HL Deb 21 June 2000 vol 614 cc256-65

3.6 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 70).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to: The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

1. Fast stream pay proposals

The Committee agreed to new arrangements, developed in conjunction with the House of Commons, for paying fast-stream Clerks and Library Clerks.

2. Salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Committee approved revised salaries with effect from 1 April 2000.

3. Lords' reimbursement allowances

The Committee was informed that from 1 April 2000 the motor mileage allowance had been up-rated in line with the retail prices index to 52.5 pence per mile for the first 20,000 miles and 24.2 pence per mile thereafter; and that the bicycle allowance had been up-rated to 6.7 pence per mile.

4. Appointment of a management consultant

The Committee approved the appointment of a management consultant, Mr Michael Braithwaite, to undertake a review of the management structure and the structure, including the Committee structure, for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, which were introduced in the House of Lords in 1991–92 following the Ibbs reforms in the House of Commons.

5. Commercial activities

The Committee agreed that the House of Lords should not be used by Members as a business address nor the name used for the promotion of any commercial activity.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, I believe that the House is being asked to approve a Motion which, frankly, is ridiculous. Perhaps I may trouble the House with a few questions that I wish to ask the Chairman of Committees. First, item 1 of the report states that: The Committee agreed to new arrangements it does not tell us what the new arrangements are— for paying fast-stream Clerks", but it does not tell us who fast-stream Clerks are.

Item 2 tells us that the committee "approved revised salaries" for the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman. It does not tell us what those revised salaries are and by what amount they have been increased.

Item 3, regarding Lords' reimbursement allowances, tells us that the Committee was informed that from 1st April 2000 (in other words, backdated) the motor mileage allowance has been uprated in line with the retail prices index—not the RPIX but the retail prices index. There will also be an increase in the bicycle allowance, which has been uprated to 6.7p per mile. However, no reference is made to noble Lords' other allowances, which I should have thought were much more important than those two items.

What of the committee? I gather that it is composed of the usual channels, and of course we know who they are. They are part of the House authorities. We read that the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod were also in attendance at that meeting.

The worst item that we are asked to approve is item 4, which concerns the appointment of a management consultant. We are told that he is a certain gentleman called Michael Braithwaite, who will, undertake a review of the management structure and the structure, including the Committee structure, for taking decisions about the services of the House". We are not told what salary that gentleman will receive, or why we need a management consultant when a small committee of your Lordships' House could, at no cost at all, do a job that we understand.

I am sorry to trouble the House with those four items, but it is nonsense and does a disservice to the House to ask us to approve a document when we have been given so little information. I should be obliged if the Chairman of Committees could answer some of my questions.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend. I understand that Mr Braithwaite is picking up £70,000 for the job.

I wish to concentrate on this item selected by my noble friend, because this Michael Braithwaite investigation follows a similar exercise in the House of Commons. His report on the Commons was debated there on 20th January. Introducing the report on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, Mr Archy Kirkwood gave enormous detail about Mr Braithwaite's work, for which he received £77,000 on that occasion. To assist the process, 105 people were interviewed, many on two or more occasions, and information was gathered from 14 overseas countries. Mr Kirkwood did not say whether there were fact-finding missions, but an enormous amount of work was done.

Imagine my surprise when I read through the debate and found a contribution from the honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who said: the thing that concerns me about the report is its lack of clarity on what is happening to ordinary staff here".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/00; col. 1083.] I must stress that point, because conflicts could arise. With a lot of young, zealous Members in the other place and a changing situation in your Lordships' House, there is a growing demand for resources for Members in either place. An Early Day Motion in the other place calling for an extra £20,000 on the office costs allowance has already attracted 124 signatures.

I am afraid that the constant pressure for more resources for Members of both Houses may lead to a temptation to find savings in the ordinary staff who service us here. I do not regard them as ordinary—I am using the phrase of my honourable friend from Newcastle-under-Lyme. They are very faithful, very experienced and very reliable. More than anything, when we have security problems, we can trust them. Anything that could set us against them must be thought about very carefully. I have heard rumours that there are attempts to cut the overtime rate of the catering staff in the other place. A big operation is going on among the security staff, with young people being recruited to replace old, experienced staff. We may be getting into a situation of penny wise, pound foolish.

The Committee should have had a word with the House formally before undertaking such a massive operation. Following my noble friend's remarks, I wonder whether it is too late to allow the House to discuss the matter, or whether we are faced with a fait accompli.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, the motor allowances increases in paragraph 3 are said to be in line with the retail prices index. What index was used for their calculation—the figure applied by the Government for pensions or the one used for petrol prices?

