HL Deb 29 March 2001 vol 624 cc424-39

3.44 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 54) be agreed to. Perhaps I may say a word or two on the two subjects of smoking and accommodation. This is about as near a baptism of fire as one can get. The Offices Committee met following a letter from 18 Members who had written to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in December requesting changes to the House's smoking policy. As a result, both the Offices Committee and its subcommittees have reviewed the rules and made proposals which are contained in the report.

This is a compromise. People at either end of the spectrum will not be totally satisfied, but the Offices Committee believes that this offers provision for both smokers and non-smokers. The details are in the report. I shall go into the details later if noble Lords wish. I hope that noble Lords accept that this is a reasonable compromise. This subject arose yesterday in the Second Reading debate. The message from the House was that there had to be reason and compromise in these difficult matters. I hope that noble Lords accept this.

I turn to the question of accommodation. There has been considerable worry about the amount of accommodation available to noble Lords. I believe that this has become particularly acute since another place has built a rather large building in which to accommodate itself. That shows up the disparity in accommodation between the two Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will move an amendment in a moment and I shall reply to that in detail. But perhaps should tell noble Lords immediately that the Leaders of the three main parties and the Convenor have written to the Leader of the House of Commons to request the return of 43 rooms located on the upper committee corridor south, which is above the Lords end of the committee corridor. The rooms were not identified in the report, because at that stage a letter had not been sent to the Commons and we did not want to frighten them off before they received it. No response has been received so far, but that is only because it is fairly recent.

Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 54) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

1. Black Rod

The Queen has approved the appointment of Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks KCB as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms in succession to General Sir Edward Jones.

The Committee wish to record their gratitude to Sir Edward Jones for the assistance which they have received from him during the six years he has served as Agent of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.

2. Smoking Policy

The Committee have reviewed smoking policy in the House of Lords and make the following recommendations.

LIBRARY

The Library comprises the Truro Room (the silence room at the northern end); the Derby Room (between the Truro and Brougham Rooms); the Brougham Room (newspapers); the Queen's Room (stall); and the Salisbury Room (round the corner, separate from the main suite of rooms). At present, smoking is permitted in the Brougham and Derby rooms, but not elsewhere.

The Committee recommend that smoking should be permitted in the Truro Room and prohibited elsewhere; and that the Salisbury Room should be provided with different furniture and become a silent area in place of the Truro Room.

REFRESHMENT OUTLETS

The House's smoking policy varies across its different refreshment outlets, which are listed in the first column in Annex A. The current rules for each outlet are set out in the second column of the table in Annex A.

The Committee recommend the following changes to existing policy in the refreshment outlets:

  1. - Dining Room Guest Area: the introduction of a designated smoking area in the far corner where smoking is permitted after 1.30 p.m. at lunch; after 5 p.m. at tea; and after 8.30 p.m. at dinner
  2. - Dining Room Long Table: smoking permitted after 5 p.m. at tea; and after 8.30 p.m. at dinner (no change to the existing no-smoking rule at lunchtime)
  3. - Guest Room Bar and Lords Bar: no smoking at the counter
  4. - Home Room: no smoking at any time

The effect of these recommendations is set out in the third column of the table in Annex A.

OTHER AREAS

The current rules on smoking policy in other areas are set out in the second column of the table in Annex B.

The Committee recommend the following changes to existing policy:

  1. - No smoking in corridors and staircases, except in the Committee corridor (it is already permitted at the Commons' end of the Committee corridor): and the Bishops' corridor (between Prince's Chamber and the Library).
  2. - No smoking in division lobbies.
  3. - No smoking in the TV room.

The effect of these recommendations is set out in the third column of the table in Annex B.

3. Accommodation

The Committee reviewed the office and other accommodation available to the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and agreed that the Leaders of the parties and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers should approach the Leader of the House of Commons with a view to recovering certain accommodation for use by Members of the House of Lords.

The Committee also agreed, as part of a strategy to achieve a significant improvement in working conditions for Members, to adopt a target that each Member who requires a desk should have 10m2 floor space. At present, desks are allocated on the basis of 5m2 floor space.

4. Medical screening for peers

The Committee agreed that, on a rolling basis, once every three years each Member of the House should be offered free medical screening. A similar service is already available for MPs. It is intended that screening will be provided within the Palace of Westminster under a contract with St Thomas's Hospital. As the contract will have to be negotiated and extra staff recruited, it is unlikely that the new service will be available until 2002.

5. Salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Committee approved revised salaries for the Chairman of Committees (from £66,294 to £68,283 per annum) and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (from £61,773 to £63,626 per annum), with effect from 1 April 2001, following similar salary increases for Ministers.

6. Printing and Publishing Services

The Committee took note of the award of contracts to The Stationery Office plc for the printing of the Minute, Hansard and Select Committee documents, with effect from 1 April 2001.

7. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

The Committee took note of the establishment on a permanent basis of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology from 1 April 2001. Since 1993 POST has been funded under temporary arrangements which expire on 31 March 2001.

Annex A—Smoking policy in the refreshment outlets
Area Current policy Recommended policy
Dining Room Guest Area Lunchtime: yes, smoking permitted after 1.30 p.m. Designated smoking area in far corner in the "L" where smoking permitted as follows:
Tea: no rules Lunch: after 1.30 p.m.
Dinner: yes after 9 p. m. Tea: after 5 p.m.
Dinner: after 8.30 p.m. no smoking elsewhere*
Dining Room Long Table Lunchtime: no Lunchtime: No:
Tea: no rules Tea: Yes after 5 p.m.
Dinner: yes Dinner: Yes after 8.30 p.m.
Guest Room Bar Yes Yes, other than at the counter
Bishops' Bar Coffee Room (sandwich counter) No No (no change)
Bishops' Bar Main Room Yes Yes (no change)
Home Room Lunchtime: no No
Dinner: yes
Barry Room Yes Yes (no change)
Millbank House (to open October 2001) No No (no change)
Lords Bar Yes, except in non- smoking area Yes, other than in the non-smoking area and at the counter
Staff restaurant No No (no change)
*The exact dividirg line between smoking and non-smoking tables to be decided flexibly by management, according to demand.

Lord Trefgarne rose move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "and that this House, while in no way wishing to replicate the scale or the degree of comfort that the House of Commons has seen proper to provide for its Members, considers that the conditions for its own Members are in need of drastic improvement and believes that it should set itself the same target as the House of Commons set for itself in 1987, namely of providing an office for every Member who wants one, and accordingly:

  1. (i) requests the House authorities to ascertain as soon as possible how many Members wish to have (a) an office to themselves, (b) shared office space and (c) office space for a secretary/researcher; and
  2. (ii) asks the Leader of the House to open discussions with the Leader of the House of Commons with a view to a division of the Palace of Westminster on all floors on a line running through the Central Lobby on the axis of St. Stephen's Hall".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper to the Motion moved by the Chairman of Committees. I confess that the inspiration behind the amendment comes from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who has been much concerned with these matters for a long time. The noble Lord and I have had a number of conversations on this matter, and I share the broad thrust of his views, although perhaps not every single word. Be that as it may, for almost 40 years I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House, and the plain fact is that for all that time there has been an acute shortage of accommodation for every noble Lord. Even in the far off days there were insufficient desks and rooms, and only the most senior noble Lords had anything like the kind of facilities which were necessary. I believe that I had been here for 15 years before I was even on the list for a desk, never mind a room. By and large, nowadays it is only Ministers or Opposition Front Bench spokesmen who have that facility. Therefore, the thrust of the amendment, inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, but supported and moved by me today, is one with which I have total sympathy.

As the amendment points out in paragraph (i), there is considerable doubt as to how many noble Lords want the more spacious facilities suggested. I agree it is probable that not every noble Lord would want a room of his own. Some noble Lords would be satisfied to have even a desk. Many noble Lords do not have one. Perhaps there are some noble Lords who do not want even that.

The broader point contained in paragraph (ii) of the amendment is a separate matter but one which, in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves with the different relationship between the two Houses, should be considered.

The position of the Pugin Room is one issue which has, for a very long time, rankled with many noble Lords. A few years ago that room was hijacked—there is no other word for it—by the House of Commons. We should have stood up to them and not allowed them to have it. I hope that in the Chairman of Committee's discussions with the authorities of the other place he will put the recovery of the Pugin Room at the very top of his list of priorities.

The Chairman of Committees referred to the 43 rooms which may be available from above the committee corridor. That would certainly be a just return, given, as the noble Lord pointed out, the new and very grand premises now available to the other place on the other side of Bridge Street.

