§ 35. Mr. Dormandasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing improved office accommodation for hon. Members.
§ 36. Mr. Dubsasked the Lord President of the Council if he has any proposals to improve the working conditions of hon. Members.
§ 37. Mr. Canavanasked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the adequacy of accommodation for hon. Members in the House.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)The matter of hon. Members' accommodation has been raised with me by a number of hon. Members.
The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee is currently considering the use that the House might make of refurbished premises fronting Parliament Street, between Derby Gate and Bridge Street, to the west of Cannon Row. A report will be made to the House as soon as practicable on this proposed development and on the possibility of developing the remainder of the Bridge Street site.
§ Mr. DormandIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Opposition's anxiety over the lack of progress on this? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the offices in Parliament Street and Bridge Street will not be available for another five years? Does he accept that the efficiency of hon. Members is affected by their working conditions, which would not be tolerated outside this place?
§ Mr. BiffenThe extent to which our working effectiveness is governed by the accommodation available is a subject for argument in the House. I am advised that the buildings should be available, if the plan is confirmed by the House, in 1987–88. I can confirm that progress has been made in the consideration of phase 1 of the site. Evidence should be published before Christmas.
§ Mr. DubsIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who know about our working conditions are appalled by them and believe that it is our own fault that we have made no progress? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that three years ago proposals were made for a new building on the other side of the road, but nothing has happened? More rapid progress is required.
§ Mr. BiffenThe work undertaken by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee deserves the praise of the House. It is proceeding in circumstances where its decisions by no means have the unanimous approval of the Chamber; in fact, quite the opposite. As to the hon. Member's first point, I was not aware that the public were appalled at the working conditions of hon. Members. I believe that they are much more appalled at the luxury of other public offices.
§ Mr. CanavanHow much longer will we have to tolerate the position where some hon. Members have to share cramped office space, about the size of an average bathroom, while Members of the other place have nice big, spacious, luxurious offices to themselves at the other end of the same building? Is that not another argument for supporting Labour Party policy to abolish the other place so that the office accommodation at the other end of the building can be put to better use by the elected representatives of the people?
§ Mr. BiffenI realise that the case for the abolition of the other place becomes a little threadbare as it is debated ahead of the general election. I shall give the hon. Gentleman whatever argument he chooses to reinforce it.
§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson SmithIs my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that we are coming to the end of information technology year? When he looks at the present office accommodation will he consider what steps might be taken so that we can use some of the excellent technology and probably save a little on research assistants, of whom some people might think there are too many?
§ Mr. BiffenI note what my hon. Friend says about the extent to which the House now enjoys the services of research assistants. With regard to the general issue of information technology, the use to which the Parliament Street site might be put, is one of the factors that will engage the attention of the Administration Committee.
§ Mr. John WellsIs my right hon. Friend aware that every time there is an improvement in accommodation for hon. Members attendance in the Chamber declines? Is he 19 further aware that since the abolition of counts it is normal for there to be about 30 Members on the Government Benches and 12 Members on the Opposition Benches and nobody else, even during major debates? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend think long and coolly before he further discourages hon. Members from coming to the Chamber?
§ Mr. BiffenI note what my hon. Friend has said. Other than the allocation of funds, those are not matters for my determination or the Government's. They are matters for the House. I am certain that when the House comes to resolve those matters it will take into account the overwhelming necessity to ensure that the Chamber remains at the heart of Parliament's acts and deliberations.
§ Mr. StrawWhile I do not depart from, or disagree with, what the Leader of the House has said, may I ask whether he is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are accommodated in appalling conditions in the Cloisters downstairs, with 14 hon. Members sharing a corridor room? The room that I share is an elegant Gothic slum, which is so small that we cannot get to the bookcase because of the filing cabinet and we cannot get to the filing cabinet because there is a desk in the way. Will the Lord President say that the allocation of funds, over which he has responsibility, is something that he will treat with a great deal more urgency? Will he announce an allocation of funds so that the new building across the road can be brought into use long before 1987 or 1988?
§ Mr. BiffenI preface my remarks by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), whom I do not see in this place, will confirm that for about 10 years I had a desk in the Cloisters, and I found it an admirable working place. If it has degenerated into a slum, I can only solemnly reflect upon what ill-fortune has befallen it since I left. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the funding of the proposition would become part of the PESC programme, with which the Treasury is involved. Doubtless the representations of the House, after it has considered phase 1 of the Parliament Street site, will be taken into account in the implementation of the PESC programme.
§ Mr. StokesDespite all that we have heard, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great privilege to be here and that our work cannot be compared with any other occupation? Is it not therefore somewhat unseemly to have these continual complaints from the Opposition?
§ Mr. BiffenThe arguments that concern us are not merely advanced by the Opposition. It is properly a House of Commons affair. I agree with my hon. Friend that to serve in this building and Parliament is one of the greatest privileges that one can acquire. Although working 20 conditions are obviously important, none the less they are, if not subsidiary, complementary to the main role of speaking for one's constituents in the Chamber.
§ Mr. HooleyDoes not the Leader of the House think that there is some mild element of humbug and hypocrisy in the attitude of Ministers, who enjoy adequate accommodation and staff, yet treat with urbane contempt Back Benchers' requests for similar facilities?
§ Mr. BiffenI believe that I would be advancing exactly the same arguments if I were sitting on the Back Benches as I advance from the Dispatch Box. My judgment will not determine the matter. It is a matter for the House itself.