House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report (Hansard, 2 April 1996)

HL Deb 02 April 1996 vol 571 cc142-8 142

§ The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 58).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

§ Following is the report referred to:

1. Electronic Publishing

The Committee agreed that:

(1) the House should make its publications available free of charge in electronic form;
(2) the medium for free distribution should be the Internet;
(3) by a system of licensing, electronic material should be made freely available, on a non-exclusive basis, to commercial publishers who wish to process it and add value to it;
(4) HMSO (and after privatisation, the Stationery Office), as the "normal and preferred agent for the official publication of Parliamentary material", should be invited to act (subject to satisfactory prices and conditions) as the contractor to create and administer a source database of Parliament's electronic material, to place it on the Internet and keep it up-to-date;
(5) the first classes of Lords document for release on the Internet should be Hansard, bills and public information documents, and (when practicable) the Minute.

2. Copyright

In view of the proposal to privatise HMSO, the Committee agreed:
arrangements for the future administration of parliamentary copyright by the residual HMSO;
the payment of an administration fee to be shared pro rata with the House of Commons; and
the issue of copyright licences free of charge except in exceptional circumstances.

3. Painting of the House in session

The Committee was informed of the following decisions by the group to which it had delegated responsibility of the painting of the House in session:
copyright in the painting will rest with the House;
330 Lords will be painted in accordance with a general scheme for the placing of Lords which has been agreed;
the painting will be completed by 1st October 1997;
Lords to be painted will pay a subscription of £150, and will receive a signed print. Further prints will be available for purchase by peers and the public.

4. Signalling of Divisions over the TV and radio channels on the annunciators

The Committee took note of a new method to signal Divisions in both Houses over the television and radio channels on the annunciators in such a way that, with the minimum of interruption, peers and others can be made aware that a Division is taking place, whatever channel they are receiving.

5. Fire precautions

The Committee took note of the progress made with fire precautions and the plans to implement further fire safety measures through an automatic fire detection system and fire compartmentation.

6. Cashpoint machines

The Committee was informed that cashpoint machines had been installed on the ground floor of the House of Lords next to the staff restaurant.

7. Staff of the House

The Committee was informed of the appointment of Mr. J.A. Vaughan as a Clerk, with effect from 16th October 1995; and of the appointment of Mr. T.E. Radice as a temporary Senior Clerk, with effect from 15th January 1996.
The Committee agreed the following new posts:
a Senior Information Officer in the Journal and Information Office at Grade 7, for two years in the first instance;
a temporary Archivist in the Record Office at Curatorial Grade F for one year only;
a Personal Secretary in the Bill Office; and
a part-time casual Executive Officer for about two years from October 1996 to complete an Index of Local and Personal Acts.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees about item 4 (the signalling of Divisions over the TV and radio channels on the annunciators). I do not quite understand what is going to happen which is different from what happens now. However, what happens now is totally unsatisfactory. One has to keep one's eye on the annunciator, which in itself may be difficult from where one is sitting and one can see only the revolving message. I think that the least that we could expect is to have annunciators for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in every Committee Room in every part of the building. We have them in the Grand Committee Room and in one or two other rooms, but I think that it is essential that we have them in all. I cannot believe that that would involve colossal expense, but it would make life very much easier for those of us who attend all-party group meetings in every part of the building. Can the Chairman of Committees promise that that will happen soon?

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, on 20th July 1995 the House debated the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices, when I questioned the criterion to be used in the painting of the House in Session. I was told that one could be included on payment of £150. I said that that was neither in keeping with the dignity of the House nor a worthy way to proceed. I also made the point that it could well be the last ever painting of the House in its present form and that we should therefore think carefully before going down the route of including only those noble Lords prepared to pay. As I pointed out on that occasion, noble Lords who perhaps attend only once or twice a year but who pay their money could be in the painting while other noble Lords who may be assiduous attenders but who may object to 144 the way in which this is being done will not be included. I was supported in that by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend because I did not support him then although I have supported him on other occasions. I did not support him then because I did not agree with what he was saying and I do not agree with what he is saying now.

