House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Nov 1991

Column 622

in making that particular claim. I entirely acknowledge that Network SouthEast, whose rolling stock is an average of 19 years old, is in a more disadvantaged position than almost any other network in the United Kingdom. That is why a substantial proportion of the resources available to British Rail are going towards the refurbishment of Network SouthEast and its very old rolling stock. About half the investment programme is directed at that particular part of the country.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Duchy Tenants

29. Mr. Pike : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit tenants of the Duchy in the county palatine.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten) : I recently spent a day visiting tenants on the Duchy's Yorkshire survey, and I was greatly impressed by the efficient and cost-effective running of the estates by Duchy tenants. I very much look forward to my next visit to the county palatine.

Mr. Pike : While that might be very encouraging, did the Chancellor discuss with tenants and others resident in the county palatine the problems still arising from the poll tax? Will he urge the Government, even now, to waive the 20 per cent. payment for which those living in poverty and at the lower end of the income scale are liable? Will he also give councils discretion to waive payments due, when they can see that there is no possible chance of recovering them?

Mr. Patten : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rebates available to community charge payers are much more generous than they were under domestic rating. When I next visit the county palatine, I will certainly take up--on the hon. Gentleman's part, I am sure--the case of all those Labour councillors who still refuse to pay their community charge.

Mr. Sumberg : If my right hon. Friend had a chance to discuss local government finance when he was last in the county palatine, did he mention the Labour party's proposal to remove all forms of capping on local authority expenditure, which would represent an open cheque book for every left-wing Labour authority, both in the county palatine and outside it?

Mr. Patten : As my hon. Friend makes clear, under Labour not only would taxes imposed by central Government be much higher but taxes imposed by local government would also be higher. That is why there will not be, thank heavens, a Labour Government.

Dr. Cunningham : When the Chancellor next visits the Duchy, will he explain to the people of the north-west why it is that Tory Members of Parliament who supported everything that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said and did for 12 years are now queueing up at television stations to attack her? Will the right hon. Gentleman set an example, as chairman of the Conservative party, and reaffirm the warm loyalty that he personally showed to that right hon. Lady when he was a member of her Cabinet? Does the Chancellor condemn the

Column 623

things that Conservative Members are saying about and doing to the right hon. Member for Finchley now--or is he orchestrating them?

Mr. Patten : When the hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box, I thought that he was going to say something about the commitment to minimum binding rates of taxation that his party has signed. I will make my position absolutely plain. I agree with what Conservative party leaders have been saying about referendums for the last 15 or 20 years. I am sure that one thing on which everyone in the county palatine and on which public opinion generally is agreed is that after the Leader of the Opposition's miserable little speech in last Wednesday's debate, all should be united in their determination to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman never makes a speech from this side of the House.

Mr. Mans : When my right hon. Friend next visits the tenants, will he take the opportunity to visit the British Aerospace centre at Warton, and see for himself the extent of the facilities there for military aircraft production? Those facilities would be laid waste if Labour ever governed the country.

Mr. Patten : Labour's commitment to £6 billion of defence cuts would, of course, have a considerable impact on employment in the defence industries, as well as undermining the defences of the United Kingdom.

Devolution of Powers

30. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for the devolution of his powers from Whitehall to Lancaster.

Mr. Chris Patten : I have no such proposals.

Mr. Hughes : Does that mean that the Chancellor has the same objection to the concept of devolution as he apparently has to the concept of a referendum? Has the stunning success achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) in the recent by-election exerted no influence on the Cabinet, and has it failed to change the Government's attitude to devolution, whether in Scotland, Wales or the regions of England?

Mr. Patten : I note that--for the time being, at least--the Liberal party seems to have changed its position. Normally, it bases its arguments on its commitment to proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman, however, seems to be basing his arguments about Kincardine and Deeside, and the Liberals' position in the opinion polls, on plurality voting in single- Member constituencies. Liberal party policy changes from one part of the country to another.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing surprise at the temerity of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in asking a question about my constituency? Does he accept that my constituency has attracted increasing numbers of students and an increasing volume of industry? Any Department of State that had the good fortune to come to us would be very welcome.

Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Any constituency represented by a Member of Parliament as diligent as she would also be very fortunate.

