House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Feb 1992

Column 12

the hon. Gentleman asks his usual supplementary question--no, the people of Wales would not be better off under a Labour Government.

Mr. Hain : Is the Minister now aware that the recent figures provided by the House of Commons Library showed that only 2.5 per cent. of the population in Wales would be detrimentally affected by Labour's tax and national insurance policies, whereas 52 per cent.--including pensioners and mothers in receipt of child benefit--would benefit, in some cases substantially? Why do the Government not come clean and admit that, whereas Labour's tax policy would benefit the vast mass of people in Wales, the Government's policies would benefit and protect only a tiny privileged minority?

Mr. Bennett : The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the record of the last Labour Government. Between 1974 and 1979, Labour increased income tax by 3p in the pound. Income tax is now 8p in the pound less than it was then. A man on average income with two children would pay £1,000 per year more under Labour. That is £20 a week. The people of Wales have not forgotten that. Nor have pensioners forgotten that under the Labour Government pensions rose by an average of 0.6 per cent. per year in terms of average total incomes. Pensions have risen by 3.3 per cent. per year under the Conservatives. That is more than the total of the last five years of the Labour Government.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Clergy Payments

28. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what additional payments by the Church Commissioners are made to clergymen and women bearing the title of prebendary or canon ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Commissiones pay the stipends of two residentiary canons at each mainland English cathedral except Oxford, at a rate some 20 per cent. higher than the national average for a rector or vicar. There are other clergy bearing the titles of canon and prebendary who do so in an honorary capacity and do not thereby receive additional payments from the Commissioners.

Mr. Greenway : Do my right hon. Friend and the Church Commissioners have any part in the payment of the salary of stipend of the small number of lady canons whom I understand to exist? Are there any plans to create canons out of people in holy orders of either sex who are only deacons?

Mr. Alison : Yes, there is a proposal before the General Synod which will enable women deacons to be appointed canons and they would therefore come within the ambit of the possible payment by the Church Commissioners, but the measure enabling such deacons to be appointed as women canons would have to pass through this House before it becomes law.

Mr. Frank Field : Will the Commissioner confirm to the House that when that measure came before the

Column 13

ecclesiastical committee there was overwhelming support for it and that the committee's view was that, whatever the fate of the women priests measure, the measure to allow women deacons to become canons would give a career structure to women deacons within the Church?

Mr. Alison : I am happy to confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the General Synod representatives reassured colleagues who were uneasy about the notion of appointing women canons that, unless the ordination of women was accepted by the General Synod, women canons would not be able to preside over or administer the sacraments in the cathedrals.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient differentiation between the payment to a canon and that to a curate, bearing in mind the substantial additional responsibilities that a canon bears?

Mr. Alison : I will certainly consider the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. The differential between the top and the bottom of the clergy and episcopal salary is a sensitive question which is considered regularly and frequently. My hon. Friend may well have a point that should be considered. I will certainly see that her unease is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

Agricultural Property

29. Mr. Flynn : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his current estimate of the total of agricultural property held by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Alison : As at 31 December 1991, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 154,000 acres, mostly let farmland.

Mr. Flynn : Does the commissioner accept that following the vote on Friday it is likely that within a short time there will be a total ban on fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing in Britain? Does he believe that the commissioners should lead by example in banning such barbarous activities on their land?

Mr. Alison : No. It has always been the practice in the Church Commissioners' holding of agricultural property to reserve the right of hunting not to the landlord but to the tenant so that the tenant, on the basis of his own conscience or attitude to hunting, can decide whether to let the hunt across the land.

Mr. Tredinnick : Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed in many rural communities, who feel that the campaign against hunting has been wildly misrepresentative and that fox hunting is the most humane way to control the fox population in the country?

Mr. Alison : I voted in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend--I think that he was there on Friday--so I have some sympathy with what he says, but I repeat that the decision whether a hunt can cross a let farm of which the Church Commissioners are the landlord is entirely at the discretion of the tenant.

