HL Deb 23 July 1996 vol 574 cc1267-71
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

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

The Fourth Report from the Offices Committee deals with a number of subjects. The first is Her Majesty's Stationery Office privatisation, and noble Lords will see that much of the report deals with this matter. I suggest that comments on that matter should be reserved until the House comes very shortly to debate the Motion in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

Accordingly, I shall confine myself to reminding the House that the report says that the Offices Committee agreed, on the basis of advice that it received, that the contract with HMSO for the provision of printing and publishing services, appears to provide the safeguards sought by the House … The Committee has left to the House the final decision on whether the contract meets its requirements". I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Reading Clerk, who has been dealing with this matter under the Clerk of the Parliaments and who has done an immense amount of work on it; and to thank my counsel, Mr. Derek Rippengal, who has been involved in the drafting of the contract and has subjected it to very detailed scrutiny. I know that some of your Lordships were particularly anxious that independent legal advice would be available to undertake that work. I thank him. I would just add that I know, from my own experience of working closely with him on, in particular, Private Bills that no one brings a more independent mind to bear on this work for your Lordships' House than Mr. Rippengal and his fellow joint counsel to the chairman, Sir James Nursaw. He is meticulous and painstaking, has spent a vast amount of time on the matter and brings to the task precisely what is needed. I wanted to provide that information for the House while indicating that the HMSO matter and the protection and safeguards sought by the House will be dealt with on the noble Viscount's Motion.

The Offices Committee report also deals with the House's annual report and accounts. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking the authors of this invaluable document for all the hard work which has clearly gone into it. The annual report gives an excellent account of the activities of the House and its departments during the past 12 months. It will be published, and copies will be posted to Peers shortly before the House resumes in October after the Summer Recess.

The Offices Committee report refers to a revised database of Peers' specialised knowledge and experience. That used to be called the database of Peers' interests. However, since last year at least, the term "Peers' interests" has acquired a special meaning in the context of declaration and registration of interest. To avoid confusion, the name of the database has been changed. I would emphasise that Peers will be able to keep their data confidential if they wish.

Finally, the Offices Committee report refers to a CD-ROM of the Palace of Westminster. I assure the House that that project is being carefully monitored by the authorities in both Houses. It will have the benefit of advice from our architectural archivist, Lady Wedgwood; and the contract with the producers has been drafted by my counsel. I commend the Motion to the House.

Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 102).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

1. HMSO Privatisation

In December 1995 the Committee took note of the Government's intention to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office provided that satisfactory arrangements could be made for the future provision of services to Parliament. The Committee 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.

The Committee agreed that, in any arrangements for privatisation, safeguards should be sought to secure the following:

  1. 1. Confidence that the business of the House would not be interrupted.
  2. 2. A publication regime which protected the interests of Parliament and did not leave the pricing of its publications to commercial interests.
  3. 3. A requirement on any prospective purchaser of the Stationery Office to accept the substance of the provisions of the recently agreed 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. 4. The administration of Parliamentary copyright, and the function of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, should not be transferred to the private sector.

The House agreed to the Committee's report on 18th January 1996. On the same day the House took note, on a motion by the Leader of the House, of the Government's plans for the future of HMSO, including safeguards proposed to meet Parliament's requirements for printing and publishing services.

In the six months since the House agreed to these safeguards, officers of the House, assisted by Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, have been engaged in drawing up a contract with HMSO which embodies the safeguards. We have been assured by the Clerk of the Parliaments that all reasonable steps have been taken to achieve the safeguards which the House has sought. The Finance and Staff Sub-Committee reported to us that in its opinion the terms of the contract as drafted appeared to provide the safeguards laid down by the House. Serious doubts were, however, expressed by some members of the Committee about the level of service which the House would receive under the contract. We have also been reminded that EC law does not permit the House to enter into an open-ended contract; and the contract expires on 31st March 2000, subject to the possibility of earlier termination, and is renewable for a further two years. At the end of that period, the contract will have to be put out to competitive tender.

Copies of the contract have been placed in the Printed Paper Office and the Library.

The Committee has been informed of the following short list of bidders for the purchase of HMSO:—

The Committee has agreed, on the basis of the advice we have received, that the contract appears to provide the safeguards sought by the House for the duration of the contract. The Committee has left to the House the final decision on whether the contract meets its requirements.

2. Electronic Publishing

The Committee approved a draft contract between the House and HMSO whereby HMSO would publish and distribute House of Lords' copyright material in electronic format.

3. House of Lords Annual Report and Accounts

The Committee approved the Annual Report and Accounts 1995–96.

