 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Parliament (Joint Departments) |
Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Second Reading CommitteeThursday 7 June 2007[Mr. Mike Weir in the Chair]Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill Lords ]1.30
pm
That the
Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommends that
the Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill [Lords] ought to be read
a Second
time.
I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Weir, and congratulate you on
taking forward our discussions on a rather unusual parliamentary
procedure. This is only the second routine Bill that has been the
subject of a Second Reading Committee since the 1997 general
election.
Hon. Members
who have been selected for the Committee are therefore special; I know
that there will be none of the usual reticence about serving on a
Committee. I particularly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for
Aberdeen, North, who chairs the Administration Committee, other members
of that Committee and the hon. Member for North Devon, who has an
interest in the matter through his work on the House of Commons
Commission.
The Bill
derives not from the Government’s legislative programme, but
from the decisions made by the Commission and the House Committee in
the other place about how we manage our services. It is therefore a
parliamentary Bill that is concerned with the machinery of
government.
The most
recent Bill in that field became the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act
1992, which provided the framework for the Clerks of each House to
represent the Houses as the corporate officers who, because they
represent corporate bodies in law, are able to own property and sign
contracts in our interests. The Bill will build on the provisions of
the 1992 Act to enable the two corporate officers to act jointly as the
employers of staff in a service that would be shared by both
Houses.
The
background to the measure is that in 2004 the Commission and the House
Committee of the other place decided to accept the key recommendations
of the review led by the former Serjeant at Arms, Sir Michael Cummins,
that the various fragmented units that provided information technology
and telecommunications services to the Members and the departments of
both Houses should be brought together into a single strategically led
department that would be formally accountable to both
Houses.
The
new service, known as PICT—parliamentary information
communication and technology—came into existence in January 2006
as a department of the House of Commons. The existing staff continued
to be employed by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords and
loaned to the House of Commons, pending the enactment of the Bill. The
Bill will allow all the staff
of PICT to be employed on a fully joint basis and will make some
necessary provisions connected with
that.
The Bill is
drafted more widely than that and provision is made for other joint
departments to be created in the future, should the two Houses so
decide. I stress that there are no such plans at the moment. However,
given the rare opportunities to amend the legislative basis on which
parliamentary services rest, it seems prudent to the authorities of
both Houses to frame the current measure in more general terms that
would enable further development, if appropriate, without the need for
further
legislation.
There
would, of course, be broad consultation before any further joint
departments were proposed. Such a decision would have to be endorsed by
the Commission and I am sure that it would want to consult hon. Members
more generally through the appropriate committees, as was the case with
the Cummins review and PICT. That would also require the support and
agreement of the other place.
Although the Bill is about the
principle of joint departments and jointly employed staff, it is
appropriate to comment on ICT services for Members because I suspect
that many of us are more concerned about the quality and range of the
services than the arrangements behind the scenes. Coincidentally, last
month, we received the report and recommendations of the Administration
Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North,
which underlined how critically dependent we have become in recent
years on information technology to support our work here in
Westminster.
We are
also becoming increasingly dependent on IT to connect us electronically
with the public through our website and with our constituency offices
through remote connections to the parliamentary network. The
Administration Committee, at the beginning of its report,
commented:
“Information
and Communications Technology (ICT) services have become critical to
the work of Members of Parliament, and this importance can only
increase.”
I do not wish
to anticipate how the House may respond to the Administration
Committee’s recommendations, but I note that the director of
PICT and her colleagues worked very closely with the Committee during
its inquiry and will continue to do so in implementing any decisions
that are made in respect of those recommendations. I understand that
the House authorities intend to respond to the Administration
Committee’s report before the summer recess.
PICT has already started to
make improvements to the services that it offers to Members. Since PICT
came into existence on a provisional basis at the beginning of 2006, we
have seen the completion of the roll-out of replacement desktop
equipment to all Members, the resolution of a persistent problem that
was affecting the quality of our virtual private network service, the
offer of a personal digital assistant for Members who wish to have one,
the extension of the wireless networks to new parts of the
parliamentary estate and a significant reduction in the queue time for
calls to the 2001 service desk. There has also been a marked
improvement in the user training available to us and our staff,
including the induction training to get our new staff started quickly
on the network. Of course, there is much still to be done, particularly
if we wish to
see the standard of network access and support that we now enjoy at
Westminster extended to our constituency
offices.
