House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report

HL Deb 05 April 1995 vol 563 cc181-6

3.4 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.

Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 43).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

1. APPOINTMENT TO SUB-COMMITTEES

• The Committee has appointed Lord Inglewood to the Refreshment Sub-Committee in place of the Earl of Arran who has resigned.

2. PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTING BLACK ROD

• The Committee has agreed to a new procedure for the appointment of Black Rod, suggested by the Leader of the House with the agreement of the Lord Chamberlain.

3. ACCOMMODATION

• The Committee has approved a reallocation of rooms on the Ground, Principal, First and Second Floors of the West Front as the final changes in the major review of accommodation which has been taking place during the last two years. The moves will take place during the 1995 Summer Recess.
• This reallocation will result in Black Rod, his secretaries and the Yeoman Usher moving to the south end of the Principal Floor corridor, into rooms currently occupied by the Chairman of 182 Committees, his Counsel and the Private Bill Office. This will help to consolidate and improve the efficiency of Black Rod's Department. It will also enable the present offices of Black Rod and his secretaries to be allocated to the Opposition and Government Whips respectively.
• The Convenor of the Cross Benches will move into the Opposition Whips' present office, which will be enlarged. The Chairman of Committees will move to the room at the very southern end of the Principal Floor.
• There will also be a consolidation of the Parliament Office on the First Floor, West Front, and the rooms thereby vacated on the Second Floor will become available as Peers' Desk Rooms.
• The Committee has also agreed—
• —in principle, to the provision of Peers' Facilities Rooms housing a PDVN terminal, photocopiers and facsimile machines in areas where there are concentrations of Peers' Desk Rooms, and that locations should be identified after the 1995 Summer Recess;
• —that the question of the provision of a Spouses' Room should be given further consideration, in the light of recent changes made by the Refreshment Sub-Committee to the rules governing facilities for spouses;
• —that consideration should be given to relocating the Record Office Map Room, Bindery and Reprographic room outside the Palace of Westminster; and
• —that all the changes recently approved have exhausted the hope of identifying any substantial further accommodation for peers within the Palace; and to invite Black Rod and the Director of Parliamentary Works to investigate the possibility of further infilling within the Palace, the acquisition of extra office space and alternative residential accommodation for Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher in the vicinity of the Palace.

4. EFFECT OF THE WORKS PROGRAMME OF PEERS

• The Committee has been informed of the precautions being taken to minimise disturbance to Peers over the next twelve months; and has agreed that a display be mounted in the Royal Gallery early in May to outline the plans for the South East Return and Black Rod's Garden.

5. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT PAY

• The Committee has been informed of new arrangements for the grading of non-chef industrial posts in the Refreshment Department; of the introduction of a new staff reporting system to take effect on 1st April 1996; of a progressive annual reduction in working hours from 39 hours to 36 hours a week by 1st April 1997; of cash inducements to give up cash or weekly pay; and of a modification of the current profit sharing bonus scheme to take account of performance-related pay.

6. REVIEW OF THE ATTENDANTS

• The Committee has been informed of an increase in the complement of, and of a new grade structure and shift system for, House of Lords Attendants, following a review of their grading and working practices.

7. STAFF OF THE HOUSE

• The Committee has taken note of the early retirement of Mr C.A.J. Mitchell, Chief Clerk, and has expressed its appreciation for the twenty-seven years' service which he has rendered the House.
• The Committee has agreed—
• —the appointment of an additional Housemaid for 7 Old Palace Yard;
• —the appointment of an additional Senior Clerical Officer in the Law Lords' Office;
• —the appointment of an additional Executive Officer in the Computer Office;
183
• —the extension of the post of part-time Architectural Archivist until July 1998; and
• —the upgrading of the Parliamentary Works Directorate post of Project Sponsor from 7 to 6 for the duration of the Phase II development in Bridge Street; and of Deputy Director from 6 to 5, subject to review in 18 months' time on the current postholder's retirement.
• The Committee has also agreed that the time-limited posts of Computer Executive, Deputy Computer Executive, Computer Assistant and part-time Senior Clerical Officer in the Computer Office be extended indefinitely.

8. REMUNERATION OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS

• The Committee has noted that the Government's proposal that the pay of individual Permanent Secretaries in future be determined by a Remuneration Committee was not appropriate for determining the pay of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Committee has therefore agreed that (in line with the salary of the Clerk of the House of Commons. the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments should with effect from 1st April 1995 be fixed to that of a High Court Judge.

9. PAINTING OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION

• The Committee has agreed to a proposal for a painting of the House in session.
• The day to day management of the project will be undertaken by the Advisory Panel on Works of Art; decisions on finance and on the Lords to be included will be taken by a group consisting of the Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art. It is the intention that the project should ultimately be self-financing.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, I believe that it is in order to speak on this report. Very briefly, I have one or two points to make. I notice that in Paragraph 3, headed "Accommodation", there is a very substantial juggling of accommodation. Eventually, accommodation will be freed on the second floor and allocated as Peers' Desk Rooms. At some time before these jugglings are completed, the accommodation released on lower floors should be allocated to your Lordships for their Desk Rooms.

As regards Paragraph 4, entitled "Effect of the works programme on peers", I welcome the decision to make available an explanation to your Lordships as to what is going to happen in the coming 12 months. But why has that only just been suggested? The appalling chaos which intrudes itself in this place during Recesses ought to be explained so that we know what is going on. It is conceivable that at some time your Lordships may be able to suggest improvements to minimise the disturbance.

