HL Deb 18 October 2000 vol 617 cc1027-9

2.54 p.m.

Lord Barnett asked the Chairman of Committees:

Further to his Written Answer on 28th September (WA 196), on what basis the steering group to review the structure for decisions on services within the House was established.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, the steering group was established on the basis of the decision of the House on 27th July, following the debate on the sixth report of the Offices Committee. The steering group will supervise a review of the management structure, the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including the impact on the domestic committee structure.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his Answer, but that is not what he said in his Written Answer. Leaving aside the fact that we are talking about a Written Answer given on the first day back from the Recess to a planted Question, which gives the House no opportunity to consider the decision, will the noble Lord accept that what was said and what was carried by a resolution of your Lordships' House mentioned nothing about the appointment of a consultant? Why did the noble Lord get it wrong in his Written Answer, in which he said that the committee would, oversee the appointment of a consultant"?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am very happy to bring some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. However, as he has mentioned the matter of the Written Answer that I gave on Thursday 28th September (which gave to the House the names of the members of the steering group), there is something that I must point out to him. As a result of the consultations that took place during the Summer Recess, that announcement was made to your Lordships at the earliest possible opportunity following the reassembly of this House after the Summer Recess. I am grateful to those who engaged in the consultations. I thought that it was most helpful—and I hope that I was right—to provide your Lordships with that information the day after the House resumed.

The other piece of comfort that I hope I can bring to the noble Lord is that I did not get it wrong. The decision of the 27th July, as a result of the Motion before the House on that day, was as follows: that there should be review of the management structure and the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including the impact on the domestic committee structure; and that the review should take place under the supervision of a small steering group composed of Members of the House.

That was a decision taken by your Lordships. Noble Lords will have noted that, in accepting a modified version of the Motion before the House on that day, the decision included the words "under the supervision". Those words are an indication that the steering group would act, if it chose to do so, with assistance. Therefore, I can say quite clearly that the assumption was that a management consultant would be considered for appointment.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my specific Question. In his Written Answer on the 28th September he refers to the steering group being established, to oversee the appointment of a consultant". Can the noble Lord make it crystal clear that that is not what your Lordships decided? Indeed, we were specifically opposed to the idea of a consultant, the cost of over £100,000 and a process that would take about a year to complete when Members of this House could do it. Will the noble Lord make it clear that this steering group does not necessarily have to appoint a consultant?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, used those concluding words because they are correct. The decision that your Lordships took was to appoint a steering group that would supervise this review on the assumption that a management consultant would be appointed.

Noble Lords

No!

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I have read your Lordships' debate twice since we resumed on 27th September and I am quite confident that that was the decision that noble Lords reached. I referred to the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, because it will be perfectly open to the steering group, if it chooses to do so, not to appoint a consultant at all.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. This has been a long and painful saga; indeed, most of us hope that it will come to an end now that a steering group has been appointed. I found the same discrepancy between what I understood the House to have agreed on 27th July and the Written Answer to which the noble Lord referred. It seems that there was a discrepancy, as others have detected. But, notwithstanding that—and in order to be absolutely clear on the matter—it would be right for the noble Lord to repeat to the House what I understand he is now seeking to say; namely, that whatever that Written Answer may have said, the steering group will be free to proceed without a consultant, if it prefers that course of action.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, that is precisely what I just said, and if it is your Lordships' wish, I shall confirm it again. But it is the case—and I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—that in reaching their decision noble Lords envisaged the possibility of the appointment of a management consultant. During the course of our lengthy debate on 27th July a number of noble Lords objected in principle to the appointment of a management consultant. The principal objection was to specifying a named management consultant.

Noble Lords

Oh!

The Chairman of Committees

That was indeed the case. The cardinal point is that noble Lords accepted an amendment to the Motion to delete the name of the proposed, highly qualified management consultant, Mr Michael Braithwaite.