Parliamentary Commercial Department

Motion to Agree

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?

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.