Lord Monson

My Lords, consultants never come cheap. How many days will Mr Braithwaite be working in return for his £70,000?

3.15 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who, not for the first time, has rendered great service to your Lordships' House by drawing our attention to the shortcomings in the report. I associate myself with every word that he said.

In particular, I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees a little more about paragraph 4 of the report, which relates to Mr Braithwaite and the management consultancy. I must pick my words with some care, as I am all too well aware that the leader of my party was once a management consultant, I yield to no one in my admiration for the leader of my party.

Why was Mr Braithwaite appointed and at whose suggestion? What ills endemic in your Lordships' House are his attentions designed to put right? What are his riding instructions? How much is he going to be paid? Why is it so important that we should spend the large sums of money that I assume are involved in getting his views? Is it true that the suggestion of appointing a management consultant came from another place? If so, why have the authorities of this House undertaken to follow that suggestion without further consultation with your Lordships' House?

I am concerned about management consultants. I remember my American employer in California many years ago telling me that there were only two reasons that enterprises consulted management consultants: one was because the management did not know what to do and the second was because there was an argument that the managing director—or president, in American terms—wished to resolve without an internal quarrel. Do either of those conditions apply in your Lordships' House?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. In doing so, I shall refer to other noble Lords who have spoken. If it is the wish of your Lordships that more information should be given, I am certainly prepared to view that request with sympathy. On the whole, I attempt to put forward less written material rather than more because, as I have said on previous occasions, I do not wish to overburden your Lordships. However, if your Lordships want more, you are entitled to have more. I also remind your Lordships that the minutes of Committees are available in the Library and can be consulted there.

I can ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is provided with fuller details on the first item without burdening your Lordships now. We always intend to recruit the high quality staff from whom your Lordships' House has traditionally benefited. But recently there have not always been as many high quality applicants as on previous occasions and it was felt that this means of accelerating recruitment in certain instances would add to the incentive for those who might be available to be appointed to your Lordships' House.

The increases in the reimbursement allowances follow the lines of previous years. The usual formula has been used. I readily concede, particularly this week, when we have heard something about bicycling, that the rewards in the bicycling allowances are not excessive. In fact, your Lordships may be interested to have a little more information on that point than is in the report; that is, the amount has gone up by 0.2p per mile from 6.5p to 6.7p per mile. That is a rise of approximately 3 per cent which is slightly more than the petrol allowance. I know that this week a number of your Lordships have joined in the cycle ride from the office of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, at the Department of Transport in Victoria Street to your Lordships' House. So there is something of a reward there.

As regards the allowances not mentioned in the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will remember, those go up in August and are effective from that time. So that matter will be dealt with again in accordance with the normal procedure which is followed.

The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, raised the question of the proposed appointment of the management consultant, Mr Michael Braithwaite. Perhaps I may make a few remarks about that appointment. In the first place, your Lordships' committees, particularly the Offices Committee and its two sub-committees, were persuaded that there was a need to examine various options by which the House could make decisions on domestic matters. That has not been looked into since the reforms following the inquiry carried out by Sir Robin Ibbs in 1991–92.

I make this point—and your Lordships' Offices Committee was persuaded of this too—that sometimes there is advantage in having a qualified person from outside look at our management structures. That was done by Sir Robin Ibbs at the beginning of the last decade. As many of your Lordships will know, he was a highly qualified person. As a result of his inquiry, reforms were not only introduced in another place but were also introduced in your Lordships' House in relation to the financial management of your Lordships' affairs.

It is true to say that it was felt generally at that time that there had been advantage in having an independent mind to look at that matter.

Lord Ampthill

My Lords, I succeeded soon after the Ibbs report on the House of Commons. I have a belief that I was appointed Chairman of Committees for the sole reason that we did not think that we needed an Ibbs report but that we could manage to find somebody, and it happened to fall upon me—for goodness knows what reason—to take on the job which the noble Lord now fulfils. We did not need Ibbs here. Our affairs were in far better shape than the affairs of the House of Commons. I merely make the point that there surely is enough talent sitting on the Benches in this House, not to mention sitting at the Table and among all the other learned Clerks who look after us so well, for it to be totally unnecessary to bring in somebody who will not have a clue about how well we conduct our affairs compared with the other place.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, it is indeed the case that there is a great deal of talent in your Lordships' House already. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, about that. Also, I pay tribute to him on the way in which he carried out his duties as Chairman of Committees when he occupied that post.