It makes no
sense technically and economically for the two Houses to manage IT
infrastructure separately, and in practice the two Houses have had
shared assets and services in this area for many years. The Bill goes a
step further in enabling us to employ the expert staff who manage and
deliver those services on a joint basis.
Clause 1 sets out the
powers that the corporate officers would have in connection with a
joint department, including the power to hold land and other property
and enter into contracts in connection with a joint
department.
Clause 2
requires the corporate officers to exercise their functions jointly and
sets out the key principle that in all matters affecting the creation
of a joint department and the allocation of its major functions, the
corporate officers would act only with the explicit approval of the
House of Commons Commission and of the other place.
Members of
this House and of the other place will have differing views from time
to time about the extent to which it is appropriate and sensible that
the two Houses should share services. Clause 2 ensures that the
corporate officers can create new joint departments on our behalf only
in areas where the two Houses agree to co-operate closely. Indeed, the
corporate officers have also given assurances that when exercising
their joint departmental functions that are not covered by
clause 2(3) they would keep the Commission and the House Committee
informed.
There
was discussion during proceedings in the other place of the
desirability of annual reports being made to each House on the work of
a joint department, and the Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness
Amos, confirmed that such reports will be made to the House Committee
from now on. I understand that the Clerk of the House, as corporate
officer, will make a similar report annually to the House of Commons
Commission. I have no doubt that our colleagues on the Administration
Committee will keep a close eye on PICT and continue to monitor its
services on our behalf.
Clause 3
establishes that the staff of the joint department will be appointed by
the corporate officers, and employed by them under a contract of
employment. At present, House of Commons staff are employed under the
House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which requires their pay
and other conditions of services to be broadly in line with employees
in the home civil service, and ensures that their pension is in line
with the principal civil service pension scheme. The Bill applies
exactly the same requirements to staff employed by the corporate
officers in a joint department.
Clause 4
applies the schedule, which contains detailed measures to ensure that
the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
2006 apply to transfers of staff under the Bill, in so far as those
regulations would not apply in any event. Clause 5 ensures that
employment law that already applies to the staff of the two Houses
separately would apply to the staff of a joint department.
House officials have, of
course, consulted the recognised trade unions about the Bill. During
those
consultations, assurances were given that the non-statutory Whitley
Committee arrangements, which are well established in both Houses, will
be extended to cover staff in a joint department. There will be further
detailed consultation on all the practical matters that flow from the
creation of joint employment status. I understand that the matter was
again discussed, amicably, at the annual meeting of the House of
Commons Whitley Committee last Monday.
This is a short and, I hope,
non-contentious Bill. We have a tradition in the House of managing our
own parliamentary services in a non-partisan spirit, and of looking
after the interests of staff, who serve us with expertise and
dedication, even at the most inconvenient hours of the day and night.
Given our increasing dependency on IT services, it makes sense for the
two Houses to collaborate more closely in this area. The Bill will
enable us to do that; it safeguards the rights of our staff and extends
to those who would work in a future joint department, the same
protections enjoyed by employees of this House alone. I hope all
parties will support the Bill.
1.41
pm
Mr.
Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): It is a
privilege and a pleasure to be serving under you for the first time,
Mr. Weir, particularly given the special significance of the
Second Reading Committee pointed out by the Deputy Leader of the
House.
We are having a
Second Reading of this Bill in Committee because it is not
Government-led, but House business and therefore non-contentious. We
are all privileged to be partaking in such a Committee, not only
because it does not often take place, but also because the Bill seeks
fundamentally to change the way in which the House of Commons and the
other place are run.
For years, both Houses have had
separate administrations. We are now seeing an evolutionary process in
the Palace of Westminster in that for the first time there will be a
joint department. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, in the past
there has been close co-operation between both Houses, but they have
nevertheless maintained distinct units.
