Systems
111. A number of Members have written to us to express
their dissatisfaction with the way that Members' accommodation
is currently allocated, suggesting in some cases that the accommodation
should be allocated by the House Administration instead of by
the Whips:
The current system for allocating accommodation
does not work fairly or effectively.[103]
There is strong impression that the allocation
of offices is used as an instrument of a patronage in a sometimes
capricious manner. Decisions often fail to achieve an equitable
and efficient use of space.[104]
I consider the current arrangements for the allocation
of office space for Members to be profoundly unsatisfactory. Allocations
are made by the Party Whips, and are used in effect as a disciplinary
mechanism which should not be accepted in a modern Parliament.
One effect of this arrangement is a less than efficient use of
the space available … In my view, allocation of Members'
offices should be the responsibility of the House authorities
within guidelines set by the Administration Committee.[105]
Allocation of rooms is currently haphazard and
non-transparent—I do not envy the job of party whips in
attempting to allocate places but it inevitably leads to inconsistency.[106]
I do think there ought to be some rough rule
of seniority that could be in play rather than it being very much
in the hands of the whips who in my experience allocate on the
basis of favouritism or a sense of reward and punishment.[107]
The current system for allocating accommodation
does not work fairly and effectively because accommodation is
used as a political tool by the whips. It is not appropriate that
they have the ability to move people around when accommodation
is of a varied standard; if all offices were the same size it
would not be so much of a problem. Perhaps it would be better
if the Serjeant at Arms Department took on this responsibility
instead.[109]
112. We should make it clear from the outset that
in our view there is no realistic alternative to the current system
whereby the Whips allocate individual rooms to Members. The
system is not perfect, but it is effective. It is a job which,
as the Government Accommodation Whip told us, "it is extremely
difficult to think of who else is capable of doing".[110]
And as the Opposition Chief Whip has remarked,
It would be nice to find a great system that
meant everybody was satisfied with their office accommodation;
but I do not think we are going to find such a system.[111]
Any authority seeking to allocate rooms differing
so widely in size and quality would no doubt face accusations
of unfairness and favouritism. These are accusations which the
Whips are robust enough to face; it would not, however, be fair
to submit House of Commons staff to the same treatment.
113. The split in the control of accommodation between
the Whips, the various Departments of the House and the Press
Gallery mean that an overall requirement for space is difficult
to assess with any accuracy. In the case of Members' staff any
assessment would be particularly difficult to conduct, given that
the allocation of their accommodation is partly controlled by
the Serjeant and partly in the hands of the Whips. The Clerk of
the House is currently expected to be held formally accountable
for the use of a resource over which he has no overview, let alone
control. Where one group of occupants or another claims to
need more accommodation, lack of certainty over how accommodation
is being used and who it is being used by makes such claims difficult
to assess objectively.
114. We have been made aware of suggestions from
Members of the smaller parliamentary parties, whose accommodation
is allocated by the Government Accommodation Whip, that they do
not receive their fair share of Members' accommodation.[112]
We are happy to confirm our view that it is important that
the allocation of accommodation to Members of each and every political
party should comprise a reasonably equitable cross-section of
the rooms available across the Estate.
115. There are currently a number of anomalies in
the allocation of Members' accommodation that it would be remiss
of us not to mention. Some Members have two or more offices; others
have a single very large office; others have to share an office
with one or more other Members; still others occupy space which
is clearly substandard. Where Members have two offices, this is
sometimes because, as the Government Accommodation Whip explained
to us, there is insufficient space to accommodate their parliamentary
staff in the ministerial accommodation they have been allocated.[113]
But there are also a number of Members with two or more sizeable
offices. These include front-bench and back-bench Members from
each of the three largest parties.
116. Some Members have less than 10 sq m office space;
others more than 60 sq m. Members' needs for office space
vary principally according to the numbers of staff they wish to
locate at Westminster. But these needs alone do not explain why
some Members have more than six times as much space at their disposal
as others. Where Members occupy substandard accommodation, this
may be because of a lack of sufficient adequate Members' accommodation;
but it may also be because of how the Members' accommodation available
has been allocated.
117. Given the varied accommodation available, there
can never be complete equality among Members in the accommodation
they receive, but it is important that disparities should be minimised
so far as possible. The current wide discrepancies in the accommodation
allocated to individual Members do not help to make the case that
Members may need more overall space on the Estate.
75 
