HL Deb 08 March 1993 vol 543 cc821-2

3.3 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I wish to raise a question relating to our Business and our procedures. I gave the noble Lord the Leader of the House advance notice that I proposed to raise the question. It relates to a Written Answer which I received, and which appears at col. WA 42, of Hansard on 4th March, from the chief executive of the Employment Service Agency. I do so as a member of the Procedure Committee and also as someone who is jealous to safeguard the rights of Members of the House.

The House will be aware that the Second Report of the Procedure Committee dealt with the subject of Written Answers from executive agencies. Last Thursday I received a letter from the chief executive of the Employment Service Agency, Mr. Fogden, on the subject of jobclubs on political party premises.

The final paragraph of the letter seems to suggest that Mr. Fogden believes that decisions on matters concerning this House are determined by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons. I find that slightly surprising. If, however, I may come to the point of substance, it is that the letter from Mr. Fogden discloses that five jobclubs —that is, clubs financed by public money—are operating on the premises of party political clubs: four Conservative and one Labour. My view would be exactly the same if my own party were involved in the matter.

It is said by Mr. Fogden that that has been done as a result of decisions by contractors appointed by his service. The question which I wish to raise with the noble Lord is this. It seems to me that it is not an operational matter, as suggested by Mr. Fogden. It is a matter of propriety in terms of the expenditure of public money. That is a question for the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Employment as the accounting officer of that department. I am more than mildly surprised that such a letter, sent by a chief executive of one of the executive agencies, takes no account of the responsibilities of the accounting officer of his own department. That is the first matter.

Secondly, there is a refusal in the letter to say how much public money is involved. It is suggested that that is "commercial in confidence". If it is commercial in confidence, that implies that there is a whole range of organisations desperately eager to have jobclubs operating on their premises. In that case, why are party political clubs chosen?

The House has indicated on a number of occasions its concern about standards of public life in this country. It seems to me astonishing that public money is being spent in this way and that no Minister of the Crown is accepting direct personal responsibility for it.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. Perhaps I may begin by agreeing with him wholeheartedly on his first point. It was the decision of your Lordships' Procedure Committee, subsequently endorsed by the House, that enabled such Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions to be published in Hansard. I can only apologise to the House that this message evidently has not been conveyed to the executive agency concerned. I shall certainly take steps to remedy that.

As to the noble Lord's substantive point about whether the Question is correctly a matter for the agency or for a ministerial reply on behalf of the Government, I understand the points made by the noble Lord. I prefer, probably wisely, to take advice on those points and I shall write to him as soon as possible. I shall also make sure that the matter is placed on the agenda for the Procedure Committee's next meeting, as the noble Lord suggested.