HC Deb 21 November 1962 vol 667 cc1220-7
Mr. Speaker

I have a statement to make to the House about accommodation.

Last Session, I appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) to consider how best an area of about 40,000 sq. ft. on the other side of Bridge Street might be used to provide additional permanent accommodation for this House.

I have now received and considered the Committee's Report. As the recommendations are rather detailed, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT and restrict my statement today to general comment.

The total area to be provided can be increased to 50,000 sq. ft., provided that the accommodation at present occupied in Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard be surrendered. The Committee recommends this.

The Committee proposes that the majority of the accommodation, about 35,000 sq. ft., should be used to provide individual or shared rooms for Members and rooms for secretaries. The balance would be used for various facilities for Members and their wives, for the Press Gallery and for officials of the House on late duty.

These recommendations would ultimately result in about 280 Members having working space at some distance from the Chamber and outside the Palace of Westminster. The Committee has, therefore, recommended that there should be a private access and that the new accommodation should be so sited and designed that Members would have no difficulty in reaching the Division Lobbies in the time allowed. The Committee has also stressed the importance of making, the new accommodation be, and be seen to be, a Parliamentary precinct.

A majority of the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association should surrender its existing accommodation in Westminster Hall Annexe and accept rather larger premises in the new building, although the Association made clear that it would prefer not to do so. I understand that subsequent discussions have shown that in the House also there would not be general unanimity that the Association should be required to make this move and that Her Majesty's Government do not, therefore, propose to accept the recommendation.

The authorities of the House and the Government are prepared to accept the other recommendations regarding the allocation of accommodation. The Minister of Public Building and Works is willing to instruct the architect to embody all the Committee's recommendations as to access, scope for possible expansion and commercial development in his design, subject only to the limitations imposed by the site, and to submit in due time for the prior approval of the House a model of the proposed building. The detailed planning of the interior would similarly be submitted for approval.

The Committee further recommends that provision be made for parking Members' cars as near as may be equivalent to the number of rooms to be provided for Members. I am advised that, while it is not likely to be practicable to provide car parking facilities on such a scale, the maximum amount of space available for car parking will be utilised.

I think that the House will agree that these proposals coupled with the additional facilities to be provided in the roof space above the Committee corridor, on which work is planned to start in the Summer Recess of 1963, will go a long way to meet the reasonable demands of Members for privacy for their work.

I hope that the House will agree to the recommendations of the Committee, subject only to the limitations I have mentioned, and will authorise me to ask the Minister of Public Building and Works to implement them.

It was no easy task for the Committee to complete its investigations and submit its Report before the end of the Session. I am sure that the House will wish me to congratulate the Chairman and the Member upon the work they have done and to thank them for the service which they have rendered to the House.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Sir G. Nicholson

You will no doubt recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, when the House was being rebuilt, a Select Committee of Members was appointed so that Members could advise upon architectural style and amenities. In this case, in view of the fact that architectural considerations are involved, will Members of the House have a chance of expressing their views on the nature of the architecture in general?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the proper way for me to answer the hon. Gentleman is to invite him to treat that question as addressed to the Leader of the House. The House knows the rather "figurehead" position I occupy in these matters.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)

If I may answer that, Mr. Speaker, a model of the proposed accommodation showing its relationship to the Palace of Westminster and the rest of the development will be exhibited in due course. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works would, if the House is in general agreement with what has been said by Mr. Speaker, go ahead with the first task which is, of course, to appoint the architect. We should keep the House informed at all stages.

Sir G. Nicholson

My right hon. Friend has not quite answered my question. As I understand, he has rather implied that the House will be put in a "take it or leave it" position. Will hon. Members have a chance of exerting their influence on the nature of the architecture?

Mr. Macleod

I am sorry that I misunderstood. I thought that my hon. Friend was just asking for information about how the site would be developed.

I am sure that the House would wish to consider, perhaps a little nearer the time, whether it would be appropriate to set up a Committee of Members—no doubt, it will come to this conclusion—to examine and, indeed, to approve these proposals. Naturally, the House of Commons will wish to watch these matters at all possible stages.

Sir J. Duncan

May on behalf of the Committee, thank you for your statement, Mr. Speaker, and say that if, when the time comes and the models are ready, you should think fit to reappoint your Advisory Committee on Accommodation, we should, no doubt, be willing to do our best to satisfy hon. Members and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson).

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with you, Mr. Speaker, in your thanks to the Committee for the work that it has done. I am, however, still a little confused about the next step. Is it not appropriate that the House should have an opportunity of discussing this extremely interesting and valuable Report? Most of us, I know, would wish to study it in detail before commenting. In the course of such a debate, it might, perhaps, be useful to you, Sir, to have the opinions of hon. Members on particular recommendations of the Committee. I wonder whether this was in your mind. Perhaps I might ask the Leader of the House whether he could find time for a debate on the Report at a reasonably early date?

Mr. Macleod

We could discuss that in the usual way. There are, I think, two points I should make. First, 20 recommendations are made, and a summary of all these, not of the arguments which led to them, will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is suggested that 19 of the recommendations should be accepted and that the one on which there was considerable discussion, the question of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, should not be accepted. In that sense, therefore, there is only that particular matter in dispute.

The other point, on which, perhaps, I can take advice, is that this is a Report by Mr. Speaker's Committee to Mr. Speaker. Therefore, in the normal way, it is not published. However, I dare say that we can find ways to get over these difficulties and we can have these discussions.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks of 19 of the 20 recommendations being accepted, and by that I understand him to mean that the Government have accepted them.