Certainly the time has come for an important review of the facilities available to noble Lords. Many noble Lords are much more active than Peers were in former years. For example, when I first took my seat in this House none of the European sub-committees even existed. So the work which noble Lords contribute to those committees was not part of the activity of the House at all. There were a tiny number of Select Committees of your Lordships' House which involved a few Members of the House and which would not, perhaps, have justified the suggested increase in the facilities which are now called for.

Clearly a new situation exists. The Chairman of Committees has said that he is involved in discussions with the authorities in the other place on the matter. I very much hope that those discussions succeed. In the meantime, I hope that my amendment will add strength to his elbow. I beg to move.

Lord Richard

My Lords, it is not very often that I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Over the past decade or so we have disagreed on a number of issues. But perhaps I may say to him that the thrust of what he is saying is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the House has changed radically in the past few years. It is a busier House. It is—dare I say—a more professional House than perhaps it was before. It seems to be given, and is doing, more work. In terms of legislation, the burden of the legislative efforts of this House appears to be on the increase rather than diminishing.

In those circumstances it is quite wrong that the House does not have the facilities to do the job which the constitution demands of it. If they do not want us to do the job, they must tell us. If they do want us to do the job, we deserve rather more consideration from the authorities down the other end than perhaps we have had.

I am not wedded to the precise terms of the noble Lord's amendment. The idea of bisecting the Palace of Westminster is a trifle fanciful, but the thrust of what he is trying to do is right. The difficulty is not at this end but at the other end. It always was. When one tries to negotiate with the House of Commons one is left with the idea, and it is still fairly prevalent, that this House is of very little consequence; that it is an amateur House; that it should be treated like an amateur House; and really that one should just pick up one's tent and quietly go away. I do not think that this House should pick up its tent and quietly go away. Therefore, what is important today is that the House gives its support to the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment so that the voice of this House is clear and unambiguous in its negotiations with the authorities at the other end of the building. I support the amendment.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, in supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I should like to enlarge a little on it. I do so for the sake of both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. I consider that the Opposition Front Bench works in conditions of squalor. Noble Lords share minute spaces. They are jolly lucky if they share with noble Lords who do not smoke as much as me. So there is bad accommodation both for Ministers and for the Opposition.

I make a further point. If one has an important foreign visitor, and one has to be in the House because of a Whip, there is no room to receive, interview and talk to that visitor. American congressmen who come over here are amazed at the squalor in which we have to receive them. In the past I have had to borrow an office to have serious meetings with foreign agriculture Ministers. It is disgraceful that we have no room set aside which can be used for important conversations with people who are not of this House. When the whole matter is being looked at I urge that not only is the accommodation of the Government Front Bench looked at but that of the Opposition Members of your Lordships' House.

Lord Craig of Radley

My Lords, it is some 15 months since I became Convenor. One of the most intractable problems has been the allocation of accommodation and desks to the Cross-Bench Peers. On many occasions I have argued for a better allocation than we have so far achieved.

I am very concerned that shortly we shall add to our number 15 new independent Peers. They will come to this House not only as an honour but also to work as parliamentarians. It is essential that the House and the Cross-Bench Peers are better able to make accommodation available for them. Perhaps the full frontal attack that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has suggested is not the right one, but the step-by-step approach which the Office Committee has advanced will, I hope, achieve results.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, 1 endorse everything that has been said about accommodation by noble Lords on both sides of the House. Perhaps it would help the House if I speak briefly about Annex B to the Second Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices.

I was one of the signatories to a letter written to the late Chairman of Committees, to which the Chairman of Committees earlier referred. That letter was signed by Members of all parties, including the health spokesmen of the Liberal Democrat Party and the Conservative Party. It represented a fairly wide cross-section of opinion. Underlying the sentiments expressed in that letter were three principles: first, that we should make a reality of the statement contained in the House of Lords' Staff Handbook, that staff are entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere; secondly, that we should ensure the provision of defined areas where Members of your Lordships' House who wish to smoke could be left in peace to do so; and, thirdly, to ensure that those of us who prefer to read, eat and drink, work and, dare I say, sleep, in smoke-free areas, be able to do that.

The sub-committees which reported to the Offices' Committee have clearly done their best. Certainly, the proposals for the Library Committee meet all three criteria. They are seen as a huge improvement by the members of the Library staff to whom I have spoken.

