HC Deb 04 May 1964 vol 694 cc915-8
Mr. Speaker

I have a statement to make to the House.

I have received an interim report from the Committee on Accommodation appointed to assist me, of which the Lord Privy Seal is Chairman. The Report contains important recommendations which hon. Members will wish to have available to them. The Report is, if I may use the phrase, too short to summarise, and too long to read out, and, as the House knows, there are difficulties about authorising the printing of such a document.

In the circumstances, I think that I shall best meet the convenience of the House by circulating the whole in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and will do SO.

I should like to express the thanks of the House to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the right hon. and hon. Members who served with him for their valuable labours and the swiftness of them.

Mr. C. Pannell

Arising from that, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, as Mr. Speaker has decided to publish this Report so soon, he will arrange through the usual channels for there to be an early debate on it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as Chairman of the Committee, will know that an important decision of principle will have to be taken in this Parliament.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

May I acknowledge on behalf of my colleagues and myself what was said by you, Mr. Speaker, about the work of the Committee. I shall bear in mind the point that he has raised. I am not certain how quickly the debate will take place, but we shall have to have one as soon as possible.

Following is the Report: To the Rt. Hon. the Speaker, House of Commons. 1. You appointed us on 25th February, 1964, with the following terms of reference: To review, with regard to the accommodation of this House, plans for the redevelopment of the Palace of Westminster/Bridge Street area, taking into account:

  1. 1. the Report of Mr. Speaker's Committee which reported in November, 1962;
    2. 916
  2. 2. the tentative proposals set out in Sir William Holford's preliminary outline scheme, described in the booklet Accommodation for the House of Commons (July, 1963);
  3. 3. the views on this scheme expressed in the debate on Accommodation in the House of Commons on 1st August, 1963.
2. We are of the unanimous opinion that the present and future needs of Parliament can be met only by a substantial addition to the existing building. It must be consistent with the dignity of Parliament and be an addition of which the nation can be proud. A mere corner of the Bridge Street site, surrounded by shops and offices and connected by an underground passage would be entirely unsuitable and inadequate. The extension should be a part of the parliamentary precinct and must be seen to be so. For these reasons, in our view, an area extending northwards from New Palace Yard, and including Bridge Street itself, should be devoted to the use of Parliament. The front of the new building, overlooking New Palace Yard, should be as close as convenient to the line of the existing railings. Since it would thus enclose a third side of New Palace Yard, it should be built in the Gothic style, in order to harmonise with the buildings on the other sides, and also to emphasise the fact that it is an integral part of the parliamentary precinct and in no sense an "annexe". This would also enable the floor levels of the existing building on the east side of New Palace Yard to be followed in the new building. Direct internal access to the existing building should be provided at all levels. 3. The Duncan Committee has already listed the most urgent needs for accommodation and, in the main, we accept their recommendations as to those needs and consider that they should be implemented in the proposed extension. This larger building would, however, enable better provision to be made for several of the facilities referred to by that Committee. Their principal recommendation was that approximately 35,000 square feet should be made available for Members and their secretaries, and that this space should be partitioned in various ways, to allow for rooms for one, two, or more Members. We believe that the demand for rooms will grow as more new Members enter the House. The Duncan Committee's provision of 35,000 square feet was determined by the overall limit of 50,000 square feet and they foresaw a growing need and recommended that the new accommodation should be capable of expansion. In view of these considerations, we consider that a larger area should be provided for Members' rooms. 4. The Duncan Committee also referred—in paragraph 21 of their Report—to the need for more committee rooms for both official and unofficial committees, although they were unable to recommend the use of the limited space in Bridge Street for this purpose. In our opinion a larger building on the proposed site should contain extra committee rooms, so as to relieve the pressure on the existing rooms and to make possible readjustments in the use of those rooms. 5. As the new extension would house a large number of Members, it might also require some library facilities. The views of your Advisory Committee on the Library on this aspect have been communicated to us, but we consider that it would be premature for us to comment upon them at this stage. 6. The extension should also include an assembly hall, with small committee rooms adjoining, which could be used for larger meetings of all kinds. Such a hall should also be equipped with facilities for simultaneous translation so that it could be used, for example, for meetings of inter-parliamentary bodies. 7. It is a matter of considerable inconvenience to Members that the existing facilities for broadcasting, both television and sound, are situated at some distance from Parliament. We consider that in the new extension suitable accommodation should be provided for broadcasting interviews and programmes of that kind, thereby saving a great deal of Members' time. 8. The creation of new accommodation would also free some of the existing accommodation for other uses, and in this connection we wish to draw attention to the need to bring some essential services up to modern standards. We have in mind particularly the more convenient arrangement of the kitchens and refreshment rooms of the House, from the point of view both of those who use them and of the staff of the Refreshment Department. We also consider that better provision should be made for the accommodation of the Press Gallery, whose present working conditions are, in our opinion, quite unsatisfactory. 9. Having formed this preliminary view of the site and nature of the new accommodation, we invited the Minister of Public Building and Works to discuss our proposals with us. The Minister informed us that in his view it would be feasible to make available for parliamentary purposes an area between New Palace Yard and a line about 200 feet to the north. It would then be necessary to replace Bridge Street by a new road along the north side of the new parliamentary precinct. The Minister also informed us that the Ministry of Transport considered that such a road offered the least objectionable substitute for Bridge Street. From the point of view of the occupants of the new extension, a road further north than this, through Derby Gate, would, naturally, be preferable, but the Ministry of Transport's opinion was that this would be "barely acceptable" as far as traffic was concerned. 10. The Minister estimated that a building on the proposed site would provide approximately 100,000 square feet net, which, in our view, should be adequate to implement the proposals put forward by this Committee, and to cover the Duncan Committee's recommendations, including the provision for car parking space, although the means of access to an underground car park would need examination because of the railway. Recommendation. 11. We decided that we should make our views known to you at the earliest opportunity. We therefore agreed to present this interim report and to recommend as follows:
  1. (1) The area bounded by Parliament Street, New Palace Yard, the Victoria Embankment and the proposed new road should be the site of an extension of the present parliamentary buildings, containing not less than 100,000 square feet of floor space.
  2. (2) The extension should provide the accommodation recommended in the Duncan Report, together with extra space for Members' rooms.
  3. (3) It should also contain the following accommodation:
    1. (i) committee rooms,
    2. (ii) an assembly hall equipped with facilities for simultaneous translation, with small committee rooms adjoining.
    3. (iii) provision for broadcasting facilities for Members.
 12. We have considered the problems which these recommendations raise, including the provision of suitable traffic routes and the arrangement of convenient means of access from the existing buildings, and we do not regard them as insoluble. The building of the extension would make possible the better use of existing accommodation, but we do not think it proper to examine this aspect of the matter until consideration has been given to our main recommendations. We therefore further recommend that the Minister of Public Building and Works be asked to give speedy consideration to our unanimous proposals and to report to this or to a subsequent Committee. 29th April, 1964. Members of the Committee: