| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Constituents' Facilities
29. Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what progress the Commission has made in providing funding for better facilities for visiting constituents to the House. [681]
Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): On 12 July 1994, the House approved the first report of Session 1992-93 from the Catering Committee, which recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted into a visitors' centre which would provide light refreshments for the public, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative had been found for the present lunchtime users. The Catering Committee is advised that, at present, there are not sufficient outlets for staff to accommodate the large numbers of users of the Westminster Hall cafeteria who would be displaced. It is therefore unlikely that the recommendations can be implemented until the opening of the new cafeteria in phase 2 of the parliamentary building plan. It remains the Commission's intention to proceed to implementation as soon as circumstances permit.
Mr. Skinner: Obviously, that reply from the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament who represents the Commission on this occasion is not good enough. Is he aware that when disabled people come to Parliament-- there has been an increasing number of them lately, protesting about the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill and trying to get their own Bill through--there are no proper toilet facilities, with the result that private facilities costing several thousand pounds are engaged every time that there is a disabled lobby? The disabled have to use portable toilets, which cost money, in Star Chamber Court. Why is it not possible for the Commission and the Government to provide the money to ensure that when disabled people come to Parliament to protest and to lobby their Members of Parliament, proper toilet facilities are installed somewhere or other in the building? Surely, with all the money that they spend on the portable facilities, they ought to be doing something of a permanent nature.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Member raises a perfectly good point, about which there is a question further down the Order Paper. The Commission made it clear that it is ready to implement, and find the money to implement, whatever recommendations the domestic Committees bring forward to help disabled people.
Mr. Viggers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no greater honour for a Member of Parliament than to show constituents around the House of Commons and that, generally, we have few complaints about the facilities available and nothing but praise for your staff, Madam Speaker, and the other staff of the House of Commons who make those visits possible? Does he agree that the real problem arises from mass lobbies, where the unreasonable expectation is given that they provide a good forum for dialogue between Members of Parliament and the public, and that that worthwhile dialogue is best achieved in the constituency or perhaps by hiring a hall outside the Palace?
Mr. Beith: I agree that it is a great honour to show constituents around the House and that they rarely have any complaint except that they often express a wish to have somewhere to go for a cup tea where they do not have to be accompanied by the Member who is showing them around.
On the issue of mass lobbies, there are obviously physical limitations on the ability of the building to allow a large number of people to see their Members of Parliament during an afternoon. Organisers of lobbies must recognise that, although they may wish to have the impact of bringing a large number of people here.
Staff Remuneration
30. Mr. Janner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the remuneration of House of Commons staff. [673]
Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Administration Act 1978 requires the House of Commons Commission to ensure that complementing, grading and pay of staff in House Departments are kept broadly in line with those in the home civil service. For most staff, rates of pay are the same as those in equivalent grades in the civil service. Where variations have been introduced, they have been achieved through negotiation with the appropriate recognised trade unions.
Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that House of Commons catering staff do a superb job and should be paid on the same basis, receive equal treatment and be awarded the same pay increases as people in other Departments, and that those increases should have the same benefits? If so, why were average increases for non-catering staff 2.5 per cent. while those for catering staff were equivalent to only 2.05 per cent., which is rotten? Even if the difference were made up with a lump sum, it would not include pension allowances.
Mr. Beith: Refreshment Department pay rates are linked to those negotiated between the Treasury and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. They involve a number of benefits that do not apply in other Departments of the House, and there is a separate pay structure. However, I shall arrange for the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific point to be looked at.
Mr. Fabricant: Is it true that a deputy chef in the House of Commons earns more than a Member of Parliament? As a Member of Parliament, I declare an interest.
Mr. Beith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the Commission's annual report, where he will find just how many people are paid more than Members of Parliament.
Disabled People
31. Mr. Cox: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what further funding he will make available to improve facilities for disabled people who attend meetings at the Houses of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [674]
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will recall the statement made by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on 19 October this year, outlining
improvements made during the summer recess to try to make this place more accessible to the disabled. By the end of this financial year, we expect to have spent some £688,000. Further expenditure will be authorised as necessary following any advice that we receive from the Accommodation and Works Committee.
Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the House has an obligation to help disabled people, many of whom are confined to wheelchairs, when they come here to see us. Is he aware that, when a lobby took place in Westminster Hall recently on a very unpleasant day, no facilities were available for those people to have a hot drink, or even a cold drink? We now have a sales kiosk in Westminster Hall, but when will priority be given to disabled people? They have a right to come and see us and we have a duty to make facilities available to them when they do so.
Mr. Beith: The Commission is sympathetic to the sort of argument that the hon. Gentleman makes and has sought at every stage to implement practical suggestions on how facilities for the disabled could be improved, including providing additional toilets, adapting lifts, and making a new entrance via Black Rod's Garden, which provides better access for disabled people to certain parts of the building. I shall ask the Commission to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Sir Anthony Grant: To help the funding of facilities in the House, would it not be a good idea to place at each exit from the House a box, so that, quite voluntarily, visitors in their increasing numbers could contribute to improving those facilities? I am sure that the hordes of foreign visitors who increasingly come here would be only too delighted to help in that voluntary fashion.
Mr. Beith: The Commission has never discussed such a proposal but, if I may venture an opinion, I think that those who come here feel that they pay for this place out of their taxes and are entitled to have a look round.
Members' Facilities (Chamber)
34. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what proposals the Commission has for expenditure on additional facilities for Members in the Chamber. [678]
Mr. Beith: None, but I am sure that the appropriate domestic Committee would give careful consideration to any proposal that the hon. Gentleman may put forward.
Mr. Banks: It is not a question of proposals that I may put forward. We all know that the facilities provided to Members are appalling. This place is a cross between a gentleman's club and a public school. We have nowhere to sit and write while we listen to these banal questions and pathetic answers. Is it not about time that we pulled this whole wretched place down and started again?
Mr. Beith: Neither I nor the Commission are in favour of pulling down this fine and notable building. Quite a lot of improvements have been secured in and around it over the years. The Commission's view is that its job is not to invent new facilities for Members but to respond to
reasonable proposals, which have been carefully examined and, if they are major proposals, have also gained the approval of the House.
Mr. Carrington: Does the right hon. Gentleman occasionally need to phone outside the United Kingdom, on parliamentary business, through the House of Commons telephone system? If so, he will have discovered that it must be done through the House of Commons operator. Should it not be perfectly possible, given the computerised telephone exchange that the House now has, for Members of Parliament to dial abroad directly and for those calls to be billed to them from the PABX system without the direct intervention of the operator?
Mr. Beith: I imagine that it is, but I will inquire and write to the hon. Gentleman.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |