asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made towards establishing Parliamentary control of the Palace of Westminster; and whether he will make a statement.

I cannot add to my replies of 9th November to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and other hon. Members.

Does my right hon. Friend expect a statement to be made, either by himself or by another Minister, within the next few days before we rise for Christmas? Is not this a very good chance to nationalise something without compensation?

My views on this matter are well known. I reiterated them in the Adjournment Debate on 25th November. As I said, I am still giving this matter urgent consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman would accept that any change that he might eventually have in mind would be much more a matter for the whole House than for any one individual Minister or Ministry? Will he give an undertaking that he will proceed in the light of that principle and will certainly not contemplate any change in the present arrangements without opportunities for the House as a whole and others who work in the Palace of Westminster to be consulted?

That Intervention betrays the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the constitutional position.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least on this side of the House there is real anxiety that progress should be made in this matter and we have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will give us information as soon as possible?

Will the right hon. Gentleman approach this matter with the utmost caution? I ask him to bear in mind that the present position, whereby this is a Royal Palace under the control of the Lord Great Chamberlain, has great advantages for hon. Members who wish alcoholic refreshment during all-night sittings.

That seems to be a rather absurd reason for continuing a hereditary office which goes back to 1133. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unaware that I have given unremitting consideration to this subject for the past 15 years.

In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), I ask him to bear in mind that, whatever his view of the constitutional position is, the management of this Palace is a matter of general concern to the House as a whole? Will he bear in mind that, although there may be many of us who are not necessarily wedded to the present arrangement, we would feel that this was not a matter for the Government alone but perhaps one for the House through a Select Committee? Will he bear that in mind and not face us with a fait accompli?

The Select Committee which met in 1953 gave a unanimous Report. The Members of that Committee included the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), who was formerly Home Secretary. The Committee laid certain proposals before the House in a unanimous Report, of which no notice was taken by our predecessors. We are very well seized of these matters. They are not matters for the consideration of the House alone. They are matters for Parliament, which consists of both Houses. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I am not insensitive to what is due to the House of Commons.