HL Deb 11 January 1994 vol 551 cc74-9

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

2. Accommodation

The Committee has agreed proposals to implement the accommodation strategy approved by the House in July 1993 (Sixth Report, session 1992–93). Additional accommodation can be provided by the relocation of some staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department and of the security control room and by a consolidation of the Parliamentary Works Directorate. This will enable the South East Return to be developed to provide new office accommodation mainly for peers; improved Library and computer facilities; new refreshment facilities for peers and their guests and for counsel; a counsel's Robing Room; and a new committee room. Detailed plans will be drawn up to allocate the new office accommodation and to make the best use of offices which are vacant temporarily, and the provision of a spouses' room will be considered further.

The Committee has approved sketch plans for a new vehicle entrance to the Palace of Westminster through Black Rod's Garden and for the construction there of a new Pass Office and vehicle security-check facilities. It is expected that this work will be done between July and October 1994. The Committee has agreed that certain demands for expenditure on security or aesthetic grounds should be subjected to further close scrutiny on the basis of fully costed proposals.

The Committee has approved plans to relocate and upgrade accommodation for police and firemen, to move the Sports and Social Club, and to consolidate the accommodation of the Parliamentary Works Directorate.

The Committee has endorsed a variation in the scheme for 6–7 Old Palace Yard so that the Susan Hamilton Secretarial Agency will be relocated elsewhere on the parliamentary estate.

3. Supply of stationery to peers

The Committee has considered the results of a review of the arrangements for the supply of stationery to peers. The Committee has agreed to proposals which will give better value for money in the supply of stationery.

The Committee has agreed to the following guidelines for the use of House of Lords' stationery—

"House of Lords' stationery may be used for all correspondence relating to the work of the House, including the work of all-party committees;

House of Lords' stationery may be used for personal correspondence in modest quantities, but should not be used for circulars, correspondence of organisations (except those of an essentially parliamentary nature) or business letters.".

The Committee has agreed that the use of plain paper for speeches and notes should be encouraged.

4. Lords' office facilities

The Committee has considered proposals on how best to provide office facilities for peers. The Committee has agreed that office equipment should be primarily funded by the House, and should remain the property of the House, with the emphasis on shared facilities. The Committee has agreed that shared accommodation can provide significant cost savings and has invited the Whips and Convenor of the Cross Benches to take this into account when allocating accommodation to peers.

The Committee has agreed guidelines for the loan of personal computers (PCs) to peers and for the provision of photocopiers, fax and PCs for general use, with evaluation of how best to provide training, maintenance, monitoring and technical support, subject to further consideration by the Finance and Staff and Library and Computers Sub-Committees.

5. Shared Works: Memorandum of Understanding

The Memorandum of Understanding on works expenditure agreed between the Houses in June 1991 provides that "Unless otherwise agreed by the two Houses in relation to any particular item" maintenance of the Palace of Westminster and certain other works benefiting both Houses should be funded jointly by the commons and Lords in the proportions 60:40. The Committee has agreed that joint works could in exceptional cases be funded in the proportions 100:0 or 0:100. The Accounting Officers of the two Houses will exercise this power according to criteria which have been agreed by the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee.

6. Security-Complement and Expenditure

The Committee has agreed that the security complement for which the House of Lords will share responsibility with the Commons on a 40:60 basis is 367 persons (police, security, fire and communications officers, and administrators). The Committee has also agreed that this complement may not be varied without the authority of the Committee and that Lords expenditure on security in 1994–95 may not exceed £5,255,000 (net of VAT) without the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee's authority.

7. Staff of the House

(i) Counsel to the Chairman of Committees

The Committee has been informed of the retirement of Mr. Derek Rippengal CB QC as full-time Counsel to the Chairman of Committees and has expressed its thanks for his invaluable service to the House. The Committee has also been informed that Mr. Rippengal and Sir James Nursaw KCB will henceforward share the post on a part-time basis.

(ii) Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod

The Committee has also been informed of the appointment of Air Vice-Marshal D. R. Hawkins CB MBE to succeed Air Commodore Alan Curry OBE who is due to retire in January 1994.

