HC Deb 16 July 1975 vol 895 cc1516-22
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)

The House will recall that on 25th June 1973 two motions were approved, the first in favour in principle of a new parliamentary building in due course, and the second in favour of the particular design for the building by Messrs. Spence and Webster. The House was informed that no expenditure on the new building would be incurred before 1st April 1975 but that the intervening period would be used to develop detailed plans.

The Government recently reviewed the progress of the plans in order to decide whether we would be justified in going ahead with the scheme in the foreseeable future, when its estimated costs had already increased to at least £30 million, excluding the site costs which had already been incurred.

We concluded that, in view of the economic difficulties we are currently facing, and in view of the commitment to the attack on inflation set out in the White Paper published last week, it would not be right to proceed with the scheme.

We propose accordingly that the architects' commission should be terminated immediately and that they should be fairly compensated. This decision is taken reluctantly, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the architects for the distinguished work which they have done over the past two years in extremely difficult circumstances and to say how sorry I am personally that it should end in this way.

I know that many hon. Members will be disappointed by this decision, in view of the shortage of adequate accommodation in the House. However, we did not feel that we could recommend proceeding with this project at a time when many highly desirable proposals for additional public expenditure at local and national level have had to be set aside. We also felt that it was right that hon. Members should make their own sacrifice at a time of acute economic difficulty.

In view of this decision, however, the Government recognise the added urgency and importance of finding other and cheaper means of improving the accommodation available to Members, bearing in mind the consideration currently being given to facilities for backbenchers by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee).

Considerable progress has, of course, already been made, and since 1967 some 210 extra rooms have been provided to accommodate about 350 Members. This includes the recent conversion of Norman Shaw (North) where, in addition to 89 new rooms for 128 Members, accommodation has been provided for some 130 secretaries and also for a number of supporting services.

Infilling within the Palace has contributed 101 rooms occupied by 160 Members; and Mr. Speaker has recently indicated that it might be possible for some accommodation in the Speaker's Residence to be made available to Members. I have welcomed this generous offer and we are urgently investigating the possibilities. Useful additional accommodation has also been provided in Abbey Gardens and Dean's Yard. I believe that the standard of the new accommodation, particularly in Norman Shaw (North), has proved generally acceptable to Members.

If the House agrees, I think the best way of making further progress in present circumstances would be the adaptation of existing buildings on the parliamentary building site. I have particularly in mind Norman Shaw (South), which, subject to the need to rehouse properly the present occupants, could provide further accommodation for about 80 more Members and a similar number of secretaries within two years of the date of decision.

There are other possibilities for housing up to 240 Members and as many secretaries by rehabilitating existing buildings—St. Stephen's House; Palace Chambers; 1 and 2 Bridge Street. Rehabilitation could be achieved within five years of a decision to begin. There is also the possibility of some limited rebuilding within the site. All this requires consideration in detail and we must, in formulating proposals, have regard to the overriding need to limit expenditure at the present time.

The Government will submit proposals to the Services Committee as soon as possible and, if the House so wishes, these will include the conversion to the use of Members of the Norman Shaw (South) building. Progress depends very much on the resolution of our financial problems, but subject to this we would also he prepared in principle to consider the conversion of at least one of the other buildings on the site.

Mr. Peyton

The Opposition welcome that rather oddly timed statement. We congratulate the Government on bowing to the inevitable. We should also like to be associated with what the right hon. Gentleman said about sympathy with the architects.

Mr. Heffer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us in any case were not in favour of the new building? We are delighted that the Government are not going ahead with it. Will my right hon. Friend consider the adaptation of No. 1 Bridge Street? That building was well used by secretaries and Members of Parliament. Many of us felt that that building was preferable to the Norman Shaw building. Can we resume the use of that building, which is much more convenient to hon. Members, at the earliest possible moment? That would be the most positive move which the Government could make in that direction.

Mr. Short

I shall consider what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. David Steel

I was in favour of the new building and I was a member of the Committee responsible for it. I accept with some regret the decision which the right hon. Gentleman announced today. Does the Leader of the House accept that Members should be accommodated as near as possible to this House and that eventually Norman Shaw (North) should be given to other people and the buildings nearer to the Chamber should be used for Members?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the existence of a report on the conversion of No. 1 Bridge Street which was made some years ago and which must therefore still exist? Will he consider the possibility of including in some of the buildings immediately across the road other catering facilities for the use of Members of Parliament during Sessions and for the use of tourists and commercial enterprises during the summer?

