asked the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate an inquiry into any difficulties that hon. Members and their secretaries experience due to the provision of accommodation and facilities in offices outside the main buildings of the Palace of Westminster.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is his present estimate of the unfilled need for office accommodation by hon. Members, excluding Ministers, in or near the Palace of Westminster.

I am aware of the pressure on accommodation, although this cannot be measured absolutely in view of the differing wishes of Members. I should be happy to refer to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee any particular problems within the Committee's remit that arise from the occupation of accommodation outside the main Palace buildings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as more than 40 per cent. of hon. Members and more than 80 per cent. of their secretaries are now provided with desk space—I can scarcely call it accommodation—in five buildings outside the Palace of Westminster, this inevitably means a great deal of time being wasted through people and paper moving around and difficulties in receiving messages and visitors? How much longer does he expect hon. Members to put up with that?

As a later question deals with the possible extension of accommodation, it might be more appropriate if I addressed myself to that when it arises.

Is the Lord President aware that in the current Estimates only £700 is allocated to convert a room in a hut on the roof of the Palace of Westminster into an office? Does he regard that as an adequate response to the undoubted need for decent accommodation for Members of Parliament and their staff?

I shall of course refer the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, but I must point out that there is a limit to what can be made of the resources now available and that any extension of those resources that might arise under question 29 is a matter for substantial decision involving considerable public expenditure.

Will my right hon. Friend remind our hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and others who think like him that the main work of the House of Commons is carried out in this Chamber and that anything that takes hon. Members away from this place into offices and forces them to spend an excessive amount of time on paperwork is a weakening of parliamentary democracy?

Does that include the Cabinet?

I shall reply in the most dull, downbeat fashion. I do not believe that there is any correlation between effectiveness in the Chamber and the amount of accommodation that an hon. Member has.

Why should Members' secretaries have precedence over Members in the allocation of accommodation within the immediate precincts of the Chamber?

I am not sure that that strictly arises from the answer that I have given, but I shall certainly put that point to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is—that, with all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), it is not possible in the Chamber to answer letters from one's constituents? Does he agree that most hon. Members and their secretaries work in conditions that would not be tolerated in the private sector, let alone in the great Ministries of Whitehall? Has my right hon. Friend any suggestions as to how to deal with that position without great expense to public funds?

I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) had in mind the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) seeks to make. However, I do not intend to arbitrate between them. The issue touches upon question 29 and perhaps I can reserve judgment until we reach that question.

asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to receive the report of the sub-Committee considering the provision of additional accommodation for hon. Members on the Bridge Street site.

asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee to complete its consideration of the possibility of securing the assistance of private funds in the implementation of the Casson report relating to the Bridge Street site.

The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee reported informally to the Services Committee last week. In the light of this report, the Services Committee is of the opinion that the premises fronting on Parliament Street between Derby Gate and Bridge Street, to the west of Cannon Row, should be restored without delay for parliamentary use. It has asked the Sub-Committee to explore means of developing the remainder of the Bridge Street site in such a manner as to safeguard the interests of Parliament and to report as soon as practicable.

Has the Lord President of the Council noticed that Conservative hon. Members are prepared to tell workers in the pits and on the railways to modernise their working practices, but do not appear to be willing to do anything about the working practices in this building? Is he aware that secretaries and Members are working in appalling conditions and that some of us, unlike Conservative hon. Members, do not have private offices in the City or elsewhere? Will the Lord President assure us that this welcome report will be accepted by the Government and that action will be taken to give Members some decent conditions so that we can provide a good service to our constituents and can scrutinise legislation properly?

The recommendation of the Sub-Committee will now go to the Department of the Environment, so that it will buttress the Department in its discussions with the Treasury in determining the PESC allowance.

Since successive Governments have always managed, for good or ill, to frustrate development proposals for the Bridge Street site, does the Lord President agree that the best way ahead is to invite private investment for a mixed use development of the site, with a lease-back arrangement for extra accommodation? The House can decide nearer the time whether that accommodation should be made available to it.

My hon. Friend overlooks the fact that the future use of the Bridge Street site has never excited unanimous judgment in the Chamber. As regards private capital, my hon. Friend will have noticed in my main answer that that is one of the options now being considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the beginning of this Parliament the Bridge Street site development was to have gone ahead but was stopped for reasons of economy? Since then the Government have decided to build a new conference centre on the old Colonial Office site in Parliament Square. Have the Government got their priorities right?

