§ 3.15 p.m.
§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask the Chairman of Committees whether he can give an assurance that 920 present restrictions on Members taking visitors round the Houses of Parliament (including closure of the robing room and crypt and confinement of visitors behind the Bar of the Parliament Chamber) will not be permanent but will be removed in part or in whole as soon as the Joint Security Committee agree to this step.
§ The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)Yes, my Lords, the Joint Committee on Security reviews the present restrictions on the line of route monthly and I am sure that they will consider lifting these restrictions as soon as they feel able to do so.
§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYEMy Lords, I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees two questions arising out of his reply. First, as regards the general position, would he agree that the truly dedicated security expert would really like no one anywhere at any time at all? However, in practice, must not security come to a reasonable compromise with public interest? Secondly, and more particularly while not daring, as one who is quite unqualified, to question the decisions of the Security Committee, would the Chairman of Committees illuminate us a little as to why, in your Lordships' House, all visitors are brought to the Bar, causing heavy congestion during tours of the Palace of Westminster, and are not allowed, as they used to be, through the Chamber? However, in another place, the Chamber is open for visitors as has always been the case. I know that both Chambers have historic and traditional value, but if it came to political vandalism or even political assassination, I think that Members of the other place would have a justifiable priority over your Lordships' House.
§ Lord ABERDAREMy Lords, as regards the first point made by the noble Lord, the Joint Committee is made up of Members of this House and another place. I am sure that we can rely on them to make sensible decisions in the light of the advice that they are given by the security experts whom the noble Lord has mentioned. In fact, as he probably well knows, the original restrictions were to allow only parties of 16 at a time round the House. Those restrictions have already been relaxed back to 921 the old number of 32, and I am sure that we can rely on their good sense.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, far be it for me to try to make a contrast between the values of the two Houses. I think that these matters are much better left to the Select Committee. However, as regards the comments made by the noble Lord about congestion, I do not think that his point is very good, because in the case of this House there really is no congestion. The line of route still moves along the "Content corridor" and straight through, whereas in the House of Commons if people were restricted to viewing the Chamber, there would be a flow backwards and forwards in the one area by the Bar.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether, when the Committee is considering the question of relaxing some of these restrictions they should consider that the Moses Room, which contains some very significant paintings including that of Moses, illustrating where we stand or should stand in respect of political and ethical matters, should be open for people to visit and see exactly where the real ethical principles were originally founded and when?
§ Lord ABERDAREMy Lords, I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to consider the suggestion of the noble Lord.