Column 624

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

40. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to meet representatives of Her Majesty's Treasury to discuss the estimates of the National Audit Office.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission) : I have no plans to do so. Section 4 of the National Audit Act 1983 requires the Public Accounts Commission to examine the National Audit Office estimate and to lay it before the House, having regard to any advice received by the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury. Treasury advice takes the form of a written memorandum. The Commission is due to consider the National Audit Office estimate for 1992-93 on 10 December.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what might happen if the National Audit Office were given the right to start crawling over the accounts of the European Community, and perhaps producing the odd value-for-money report? Is it not about time that Members of the European Parliament demanded a far higher level of accountability in regard to taxpayers' money that is being used for the Commission's expenditure programme?

Sir Peter Hordern : That is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have his views.

I hope that, at the Maastricht meeting, full consideration will be given to the development of public audit in the Community. The European Court of Audit does useful work, but it is small in relation to the vast task of auditing Commission expenditure. There are also no real, regular arrangements for clear financial reporting, for the court's reports to be debated by the European Parliament, for the Parliament to make clear recommendations to the Commission or for the Commission to publish its response.

In other words, there is no mechanism similar to ours involving a Public Accounts Committee supported by a National Audit Office. It may take some time to go fully down that path, but I think it important that we move in such a direction with more urgency than has been shown up to now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Is it not a problem that, although the Court of Audit cannot deal with the whole range of European expenditure, there is no back-up to ensure that the work that it does produce is properly considered--and receives the media attention that would make the 300 million people in the European Community realise where good work is being done in Europe, and where there is frightening waste, inefficiency, corruption and cheating?

Sir Peter Hordern : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no mechanism whereby the Commission must account to the European Parliament, and I think that there should be.

Column 625

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Official Duties

31. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on his official duties in the last fortnight.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten) : I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. Winnick : They are pretty time consuming, I must say. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues--or some of them, at least-- who feel that he should spend more time carrying out his duties as Chancellor, and less time orchestrating a campaign against the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is apparently now being accused of losing the Tories the next election? How many by-elections have been won by the Tories since the right hon. Gentleman has held his present post?

Mr. Patten : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will be moved and touched by the hon. Gentleman's support for her views, which has been one of the consistent features of his political career.

Mr. Cash : Does my right hon. Friend remember recently quoting Randolph Churchill, who said, "We trust the people"? Does he agree that it will be extremely useful and important, irrespective of the question of a referendum, to make sure that any deal that we may strike at Maastricht is backed by a free vote in the House of Commons?

Mr. Patten : I believe in trusting the people, but I do not believe in either this House or the Government shuffling out of their responsibilities. What we shall be negotiating at Maastricht is a step forward in co-operation. We are not talking about a leap into the unknown. That is what we are attempting to prevent, and it makes my views against a referendum even stronger than they would otherwise be.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliamentary Hours

41. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for changes in parliamentary hours of business.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : As the House knows, I have submitted memorandum to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and also appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence. In so doing, I was expressing my personal views, and not a collective view on behalf of the Government.

I am sure the whole House looks forward, as I do, with great interest to the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Skinner : Is it not outrageous that a senior member of the Government is talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament and suggesting at the same time a

Column 626

48-hour week for miners? A better way to deal with Fridays would be to ensure that 35 Fridays are allocated to private Members' Bills, then some of the people who queue up might have a chance to get those Bills into law. The Minister, on behalf of his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wants a four-day week to try to shut up those Tory ex-Prime Ministers and others who are criticising the current Prime Minister, but the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will keep coming out into the daylight--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has said enough. What is his question? Come on, wind it up.

Mr. Skinner : The ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley, will keep coming out into the daylight--

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman can express his views about the organisation of the sittings of the House, and whether they should include Fridays, to the Committee. As I have stressed before to him, when I think I carried the vast majority of the House with me, to suggest that we are talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament, even if we do not meet on some Fridays, is utterly ridiculous. My point was that hon. Members increasingly have constituency engagements to undertake on Fridays that they cannot carry out at weekends. I was trying to take that into account. The hon. Gentleman does the House no service by suggesting that this has anything to do with a four-day week.

Sir John Stokes : Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have no wish for a change in parliamentary hours? Will he, however, consider providing more time for very important debates, such as the great debate last Thursday on Europe? I understand that 78 right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak but only 20 were called. None of us wants our constituents to ask what we are doing here.

Mr. MacGregor : When a very large number of Members wish to speak in certain debates, it is inevitable that not all of them will be called, but that does not mean that we are not expressing our views to the Government of the day, and that can be said to our constituents. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point about last week's big debate. That is why we lengthened the first day to midnight. I am sure that we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss this matter.

Procedure Reforms

42. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reform of the House of Commons procedure.

