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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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—

No, they are not.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Commons annunciator system.

The existing annunciator system is obsolete and is extremely expensive to maintain. Modern receivers have been installed in No. 1 Parliament street and No. I 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.

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?

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.

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

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

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.