The refreshment proposals also represent a step forward, although many of us are disappointed that there is not yet any provision for smokers in the Barry Room. There the ventilation is not good enough to keep drifting smoke away from the tables of diners who would rather enjoy their food and drink than taste other people's cigarette, pipe or tobacco smoke. Perhaps we can come back to that matter later.

Given that this House is not renowned for making change at a lightning speed, I am very happy to welcome these proposals. I congratulate the Offices Committee on proposing what is for many of us an acceptable compromise.

Lord Renton

My Lords, although I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and supported by others, we must bear a sense of proportion about the matter. It would be absurd for us to attempt to provide special office accommodation for hundreds of Members of your Lordships' House.

Perhaps I may speak from my own experience. I have been a Member of this House for 21 years. I was told that because of my seniority as a parliamentarian I could have a room in which to work. I did not want one. I have a flat in Lincoln's Inn in London where I stay. I prefer working in the Library, which is so easily accessible and where all the references that one could possibly want are quickly obtainable, whereas if I had a room somewhere up in the zenith of the building, it would take me extra time coming and going every day and I would be isolated from the references. Let us by all means ensure that Front-Benchers on both sides of the House have the accommodation they require and other noble Lords have accommodation if they require it, but let us not plan for hundreds of us to be provided with this accommodation, which geographically would be a nonsense.

Lord Winston

My Lords, I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The modern office is not a place of isolation. One of the worst aspects of your Lordships' House is the dreadful support electronically that is given to noble Lords. The need to be on-line is increasing. The fact is that a huge amount of work which needs to be done electronically cannot be done. At the moment I am using a telephone line with a modem because we do not have Internet connections on this side of the Palace of Westminster. That is quite extraordinary in this day and age. It is costly for the House and unnecessary. It would be much better if I were able to use the Internet, but I cannot do so because in my present position I am not connected. One needs space in which to work. Very few noble Lords who, like me, have a job outside the House could: disagree with the fact that it is necessary to do some of that work inside the House between debates. Without that space, one cannot attend the House regularly and make a proper contribution to the proceedings of Parliament.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that it is perfectly easy to gain access to the Internet from the House of Lords as long as one has a modem and access to the PDVN? Through that one can browse the Internet and have all the electronic support one needs.

Lord Winston

My Lords, with respect, if one has a Macintosh computer, which is what a large number of academics have, that is not possible.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords. perhaps I may add a few points to those made by other noble Lords. I was a member of the Offices Committee for some years. During the whole of that time the subject of accommodation rose and rose in importance in our deliberations. It is a matter of grave concern, particularly for those Peers who are new to the House and are simply not used to having to work in such conditions.

My second point relates to a different matter. I am lucky enough to have had a desk to myself ever since I became a Member of the House because I came in as a Front-Bencher. I share a room with four other Front Benchers, so we have five Front-Benchers in the room. A few days ago a person came into the office to measure up to see whether another desk could be put into the office, which is already extremely crowded, as one might suppose. In the course of conversation with that person it became apparent that no provision is made for those who assist noble Lords in their work. I have to share my desk, not with another noble Lord but with the person who comes in on a regular basis to help me. It is not convenient. Those are not the kind of conditions to which people who work hard in other walks of life—we do work hard here—are used.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on his persistence in this matter. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that paragraph (i) of the amendment requests the House authorities to find out who wants an office and who does not, so that point is taken care of. I hope that we will make progress as rapidly as possible. Paragraph (ii) of the amendment may be a little farfetched. We are talking about a virtual division of the Palace of Westminster. Who knows where that line should fall. Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will be able to tell us a little more about that.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I support the remarks that have been made on accommodation. Perhaps I may make two or three additional points to the excellent ones that have been made. First, we should concentrate on the needs of the House in the future and not go over all the ground of the catastrophic experience that we all have here. We need to be ambitious. As I, and I think most colleagues, take the House seriously as a legislative and revising Chamber, we need the facilities that enable us to do our job; or, more importantly, our successors need them. Therefore, we need not merely the sticking plaster of these rooms—a point to which I shall return later—but we need to be ambitious for the future.

The Commons started their building in 1987 and got it last year. We will be long gone if we start, but that is what we ought to do. I believe that £250 million, or whatever the figure would be even at the current low rate of inflation, is a cheap price to pay for us to have a proper purpose-built building. I simply throw that idea in for the committee to consider. In other words, one has no objection to the committee's suggestions other than how minor and trivial they are compared with the needs of the Chamber.

Perhaps I may say en passant that as soon as I read about the five square metres I brought in my tape measure. I measured up this morning. I do not have five square metres and nor does anyone in my room. I should like to know where the five square metres comes from. Depending on how I measure I might have four square metres, so I should like to have my 25 per cent in the next hour.

I congratulate the new Chairman of Committees. Does he remember that he and I have sat on all these committees over many years? I think that the last time we demanded back the rooms was eight years ago. Eight years go by and nothing happens. Do we have any reason to believe—this echoes some of what my noble friend Lord Richard said—that the new letter that we are going to write will get anything for us; or will our successors eight years from now also write yet another pathetic letter?

I turn to smoking. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I am not in the least impressed by the smoking suggestions. They are not a compromise and they are certainly not a reasonable compromise. The fact remains that the smokers occupy a disproportionate amount of the space in this building and it is about time someone just said "no". We should just say that it is going to stop. To take the obvious examples, if a noble Lord wants a drink in a nonsmoking environment, the Bishops' Bar is captured by the smokers and so is the Peers' Guest Room. There is nowhere to go. The least we could have—

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, half of the Bishops' Bar is non-smoking.

Lord Peston

My Lords, the noble Baroness is completely mistaken. The half of the Bishops' Bar that is non-smoking is the sandwich part, which is not a drinking area. The two drinking areas are smoking areas. In my judgment, one of them—namely, the Peers' Guest Room—should be non-smoking. We should just decide to do that. If the smokers want to poison themselves in the Bishops' Bar, good luck to them.

In the restaurants themselves—I speak as a former chairman of the Refreshment Sub-Committee—people smoke, no matter what the rules are. That has to be brought to a stop. We are the only body that I know of anywhere in the country that stands for this nonsense. It is about time that we stopped. There is a particular problem in the dining room upstairs. No matter what the rules are, people smoke. Peers do not tell their guests not to do it. Are we to go to the staff and say, "You go and tell some Peer that his guests cannot smoke"? Who is enforcing the rule? The way to solve the problem is to say to people, "You are not to smoke in any of our eating areas". All over the country, people can live with that. It is about time that your Lordships, instead of talking this nonsense of reasonable compromise, showed a little backbone and did something.

Lastly, I should like to say a few words in support of the report; namely, the medical screening. That facility will be an absolute breakthrough. All I hope is that, by 2002, some of us are still alive to see the screening begin. Given that I have argued that what really matters are the conditions for the future, we know now that our successors will be medically screened and will be told either that their blood pressure is OK or that it is about time they made their will.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, although I am impressed by his Cromwellian determination, what tactics does he suggest that we deploy against the House of Commons?

Lord Peston

My Lords, in so far as the rooms belong to us—I was under the impression that that was the case, although the Chairman of Committees may well tell the House that they do not—I would occupy them. I do not doubt that if people will not respond to sweet reason— I have spent my life supporting sweet reason—there are times when someone ought to take a bit of action.

Lord Monro of Langholm

My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to the amendment. It is important that in the future we are given better accommodation. I have been through this process twice, as have many other noble Lords who have come from another place. Way back in the 1960s, I would meet my secretary on a bench in a corridor. Eventually I secured a half share of a room and, finally, I had a room. Having a room makes a significant difference. One can spread out, install computer equipment and stack books and the Companion on shelves.

When I was lucky enough to come to this place, I started again. First, I did not have anything; then I secured a half-share in a desk, followed by a share of a desk in a room shared with 10 other people. I should certainly miss their congenial and friendly company were we each to have a room to ourselves; on the other hand, it would be valuable to have a place to meet visitors, conduct interviews and so forth, as well as to have a little additional space. I do not know how much space I would need, although five square metres does not sound very much.

Perhaps I may put one point to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. On no account must we be fobbed off with more rooms down at Millbank. It is too far away for Division purposes. One cannot keep running to and fro between the two buildings. Indeed, that would rather scupper the idea put forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken as regards a new building. Not only would that never be achieved in our lifetime, but there is nowhere to put another building adjacent to this one, thus allowing speedy access.

We must claim back from the Commons rooms such as those on the Upper Committee Corridor, which would be more than adequate. We should put all our efforts into obtaining the space we deserve from another place. Good luck to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in his deliberations.