Mr. MacGregor : I have put a number of ideas to the Select Committee that is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It is now for the Committee to make recommendations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Is not it quite outrageous that, despite the fact that it has been out for six months, the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which deals with chairmen of Select Committees and their private interests, has not been debated by the House? Is it true that it has not been debated because of pressure from

Column 627

Select Committee Chairmen? May we have an assurance that when it is finally debated it will be not on a take-note motion but on substantive resolutions tabled by the Lord President by which we can make reforms?

Mr. MacGregor : It is not outrageous because there are often longer periods between the publication of a Select Committee report and the opportunity to debate it in the House. We have had much business to consider. The House has just heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) would have liked to spend longer on the European debate. There is much pressure on business. I hope to arrange a debate on this matter before too long, but it certainly will not be before Christmas because there is much to do before then. The precise form of the debate has yet to be settled, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has nothing to do with pressure from anyone not to have a debate ; it is purely a question of pressure on business in the House.

Mr. Dykes : Does the Lord President agree that neither the procedure nor the constitutional practices of this ancient House would be affected by anything at Maastricht--no domestic constitutional proposals will be affected--so the idea of a referendum is irrelevant?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made that point about Maastricht. The position of Conservative leaders in recent years on referendums on European issues has been consistent. In expressing his views on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was entirely in line with that consistency.

Mr. Grocott : Is the Lord President aware that many Labour Members would recommend substantial reforms of procedures, not least to try to make them more intelligible to our much wider audience through television? However, a reported view of his that is causing some concern and alarm is that we should get rid of the 10-minute rule procedure. That is one of the most valuable devices for Back Benchers to express views and to introduce legislation that often becomes law. Will he confirm that there is no intention to take away that right?

Mr. MacGregor : I made a considerable number of proposals to reduce the number of late sittings, and in so doing was trying to strike a balance between the needs of Government, Opposition and Back Benchers. I made a number of recommendations, which the Select Committee can consider, advocating more time in other directions for Back Benchers to put their point of view. The Select Committee will make recommendations and then the House will decide.

Mr. Butler : Did my right hon. Friend's proposals include an automatic guillotine at midnight?

Mr. MacGregor : No, they did not, but I hope that the thrust of many of my proposals will lead to fewer late-night sittings, which we have achieved this year because at least 20 measures that formerly would have been considered on the Floor of the House after 10 o'clock have been considered by the European Standing Committees.

Column 628

Members Lobby

43. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Advisory Committee on Works of Art to make proposals for using the two vacant plinths in the Members Lobby.

Mr. MagGregor : I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Banks : What a very dull and unimaginative response that was. Is the Lord President aware of the wonderful opportunity that has been missed? If one of the plinths in the Members Lobby had been occupied by a statue of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), one year ago almost to the day joyous Londoners could have pulled it down, rather like Muscovites toppled the statue of Feliks Dzerzhinsky? If Stalinists in eastern Europe are to have their statues toppled, why did not we have an opportunity to do it to the west's great Stalinist? In view of her good contribution on Europe, may we have a statue out there, provided that she meets the necessary qualification?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman may have been doing his research after all. I was going to accuse him of not having done his research and of frothing at the mouth to no purpose. He will know that, by common consent and usage, there is a 10-year qualification for the plinths. He may have been quite outrageously referring to that in the final part of his question. That is the answer in relation to the question of any others appearing on the plinths.

Mr. Cormack : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a distinguished and distinctive member of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should have known about the 10-year rule? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be for a successor Committee to decide whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) should be commemorated and that that Committee may decide that it would be better to have a free vote in the House on that subject rather than a referendum?

Mr. MacGregor : I have already made plain my view on referendums. I have made it clear that the Government Front Bench is being entirely consistent on the subject of referendums. We have consistently followed the view of Conservative leaders since 1975, when the matter was seriously debated in relation to European issues.

As for the plinth, my hon. Friend is right to say that that will be a matter for some perhaps long-distant Committee to consider again.

Disabled People (Access)

44. Mr. Cox : To ask the Lord President of the Council when facilities are to be provided to help disabled people enter the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor : I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the necessary approval has been given to the installation of a stairlift.

Mr. Cox : I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that reply. When will that work commence? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware, if he has seen what happens, of the agony and difficulty that many disabled people suffer when trying to gain entry to the Grand Committee Room.

Column 629

This is a matter of great urgency. If we can spend millions of pounds on office accommodation for Members--that may have been necessary--surely we can spend a similar amount as quickly as possible to give more people access to the Grand Committee Room.

Column 630

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Funds are available and the detailed work can now go ahead. I hope that the stairlift will be installed early in the new year.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page