It is good that we will be
blessed with the opinions of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and
for North Devon. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all staff in
both Houses who serve us so well, and who often do not get the praise
that they deserve. [Hon. Members: “Hear,
hear!”]
The
Bill seeks to formalise something that initially started as nine
separate information technology units. Those were later merged into a
temporary working department. I understand that the Administration
Committee looked very carefully into the working of the temporary
department, and on the whole gave it its approval, while expressing
some reservations about remote services to constituencies. I understand
that that issue will be looked at further. The Bill makes provision for
future joint departments to be set up without the need for another
hearing. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, such joint departments
are not currently envisaged, but that is clearly something that might
happen; the proposed parliamentary visitor
centre, for example, or the refreshment departments, the Libraries or
the Official
Report.
I will
take a moment to express the concerns of trade unions with regard to
the Bill. I am heartened that before the joint department was set up,
trade unions were fully consulted—as were the staff—and
that any concerns they had were allayed. That being said, it is
important to have on record that trade unions still have concerns
regarding future joint departments. If those are set up, I very much
hope that the trade unions and all staff concerned will be consulted
properly and that everything is done in a proper manner to ensure that
if redundancies and the like are envisaged, they are dealt with
sensitively and carefully. I understand that the other place has stated
specifically that it is not interested in a joint refreshment
department. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, the Bill requires
that both Houses must be in agreement and that such decisions must be
debated on the Floor of the House in the other
place.
Much that I
would have said has already been covered and in the interests of
brevity I am happy to conclude my comments by saying that we agree with
the Bill and are happy to support
it.
1.46
pm
Mr.
Frank Doran (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): I welcome this
important Bill and the comments made by both Front-Bench
spokesmen about the Administration Committee’s report. As we all
know, this is a general enabling Bill, but the focus is bound to be on
PICT because it is that department that has led to the need for this
legislation.
I will
say a brief word about the Administration Committee because it is
important in the context of the Bill, because its remit is quite wide.
Since the 2005 general election, five domestic Committees have been
merged into one, so the Administration Committee now covers virtually
the whole territory. Any potential mergers or creation of joint working
departments would therefore come within its area of
interest.
I think that
I can speak for my colleagues on the Administration Committee, many of
whom are here, when I say that we welcome the legislation and the
opportunities that it gives us. We have already had inquiries regarding
the refreshments department—the issue under consideration being
whether joint working could lead to better services and more economies
of scale. Those are the sort of things that we will be able to discuss
when the Bill has received Royal
Assent.
It is fair to
say that when the Administration Committee took over responsibility for
PICT, there was a significant degree of dissatisfaction with the
service provided to Members. Many on the Committee will be aware of
those problems. The Administration Committee has worked closely with
the new department, which was formed after that Committee was created,
and I think that we now understand how PICT will operate in the future
and we have dealt with most of the major problems. That is a credit to
the PICT staff because they have had a difficult time adjusting to the
new circumstances in which they found themselves. We have
merged two substantial
departments, which provide services to the 646 small businesses in the
Commons and however many use it in the Lords. In the main, we are
prickly customers—we are very demanding—and PICT staff
have worked very hard to deal with the issues raised and with the staff
and management difficulties that such a merger
creates.
PICT staff
have also had to cope with the influx of a new kind of Member of
Parliament since the 2005 election. I have been here long enough not to
know very much about technology, but the people who came in at the last
two elections have much higher expectations than we ever had—the
grizzled hon. Members around me. Again, PICT staff have managed to cope
with that. Another of our reports looked at the services provided for
new Members of Parliament, and the next wave of new Members who come to
this place, whenever the next general election is, will receive a much
higher level of service, owing to work that is being undertaken at the
moment.
I
hope that anyone who takes the trouble to read the Administration
Committee report on PICT will see that, although we pinpoint problems,
we also look ahead while acknowledging the huge improvements that have
been made, even in the short time since the new organisation
was created. That is testament to the work that has been done by the
management and the
service.
Finally, I
welcome the legislation, as it is part of the process of modernising
the Houses of Parliament, which some of us feel is long
overdue.