Column 14

Women Deacons

30. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the total number of women ordained as deacons in the Church of England as at 1 January.

Mr. Alison : On 1 January 1991, there were 674 ordained women deacons in the full-time stipendiary ministry.

Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ask the Church Commissioners whether they would be willing to assess--and then publish the results of the assessment--what would be the benefit to the Church in terms of personnel availability if women were able to proceed beyond the diaconate to become priests? As a matter of full-time ministry personnel provision for the Church, has that been considered and if not could it be so?

Mr. Alison : It is a slightly hypothetical speculative variant on which to give a clear answer off the cuff, and while awaiting the progress of the measure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although the number of male clergy continues to fall, and has fallen each year for some years, the total of men and women taken together has risen from 10,641 ordained clergy in 1986 to 11,052 last year, so the impact of women deacons is tending the make the total number of clergy go up, whereas the total number would fall if there were a single-sex ministry.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Buildings and Works

31. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps are being taken by the Commission in preparation for the transfer of responsibility from the Property Services Agency for buildings and works.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission) : A Director of Works--Mr. Henry Webber--was appointed in July 1991 to head a new Directorate of Works within the Serjeant at Arms Department to undertake the responsibilities formerly exercised by the Department of the Environment. A memorandum of understanding was agreed with the authorities of the other place in November 1991 to regulate the share of the costs of the works directorate between the two Houses. Appropriate estimates for parliamentary works for the next financial year were recently presented by the House of Commons Commission and on behalf of the other place. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, which provides for the transfer of property and other legal rights and responsibilities to the two Houses, was presented on 7 February. Subject to the satisfactory progress of this Bill, the transfer of responsibility for all works services to the two Houses is expected to be achieved at the beginning of April.

Mr. Dalyell : I ask the hon. Gentleman a question of which I gave him notice a fortnight ago. Can Mr. Webber do anything about the intractable problem, probably 50 years old since the bombings, of the difficult but nevertheless shame-making stone rot in the Crypt, which

Column 15

is extremely embarrassing for anyone who shows visitors with any knowledge at all around the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Beith : I went to have a look at the problem myself, mainly in the Baptistry area, and I know that the Public Works Office has been busy with it for some time and that the hon. Gentleman has brought the matter regularly to its attention. It is not within the province of the Commission and the authorities of the House until the beginning of April, but the authorities looking after it in the Department of the Environment are well aware of the concern and we intend to make sure that the matter is properly considered.

WALES

Advisory Council for Wales

12. Sir Anthony Meyer : To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for an advisory council for Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt) : I am continuing to discuss the idea of establishing an economic forum with interested parties.

Sir Anthony Meyer : Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the consultations in which he has engaged with the other political parties in Wales and with Welsh local authorities, including those under Labour control?

Mr. Hunt : The proposal was put to me by the Council of Welsh Districts at a time when the Council was under Labour control. Its position has been maintained since the change of control, and I am considering the proposal very seriously.

Let me just say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) that if my earlier assumption that the Liberal Democrats would abolish the Secretary of State for Wales was incorrect, I apologise and am happy to accept what he says. The question of the economic forum, however, does not relate in any way to proposals for devolution.

Business Investment

13. Mr. Edwards : To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he now has to stimulate business investment and attract quality jobs for the Monmouth travel-to-work area.

Mr. David Hunt : The Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies operate a wide range of measures to stimulate business investment and to attract quality jobs in all parts of Wales.

Mr. Edwards : Perhaps one of the measures that the Secretary of State could introduce would be the granting of assisted area status to the Monmouth travel-to-work area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delegation was preparing to meet him with a document, which has involved a considerable amount of work, to present the case for such status? The people of Monmouth, and the members of Gwent county council, Monmouth borough council, Monmouth town council and Monmouth chamber of commerce, are especially disappointed that the

Column 16

Secretary of State has refused even to meet the delegation. What other proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have?

