HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS (Hansard, 20 March 1963)

§ Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)
It is not for me to criticise the House on how it runs its affairs, except to note that the Vote which follows this one is of over-riding public interest. Therefore, if I do not address myself at great length to this Vote, it is not because I could not dilate on it for a long time, but because we have been rather fortunate in this respect lately. Last Friday, by the luck of the Ballot, we were able to have a full day's debate on it when certain hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), dealt at length with the question of accommodation here. I understand that we are promised another debate on accommodation which will cover not only the buildings which are being erected at the top here—I do not wish to anticipate that—but also the Parliamentary precincts which will be built opposite.
I cannot help but feel that these Estimates for small over-spendings would have been far better dealt with had the Stokes Committee's Report on House of Commons Accommodation been implemented. Paragraph 55 of that Report recommended that a Parliamentary Commission should itself deal with matters of general principle, the consideration of the draft Estimates, the allocation of accommodation and matters affecting the principles governing the appointment and employment of the staff. I should have thought that the great Mother of Parliaments would have been far better employed in bringing these Estimates before a Commission rather than that we should deal with them in this way and at this hour when one is only too conscious of the anxieties of our colleagues to bring matters of wider importance before the House.
We touch here on the control of the Palace of Westminster. I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary always refers to the authorities of the House when he has a sticky debate to answer. I looked up Sir Harold Emmerson's book on the Ministry of Works. The Commissioner of Works, who had great functions in the past, now merely has the custody of Westminster Hall. That is not much good to him now, although in the old days when it was used as a court of law rents could be obtained by letting stalls 497 for the sale of goods in that place. We appear to have got away from that.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary only one question. It concerns the pilot scheme across the road in St. Stephen's Club. It appears that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is no longer responsible for the cleaning of the club. I do not know who is doing that now. It is, after all, part of the Parliamentary precincts. There is a pilot scheme for the accommodation of Members over there. There are secretaries already there. It seems that the Estimates before us are rather silent on this point.
The Vote is a very narrow one. We are considering an additional provision of only £24,000. I understand that better progress has been made with the Victoria Tower than was expected. I do not know whether other work can be expedited, but I will be satisfied if the Minister will be able to assure me in the debate which will not be so narrowly drawn that his Department in future, if it has to call off any great schemes, will not do so by the device of the Written Answer. It was an absolute affront and almost an impertinence to a Committee on Accommodation set up by Mr. Speaker to do that—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharpies)
To which scheme does the hon. Gentleman refer?

§ Mr. Pannell
I am speaking about the scheme at the top, the big scheme which will start this summer. Although the Committee sat for a long time and gave its services over a long period, we were not treated with civility. The Minister did not come to the House and say that, owing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pay pause, he proposed to call the scheme off. We had the incivility of being fobbed off with a Written Answer to the Chairman of the Committee. There was a "stooge" question. I hope that the Minister will treat Committees set up by Mr. Speaker as responsible bodies and will afford them the civility which disinterested public servants deserve.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Sharples)
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has spoken very briefly and, as I know that the House 498 is anxious to debate the next subject, I shall reply only briefly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me at this stage to enlarge on his remarks about the authorities of the House. It would take far longer than I have at my disposal to enter into a worthwhile debate about it with the hon. Member. In any event, I should be overstepping the bounds of my responsibilities if I attempted to do so.
The hon. Member asked a specific question about the cleaning of the St. Stephen's Club. That was formerly on the House of Commons Vote, but now that the National Economic Development Council is the main occupier of the building, it is catered for by other Votes, although it is still the responsibility of my right hon. Friend's Department.
I also assure the hon. Gentleman that it is my right hon. Friend's wish to treat the House with every courtesy, and I have taken note of what the hon. Member has said about the way in which certain building work was altered. When I spoke to him this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to let me know some of the points which he intended to raise, but I agree with him that it might be much better to raise them in the wider debate on accommodation which we will be having later. It would be much more convenient for the House if that were done. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy tonight.