Lord Puttnam

My Lords, I apologise for taking up any more time on this debate, but I should like to make one further point which reflects the view of a new and junior Member of this House. Four years ago I gave up all of my private work and have since worked only in the public sector. I have enjoyed my work more and I enjoy this House enormously.

However, it does seem quite absurd that those like myself who make such a decision should have to accept that, as a quid pro quo for working in the public sector, there are fewer resources and fewer facilities. As a result, I am less able to work professionally than has been the case during the 40 years I have been in business.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees about the average allocation of five square metres of space, although I note that the noble Lord opposite mentioned that he does not have anything like that amount of space. In this House we say that we try to abide by national legislation, even though we are not hound by it. Does the allocation of space conform with that provided for in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act? The Act specifies a minimum amount of space to which any worker is entitled.

If the noble Lord opposite does not have at least that amount of space, how is that to be remedied unless we can secure more rooms from the other place? However. I believe that we shall achieve our aim only by negotiation. Although the noble Lord's suggestion that we adopt direct action was very amusing—on another occasion, I should have liked to join him—we do best in our dealings with another place when we work by negotiation and compromise. I feel certain that it will not be necessary to go as far as the noble Lord has suggested. When the other place learns of what has been said during this afternoon's debate and it appreciates the disparity between its House and our own, it will be disposed to agree.

The perennial problem of the Pugin Room ought to be solved with ease. However, if it is not, we shall face a problem. As the noble Lord pointed out, we must reconsider our smoking policy. The Truro Room in the Library is still allocated to smokers. I believe that we must have the only major library in the United Kingdom that still allows people to smoke. If we have nowhere else to put the smokers, we shall be forced to accept them in the Library. For that reason, the occupation, the annexation or even the exchange—to use a less confrontational term—of the Pugin Room is an essential preliminary to achieving a total nonsmoking policy in the Library. I hope that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will be able to put that point to our colleagues in another place when he embarks on the negotiations.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that these arrangements must be achieved by negotiation with another place. We cannot take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with whom we so often agree, and simply squat in another place's areas. That simply cannot be done. However, it is obvious that the Pugin Room ought to be returned to this House and I hope that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will achieve that.

I understand the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Puttnam., who feel that everything must be electronic and up to date. However. I think that we should be careful not to make life too cosy by half. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton: if Lords' rooms are made extremely comfortable and convenient—so much so that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, can have her assistant working with her—what will happen then? As soon as a debate commences, everyone will disappear, like mice running into their holes, to their comfortable rooms. They will switch on the television and watch—

A noble Lord

The football.

Earl Ferrers

If they do not watch the football. they will watch the proceedings of your Lordships' House from the comfort of their rooms. No one will come to the Chamber. One simply has to look at what has happened in another place. It is always empty. I believe that that would be a bad thing for this House.

Once the new wave of enthusiasm for becoming more professional and hiring more assistants takes hold, two things will happen. First, Peers will need to he paid—I am sure that that will be put on to the agenda. Secondly, Peers will see what the other place has done— it has built a huge building costing more than £250 million—and will say, "We want one of those". I did not think that I would hear that request articulated quite so soon, but the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said it. It would be an absolute disaster for us to say that we want a great big new building like that for the House of Commons. What would happen? We would all disappear, not merely out of the Chamber but out of the House. That, too, would be an extremely bad thing.

Of course, we need to modernise the rooms and bring them up to date, but for goodness sake, the centre of operations for this House is here in this Chamber. I have every sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who told the House that he has given up his private pursuits in order to enter into public service, but who has since been horrified to find that there are so few facilities. Although we should think carefully about whether sufficient facilities should be provided for people to pursue their private businesses from here—I do not think that we should be quite as lavish as that—our facilities ought to be brought as up to date as is reasonably possible.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, we have had 34 minutes of interesting discussion. Many questions have been answered by other noble Lords, who have then posed further questions to be answered by yet other noble Lords.

We start from a position where we occupy a building that was not designed for modern purposes. Sir Charles Barry had no idea of the purposes for which this building would eventually be used. That is a problem that we all share. Given what I have learned from the Offices Committee, there is no doubt that it is determined to make progress on improving accommodation for noble Lords in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, has pointed out that in the 1960s the facilities provided in the Commons were dreadful. I can recall Lord Winstanley—then Dr Michael Winstanley, Member of Parliament for Cheadle—saying, "You would not believe that after all the effort you put into getting me sent to the House of Commons, once I arrived, I found that I had to enter a raffle to secure a desk!" Things have improved there and things are improving here.