Mr. Hunt : I am aware of the case that has been prepared by Monmouth borough council and I was very interested to read the report that it produced to support its case.

We announced in 1988 that no change would be made in the current composition of the assisted area map during the lifetime of this Parliament. Since I received the council's submission, however, a number of additional points have been made to me and I am happy to announce that I have agreed to meet a deputation to discuss business investment in the area. The subjects discussed will include assisted area status.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Office Security

32. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent discussions he has had to improve security for Members' property when left in their offices.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have frequent discussions on security matters with the relevant authorities. It is most important that Members report any theft to the Serjeant-at-Arms as soon as these incidents occur.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that, since Christmas, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of reported thefts. As I have often said before, the amount of property stolen would be considerably reduced if valuables were secured and desks and filing cabinets locked when offices are left unattended.

Mrs. Mahon : Has the Lord President had any discussions with the security services? If so, is he satisfied that they are not once again trying to smear Opposition Members, as they have done in the recent past? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter seriously? We all know from "Spycatcher", and the amount that the Government spent trying to suppress it, that what I have described took place.

Mr. MacGregor : I have not had discussions with the security services specifically about theft, but I have had such discussions with the relevant authorities. Let me say very clearly that I have found no evidence whatever to support any of the allegations of which I have read. I believe that they are entirely unfounded.

Sir Peter Hordern : Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one has stolen into my room to remove the secrets held by my computer about the forthcoming election in my constituency? Is that because the people concerned know something that I do not?

Mr. MacGregor : I doubt it, since, so far as I am aware, no one has stolen anything from me either. I am sure that such people would be fascinated to read of the wide range of constituency cases on my computer.

Column 17

Business of the House

33. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his practice that all parties represented in the House by hon. Members who have taken their seats are included in consultations by him as to the business of the House.

Mr. MacGregor : No. The present arrangements are of long standing, they work well, and I see no need for change.

Mr. Hughes : The right hon. Gentleman has undermined his growing reputation as a fair-minded and modernising Lord President. Will he consider his answer again, and grasp the old nettle? Given that only two parties--the Government and the Labour party--are now formally involved in consultations, and given that in electoral terms all parties in the House are minorities

Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : No, they are not.

Mr. Hughes : All the parties are electoral minorities. In the light of that, is not the only fair-minded and democratic way of conducting our business to allow it to involve all properly represented parties in the House of Commons throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. MacGregor : The discussions take place between parties which represent the vast majority of the hon. Members in the House. Setting the business of the House is a complex process and final decisions are often taken at a late stage. I do not believe that it is practicable to consult all eight minority parties represented in the House and I do not know what we should do with another minority party in the guise the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will know that the minority parties are given a chance to make representations about business of the House and are informed of it. I think that that is the only sensible and practical way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Winnick : As virtually everyone seems to have been informed that the general election date will be 9 April, could not the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make an official statement this week confirming that date?

Mr. MacGregor : I can only say that the hon. Gentleman knows something that I do not.

Dr. Cunningham : Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so coy? We all know that the Government have a timetable for an election on 9 April. Even the Financial Times has told us that the Prime Minister has booked his aeroplane for that date. Since we now have almost weekly guillotine motions and the Government are intent on railroading legislation through the House, why can the Government not make an announcement so that we all know where we are? The country would then know what the Government's intentions are, much of the business which does not have widespread support in the country could simply be junked, and we could get on with the election.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is widespread support for Government legislation

Column 18

and for those matters on which we have had timetable motions. I have been under pressure to get on with the legislation because many people want to see it in place.

On the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, all that is being done represents good contingency planning for the election date, whenever that might be.

Annunciator

34. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Commons annunciator system.

Mr. MacGregor : The existing annunciator system is obsolete and is extremely expensive to maintain. Modern receivers have been installed in No. 1 Parliament street and No. 1 Derby Gate, which provide Members with access both to the annunciator system and to a range of public service television channels. Similar facilities will be made available in the new Members' offices in Speaker's Court. The House of Commons Commission has recently approved expenditure on further work to develop new data and video networks, which would replace the existing annunciator system with a wider television system by early 1994 at the latest.