However, I remind the noble Lord that, in relation to the Ibbs inquiry, Deborah Williams was, at that time, appointed by your Lordships' House to assist with advising on the financial management of your Lordships' House. So that assistance was here at that time.

Of course, there is ample talent in your Lordships' House. If I can say so without too much immodesty, even I am not bereft of the occasional idea to put forward to your Lordships. There is no doubt about the range of talent and that we know a great deal about our own affairs, sufficient to put forward many ideas.

But I emphasise—and I feel this quite strongly—that from time to time there is advantage in drawing upon the experience, knowledge and inquiring mind of somebody from outside. This will be the first time in some 10 years that we have done that.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt him. It would be extremely helpful if he could tell us what experience Mr Braithwaite has of management problems in legislative assemblies.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, he is a former senior partner of Deloitte & Touche. He has considerable experience of management matters. He carried out the inquiry for the other place.

In saying that, perhaps I may answer one of the specific points which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The suggestion to have management consultancy in this House did not come from another place. The further point on that is that there has been the suggestion that your Lordships' House should have considered these matters from the outset. It is always the practice of your Lordships' House that preliminary decisions and any recommendations are considered first in your Lordships' committees. That is the way in which we operate. That is the way in which proposals come before your Lordships' House. I suggest that it would be wasting the time of your Lordships' House if we did not follow that procedure.

There is a further fundamental point about that. Whatever recommendations the management consultant may make, in the first place, it is for your Lordships' appropriate committees to consider any such recommendations and then, if thought fit, to make recommendations to your Lordships. It is, always has been and, as far as I am concerned, always will be for your Lordships to make the ultimate decisions on any such recommendations. That will not be departed from.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees sits down, although he has generously and freely offered a great deal of information which has been sought, for which I am sure the House is grateful, I am not clear whether he proposes that the House should agree to that which many of us are worried about and on which we should prefer to have a rather fuller debate. Will he agree to that?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees responds to that point and, indeed, to any other points that are made—and I can see that a number of noble Lords wish to play a part—perhaps I may make a few remarks not just as Leader of the Opposition but also as a member of the Offices Committee. Apart from the Chairman of Committees, I believe that I am the only person so far who has spoken as a member of that committee.

I want to make two points: one a general one and one a more specific one. On the general point, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, quite rightly raised the question of the report which we are debating. He said that it is rather thin. Having read it again, I agree entirely with that.

I know and suspect that that follows a format which has been well laid down by precedent, but perhaps the time has come, given the greater interest that there is in the House on such matters, for the way in which the reports are laid out to be reviewed and for more information to be provided. That may, in part, allow Peers who have an interest in those matters to raise questions informally with the Chairman of Committees or the authorities of the House before raising them in the House in this manner. I hope that that is a valuable suggestion which the Chairman of Committees may bring forward.

The second matter concerns the appointment of the management consultant. I should like to assure the House that this was agreed to in committee only after a great deal of discussion, debate and advice coming from the Chairman of Committees and others about the role of Mr Braithwaite.

The two points that were made were, first, that although Members of the House may be suitable to undertake this role, the Clerks were tied up in doing a great deal of other business servicing this House, so that they did not have the time to carry out this work themselves. The second point was made by the Chairman of Committees about having somebody from outside examining our structures. I, for one, agree with that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and others will agree to accept this report. If it should come to a Division—I hope that it will not—I shall support the conclusions of the Offices Committee.

Lord. Peston

My Lords, I must say I was very disturbed by the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition just now. I had intended to rise earlier, but the Chairman of Committees got to his feet before I was able to join in. I am particularly concerned about how we operate. We are told that, of course, when we get this document we are free to spend as much time as we like debating it, except that if we debate for too long everybody gets irritated, so de facto, we are not.

We are also told that, of course, we can divide on such a Motion, but in practice we do not, because we are all so sensitive to the feelings of those who serve on this committee that we would not care to offend them. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Barnett, except that as always in his restrained manner he talked in rather delicate language. I regard this report as ridiculous and if there were an opportunity to vote against it, I say categorically that I would vote against it on this occasion.

I am concerned not merely with the lack of a factual basis but, like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, having had at least a minimum of experience of what management consultants do, I know that you end up doing all the work for them. All this is is a way of bringing somebody in at £70K so that some of us can then do the job. In my judgment, my noble friend Lord Barnett. is quite right: in which case why do we not save the £70K, organise a dinner for ourselves and still do the job? The serious point is that we will end up doing the job even if we spend that £70K. Therefore, I personally would not like to spend it.

