| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Visitor Facilities
43. Angela Smith (Basildon): To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals the Commission has evaluated for the provision of facilities for visitors to the Houses of Parliament. [91381]
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Plans have been prepared to convert Westminster Hall cafeteria into a centre for visitors to the Houses of Parliament in 2002, after Portcullis house opens. The centre will provide alternative catering facilities. I am pleased to say that good progress on the new building means that it may be possible to bring forward the conversion to 2001. The relevant Committees and officials of the House are now examining options.
Angela Smith: Many of us welcome the hon. Gentleman's answer, but while we enjoy our constituents' visits, they are often spoiled by the lack of refreshment facilities for them. I speak as someone who was ticked off by the Serjeant at Arms Department for allowing my
cubs to eat their sandwiches in the one of the W Rooms off Westminster Hall--I had to send them outside in the rain. While we welcome the proposed use of the Westminster Hall cafeteria, could we not use the hall itself, which is used for lobbies and functions, to provide special facilities in the interim period?
Mr. Kirkwood: That would be difficult. One of the difficulties that the Commission always faces is that the uses to which the precincts of the Palace--both the House of Commons and the Lords--are put are constrained by architectural and national heritage considerations. The hon. Lady's point is well made. I encourage her to continue to press the House of Commons Commission and the appropriate Committees to put pressure on all the available authorities to improve what is available for our constituents and other visitors. The conditions are certainly inadequate and need to be improved, but we are doing all that we can.
Portcullis House
44. Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the original estimate and what is his latest estimate of the cost of Portcullis house. [91382]
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The estimated cost of Portcullis house, as agreed by the House of Commons Commission in 1993, was £165 million, including construction costs, furnishings, fees, value added tax and an element for risk. At the time, the forecast inflation for 1992-99 was between £51 million and £62 million. The present forecast outturn costs to the original brief for construction fees, furnishings, VAT and risk remain at £165 million at 1992 prices, but inflation in 1992-2000 is now estimated at £56 million. Approved changes to the original brief have added a cost of £4 million and £10 million is attributed to delays caused by London Underground Ltd.'s work on Westminster station. The current overall estimate is, therefore, £235 million.
Mr. Flynn: It seems unfair that inflation occurred in those years, which seems to be a total surprise to the relevant authority. Has the hon. Gentleman noted that the cost of that single building is 10 times the cost of the Welsh Assembly building? There is another difference--the Welsh Assembly building is beautiful. Is he satisfied that the Commission used the right financial rigour in its advance financial planning?
Mr. Kirkwood: The contractual arrangements that were agreed by the House in 1993 are industry-standard. The provisions made for inflation were agreed and known at the time. The estimates are not out of line. They were between £51 million and £62 million and, in the event, it looks as though inflation is likely to be somewhere between the two, at £56 million. The building should be judged on the basis of value for money. It is designed to last for 200 years. If the low maintenance and running costs meet the design specifications, the building will truly be seen to have been good value for money in 200 years' time. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hang around and make representations
at that time, I will be here to try to ensure that true judgments can be made then, when the full value of the building can be judged.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given that the taxpayer has to foot the bill for Portcullis house, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all relevant work has been subject to competitive tender?
Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed it has. All the normal European and other contract compliance rules have been fully taken into account and executed in the operation of the contract. The Commission has undertaken a mid-term review, which has just been completed by the consultants, Northcroft, who confirmed that, provided that the building meets its design specification to last between 125 and 200 years, the public purse will truly get value for money from what will be an architecturally special building.
Deputy Speakers (Westminster Hall)
46. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): What representations she has received concerning the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons for the appointment of Deputy Speakers for sittings in Westminster Hall. [91384]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): A few representations on this
subject have been received and a motion will be put before the House after the recess covering this and other arrangements for sittings in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Government restore to Parliament as a whole and to Back Benchers in particular the right to choose their own officers? Does my hon. Friend consider that it is now inappropriate for Deputy Speakers to be appointed through the usual channels and that the Government and the Opposition Front Bench should have no hand in it whatsoever? Should not this be the subject of a free vote by Back Benchers because it is our property? Secondly, and not unimportantly, Deputy Speakers tend to be a curia from which Speakers are chosen. It is appropriate that this House and Back Benchers choose our Deputy Speakers in future. What does he say?
Mr. Tipping: I say what I said a moment ago: a motion will be brought before the House after the summer recess and before the next Session. Of course, Members will have an opportunity to vote on it. Let me remind my hon. Friend that the Modernisation Committee report recommended that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel should acquire those posts.
NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Stephen Rothwell O'Brien Esq., for Eddisbury
3.32 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you advise me how an important issue can be raised before the House recesses on Tuesday? As someone who fully supported--indeed, urged--the military intervention in Kosovo, I am concerned, as other hon. Members are, about the slaughter of 14 civilian Serbs on Saturday, including a boy of 15. If the House were not going into recess, there would be various ways to raise the matter, including Prime Minister's Question Time. If we cannot raise it before we rise, it will be nearly three months before it can be raised on the Floor of the House.
In those circumstances, and remembering that we went into Kosovo to protect all civilians against murder and ethnic cleansing--the murder of the 14 Serbs is undoubtedly ethnic cleansing--I ask only that you reflect on how we can raise the matter today or tomorrow because much lies in your hands, for reasons that I cannot touch on.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
rose--
Madam Speaker:
Let me reply please.
Mrs. Mahon:
It is on the same point.
Madam Speaker:
Let me hear it then.
Mrs. Mahon:
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that a precedent was set for making a statement by the Foreign Secretary when Albanians were massacred by Serb paramilitaries. It is clear from the case of the 14 Serbs that many Serbs, Roma and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo are being subjected to a reign of terror. They are hiding out and, in some cases, being protected by KFOR. Given that situation, will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to make a statement, as has been done previously? If we are to appear even-handed, and equally as concerned about whoever is massacred, that seems to be the only fair way to proceed.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
rose--
Madam Speaker:
Is it on the same point of order?
Ann Clwyd:
It is on Kosovo, but not related to the point of order made by my hon. Friends.
Madam Speaker:
Perhaps I should reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I do, of course, understand their concern, especially the point about even-handedness--that is exactly what we want to see. The Government Whip on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the comments that were made. I suggest to the hon. Members that they might also make representations to the Leader of the House to see whether, in the time available--I am aware that there is little time--there can be a statement from the Foreign Office, if that is wanted.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |