Parliamentary Commercial Department

Motion to Agree

11:54:00

Moved by

That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament. In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas. The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October. In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.

I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster. I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?

12:00:00

On the issue of this being done jointly, I hope that does not mean that the needs of this House are going to be considered just by the House of Commons, the other place. I do not in any way attribute blame for this to the Leader of the House, who I know probably shares—although she is much more diplomatic than me—the same frustrations at the process. However, we are now being told that Peers cannot have access to the House of Commons Terrace, and that changes have been made to our ability to get tickets for guests for Prime Minister’s Questions, which we have had for years and years.

We need to have the House of Lords and the House of Commons working as one parliamentary team. Setting up organisations like this depends on there being a good working relationship, but in recent years that seems to have deteriorated. I accept that this is a good initiative by the commission, but it depends on co-operation and an understanding that the needs of this part-time House and of the other place are very different, and we need to work together.

The people who will be spending huge sums of money, hundreds of millions of pounds, need to have a good commercial understanding and to recognise the importance of bringing this House with us. A new phrase has entered our discussions: we hear that “the administration thinks” this, that and the other. This is a self-regulating House, and the administration needs to take account of its needs and anxieties. Although I could highlight other examples, I have highlighted the front door because it is a classic example. If people had listened to what Members on all sides of this House were saying, we would not have wasted so much public money—I hope the noble Baroness the Leader will tell us exactly how much we have wasted—or embarked on a system that was untried and untested, with catastrophic results for not just our security but our ability to bring people to this House in the way that we all wish.

I am not going to continue on the saga of the front door, although I agree completely with what the noble Lord has just said. Even I am considered occasionally a bit more diplomatic than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He is right that there are now a number of areas for which there is joint responsibility, and one of them is security. I have been conscious of the fact that the House of Commons seems to dominate decision-making. Wherever it comes from, whether it is the Speaker, the House of Commons Commission, the Services Committee or whatever, they always get their own way and the interests of this House are not properly considered. Neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are blaming the Leader of the House, who does everything she can, as do the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Lord Speaker, but we should back them up and say that where it is sensible to have Joint Committees, we should have them. There should be more joint working on catering, for example; it seems crazy that we have two completely separate catering departments. There are whole areas like that which could be brought more closely together, but, in doing so, the interests of this House must not be forgotten. I say that having been a Member of the other place and recognising its pre-eminence regarding legislation; but in terms of this Building, the use of it and our own interests, we are just as important as the House of Commons.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that all those individuals—and I mean individuals rather than collective groups of people—who sign contracts on behalf of this House have professional indemnity insurance? Can she explain to the House what that level of cover is and what decisions were made in determining how much it should be?

To follow up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my colleague on this lovely front door, I have good information that it is the first time that such a design has been used. Why should we be guinea pigs? We believe in precedent here for a large number of different things, but not in being a guinea pig for a kind of door that clearly does not work. Portcullis House has doors that seem to work all right—did no one test it first? On the question of professional indemnity, is anyone going to be found to be at fault here? I imagine not, but we have to make sure it does not happen again.

My Lords, I want to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about use of the Commons Terrace. I have been a Member of this House for very many years and occasionally have used the Commons Terrace. About a year ago I had one of my grandsons here for lunch in the Commons canteen, and I wanted to take him on to the Terrace but was told I was not allowed to. I found that deeply shocking. The Terrace that we have at this end is very small compared to the one at the other end. There is usually masses of room at the other end, particularly in the area reserved for Members, so I ask that representations be made to the Speaker of the House of Commons on restoring the use of the Terrace to Members of this House.

My Lords, I welcome the report and what the Leader of the House has said. Some very important points have been made. As a member of the commission, I know that it is well versed in and very involved in discussions on these matters. This is undoubtedly the right way forward. We are served in this House by some excellent and dedicated people, through all levels of service. We are going to see more joint working. Since I took over as chairman of the Services Committee, carrying on the excellent work done by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, we have looked at having some joint meetings with the Commons Administration Committee, which will be taking place later this year. I want the Leader to think about the way in which that joint directorate is in future going to be accountable to both Houses through its membership—not just the commission, though the commission is important. A lot of business goes to the commission, and sometimes there is not always time available to us as a commission to apply the kind of in-depth knowledge and attention that is sometimes needed to the various issues that come along. I hope that the Leader will address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which I know is in her mind. We must ensure that the governance of any joint working body is seen to be clearly accountable to both Houses, and that it involves the memberships of both Houses. That said, I very much welcome the report.

A number of Peers present at the moment, and indeed the Clerk of the Parliaments, went home rather late last night. As we did so—the door was conveniently left open for us to go through at our liberty—I noticed a large number of heavy-duty lorries outside, parked across the bus stop. This morning, as I came in, I noticed that fencing has been erected in front of the doorway. It looks to me like a bit of an eyesore, if I am honest, and I cannot understand why we have allowed this to happen. In connection with last night’s debate, I wonder whether it is intended that Victoria Tower Gardens should be similarly surrounded by fencing of a similar nature. I think we should be told. It seems to have happened without much consultation, under the heading of “security”, and I think it is regrettable.

I want to add just one thing about what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. The dominance of the position of the House of Commons certainly resulted in the death of one Member of this House. Many years ago, when I came in, I fought for four years to get a defibrillator established in this place, because repeatedly a number of Members of the House collapsed after speaking. Most of the time this was innocent but, once or twice, we had cardiac arrests and people were taken to St Thomas’s Hospital. When I finally tried to raise this with the officials of this House, I was given a meeting with officials in the other place and told very firmly that the House of Commons would not accept this. One of the things that was said to me was, “What would we do if a member of the public collapsed in the Gallery? Would it be our responsibility?” Interestingly, the medical advice in this House was not considered sufficient for the medical advice in the lower House.

Perhaps I might briefly add to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, focusing in particular on the door. There are many other points that could be made. I think it seems very sensible to do things jointly, although I am concerned this will lead to even less accountability. The important thing is to find out who is accountable. It is alleged that the door was going to cost £2 million and may have cost £11 million or £12 million. If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked. If it is true, we need answers and somebody, on every decision that is made, needs to be accountable.

Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN. I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.

Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question. On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful. There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.

12:15:00

I remember the days when there were no gates outside Downing Street, and I still think they look awful. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, laughs at me, but it is my age; I do remember. I have a photograph outside the Downing Street door that was taken when I was a teenager.

It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of noble Lords that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased—plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.

That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. That is a huge frustration to everybody. One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs.

The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. If it will not, other decisions have to be resolved and that has to be something that is done very quickly. I hate to use the word “review”, because it sounds like long grass, but work is going on now to do that. I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective noble Lords may wish to use.

My Lords—

I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer. So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs. On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that. On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong. The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements. I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.

This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.

Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.

When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.

Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.

I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.

My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on. On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody. The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.

I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.

The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake. Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.

I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.

Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—

I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.

I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?

It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.

12:30:00

The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.

I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.

The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.

Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.

My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.

I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.

Motion agreed.