The Committee has expressed its thanks to Air Commodore Curry for his services to the House, in particular as acting Black Rod and Agent of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in the last five months during Black Rod's illness. Pending the return of Black Rod, the Committee has agreed to an addition to the complement for up to three months to enable Air Commodore Curry to remain in the service of the House if necessary.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, I wish to make a few comments about this report because I believe it provides an ideal vehicle for some thoughts and suggestions. It deals with both accommodation and refreshments, but I suggest it is not comprehensive because it does not take full account of the changes that have taken place.

I speak as a new Member of this House who spent 22 years in the other place. When I was first elected I shared a room with five colleagues, but at least I had a telephone with a number and I had a locker. When I retired I had a pleasant room of my own and other facilities. I should inform your Lordships that in July 1993, after I had been here a year, I actually had a locker and I no longer had to carry round masses of papers in a briefcase.

For the sake of accuracy I should make it clear that I pay the warmest possible tribute to Black Rod's staff, and indeed to all staff, who have always gone out of their way to be both helpful and courteous. But I suggest that the committee has not taken full account of the changes. I want briefly to develop the point, although I believe that some progress is being made.

It seems to me that this report, and some of its predecessors, tries to offer palliatives without accepting that the role and composition of the House have changed dramatically. I am sure that your Lordships will have read the editorial in The Times last week which said that the growth in the volume of public legislation this century has added greatly to the responsibilities of this House as the quality controller of the laws. That is a warm tribute from a newspaper whose proprietor is not always very friendly towards this place.

There is no criticism of the committee in what I say, but it seems to me that a full-blooded review is now essential, perhaps by an ad hoc committee. We need to assess what the needs are and to see whether it is possible to provide what is necessary within the fabric of this building. I can remember in the other place being told over and over again by those responsible that it was not possible to find more room. However, those of your Lordships who were once with me in the other place will remember the energies of the late Sir Robert Cooke, as a result of which many more rooms and facilities were found, to the surprise of the officials. When the assessment has been made, we then have to see whether what is necessary can be afforded. But that is stage three, not stage one.

There are now nearly 400 life Peers, almost a third of the entire membership of the Chamber. In my humble submission, this place is still geared largely to the situation prior to 1958. A growing number of us are now present during Recesses carrying out our parliamentary work. Yet, to give just one example, during the first summer I was here tape machines were turned off. There were no hygienic towels in the toilets. There is still no possibility when one is working of getting a cup of refreshment, whether it be coffee or tea, unless one is fortunate enough to have been a Member of the other place or one goes all the way down to that pretty ghastly Strangers' canteen in the other place.

Why is this happening? Perhaps I may give an example. I apologise for personalising the issue, but I hope that this will illustrate one of the reasons for my raising the matter. I have had the honour of leading the United Kingdom delegations to both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union for some seven years. I have found it highly embarrassing since I came to your Lordships' House to have to say to Foreign Ministers and others I meet on the Continent almost every fortnight when they ask whether they can telephone me that I have no dedicated telephone. That causes them the utmost shock. It makes one's work extremely difficult. That is why I believe that there is a need not merely for me but for others who are doing such work at least to have a telephone and a shared desk. Many organisations want to get in touch with one on parliamentary business. I believe that if we are to maintain our position as a vital part of Parliament we have to bring our facilities into the 21st century.

I apologise for disturbing the even tenor of what might have been a non-discussion of this report. All I ask is that my noble friend the Leader of the House will say that consideration will be given to what I have said and that the result of that consideration will be communicated to your Lordships in the not too distant future.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, the noble Lord has no need to apologise for raising these matters because the whole House is sympathetic to his plight, which, alas, is shared by an enormous number of other noble Lords.

I am grateful for the noble Lord's remark that a little progress is being made. That is the case. He referred to the other place. It has to be faced that one of the reasons why this House is short of space is that the other place has over the decades encroached on what once upon a time was ours in happier days at the turn of the century, when this House sat for an average of 120 days a year for an average of two hours and many sessions were only of five minutes because their Lordships could not think of anything worth while to discuss that day. Things have unquestionably changed.

The assessment for which the noble Lord asks has been taking place for a great many years. It is agreeable to me to be able to report to the House that, as is indicated in the report, thanks to three main events the situation will ease greatly over the next year or two. The first item, for which the House will be truly grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, is that by moving his department elsewhere he has made available another 11 rooms, which became available during the course of last autumn. A further five rooms came into our possession a year or so ago.

