HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc1013-8
35. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will reopen discussions with representatives from the House of Lords with a view to a reallocation of accommodation within the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)

The allocation of accommodation within the Palace of Westminster was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on 23rd March, 1965, but if any hon. Member has any suggestions for the better use of this accommodation I will gladly consider them.

Mr. Hamilton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that suggestions have repeatedly been made to get these people out of here altogether? If they are to stay, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Lords get an unduly high proportion of the accommodation in this building, whether one takes as yardsticks the attendance in the respective Houses or the numbers involved and the hours worked? Would he have another look at this very bad agreement?

Mr. Crossman

If my hon. Friend had listened he would have known that that was exactly what I said I would do. However, I remind him that the agreement was made only a relatively short time ago and that if it was to be disturbed all the parties to it would have to be consulted.

Mr. Hogg

Would the Lord President of the Council explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Fyfe, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that, apart from the political functions of the Lords, accommodation is needed in the House of Lords for the highest court of the Judiciary in the land?

36. Mr. Raphael Tuck

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that since 20th July the prices of a two-course lunch and dinner in the House of Commons dining room have increased by 20 per cent.; and what action the Services Committee proposes to take.

37. Mr. Rankin

asked the Lord President of the Council when the Services Committee propose to commence the inquiry into the reasons for the losses incurred by the Catering Department of the House of Commons.

Mr. Crossman

As my predecessor announced on 10th August in reply to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) is considering ways and means of meeting the losses incurred by the Refreshment Department. In the meantime, however, it has been found necessary to increase prices in order to meet the extra cost falling upon the Department as a result of the Selective Employment Tax, no part of which, in view of the large deficit, could be absorbed. I will inform the House as soon as the review being conducted by the Select Committee is complete.

Mr. Tuck

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that this makes complete nonsense, first, of the whole prices and incomes policy and, secondly, of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Selective Employment Tax would result in an increase of only 1 or 2 per cent. Secondly, if the House of Commons, of all places, flies straight in the teeth of the intention behind the Act, does he expect the rest of the country to conform with it?

Mr. Crossman

I think that the answer to each of the three parts of the supplementary question is "No". The Refreshment Department made very heavy losses. They were so heavy that the instruction of the First Secretary, which was that the Selective Employment Tax should be absorbed as far as possible, could not be carried out. It could not be done by a concern which already had a loss such as that which I mentioned the Refreshment Department suffered.

Mr. Rankin

Apart from the loss of £18,000 to which I referred last Wednesday, is my right hon. Friend aware that the new manager arrived since last Wednesday, took one look at his job and resigned? Does not that emphasise the need for a very close inquiry into the working of this department? Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he raises prices he stands the chance of going to gaol?

Mr. Crossman

I accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need a drastic inquiry, which I have assured my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) we will undertake. If my hon. Friend's information is correct—and I am not sure whether it is—it would strongly support my view that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford was unfair in his statement that this had much to do with the Selective Employment Tax.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Does the Lord President recall that only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not know that prices in the Refreshment Department had gone up? Will he undertake to try to persuade his right hon. Friends who live in tied houses to come and make more use of the Refreshment Department and try to get rid of the losses?

38. Mr. Heifer

asked the Lord President of the Council why the Merseyside edition of the Liverpool Daily Post is not always available to hon. Members, in the Library and Members' Tea Room and Smoking Room, before 2 p.m. on the day of publication; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman

Copies of the final Merseyside edition of the Liverpool Daily Post arrive in London about six hours later than the Welsh and North-West editions and are normally delivered at the House of Commons about midday.

Mr. Heffer

That is precisely the point I am making. Will my right hon. Friend put a bit of pressure in the right place to make sure that the Liverpool edition—after all, Liverpool is only 200 miles from London; it is not at the North Pole—is here in the morning so that hon. Members from that area can see it at an earlier time?

Mr. Crossman

This is a delicate question concerning the various editions of the Liverpool Daily Post. I gather that the Welsh edition arrives earlier, but I am also told that it is an earlier edition. It may be that the Welsh do not mind their news a little too early, but Liverpool, which requires the latest possible news, is bound to wait a little longer for the reception of the special late news edition which it gets.

Mr. Fortescue

Is the Lord President aware that the caustic and critical comments of this newspaper on the activities of the Government necessitate its arrival in the Library before 2 o'clock for required reading on any day of any Session?

Mr. Crossman

I doubt whether the caustic criticism of the Government often comes as part of the late edition. If an hon. Member were concerned to see an earlier edition such as a Welsh edition, he might find the same caustic criticism in it.

39. Mr. Strauss

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now state the scope of the Parliamentary reforms which he proposes to put before the House.

40. Mr. Park

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to introduce morning sittings on Wednesdays and Thursdays along the lines recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure, with a view to enabling the House to terminate its proceedings at a more reasonable hour at night.

Mr. Crossman

I would ask hon. Members to await the debate on procedure which I hope to arrange shortly.

Mr. Strauss

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that changes in the procedure or the arrangements of this House are primarily a Parliamentary and not a political matter and should, therefore, be left to the unfettered vote of its Members? Moreover, does he not recognise that it is constitutionally indefensible for the Government to tell hon. Members how they can most conveniently and effectively carry out their duties in this House?

Mr. Crossman

I appreciate what my right hon. Friend thinks about the question of the free vote and I was careful when I made my statement last week to say that I could not give him any blanket understanding on the subject. I will certainly bear in mind what is obviously true: that wherever possible that should be arranged.

Mr. Sharples

How is it possible to make progress with Parliamentary reform when the Government themselves are responsible for the waste of Parliamentary time such as occurred in the Second Reading Committee this morning?

Mr. Crossman

That is a question of which I should like notice. If the hon. Member would like to put it down, I will answer it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever hour we meet in the morning, we shall still have to sit all night if Government business is arranged on the same basis as at present in trying to complete the Report stage of the Land Commission Bill in two sittings?

Mr. William Hamilton

Can my right hon. Friend make one thing clear? When he brings forward his package deal, as he suggested he would, on Parliamentary reform, will we have free votes on the separate issues or will the House have to vote simply on the whole deal? Secondly, is it within my right hon. Friend's recollection whether, when the proceedings on Prayers were altered by the party opposite in, I think, 1951 or 1952, there was a free vote on that occasion?

Mr. Crossman

I would need notice of the second part of that question. In reply to the first part, as I now see it we are likely to have three different Reports to discuss and Motions on each of them. I think that we may have a large number of Motions each of which would, I presume, be voted on separately.

Mr. Turton

Does that include the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure in the 1964 Parliament, to most of whose recommendations the Government have paid not the slightest attention?

Mr. Crossman

I am not intending to go as far back as that. We will discuss, I think, the last three.