Mr. Short

I shall have a proposal to put to the House concerning the catering department. I shall look at the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's views on Norman Shaw (North) represent those of the majority of hon. Members. However, I have an open mind and I should welcome the views of hon. Members on the Norman Shaw (North) building.

Mr. Ward

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will also be noted by local government. What is his estimate of the cost in fees and other charges resulting from the abandonment of this scheme?

Mr. Short

I cannot answer that question without notice. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend, giving him the figures.

Mr. Cormack

I thank the Lord President for the best statement he has ever made to this House. I assure him that many hon. Members do not view it with any regret. We merely regret that some of the views put forward in the March 1973 debate were not accepted earlier. We welcome the agreement to proceed with the Norman Shaw building and with No. 1 Bridge Street. I urge one point. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that hon. Members are not moved into new accommodation until drilling has ceased?

Mr. Short

I apologise for the drilling. I have looked into that. I am sorry that it occurred. I shall bear in mind the other points made by the hon. Gentleman. I agree with his point about the buildings he mentioned.

Mr. Guy Barnett

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome his statement? The conversion of the Norman Shaw building shows what can be done with old buildings. May I ask him to observe two priorities in future conversions? First, in the interests of efficiency, hon. Members and their secretaries should find themselves near each other so that long journeys are not necessary every time work needs to be done. Secondly, we should begin to provide special accommodation for research assistants so that they are not subject to constant interruptions from typists.

Mr. Short

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the Norman Shaw conversion. It reflects great credit on those who carried it out and on my right hon. Friend's Department, which planned the work. It is a splendid piece of work.

My hon. Friend mentioned research assistants. That is an important point which we must consider when we look at the report of the Select Committee of the hon. Member for Wokingham, dealing with assistance for private Members.

Mr. Cryer

I congratulate the Lord President on his statement, which will lead to a saving. May I urge him to look at this building with a view to expanding the accommodation? Many rooms are used by their Lordships. Those rooms are many in number and are opulently furnished. That would provide the necessary accommodation as a preliminary to eradicating their Lordships in the long run. At the moment, all they seem to do is to emasculate Labour Government legislation.

Mr. Short

My hon. Friend raises a much wider question. That is a narrow question of accommodation. When we took over the control and management of the building in 1965, we made a demarcation settlement with the other place. It looks after its own accommodation. We do not interfere with that.

Mr. Dalyell

As Mr. Speaker is being generous, can some tactful hints be dropped in the direction of the Lord Chancellor? Is it a fact that he has 56 rooms? Is it not also a fact that 11 years ago some of us discovered in an area of 590 sq. ft. a man pressing his trousers? In the past decade that area of the Palace of Westminster has not been altered. There is scope for discussion with their Lordships on this matter.

Mr. Short

I discovered people carrying out even more essential tasks in less than 590 sq. ft. space in this building. There is a great inequity in the way in which the accommodation is shared out here. The Chairman of Committees is paying great attention to this at present. I agree that there is a need to share out our accommodation more equitably. I paid a tribute to you, Mr. Speaker. We are all extremely grateful to you for offering to make some of the accommodation on the upper floor available to hon. Members. That will be greatly appreciated by them.

Mr. Amery

Bearing in mind that the Labour Government of 1969 to 1970 was minded to demolish the Norman Shaw building, will the right hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to the decision of the valiant Minister who decided to maintain it for public use—to wit the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion?

Mr. Short

As far as my recollection goes, my right hon. Friend referred the matter to an inquiry.

Mr. Greville Janner

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this entire discussion has taken place without reference to the disgraceful situations in which so many of our staff work? When we reconsider the allocation of space, will my right hon. Friend take into account the needs of those who serve the House—not least the police in the mediaeval squalor of that disgraceful place at St. Stephens, which my right hon. Friend has been good enough to see. Will he give some priority to the consideration of our staff and some care to the fact that this House is imposing on people standards which they would not accept from any other employer?

Mr. Short

As I have just said, there is a great deal of inequity in the way in which we share out our accommodation among the various people who work here in one capacity or another. We have to effect great improvements in this.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that the frontier between the Lords and the Commons was drawn as a result of the right hon. Charles Pannell's wresting the Palace from the Lord Great Chamberlain and that there is now a red line which we cannot cross? Will the right hon. Gentleman also make it clear that the Services Committee will begin urgently to consider all these matters and that with his agreement we could start next Tuesday? The prime needs of the staff will be uppermost in our minds.

Mr. Short

The hon. Gentleman spends a great deal of time on these matters and I am sure that the House is greatly indebted to him for the work he does. He and I discuss these matters constantly, and we shall bear in mind all the comments that have been made in the exchanges today.