4. Database of information about peers

The Committee approved a proposal to circulate a questionnaire to Lords to update the database of their specialised knowledge and experience. The questionnaire will be circulated to all Lords except those who had in the past indicated that they did not wish their specialised knowledge to be entered on the record and those without Writs of Summons or on leave of absence. Lords will have the option of keeping their data confidential.

5. CD-ROM of the Palace of Westminster

The Committee took note with approval of a proposal for a CD-ROM of the Palace of Westminster. Filming is expected to be completed by the beginning of the summer recess.

6. Refreshment Department Pay

The Committee noted with approval a pay increase of 3 per cent to House of Lords Catering Grades, from 1st April 1996.

7. Shorthand Writing Fees

The Committee noted with approval an increase of 3 per cent in fees payable to Gurneys, the Shorthand Writers to Parliament; and approved an amendment to the 1992 Agreement with Gurneys so that in future the two Houses of Parliament should no longer have regard to Treasury rates in determining the level of fees.

8. PDVN Accommodation Costs

The Committee was informed of the likely need for heavy expenditure to stabilise and develop the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN), details of which would be laid before it in due course. The Committee agreed that the House should contribute 22 per cent of the costs, shared with the Commons, of a lease of new accommodation in 10 Great George Street SW1 for the Communications Directorate for about five years.

9. Information and Staff of the House

In connection with the proposed increase in the provision by the Journal and Information Office of information about the House and its Select Committees, the Committee approved an increase of one in the complement of Clerks, to 22.

1 First Report from the Offices Committee, 1995–96, HL Paper 12.

2 HL Debs., 18th January 1996, cols. 712–760.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I should like to ask him some questions on the report although I am to speak in the debate in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. My questions refer to paragraphs 4 and 8 of the report.

With regard to paragraph 4, the noble Lord referred to the change in title as regards information about Peers. However, I wonder whether the Offices Committee considered the usefulness of aligning the Register of Peers' interests with the other information which is made available by Peers about their knowledge and interests on other subjects. Surely it would be of use not only to Members of your Lordships' House but also to members of the public if a fuller picture of the situation was available in one document rather than having to refer to two documents.

My second point relates to paragraph 8 of the report which deals with PDVN accommodation costs. The report advises that there is, the likely need for heavy expenditure", but gives no indication of the order of magnitude. Is it possible for the House to be given some idea of the order of magnitude of such heavy expenditure to be incurred in the near future?

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I must ask the indulgence of the House notwithstanding the remarks made by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees about the desirability for all matters relating to HMSO privatisation to be left until the debate later today, which is to be led by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

I have not put down my name to speak in that debate, but I have one question to ask. I must beg the indulgence of the House to ask it now rather than do so during the course of the debate. In view of the remarks he made, I hope that the Chairman of Committees will understand my embarrassment in having to raise the question in this way. The report states: We have also been reminded that EC law does not permit the House to enter into an open ended contract; and the contract expires on 31st March 2000, subject to the possibility of earlier termination, and is renewable for a further two years. At the end of that period, the contract will have to be put out to competitive tender". Can the Chairman of Committees tell me how long the Community has had the right to intervene in a matter concerning this House and the printing of its debates?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, perhaps I may, first, answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Of course, I quite understand the circumstances in which he puts his question; indeed, he has done so quite properly. As I indicated, all the matters relating to that subject should be raised during the proceedings on the following Motion on the Order Paper. Therefore, perhaps I may leave that answer to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

I turn now to the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I shall seek to help the noble Lord on the second issue. On his first point, perhaps I may consider his suggestion. On the face of it, if I may say so with respect, it seems to be a helpful suggestion. However, there may be complications and I want to investigate any possibilities in that respect before giving a definitive answer. Therefore, I shall communicate with the noble Lord at some later stage. I trust that he will forgive me for not doing so now.

I turn now to the noble Lord's second point on costs and the parliamentary data and video network (PDVN). It seems likely that, in due course, more expenditure will be required and more staff will have to be recruited to enable the PDVN to deliver the standards which your Lordships and, indeed, Members of the other place would expect. At present, all that the Offices Committee has agreed to is that this House should contribute 22 per cent. towards the cost of a short lease of the new accommodation required at 10 Great George Street, SW 1. That particular cost in the first financial year—that is to say, the current year, 1996–97—will be £127,000. After that, for approximately five years, the cost will be £83,000 per year.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, before the House proceeds to debate the Motion on the Order Paper can the noble Lord indicate when the Motion was tabled and tell us how long noble Lords have had an opportunity to contemplate and consider it?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord without referring to the Minute, a copy of which, unfortunately, I did not bring with me. However, I believe that the Motion has been tabled for some days. I think, subject to correction, that it was tabled last Tuesday. I hope that that will have provided the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and your Lordships generally with a little time to get to grips with the points raised in the report.

On Question, Motion agreed to.