1.51
pm
Nick
Harvey (North Devon) (LD): It is my pleasure to follow the
hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. I pay tribute to him and to his
Committee for the work that they have done since the five domestic
Committees were brought together in giving a lead in all the areas that
they are now covering. I am happy to echo the support for the Bill that
we have heard from those on the Government and Conservative Front
Benches. The measure is very necessary and one that I am only too
pleased to support.
An
outsider looking in at the Palace of Westminster and at what are
relatively small organisations would, in all honesty, be rather
surprised by the extent to which the provision of services to the two
Houses is conducted in a state of complete separation from each other.
There is scope for a lot more joint working than there has been to
date. That is something that can, and probably will, happen at a
natural pace.
It is
not surprising that we have been brought to the point of considering a
joint department Bill because of ICT. ICT needs are fast-changing, and
trying to sustain two, or—as hon. Members have
commented—as many as nine or 10 different ICT units within the
two Houses does not make sense. Therefore, I welcome the creation of
PICT. I acknowledge readily that there are still problems with the ICT
function, that there probably always will be and that there are in any
organisation.
Bringing
the support service together into one can only help, and I think that
it has helped. I pay tribute to the work of those involved in PICT and
I believe that it will continue to improve the services that Members of
both Houses receive as time goes on. The Administration Committee
recently surveyed hon. Members views on
the provision of ICT, as we have heard, and it is the determination of
the House of Commons Commission that hon. Members’ concerns will
be addressed and that anything that can be put right, will
be.
When the decision
was taken that it would be desirable to create a joint ICT department,
I was astonished to discover that that would need primary legislation,
and a certain amount of ad hocery has governed the arrangement over the
past couple of years. It was staggering to me that amalgamating two
administrative departments would require the national legislature to
make time available to pass primary legislation. That is why I applaud
those who have introduced a generic Bill that will enable such changes
to happen in future, without the need to make time available in the
legislative agenda each time that we might want to do this, rather than
a Bill simply to combine the two ICT departments.
Speaking
entirely personally, I believe there is great scope for more joint
working, but there should not be a stampede towards it: these things
should happen at a natural pace and we will visit the issues from time
to time. The only departments that would be wholly unsuited to joint
administration are the Clerks departments; when the two Houses are in
disagreement with each other they must each have the service of an
independent and separate team of Clerks to deal with the political and
constitutional aspects of the matter. However, in principle there seems
no reason why other departments could not operate together in the
fullness of time.
As we heard
from the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, Members of the
other House seem curiously attached to their current catering
arrangements and, specifically, to their menus, but perhaps that will
not always be so. In any case, the creation of joint departments would
have to have the assent of both Houses. However, catering,
Hansard, and—why not?—Library services and others
could all be operated on a joint basis. As I said, nothing should be
done to create a stampede in that direction; these things should happen
at a natural pace.
The trade
unions have expressed their concern, but I hope that as far as possible
those concerns have been allayed, and that the unions are satisfied
with the assurances that have been given. It is absolutely the
determination of the House of Commons Commission that no staff of
either House should lose out in consequence of the proposal. They have
the statutory protections of the TUPE regulations and the commitment
that negotiations with the trade unions will carry on in the existing
way. However, I say firmly on the record, that the House of Commons
Commission and, I am sure, all hon. Members, are determined that the
staff of the House should not be disadvantaged in any way.
This sensible and necessary
Bill is the result of an enlightened decision, and I commend it to the
Committee.
1.56
pm
Mr.
Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I, too, rise to support
the Bill, which brings us from the 19th to the 20th century, although
not quite into the 21st century in the way that matters are organised
in this place.
I am
relatively new to the House, having been a Member for only six years.
When I first arrived, I was
amazed to be told by someone from PICT that I had a House of Lords
computer. When I asked how he could tell, he replied, “Because
the tick in the left-hand corner is red and it should be green.”
When I asked what on earth difference it would make to the operation of
the machine, he said, “None whatsoever. But we will have to get
you a new computer because you have a House of Lords
one.”