I know that not everyone is happy with offices across the road, but there is a limit to the number of people that we can cram into this building. In recent times, we have acquired 18 offices in Little College Street; we have five rooms that are being returned from the Commons, two of which have already been handed over and three of which will be handed over at Easter; we have 107 desks in Millbank House; we have 27 desks in Old Palace Yard; and we have 12 extra offices in the Palace of Westminster, which is around 61 desks. Between December 2000 and October 2001 the House will have gained 69 offices, making a total of 153 desks. So progress is being made. That does not take into account the 43 rooms referred to earlier.

A letter has been sent to the Commons, in quite clear terms, setting out precisely the problem that we have and that, in justice, those 43 rooms should come to this House. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that those rooms—although they may be in territory which is this side of the imaginary line—were never House of Lords rooms. They were put in, I think in 1965, for the Commons to improve its accommodation.

We are getting to the stage where, very shortly, every Member of the House will be able to have a desk—not necessarily within the Palace but within the area round about. It will average five square metres, which is not adequate; the Commons have somewhere between 12 and 15 square metres. This will be the subject of continuing discussions with the Commons to try to improve our share of the space in the Palace.

I am perfectly willing to accept the first two-thirds of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, but I have difficulty with paragraph (ii). If we were to draw a line, as he suggests—I know that this is one of the specialities of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—through the centre of the Palace, we would gain another seven committee rooms, the Commons tea tent, the Churchill Room and the five dining rooms on the bottom corridor. Desirable though that may be, the chances of getting that in sensible negotiations are rather slim. I believe that it would be better to keep up the pressure and to take this step by step. We should not put things onto the record in this Chamber which may frighten away the horses at the other end.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he bear in mind my plea for better accommodation and a decent room for foreign visitors?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I have been fortunate in my recent incarnation; I have a very good room on the West Front. However, I am conscious of the comparison between that and some Ministers' rooms, who also have visitors. I have received a number of visitors from overseas, particularly from Europe. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is one of the things that we have to factor into the equation when we are trying to find out how much accommodation we need and how we are going to get it.

I come back to paragraph (i) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I agree that it would be a very good thing to have some kind of survey to ascertain how much accommodation people feel that they need. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to other people—some want a lot, some want none—but we do not know at the moment precisely how much accommodation is needed. Nor do we know the size and shape of the House in the future. There are a number of intangibles in the whole business.

The Pugin Room was mentioned several times. Yes, it would be very nice to have the Pugin Room, but the idea that it was stolen from us a few years ago is not quite accurate. It was exchanged for a committee room in 1906—which, in your Lordships' eyes, might be recent, but I think that is stretching it a bit.

Perhaps I may say a word about smoking. While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support on the medical side, I was not so happy with what he said about smoking. I think that a reasonable compromise has been made for the moment. We can keep the issue under review; we are making progress. There are a number of smokers in the House who want proper provision to enable them to indulge themselves in their disgusting habit. I speak as a reformed smoker.

As to the issue of smoke in the Barry Room, I understand from the chairman of the Refreshment Sub-Committee that steps are being taken to improve ventilation in the Barry Room, which is inadequate at the moment. He is also looking at the possibility of obtaining more refreshment facilities within the Palace. But do not press him—just let him quietly go about his job—because, again, we have made a lot of progress in the years since I first came here.

With the assurance that I accept the first two parts of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I hope that he will not press the third part. That might send the wrong signals down the corridor at a time when fairly delicate negotiations are ongoing.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees and to all noble Lords who have spoken and largely supported the thrust of my amendment. The Chairman of Committees has undertaken to inquire into the needs of noble Lords, as suggested in paragraph (i) of the amendment, and he has told us that he will campaign for the return of the 43 rooms above the committee corridor, which would represent an admirable proportion of the space that we need.

He has been a little less encouraging about the return of the Pugin Room. As I recall—I confess that my memory is a little hazy—prior to 1983, when the late Lord Whitelaw became Leader of the House, I think we had the shared use of that room.

A noble Lord

No.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, whatever the position was then, we now have no access to it. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will see whether he can acquire—even if we did not have it before—shared access to that room. That would be a step in the right direction. If the noble Lord is nodding—as he seems to be—that he will attempt that, then, on that basis, I am happy with the assurances that he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.