Clearly there is more than one view on whether the priorities are properly adjudged. My answer shows that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has reported to the Services Committee on early action for bringing into full parliamentary use the area that is fronted between Derby Gate and Bridge Street to the west of Cannon Row. Surely that is a development to be applauded by my hon. Friend.

Is the Leader of the House expecting unanimity in the House before anything is done about accomodation and conditions? If so, is he aware that most of us will be filled with utter dismay about the future? Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more positive, rather than waiting for unanimity in the House?

No, Sir. I should have thought that the measured caution of the House demonstrates the House at its best.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make arrangements to commission a painting or photograph of the present Chamber and Membership of the House.

I would be prepared to ask the Services Committee or the Works of Art Committee to consider this proposal, if it became evident that there was widespread support for it in the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive answer. Is he aware that it is some time since a photograph or painting of this Chamber and its Membership was commissioned? Bearing in mind that such a commission was exercised in another place recently, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we authorised such a commission in this Chamber as a matter of urgency?

I can think of more pressing reforms. I have set only two modest hoops that have to be circumvented to set such a proposal in motion.

Bearing in mind the majority of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), should not the Leader of the House have some sympathy with him, because the hon. Gentleman will one day want to prove to his grandchildren that he actually sat in the House?

Since a Tory was the immediate predecessor of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will long outlast him.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider taking appropriate steps to change the parliamentary year so that the new Session of Parliament is opened in January rather than in the autumn.

I have no such proposals to make to the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that until the 1930s the new Session of Parliament always commenced at the beginning of the year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great merit in bringing together the parliamentary year, the fiscal year and the calendar year so that, in common with other organisations, Parliament can consider the Government's legislative programme along with their fiscal measures at the same time? That is outwith the issue of how long we sit. Is it not time for a necessary return to older practices?

I have no wish to stand at this Box as a great reformer. Such a major innovation should be undertaken only after careful study. Perhaps the initial study should be undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who is currently conducting a major overhaul of our financial procedures.

In spite of the persistence of the Leader of the House in having the House meet in July, does he realise that the Scottish school holidays are now halfway through and that holding the Summer Recess in the autumn does not suit many of us? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the last major piece of business is a Scottish matter and, therefore, an aggravation for those Members who would otherwise have gone away with their families?

I have a great deal of sympathy with Scottish Members over the present pattern of business. There is not an immediate and overwhelming reason why a spill-over in September would be more acceptable to the House than a spill-over in October. This matter is intimately related to our financial year, and I refer to my previous answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take back his words about reform? After all, he is only the second leader of the House after Dick Crossman to separate decisions on discussions from the discussions themselves, as from last week.

Perhaps that shows what great errors I commit when I depart from the tenets of Conservatism.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to reduce the number of persons entitled to use passes to the Members' car park, New Palace Yard.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied that the rules concerning the use of the Members' car park are being complied with; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that, under normal circumstances, the current ratio of permits to spaces provides optimum use of the car park. Those who use the car park should show their permit on entry and leave it displayed while parked. I have been made aware dial this latter rule is not always complied with and would urge those who do not comply to do so.

As circumstances are not always normal, will my right hon. Friend help Members to get on with their duties by making sure that there is always room for Members to park, by tightening up the regulations? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overcrowding is getting worse? Will he ensure that passes issued for the use of Members are not sometimes used by secretaries and research assistants?

My hon. Friend raises serious and substantial points. Undoubtedly, in the recent past, the rail strike has resulted in quite serious difficulties, and I shall certainly ask the Services Committee again to look at the rules to see whether they can be enforced more effectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the consequences of the congestion last week was that I missed an important vote? Why have there been issued nearly twice as many permits as there are car park spaces, and why are some people using more than one space? In the interests of security as well as convenience, will he ensure that the rule of "one space per Member" is complied with?

When determining the ratio of 2 : 1, the House authorities had in mind the differing working patterns of hon. Members and the differing working hours of other authorised users. However, if there is serious and substantiated evidence of abuse, it is something that we shall have seriously to consider.