Mr. Speaker

I am getting confused. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman meant that they were unanimous, so to speak. I do not know what it is.

Mr. Gaitskell

This is surely a matter which the House should have an opportunity Of discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not the slightest idea what views hon. Members will take. I have not seen the Report. This is not a matter, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, since you asked us to authorise you to go ahead, which should be settled without our having the opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. Macleod

I have said that, of course, we shall discuss it.

Sir C. Osborne

Can the House be told roughly what the cost of this will be?

Mr. Macleod

I cannot give an estimate at this date. Naturally, the Votes will have to be taken in the usual way in due course.

Mr. Thorpe

Arising out of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, may I, Mr. Speaker, without going into the merits of the matter one way or the other, put this consideration to you? You said in your statement that the Government had taken a certain view about the proposals in regard to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Do we take it that this also can be the subject of discussion by the House, or are the Government taking a final view on the question without any reference to the House?

Mr. Macleod

A considerable number of representations were made by hon. Members, on both sides, and this point was taken into account. If we are to discuss this matter in the way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the phrase Which I might most appropriately use is that it is the Government's present view that it would be wrong to accept this recommendation. But we will, of course, listen to what is said in the House of Commons.

Mr. Tiley

Lest it be thought on either side of the House that the Committee worked for a year on these projects without any thought, may I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) that we on the Committee knew each of the costings as we went along and approved them? Therefore, we have not acted blindly.

Mr. C. Pannell

May I put to the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, the necessity for a debate on this matter, because confusion is already arising from a reply given the other day by the Minister of Public Building and Works, in which he envisaged that a public house and shops would be built within the Parliamentary precincts? As there is so much misunderstanding on the part of the Minister, might it not be possible for the House to tell the Minister and the Government What would suit hon. Members? Does not this illustrate the need, as suggested by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), of a continuing Committee of Members of the House to look after this project?

Mr. Macleod

I have already answered the Leader of the Opposition concerning time to discuss the matter. If I may remind the House of a sentence in the statement by Mr. Speaker, it said: The Minister of Public Building and Works is willing to instruct the architect to embody all the Committee's recommendations as to access, scope for possible expansion and commercial development in his design.

Sir C. Osborne

May I press my point? If one of the members of the Committee states that the Committee knew the cost of each item and sanctioned it, surely the House is entitled to know how much we will spend. If we do not know what we are spending, no scheme should be passed by this House until we know what the taxpayer has to find. I am asking the approximate amount.

Mr. Macleod

That cannot be given. Detailed estimates were not and could not be, at this stage, before the Committee. Those who appeared before the Committee gave what evidence they could, but the matter will be before the House in due course and my right hon. Friend will give this information to the House so that hon. Members are informed of the costs.

Mr. Woodburn

I gathered from what you said, Mr. Speaker, that a number of Members would be working at some distance from the House and I wondered whether, in the readjustment of the space, people who did not need to be near the House during the day would still retain accommodation in the main building, such as people who sleep in the main building and who have residential accommodation there. This would seem to be something which could more easily be moved a distance than the work of Members and their secretaries. I wonder whether the principle has been accepted that Members who are busy here through the day and people who can move least easily should be kept as near the main building as possible.

Mr. Macleod

Of course, we would do the best we could. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will study the summary of recommendations and, if he wishes, develop the point later.

Following is a summary of the recommendations of the Committee:

1. The previously agreed proposals for the allocation of the space to be made available in the Roof Space above the Committee Corridor should stand.

2. The amount of accommodation to be allocated on the Bridge Street site should be increased from 40,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 sq. ft. in exchange for the whole of Nos. 6/7 Old Palace Yard.

3. The 50,000 sq. ft. to be made available on the Bridge Street site should be allocated as follows:

  1. (a) Approximately 4,200 sq. ft. for the exclusive use of H.M. Opposition to provide:
    1. (i) A Conference Room to scat up to 25 Members.
    2. (ii) A small room close by for the storage of papers.
    3. (iii) Individual or shared rooms for 20 Members.
    4. (iv) Accommodation for 20 secretaries.
  2. (b) Approximately 1,000 sq. ft. for sleeping accommodation for officers of the House and officials on late duty.
  3. (c) A room of some 800 sq. ft. to be equipped as a walling and refreshment room for Members' wives and the husbands of Lady Members in addition to the facilities already provided in the Harcourt Room.
  4. (d) A room of approximately 400 sq. ft. for the use of journalists working for Sunday newspapers.
  5. (e) Accommodation of about 800 sq. ft. for a Library Service for Members.
  6. (f) A suite of offices of some 2.000 sq. ft. for the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
  7. (g) Accommodation equivalent to that now occupied in Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard by and for the General Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; the British American Parliamentary Group and the House of Commons Refreshment Department amounting in all to some 3.500 sq. ft.
    8. 1227
  8. (h) The balance of the 50,000 sq. ft. to be designed to provide individual or shared rooms far Members and rooms for their secretaries.

4. The new accommodation should

  1. (a) be capable of expansion,
  2. (b) be physically connected to the Palace of Westminster by a private access,
  3. (c) be so sited and have such facilities as may be necessary to ensure that Members can reach the Division Lobbies in the time prescribed by the Standing Orders,
  4. (d) have adequate car parking facilities,
  5. (e) be designed, equipped and administered as a Parliamentary Precinct and in no way associated with any commercial development.