The second event is that we have at last won back the building across the road at 6–7 Old Palace Yard which was built 250 years ago for occupation by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk Assistant. That will become available to us towards the end of this year. The building will be vacated shortly. The accommodation for those presently occupying it is available and will be completely so within the next week or so. Work will begin on restoring what is an extremely pleasant building. Once that is completed at the end of the year the Establishment Office and the Accountant's Office will move into the ground floor and second floor respectively. The move of the Staff Superintendent's office, presently accommodated in the Palace of Westminster, into the top floor of that building will make available some 16 further rooms in the Palace of Westminster together with four very splendid rooms in 6–7 Old Palace Yard for the use of Peers.

With the third event, which is the consolidation under the new dispensation of the Parliamentary Works Directorate of considerable space which was occupied by the Property Services Agency over the years—much of which was extremely wastefully occupied if it was occupied at all—we are able to make all the moves which are detailed in the report. I am afraid that it will take another year before it all comes to pass, but major work will begin during the course of the next Summer Recess. If your Lordships will be a little patient the situation will improve.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, perhaps I may ask him about the last sentence in paragraph 2 which refers to the Susan Hamilton Secretarial Agency. It is mentioned there rather vaguely that the agency will be relocated elsewhere on the parliamentary estate. Does that mean that it will be taken away from the Palace and put somewhere else over the road? For the convenience of your Lordships it would be a great advantage for the secretarial agency to be retained in this building.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that it was originally planned to move the agency across into 6–7 Old Palace Yard, but that was not popular. A large deputation descended upon me to say that that would not be well received by your Lordships. Therefore, alternative accommodation has been found within the Palace of Westminster itself. I believe that it is intended that the agency should move into that new accommodation within a comparatively short space of time. It will not be moving outside the Palace.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, my noble friend's answer has relieved me of some of my apprehension.

I had thought that I should like to say a word of caution in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lord Finsberg. Everyone will accept that to have a telephone number on which one can be contacted direct and to have part of a desk is acceptable. However, I wonder how necessary it is to incur the expense that would be involved in going beyond that. I suggest that if there were a reallocation of the facilities which we already have it should be to people who are active in day-to-day work and who undertake research, as distinct from many of our noble friends who may have those facilities but do not need them to the same extent.

I was junior Minister of Works when we agreed in the other place to build the extra facilities which they have and which are applauded perhaps more than they deserve when considering the effect that those facilities have on Parliament. Since we have had those extra rooms—we were very proud of them at the time—people disappear into them and are not in the Chamber playing an active part in the real work of Parliament. Immediately after Prime Minister's Question Time the Chamber is empty; and the same could occur in this House. There is no need for that.

I have attended at the Palace for 43 years. Apart from the period when I was a Minister, I never had a room. I found the facilities in the Library, and the services given by the Library, excellent. To commit oneself to lush improvements which are not absolutely necessary may well bring dangers which will undermine the real effectiveness of Parliament.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, perhaps I may leap briefly to the defence of the Chairman of Committees. Any suggestion that some people have desks when they should not have them, and some do not have them when they should, should not be laid at the door of the Chairman of Committees but at the door of the appropriate Chief Whip, whose job it is to allocate the desks which are within the purview of the various parties.

Lord Elton

My Lords, can my noble friend give us an approximate figure for the net number of additional telephones and/or desks which will result from the manoeuvres which he has so aptly described?

Lord Ampthill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for coming to my rescue. As he rightly states, allocation of desks in the rooms that are available to Peers is a matter for the Chief Whips. I think that all Whips must have spent a short while in a sardine canning factory in order to exercise the craft which they have of necessity to do: to pack people into rooms. Obviously, ideally Peers would not be so squeezed together.

I must give the same answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It will be up to the Whips to decide how much they choose to push people into the rooms. I referred to the 11 rooms which we have acquired recently from the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the other five rooms, making 16 rooms. There will be four rooms for Peers across the way. In the provisional plans, the rooms have been laid out to accommodate 22 Peers. Of the 16 rooms that we shall acquire by the vacation of those spaces, some are big and some small. I had better stop at that point rather than seek to do sums which will prove to be inaccurate and are not mine to do. Those choices are for the usual channels to exercise.

I hope that I have answered as many questions as I can on behalf of the House. I apologise once again to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for the fact that he is not able to spread his wings in the way that he would like to do. However, the Palace of Westminster is not expandable. I commend the report.

On Question, Motion agreed to.