It is not only disturbance to your Lordships that should be reduced, but also disturbance to my blood pressure. Those of us who use Chancellor's Gate will have seen that transparent glass blocks have been laid on several parts of the pavement in order to let light into the cellars. Having laid these blocks, a few weeks later they were taken up and the glass changed from transparent to opaque. The cost of that must run into several thousands of pounds. I shall be grateful if the Chairman of Committees can explain to the House what happened on that occasion.

Finally, on Paragraph 9, "Painting of the House in session", for one moment I had a terrible feeling that all this redecoration is going to intrude on us while in Session. But having read the item more closely I see that it is to be a portrait of the House in Session. It is stated that there is "a proposal for a painting". Can the Chairman of Committees tell us where the proposal comes from?

I then read that Members of your Lordships' House to be included in the painting are to be selected by, Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art". On what criteria is that selection to be made? Bearing in mind the precedent in the other place when a painting was made of the House in Session—those who were left out were so jealous and created such an enormous fuss that a second painting had to be done—can the Chairman of Committees tell us whether there are any contingency plans for that?

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, perhaps I may raise a small point about the soundings which are taken among noble Lords when works are carried out in the building. Some time ago the telephone booths were removed. It is necessary for Peers to make private calls from time to time near the Chamber, but it is almost impossible to do so. We lost that whole batch of telephone booths. All the directories were removed to a small corridor near the main telephone booths to the left of the Peers' Lobby. I do not know whether any noble Lords have tried to look up a telephone number there. There is nowhere on which to put the book. One has to stand with the telephone directory held up and turn the pages over. It is quite impossible to find a number if one cannot get into one of the booths to put the book down.

When these minor works are carried out there should be some sounding out among Peers on how they feel about them. As far as I know, nobody has been asked about the removal of the booths or about the difficulties which have been created because of where the telephone directories have been placed. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will look into this and ensure that in future when this kind of work is carried out some people are consulted beforehand.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question on Paragraph 5, "Refreshment Department Pay". It refers to, a progressive annual reduction in working hours from 39 hours to 36 hours a week by 1st April 1997". Does that mean that there will be a reduction in take home pay for the staff involved? Were they or their representatives consulted regarding the change? If they were, were their proposals considered and accepted?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, asked questions relating to disruption being caused in the course of the works. These matters of major works go back to recommendations which were made by the appropriate committee as long ago as the end of 1993 and the very beginning of 1994. It was envisaged and explained then that there would be certain disruption. I am very conscious, as are the committees themselves, of the need to keep that disruption to a very minimum.

I can certainly inform your Lordships that it was envisaged at that time that there would be a certain amount of disruption and it was decided that rather than take a fast course for the works, which would have been particularly disruptive, or a slow course, which would have delayed considerably the improvements sought by your Lordships, a middle course should be taken. The intention and the hope is that any disruption will be confined, as far as heavy work is concerned, to the two Recesses and lighter work to term time. I emphasise that it was envisaged that there would be disruption because in order to seek the improvements which your Lordships require it is necessary that the work be carried out as speedily as possible. However, I assure your Lordships that the disruption will be kept to an absolute minimum.

To answer the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, I believe that the report of the Offices Committee explains what is to happen on the Principal Floor. The Lower Floor has been considered previously by your Lordships. If I can help the noble Lord on any particularly detailed points, I shall either speak to him outside the Chamber or write to him with further details about the arrangements for the Lower Floor. The Lower Floor does not feature in the report of the Offices Committee which is now before the House.

I am afraid that I cannot immediately help the noble Lord with his second question. However, I shall make inquiries and I shall hope, and seek, to satisfy him once I have made those inquiries.

The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, also asked about the painting. It has been suggested that, if the Motion is passed, the system outlined in the report of the Offices Committee should be followed—that is to say, the day-to-day arrangements for the painting will be in the hands of your Lordships' Advisory Panel on Works of Art, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Other details, such as financial matters and the question of which Members shall appear in the painting, will be left to the group, as was suggested in the report. It is true that there will have to be further consideration about the details of the allocation. I envisage that that will be a matter for the usual channels. It will, no doubt, be an awkward decision to make because it is envisaged that the number of your Lordships who will be able to appear in such a painting will be limited to around 250, so some selection will be needed.

If the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will forgive me, I shall not venture into a comparison with another place, but it might be of some assistance to your Lordships to know that, informally, a group of your Lordships' Deputy Speakers considered the matter before the weekly meeting last Thursday. I say "informally" because, as Deputy Speakers, they have no locus in such decisions. We were conscious of the limitation on the number of Members who would be likely to appear in such a painting. We also ventured to consider the question of the artist. It was thought—I should not dream of revealing by whom—that if we were to have a Lowry-type artist, it might be possible to include all of your Lordships. Another noble Lord immediately volunteered the suggestion—again, I should not think of revealing his identity—that if we were to have a Lowry-type artist, some of your Lordships—I cannot think why he said this! —might be flattered to be portrayed in such a way. As one who used to be as thin as a rake, I am moving rapidly, with age, in that direction. I commend the Motion to the House—

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees sits down, will he deal with the point that I raised?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I have a note of his intervention. It is indeed the case that the staff concerned with those proposals were consulted beforehand, and I understand that the proposals were acceptable. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord on his detailed point about the amounts involved. I apologise to the noble Lord for not including him in my earlier remarks. I commend the Motion to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.