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, in order to retain some shred of reputation for consistency, perhaps I may quote from the debate on 20th July 1995 when my noble friend Lord Strabolgi asked: Can we therefore ensure that the number appearing in the painting is restricted to those who are regular attenders of the House?"—[official Report, 20/7/95; col. 381.] That was the point to which I was referring.
I have discovered that only one painting of the House in Session has ever been commissioned by the House previously. That was the 1964 painting by Thomson. The arrangements for that painting were decided by the Offices Committee of the time. The agenda for 24th July 1963 shows that Item I is to consider the picture of the House in Session. The agenda states: The list includes certain distinguished Peers as well as those qualifying on the basis of assiduity of attendance. This list represents the optimum number of Peers for inclusion in the picture, but room might be found for any further Peers whom the Committee might wish to specially recommend". It was stated that suggestions as to who might be included would be welcomed. Because of my position at the BBC I am glossing over the fact that Lord Reith had expressed dissatisfaction that he was not included in the picture. I quote from the Minute that the Lord Great Chamberlain expressed the view that the inclusion of two sleeping Peers in the painting was not in keeping with the dignity of the House. It was stated that Lord Champion, with whom I had the honour of working in the last Labour Government, said that: two sleeping out of two hundred is not a bad average. After some discussion a vote is taken and on a show of hands seventeen members of the Committee are in favour of retaining the sleeping Peers and four against". The Minute does not state whether any Members of the Committee were asleep when the vote was taken.
I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is undignified and it is unworthy of the House. If there should be any constitutional changes in the future, this will be the definitive picture of the House of Lords and will be constantly included in articles and reference books. I really think that the House should think again.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the question of the request for £150 from whoever is to be included in the painting? I feel that for a picture to be painted of the House of Lords but for only those who pay £150 to be included in it, whatever may be their service to your Lordships' House, is an odd way to proceed. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain why it is thought necessary 145 to impose a charge and why those who either cannot or will not pay this sum should be excluded from the picture.

§ Lord Shepherd
My Lords, I speak as one of the relics of the earlier period to which reference has been made. (I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, also present, although I do not say that he is also one of the relics.) The portrait painted in 1962 or 1963 which is now in the Cholmondeley Room resulted from a decision by a committee of this House. The question was how the moneys in the window fund were to be spent. During the war a collection was made by noble Lords, and I believe that there was also some insurance money. The fund was raised so that if there was any bombing, moneys would be available for the replacement of the windows in the Chamber. Fortunately, the Chamber was not damaged during the war and those funds were available. It was thought best to dispense with the fund because it then had no great importance. It was decided that a portrait of the House, as it then was, should be painted, and there was no need to raise funds from those who participated in it for the artist who painted the picture.
If we want to have a portrait of the House today, I do not suppose that presently there are any funds available other than by raising them from Members. Whether or not, as my noble friend Lord Cocks has said, this is the right way to go about it, if a portrait is to be painted someone will have to pay for it. I share his view that it would represent an incomplete House if it were made up only of those who were prepared to pay a sum of money. I do not believe that the character of the House would be accurately reflected if, say, someone with £150 who comes up for Ascot gets his picture in the portrait. If the House wishes to proceed with it, I suspect that the portrait will not be of the same character as that painted by Thomson in 1963.

