of the report concerning the "Staff of the House". One is glad to see that the House has been able to obtain extensions to the staff which are sorely needed. However, I wish to make a special plea in this respect for the staff to the Select Committees of your Lordships' House. They form an extremely important arm of the whole of the activities which are conducted in this Chamber. From time to time a degree of financial stringency, presumably enforced by the Treasury, becomes evident whenever, for example, Members of a Select Committee are required to travel abroad. Such allowances that they receive are quite miserable and fractional, compared with those allowances which are given away by the Treasury on the nod to members of the European Parliament, and others. In my view, we really ought to consider whether concerted representation should be made by the Government and the Opposition to the Treasury in order to see whether the financial resources available to your Lordships' Select Committees, in terms of travel funds and research facilities, ought to be increased.

I apologise to the House for having dealt with these matters at some length, but, as a Member of your Lordships' House who has a very warm regard for its activities, I felt bound to raise them. I hope that noble Lords will grant me some indulgence for having gone on for so long.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees replies, perhaps I may say, on behalf of all those noble Lords who use the Writing Room, how grateful we are to members of the Offices Committee that they rejected the outrageous proposal that the Peers' Writing Room should be divided in order to make a dining room for counsel. Many of us do not agree that your Lordships' House has an obligation to counsel to provide a dining room. But if it is felt that there is such an obligation, it must not be dealt with at the expense of the already inadequate accommodation for your Lordships.

I believe that we are very badly done by in the way of accommodation in this House; nothing should be done to worsen the situation. Therefore, while I express gratitude to the Committee, perhaps I may also express the hope that it will never again entertain any proposal to take the Peers' Writing Room, or part of it, for counsel.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, should not a report such as this, containing the amount of detail which has been mentioned, be debated by the House before we are asked to approve it? I should have thought that the report ought to be subject to such detailed examination before we give it the credence and the support required to bring the proposals into being.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, the Offices Committee must have about 60 or 70 members from all sides of the House. It is a very representative body of your Lordships. The debate which took place on at least one of the items in the report was one of the only debates that I have ever heard take place in the committee. However, there is no doubt about it, the matter was fully debated. I believe that the committee reached the right conclusion.

Therefore, it does not seem to me that we need to debate such detailed matters in the House. Most noble Lords do not have the facts in front of them at present so as lo make such a debate worth while.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, as a member of the committee, perhaps I may make one point. I do not think that I have played a very full part in the debate, but the position of counsel in this House is in the service of your Lordships' House. It involves the appellate work of your Lordships' House: the one Court of Appeal common to all three parts of the United Kingdom. There is given to counsel about an hour in which to have their lunch. It is quite impossible to conduct the work of the Appellate Committee—and I speak from my own experience —if counsel are not accommodated within the House. They have always been so accommodated—I can speak from personal knowledge again—since my father was Lord Chancellor as long ago as 1928.

Lord Ardwick

My Lords, are we to set apart 20 places every clay, to be occupied or not occupied, for counsel, or will they be able the previous day to say that they would like a seat in the Dining Room?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will allow me to say so, we seem to have had a substantial debate. He is answered by what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said. He said that the committee is large and representative of the House. We covered the ground extensively. Any noble Lord who wishes to attend the committee is welcome to do so, and some did on this occasion. I know that noble Lords cannot vote, but it is open to your Lordships to attend.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised a number of points. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that counsel play an important part in the constitutional functions of the House, and we haw; to find them, as we always have, somewhere to have a decent meal at lunchtime. The difficulties are enormous, and they have been outlined. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, mentioned the difficulties involving the Writing Room. My impression is not that the committee turned down the proposal regarding the Writing Room, but that it did not adopt it. The committee is anxious to consider all the possibilities. Everything is open for discussion. If your Lordships have any suggestions to make, the committee would be glad to hear them.

The daily rate for delegates to the Council of Europe is now £104. It has increased in conjunction with all the arrangements made by the Council of Europe and another place. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord about other delegations. That matter is within the purview of the Committee of the House that has been set up, and it will consider it. I shall ensure that it is considered.

I have to disappoint the noble Lord and tell him that pre-paid envelopes will not be available for use within the United Kingdom.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, perhaps I can ask the noble Lord a simple question. Who will choose the people to be selected for their relevant experience? What do they know about their relevant experience?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, members of the sub-committees of the Offices Committee will be chosen by the Offices Committee itself, which will obviously work with the assistance of the usual channels.

Baroness David

My Lords, I was going to ask the question that my noble friend Lord Ardwick asked, but which the Chairman of Committees did not answer. If counsel do not want to use the places in the Dining Room being allocated to them—which will mean that there will be fewer places for Peers and their guests—could they, like Peers, book their places the day before or a few days before so that if they are unwanted, Peers will be able to take advantage of the spaces?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for not answering his question. I am sure that that will be possible. We shall not have 20 empty spaces every day. We shall do our best to find out how many counsel will need some food. It is the opposite side of the coin to using the Writing Room. We must find somewhere for counsel. Your Lordships will no doubt be greatly inconvenienced by having fewer places in the Dining Room, as opposed to those noble Lords using the Writing Room, who for the moment at any rate will have full use of the Writing Room.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm and clarify the position in respect of the Writing Room? Is it correct that the committee froze any further action, plans or work in connection with the Writing Room pending an alternative solution? The committee's view is that the matter is in effect to be put on ice.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I believe that I am out of order for the fourth time when I ask your Lordships' permission to speak again. Yes, no final solution has been reached. We must put up with a solution that is in no way good—it has grave disadvantages—until we find something better.

Lord Ardwick

My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased we are at the selection of the new Chief Librarian. I express our gratitude and affection for all the work that he has done.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, did I understand the Chairman of Committees to say that Members of your Lordships' House who wish to visit Europe will be able to do so at no greater disadvantage than Members of another place? Will Members of the House be able to visit Europe on the same financial basis?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, in general, the arrangements for intercommunication with Europe that we are making follow those made by another place. Perhaps I could discuss the details with the noble Lord later.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to