To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects results from the feasibility study on refreshment facilities for visitors to the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made to improve catering facilities for Members' parties visiting the Palace of Westminster.

The newly formed Catering Committee is expected early next month to consider two consultants' reports on the architectural feasibility and management implications of converting the premises of the former St. Stephen's tavern into a refreshment facility for groups of Members' visitors. I understand that the Committee will be asked to work for a decision by Easter.

As the Lord President will be aware, visitors to Wales are always given a warm welcome and a nice cup of tea, but coachloads of my constituents visiting the Houses of Parliament are cold-shouldered and cannot obtain refreshments anywhere.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's response, but would it not be a far better idea to use Westminster Hall for the purpose, providing chairs and tables there? After all, until the last century Westminster Hall was used for royal banquets and coronation feasts; surely it would be possible for people to order a nice cup of tea there.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first remark about visitors to Wales. Certainly when I went there recently I was given a very good reception, which pleased me very much.

The hon. Gentleman will probably know that the authorities who deal with Westminster Hall do not consider that the use that he has suggested for it would be appropriate; nor, I think, would the vast majority of hon. Members. The Catering Committee will be considering whether what used to be St. Stephen's tavern could help by providing facilities for visitors.

Can my right hon. Friend improve the refreshments provided not only for visitors but for Opposition Members, who seem rather subdued and depressed today?

When my hon. Friend began his question, I intended to say that it was a matter for the Catering Committee, but I am no longer sure that it is. I well understand why Opposition Members are looking rather depressed today, but I do not think that it has anything to do with catering facilities in the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that during the deliberations of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, Etc.—with all of whose arrangements we have been happy so far—parts of the Palace of Westminster were discovered that no one knew existed, including the area above Central Lobby? Is it not high time that a proper review was carried out of exacty what space exists throughout the Palace, so that we can use it well for the benefit of our constituents and for other purposes?

The hon. Gentleman and I visited the part of the Palace to which he has referred. I think he would agree that it is not a suitable location for the provision of refreshments for visitors. The right step is for the Select Committee on Catering to consider the proposals, as it will do shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend be sure to ask for a branch of the kiosk in any new catering facility for visitors, and will he make sure that it has House of Commons fudge and humbugs on sale? The main kiosk has had none of these since before Christmas.

My hon. Friend might like to put that point to the Select Committee on Catering.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to consider the investigations into the Lockerbie air disaster.

I have no plans to do so. The Lockerbie air disaster is regularly discussed in the House —including Government statements, when appropriate—and I recall that the hon. Member had the Adjournment debate on this very subject just last Monday.

What is a Member of Parliament to do when, having been lucky enough to be given an Adjournment debate by you, Mr. Speaker, and having given a copy of his entire speech to the Foreign Office at 9.45 in the morning, the Minister—in this case the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—makes no attempt whatever to answer the deeply serious issues that have been raised? Is it surprising that in respect of foreign affairs this is the most ill-informed House of Commons that I have known in my 30 years here? Or is it possible that the Government are contemplating a repetition of the 1986 strikes on civilian targets in Benghazi and Tripoli? If so, the House of Commons ought to discuss the matter.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise that the House is ill informed in respect of these matters. Indeed, there have been many Government statements. The hon. Gentleman will know that the generally accepted purpose of Select Committees is the monitoring of individual Departments. It would be possible for one of the existing Select Committees to consider the issue, if it so wished.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the allocation of parliamentary time for private Members.

I have not received any representations about the allocation of parliamentary time for private Members. The general point is, of course, being considered by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever changes are made to the sitting hours, it would be a retrograde step—a step detrimental to the rights of Back Benchers—to introduce legislation to reduce them? As it is, Back Benchers have precious little time and it should not be reduced further.

It is, of course, a matter for the Select Committee on Sittings of the House to make recommendations in the first place. Thereafter, it is for the House to decide upon those recommendations. The point that I made to the Committee is that if we wish to reduce the hours of the House or change the sitting times—that is still an open question—it is important that we consider how the time of the House is used at present and to make reductions pro rata. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the opportunities for Back Benchers to introduce Bills are very important, and I am sure that the Select Committee will keep that very much in mind.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements for Members to receive output from the parliamentary channel introduced as from 13 January 1992.

As making the parliamentary channel available in Members' rooms would be tantamount to supplying a clean feed direct from the Chamber, it would be for the Select Committee on Broadcasting, Etc. in the first instance, to approve such a proposal. There are, however, technical problems which look like precluding the provision of this service for all Members before 1994. I hope to arrange for the Broadcasting Committee to consider the issue at an early date. Any eventual recommendation to proceed would be a matter for the House as a whole to decide.

Will the Lord President tell the House what the technical difficulties are? It seems absurd that, while extended coverage of our proceedings is now available, Members cannot have a sound and vision feed to their rooms. The idea that this Chamber is a place to which we all come to be influenced by the ebb and flow of debate and the oratory of Members is totally ridiculous. Why should we come to the Chamber to be bored rigid when we could be bored rigid in the comparative comfort of our own offices?

It would be technically possible now for some Members' offices to be given the feed. The real problem is that this building does not have the necessary cable ducts. Given the nature of the building, the provision of ducts is a very complex task. At the moment, consultants are looking into the matter in detail, and their report will be put before the Broadcasting Committee for its consideration. However, it seems likely from the preliminary indications that it would not be possible to complete the work until 1994.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are possibly far too few people in the Chamber and, even more important, far too few in the Smoking Room, the most vital part of the House of Commons? If hon. Members are going to be glued to their television sets, as apparently some are at home, there will be even fewer of them about anyway.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to bear in mind the key significance of the Chamber and the Smoking Room. We must take that into account. On the other hand, many hon. Members want such a facility directly available to them and we are examining that.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to change the rota of departmental and Prime Minister's questions; and if he will make a statement.

I have no immediate plans for any significant changes in the question rota at this stage in the Parliament.

Is it not a tidy state of affairs when the best that the 370-odd Tory Members can deliver in this place every Tuesday and Thursday and at other Question Times is a tirade of abuse about what Labour would do? Why do they not have the guts to tackle their own Government about cuts in services? Then there was that bleating Prime Minister on "Desert Island Discs" saying that he would love to get away from Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If he is that much of a wimp, why does he not get out of the road and let us take over?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a sense of humour, but it appears not. With regard to answers in the House, over the whole range of government, we have indicated the considerable improvements including a considerable increase in expenditure on our priority areas in the public services. It is legitimate to spend some time—I well understand why the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so sensitive about this—examining the tax and expenditure proposals of the Labour party. There is no doubt that that has been happening in the country at large and that they have now been rumbled. That is why the hon. Gentleman is so concerned.

The Opposition may not like it, but does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a case for allowing a small part of parliamentary time for the Leader of the Opposition to be questioned? He always puts his foot in it and tends to cause more confusion when he opens his mouth than when he keeps it shut.

I do not think that it is necessary to provide any more parliamentary time for that.