House of Lords: Domestic Committees — House of Lords, 2016-05-09
Topic: Government Operations
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this is a very useful piece of work by a committee that I understand was superbly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, whose reputation as a reformer goes before her. However, I have a few questions which follow on from the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Oxburgh, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss At the heart of the report is the proposition that three committees be consolidated into one. I want to list what is in the remit of the new committee: access to internet; equipment; Library services, Parliamentary Archives; information services, broadcasting; catering facilities; banqueting; food procurement; gift shop issues; catering budgeting; catering staff issues; restoration and renewal; access arrangements to the House; aspects of security; office accommodation; acquisition of property; parking; and property maintenance. It is a very substantial remit indeed There is reference in the report to the fact that the new committee will meet more frequently. So it will, but what worries me is that, with this substantially widened remit, there will be a dilution of debate on many issues that currently come before the existing three committees. If that debate does not take place, paragraph 67 proposes: "The Services Committee should agree appropriate delegations to its Chair and to the Management Board" In other words, we may well see a substantial increase in the amount of delegation as a result of the increased workload that falls upon this committee. Furthermore, the committee might well decide to establish sub-committees to deal with many of these issues which, in effect, reflect the existing remits of the existing three committees. I am concerned about the wide remit Secondly, I believe there is a contradiction in the report, which I am sure can be corrected by the Leader of the House when she winds up the debate. Paragraph 66 states: "We would however expect the Services Committee to refer matters with a clear strategic impact to the senior committee, with recommendations, for a final decision"— "a clear strategic impact"—and yet paragraph 88 refers to: "Ideally the new committees should be composed in such a way as to ensure that the senior committee usually accepts any advice offered, and does not seek to unpick decisions or return to first principles" I ask a simple question: what is the difference between "clear strategic impact" and "first principles"? There seems to be a conflict inbuilt in that I join the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in dealing with the issue of bleed-over between the new House Committee —the general purposes committee—and the finance committee. There will be confusion over who is responsible for what and who takes the final decision on what I accept a lot of what is in the report but I regret that I did not give evidence. I presumed that we were following the report produced by my noble friend Lord Hunt for the Labour group on these matters. I did not give evidence and that is why I did not apply to speak in the debate today.