§ Lord Clark of Kempston
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a similar situation obtains in another place? It is impossible to get all Members into either Chamber. Consequently, not everyone could appear in the official portrait of the other place. Subsequently, what was known as "the other portrait" was painted. All the other Members were in that portrait. Surely this House could adopt the same principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, says that not all Members can get in. Of course we cannot; the Chamber is too small. But it would be possible to have another portrait featuring those Peers and Peeresses who cannot get into the original picture. In conclusion, the other portrait in the other place included the present Prime Minister.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, will the Lord Chairman of Committees reflect upon the fact that as this discussion continues it may reveal a picture of this House that not all of us may wish to see? Having heard all the arguments several times, could it not be considered by 146 the appropriate committee? This matter may fill too much space in the newspapers tomorrow, which not all of us would appreciate.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd spoke of the fund which was set up. I am absolutely certain that all of us had to pay for the 1962 painting by Thomson. I believe that the sum was about £15. Considering the inflation that has occurred since then, that is approximately equivalent to £150 today.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, I should like to quote another precedent in support of my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I refer to the painting of the House in 1895 which is just outside the Bishop's Bar, close to the Chamber. Noble Lords may be interested to know that that painting was subscribed for by a dozen Peers, who were presumably fairly affluent, and included a whole range of their colleagues. I am fairly certain that it was representative of the House in 1895. I claim interest in the fact that my ancestor, the second Lord Monkswell, appears in that portrait.
I also support my noble friend Lady David in her request for information about the announcement of Divisions. Perhaps I may ask the Lord Chairman of Committees whether it is planned to have an audible signal throughout the Palace of Westminster to signify Divisions in the House of Lords. Last night I missed a Division in your Lordships' House as a result of being in the precincts of the House of Commons conferring with parliamentary colleagues about the implications of the Government's Business Statement. Perhaps we may be given some assurance that in future there will be a distinct, audible signal of Divisions in the House of Lords.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, does the Lord Chairman of Committees agree that if Members of this House do not subscribe to this painting the taxpayer will have to pay? Some of us would find it extremely difficult to accept such an arrangement.

§ The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I deal first with the question about Divisions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I am grateful to him for letting me know beforehand that he proposed to raise this matter. As far as concerns the general improvements that I hope will be made, perhaps it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I let the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others know precisely what is proposed, so as to avoid taking up too much time this afternoon. One of the proposals is to have a bell in a picture on the television screen which can be there all the time that a Division is taking place without interrupting the sound. I will explain the other matters to your Lordships elsewhere.
To deal with the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I am sorry that he had difficulty last night with a Division, whichever way he was proposing to vote. I will have the matter looked into to see whether anything can be done to help.
147 So far as concerns the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I should like to look into them. I feel that some helpful suggestions have been made. It may be that we shall wish to give consideration to further steps that can be taken. Perhaps I may leave it in that way for the time being. I will let the noble Baroness know of any developments.
The other main matter which was raised was spoken to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Shepherd, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Marsh, Lord Clark of Kempston and Lord Harris of Greenwich. Perhaps I may take all the points made at the same time. First, let me offer a word of personal reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I have never regarded his reputation as being in the slightest danger. I would also venture one further personal comment, without of course committing your Lordships for the future or any of my successors: I very much hope that this will not be the last painting of your Lordships' House in Session. I trust that there will be many, many more to grace your Lordships' walls. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is expressing an interest in this matter. He was one of the first to suggest the present arrangements for having a painting of the House.
One of the fundamental points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords is the payment of £150. When your Lordships' committee was first considering this matter it was felt that the painting needed to be self-supporting and that it would not be right for the taxpayer—this is a point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others—to bear the cost of it. Perhaps I may say in passing that those were the considerations that were in the mind of another place when it was preparing for the last paintings made there. That is the fundamental reason.
In answering the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and other noble Lords, I should perhaps remind your Lordships that you have already taken a decision on this. It was taken as long ago as last summer. The Offices Committee recommendation, later approved by the House, delegated to the group which has been guiding the work for the painting, financial matters and the inclusion of noble Lords in the painting. Those are matters which were accepted by your Lordships' House quite some time ago.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that an alternative was considered by the Advisory Panel on Works of Art, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. It was felt best not to proceed in that way. I am sorry to have to disappoint him about that.
We have already gone some way towards preparing for this painting which, as your Lordships will have seen, it is hoped will be completed by about October of next year. I believe that that deals with most of the points raised.
148 The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about referring the matter to the committee. I am sorry to have to disappoint him, but these are matters which have been considered thoroughly. I hope that he will feel that it is appropriate not to take that suggestion further forward.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I believe that it is right that none of the funds mentioned by him is any longer available. I shall check whether there are at least two other funds of your Lordships' House in being, to make sure, for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, that neither of those is available for this purpose. If I am wrong, I shall of course let him know.

§ Lord Shepherd
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will. If he finds that they exist, I hope that he will not think that I was proposing that they should be utilised for this painting.

§ The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. I did not take his words to indicate anything of that kind.
With those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we can proceed with the report of the Offices Committee. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.