Mr. Coombs : I am sure that the House will welcome the Lord President's implicit recognition that the present annunciator system represents outworn and outdated technology which will soon have to go. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely desirable that hon. Members should be able to watch the proceedings of the Chambers in their offices at any time, the better to be able to follow what is happening? At present, that is not possible. Is it not ironic that the rest of the country can obtain cable television to watch our proceedings while we can still not do so in our offices?

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend will know, part of the problem lies in the difficulties of putting in a cabling system in the older parts of our complex, particularly in the Palace. That is something on which we are receiving advice from consultants. Fitting cables is relatively easy in the new offices, but the clean feed to which my hon. Friend refers is a matter for the House. The Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c. is currently considering whether to make its own recommendations to the House.

Scottish Affairs Committee

35. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to nominate the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Mr. MacGregor : No. The hon. Member will appreciate that there has been no change in the circumstances preventing action in the current Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell : Is it not deeply unsatisfactory that there is no Select Committee to consider the views of the Scottish police on Lockerbie, which are deeply different from the stated views of the Foreign Secretary and of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) ? Furthermore, is it not deeply unsatisfactory that there is no way of interrogating the Lord Advocate on the evidence that he says he has in relation to Libya? With the trial of the two men taking place this very day in Tripoli, will the right

Column 19

hon. Gentleman as a senior member of the Government undertake that before any sanctions or military action are pursued by Her Majesty's Government there will be a proper report to Parliament?

Mr. MacGregor : The second part of the question is outside the scope of the original question relating to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. On the first part of the question, both those matters could be considered by other Select Committees. For reasons that the House knows, we have been unable, throughout the earlier part of this Parliament, to reach an agreement about separate consideration by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. This Parliament has, at most, only a few months to run and it is therefore not appropriate to set up such a Committee now.

Mr. Bill Walker : Is my right hon. Friend aware that we would have had a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if that Committee had not attempted to produce a report which did not reflect accurately the evidence received by the Committee? That is why some hon. Members like me refused to serve on it. We did not want to be party to those activities.

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend refers to one of the difficulties that we had earlier.

Sir David Steel : Does the Leader of the House accept that as the Scottish Office is not under scrutiny by a Select Committee, it is the only Department of state to be unscrutinised? Because of its multiple responsibilities, is not the Scottish Office already less answerable to the House than are English Departments of state? In view of that, will the Leader of the House give some support to the debate next Monday in the Scottish Grand Committee, where the Constitutional Commission's proposals will be before the Committee?

Column 20

Mr. MacGregor : It was my right hon. Friend who recommended not only the debate next Monday but that two others should take place on devolution and other issues. Clearly, I am keen for that debate to take place. It will enable the country to have a better view of all the issues involved in the proposals currently under discussion.

Westminster Hall

36. Mr. Hain : To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the future use of Westminster Hall.

Mr. MacGregor : The control of Westminster Hall is vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain and the two Speakers on behalf of the two Houses. The principles governing the exercise of their discretion to grant the use of the hall for non-parliamentary functions are that such events should be either a royal occasion, a ceremony in honour of a head of state or one having clear connections with Parliament or the hall itself.

Mr. Hain : In the Lord President's reply to me about tea facilities for visitors, he said that provision could be made in St. Stephen's tavern. Surely Westminister Hall would provide an ideal arena for that. It would be a people's hall instead of a cold, draughty cavern, and visitors could have tea and cakes without having to go in and out of security when they visit us. That would be an appropriate use for the hall. Will he put that to the relevant authorities for consideration?

Mr. MacGregor : That is outwith the principle that the relevant authorities have laid down. The Catering Committee is considering two consultants' reports on the architectural feasibility and management implications of converting the premises of the former St. Stephen's tavern into a refreshments facility for Members' visitors. If that goes ahead, it will provide an extra facility.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page