It seems to me this is an example of what is going wrong with your Lordships' House. I do not say this to the noble Lord in any personal way—he is doing this in his role as a member of the Procedure Committee—but to put forward the argument that the Clerks have not got the facilities for doing the job themselves simply confirms what we have all been saying for some time: it is about time that we dealt with the resources problem and did not go in for this minimal incrementalism of doing a little bit here and a little hit there but never facing up to the realities of what needs to be done in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I particularly reject the argument that we have to follow this course because the Clerks are too busy. I have no idea what my noble friend Lord Barnett will propose in a moment, but were he for once, instead of being conciliatory, to adopt a rather revolutionary approach to this matter, he would have at least one noble friend supporting him.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask—

Noble Lords

Lord Barnett!

Lord Barnett

My Lords, first, I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I thought it was very helpful. If I may say so, I have found quite incredible some of the replies from the Chairman of Committees. He told us that he did not want to overburden us with information. Well, he certainly did not do that. He said that he would send me the details. I do not want him to send me the details; I want your Lordships to have the details. We were told that the procedure of this House is that such information is sent to committees and that committees examine it, and that that is the normal way that we do these things. Of course, we also have another normal course of action: we do not have to agree with committees when they put a report before us. I do not suggest to the Chairman of Committees that we should vote against this report today. I hope that he will withdraw it—

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Barnett

My Lords, it would be, frankly, outrageous to ask us to agree to a report which suggests, for example, spending thousands of pounds on a consultant without telling us the answer to all the other points that we need to know, some of which have not yet come forward. Therefore, I hope that the Chairman of Committees will tell us that he does not propose to put this Motion to the House. If he does, I ask your Lordships to oppose it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the only point I wanted to make has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with greater force than I would have been able to make it. I sincerely ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees if he will withdraw this Motion now and for it not to be debated today.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, as a former member of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Peston is actually wrong. We did divide the House over the matter of carparking at the front of your Lordships' House, so there is a precedent. I, too, hope that the Chairman of Committees will withdraw this Motion, but if he decides not to do so, I shall certainly vote against it.

Could the Chairman of Committees let the House know whether Mr Braithwaite has been chosen as a result of a competitive tendering procedure? There are many thousands of management consultants in this country and I would like to hear that he has been appointed because of his excellence rather than because he is somebody's friend, but I am sure that is not the case.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, perhaps I may provide one or two additional pieces of information before I respond to the suggestions which have been most recently made. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for raising the points that they did. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a very helpful point as a member of your Lordships' committee which considered these matters in some detail.

It is proposed that Mr Michael Braithwaite will be helped by two Officers of your Lordships' House. They are the Yeoman Usher, Brigadier Hedley Duncan and the Establishment Officer, Dr R Walters. It has been suggested that Mr Michael Braithwaite will not be in a position, because of lack of knowledge, to assist your Lordships. I would suggest that is far from the case. He has already become very familiar indeed with the workings of Parliament through the examination which he made in another place. It is for that reason that if he undertakes this work it will be less costly than it otherwise would have been, and indeed he will not have to spend a great deal of time in finding out about the basic workings of the House.

In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, no set number of days has been set aside: that has been left open depending upon how the work proceeds. Although I have attempted to indicate that some more detailed information is already available in the normal way to your Lordships through the Library, I am persuaded that it might be helpful for your Lordships to be presented with a further report, which will contain more information of the kind requested by your Lordships this afternoon.

In the circumstances, I shall not press this Motion this afternoon but return to your Lordships with a more detailed report which, so far as its basic elements are concerned, will be similar to this one but contain the additional information which your Lordships, quite understandably, require.

Lord Denham

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has said that he will produce further information. Does he mean that he will refer the matter back to the committee—I think that is what the House wants—rather than just produce more information? I think that we want this to be referred back to the committee before we reach a decision on it.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, my immediate answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, which I well understand, is that I should like to consider that. Another meeting of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee is scheduled for early July. If I may reflect upon it, that may be the appropriate point at which to ask that sub-committee to take another look at this. I do not want now, on the spot, to commit myself to referring the matter back in that way. What I shall certainly do, as I have indicated, is come back with a new report which contains more information. If the noble Lord will allow me to reflect upon that I will do so and if, on reflection, it does seem to be a better way of proceeding I will of course do that.

I suspect that I have not, on this occasion, been able to satisfy many of your Lordships with this report. However, I hope that your Lordships feel that it is appropriate for me to take the course of action I have suggested. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to