Mr Paul Channon: I have received one representation.
Mr Paul Channon: I quite understand and share the hon. Gentleman's desire for as much economy as possible. He must realise that what he proposes was fully debated in the House on 12 July 1994 and carried unanimously. We could not have continued without being closed down eventually, as we were clearly defying health and safety regulations. Everything that is done in the House is much more expensive than it...
Mr Paul Channon: I agree.
Mr Paul Channon: Excluding the phase 2 building, approved expenditure for all new works in the parliamentary estate since 1992 has been £10.45 million in 1992–93, £9 million in 1993–94, £7.16 million in 1994–95, £9.85 million in 1995–96 and £9.2 million in 1996–97.
Mr Paul Channon: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but that it is a matter not for my Committee but for the Accommodation and Works Committee. Perhaps she should write to the Chairman of that Committee; if we can assist financially, we shall certainly do our best.
Mr Paul Channon: That is an extremely ingenious question, but I am not sure how it relates to expenditure on alterations to the Palace of Westminster.
Mr Paul Channon: I assure the House that I will be extremely brief. I am afraid that I will make an excessively dull speech, but I hope that the House will for give me. It will be dull because I agree with what has already been said, and that is rare. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in particular, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on about...
Mr Paul Channon: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask whose fault it was, but no political party in the House can look back at that episode with total happiness. We all got it wrong at various moments. In my constituency, the Liberals got it wrong about three times. They were against the reforms and then they wanted to change back to the county borough and the unitary authority. As soon as that happened, they...
Mr Paul Channon: My hon. Friend rightly stresses the importance of sole and other such fish. I hope that he will refer the Minister to the problems facing the cockling industry, especially the threat from Holland. That is of special concern to some of the fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr Paul Channon: Clearly, as a layman, I am not in a position to argue with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the legal aspects of the case. I can only say—and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will concede this to be fair—that, over the past week, a large number of senior judges and others, including defence counsel, have concluded that what my right hon. and...
Mr Paul Channon: I shall deal with the question of weapons in a moment, but my hon. Friend was right to intervene. As the report makes clear, the whole intention was to ensure that no lethal weapons were supplied either to Iraq or to Iran. Of course, the definitions of lethal and non-lethal are not absolutely clear cut in all cases, but that was the honest intention that Ministers had when they applied the...
Mr Paul Channon: I am not sure to what date the hon. Gentleman is referring. I am talking about the early days. That is what I believe may have happened. When the three Ministers concerned later decided to re-examine the policy, they considered the application of the guidelines to find out whether they could be made more flexible. There was no suggestion of a substantial change in policy. How could it have...
Mr Paul Channon: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. Speeches are restricted to only 10 minutes and I have only a few minutes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be able to make his point later. The real difficulty with the Scott report is that it is all things to all men. We can all find quotations to suit the argument that we are trying to advance or to rebut. It is...
Mr Paul Channon: The exhaustive Scott report details the history of many years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the real world the Government must answer two questions: did Ministers conspire to send people to prison? The answer is no. Did the House or the Government connive at exports of a lethal nature to either Iraq or Iran during this period? Again, the answer is no. Does not this report answer...
Mr Paul Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important priorities on that line is that there should be new rolling stock? Is it not very welcome that under the new arrangements we are likely to have new rolling stock earlier?
Mr Paul Channon: The estimated cost of the new parliamentary building remains within the maximum risk estimate of £165 million which was approved by the House of Commons Commission in 1993. That figure excludes inflation in building costs between that date and 1999, when the building is scheduled for completion. As the House will realise, building cost inflation is difficult to predict.
Mr Paul Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points—about the need for the building to be of high quality and yet not too extravagant. If he requires further information, I shall be delighted to provide it for him. He will, I am sure, recall that there has been a full debate on the matter in the House, and I think that I am right in saying that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members...
Mr Paul Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind suggestion, but I am not sure that I am the best person to undertake that rather sensitive and difficult task.
Mr Paul Channon: My hon. Friend, with his architectural experience, puts his finger on the main point. It is essential that we do not ruin this very fine site so near the Palace of Westminster. I hope that the right balance has been achieved and that we shall have a building of high quality at reasonable cost.
Mr Paul Channon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