That is
the nonsense we are dealing with at present and I agree with the hon.
Member for North Devon that people outside this place just cannot
understand it and they have a vested interest in what is done here. As
legislators, we are, rightly, under increasing scrutiny and we must
remember that taxpayers’ money is being spent. The idea that
just because things have always been done in a certain way that is how
they should continue to be done is
crazy.
I did not agree
with the hon. Member for North Devon that these things should be done
by evolution, or natural progression. There needs to be a stampede;
when the Bill is passed, we should take a radical look at how the two
Houses operate
I take
catering as an example. The Administration Committee carried out an
inquiry into the catering services in this House. The other place wants
to keep its catering services separate. It would be thought ludicrous
to put an artificial invisible line down the centre of a local
government building and to run catering in different ways at each end
of that building, but that is the situation that came to light in this
House.
Although there
is now more joint working of both Houses on procurement, I had to laugh
when I saw that a deal had been done on dry goods and certain
vegetables but that other products were excluded. It must cost the
taxpayer a fortune not to take advantage of the economies of scale in
joint procurement.
Likewise
there is another issue that we are under a lot of scrutiny about all
the time, and that is subsidy. In catering, for example, we are being
told that it costs the taxpayers to feed us as Members of Parliament.
However, when someone tries to find out how the subsidy is worked out,
there is great difficulty, because Members of the House of Lords can
eat in our cafeterias; I remind them occasionally that we cannot eat in
certain parts of the House of Lords. I also ask some of them,
“How much subsidy are you taking up?” That is the
ludicrous situation that we are in. We cannot really bottom down
explain to the public exactly what this place is costing, because of
the archaic way in which it is
organised.
The
system does need looking at radically. Certainly, catering is one
department that could make significant savings in terms of staffing,
including senior management, but also in procurement and other areas.
There is another issue. This process is not just about taxpayers
getting value for money from this place, but about disputes. One
dispute that took up some time in our Committee last year was that
involving the cleaning services. In our House, the cleaning services
are contracted out, but they are not contracted out in the other place.
So there is a situation whereby people in the same building are on
different terms and conditions, and that is absolutely crazy. Again,
the idea that there is one building with different people doing the
same job but on different terms and conditions is absolute nonsense.
Also, in areas such as training and trying to get more professional
staff, surely bringing people together on joint training budgets is the
obvious way forward.
I
very much welcome this process for PICT, but I would also like to see
something done very quickly seriously to address the powers that the
Bill gives both Houses to merge other departments, with the exception
of the Clerks department. I also think that we could not only get
things done more efficiently, but it would make it a lot easier in
terms of explaining to the taxpayer about value for
money.
2.1
pm
Paddy
Tipping:
Let me reply very briefly. I should like to thank
all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I also thank
the Administration Committee for its very useful report, and its hard
work, diligence and enthusiasm. As I say, the Commission will seek to
respond before the recess.
I should also like to thank the
staff of PICT; this has been a period of great change for them. As my
hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North has said, a great deal has
been achieved, but there is much more to be done. The survey of House
of Commons services, which was published this week, shows that
generally services are good and highly regarded by both
Members and staff, but PICT is an area where there is still need for
improvement and
change.
Let me make it
clear that at this stage there are no plans for further mergers, but I
have heard the views of Members clearly and there is real potential for
further work. Plans will be put forward and there will be consultation
on them.
The remaining
issue is the timetable for change. The hon. Member for North Devon told
us that change should take place at its natural pace. My hon. Friend
the Member for North Durham advocated a stampede for change, but he
admitted that we have moved from the 19th to the 20th
century.
The
Palace of Westminster takes a long view of history and those
modernisers who want change will have to campaign hard and vigorously,
and we are talking here today about only a very small area of change.
There is a much wider debate, which will not be long in coming now,
about the relationship and composition of the two Houses. That matter
is controversial and I will shy away from it now.
Question put and agreed
to.
Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report
to the House that the Committee recommends that the Parliament (Joint
Departments) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second
Time.
Committee
rose at three minutes past Two
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 8 June 2007 |
