GRAND COMMITTEE AND SELECT COMMITTEE RESOURCES
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to set out the likely costs of the Procedure Committee’s proposals for extended Grand Committee sittings, and of the Liaison Committee’s proposal for a net increase of one select committee, in the event that they are agreed by the House.
Procedure Committee report
Summary of proposals
On 30 January the Procedure Committee published a report which made the following recommendations, among others, to the House.
“That for the duration of the 2012-13 session of Parliament, Grand Committees on primary legislation should rise no later than 10pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and no later than 7pm on Thursdays;
That these extended sitting times should include provision for a one-hour dinner or tea break;
That on days when more than one oral statement is to be made or repeated, and a Grand Committee on primary legislation is due to sit, the option should be available to take one of the statements in the Grand Committee’s dinner or tea break, subject to agreement in the Usual Channels;
That there should be a presumption that Government bills introduced in the House of Commons should be committed to a Grand Committee, except where the Usual Channels agree otherwise;
That these arrangements be adopted on a trial basis for the duration of the 2012-13 session of Parliament, before being reviewed by this Committee.”
Additional costs
3.The actual cost implications of the Procedure Committee’s proposals depend upon the following factors:
the frequency of longer sittings within a single week;
whether sittings follow a cycle of busy and less busy periods;
whether the sitting pattern is known well in advance, or only at short notice (possibly only on the day in question, if a statement is taken); and
whether sittings are limited to a specific day or days of the week.
4.The main impact will be on Hansard. Put simply, the greater the uncertainty about the factors in the previous paragraph, the more expensive the staffing model for Hansard becomes. If it is known sufficiently far in advance, and with sufficient confidence, on what days the Grand Committee will sit, and the distribution of the sittings within the parliamentary year and week, then the present staffing model could be adapted through use of additional temporary reporters or staff on part-time contracts. In the absence of a structured sitting framework Hansard will need to be staffed on the basis that higher levels of Grand Committee activity can be supported at any time.
If it is assumed that the current hours of Grand Committee sittings will continue (roughly 200 hours on primary legislation in a reasonably representative session), the estimated costs of extended sittings are in the following ranges:
|
Potential number of extended GC sitting days per week |
Cost per annum |
|
1 |
£76,000 |
|
2 |
£160,000-190,000 |
|
3 |
£220,000-300,000 |
|
4 |
£332,000 |
If the hours of Grand Committee sittings on primary legislation per year were to increase slightly or substantially, the estimated costs are in the following ranges:
|
Potential number of extended GC sitting days per week |
Cost (280 hours per annum) |
Cost (350 hours per annum) |
|
2 |
£174,000-244,000 |
£200,000-280,000 |
|
3 |
£245,000-370,000 |
£300,000-430,000 |
|
4 |
£380,000 |
£425,000 |
In addition, there would be additional costs associated with the provision of procedural support from clerks (around £10,000 per annum); technical support for broadcasting (around £13,500 per annum); and the provision and fitting out of new accommodation for Hansard.
It may be that increased use of Grand Committees could reduce the pressure on the Chamber. If the House itself did not sit beyond 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays, 7pm on Thursdays and 3pm on Fridays, the savings are estimated at around £80,000 p.a.
We have also agreed that, if the House agrees to the Procedure Committee’s proposals, Grand Committee Hansard should be published in a separate volume to the main Hansard (but still the next morning as at present). The Grand Committee volume would require a smaller print-run than the main Hansard, producing estimated savings of between £27,000 and £47,250 (depending on the number of hours the Grand Committee sits) in printing costs.
Liaison Committee report
The Liaison Committee has published a report containing a number of recommendations in respect of the select committee activity of the House. The effect of these recommendations, if agreed by the House, would be a net increase of one unit of select committee activity.
The additional marginal cost of a new unit of committee activity is estimated at £225,000 per annum, which largely comprises the cost of the additional staff who would need to be recruited. Clearly some committees are more expensive to run than others: those requiring substantial legal advice or travel would certainly cost more than £225,000.
We have agreed to additional provision for the Committee Office of up to £225,000, subject to the House agreeing the Liaison Committee report.
Covering the costs
Office budgets for the next three years have been constructed without regard to these possibilities. We have agreed that the Administration will calculate the actual costs of what the House decides, and present this Committee with a package of savings—which may or may not be in the same budgets—which would make it cost-neutral. Substantial unbudgeted savings are already anticipated from recent developments in the area of printing, but more may be required. If the House should decide to proceed faster than the savings can be delivered, then if necessary the gap will be funded from the Reserve.
Conclusion
14. This report is made to the House for information.