| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Feb 2003 : Column 1041—continued
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can give such an assurance. Indeed, some of us will be flying into those airports over the next few days. I assure my hon. Friend that in these circumstances the reserve power on security and on security at airports remains with Ministers in this House.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): In wishing the Home Secretary well in the difficult and complex task that he faces, may I ask him to indicate, in view of the experience of al-Qaeda in the use of chemicals and gas, whether there are stocks of protective clothing in different parts of the country that could be made available if required?
If there is a devastating decline in the numbers of people using aeroplanes for travel, will the Government do what they can to ensure that assistance is given to the appropriate companies?
Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased that the travelling public have responded so well and that there have been no discernible reductions in those using aircraft.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for CBRN—chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons—and Departments, including the Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, are mindful that facilities are and will be made available.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): Will the Home Secretary accept that my constituents who live
immediately to the west of Heathrow under the flight path, many of whom work at Heathrow or for the airlines that service it, are deeply concerned about the current security situation? Will he also accept that that was made considerably worse yesterday by the conflicting statements from the chairman of the Labour party? Can the Home Secretary give us an absolute assurance that we will not have further conflicting statements, which only add to the panic?
Mr. Blunkett: I have made the position absolutely clear in relation to the statements that were made and the responsibility that is carried. I say to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents that had we not taken action—had the operational services not taken the steps that were required—[Interruption.]
Mr. Blunkett: Had we not authorised the steps to be taken, and had the operational services not acted as they did, the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would have had a great deal more to fear than if we had not taken steps to reassure people that the necessary action had been taken. I really do not understand, given that we have sought to protect the public—so far, thank goodness, successfully—why the nature of this afternoon's questioning has been so antagonistic.
Angus Robertson (Moray): While we accept the seriousness of security announcements, does the Home Secretary accept there is still a breakdown of trust between the public and the Government following the comments of the Labour Party chairman and the publication of the dodgy dossier? What does he think will help to restore the public's trust in accurate security assessments, which are of critical importance?
Following the precedent of the confidential briefings that were made to the main opposition parties in Scotland and Wales on the situation in Afghanistan, will he do the same on this important matter, and include the parties in Northern Ireland, so that all of us in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are fully informed on domestic security arrangements?
Mr. Blunkett: Where appropriate, those with responsibility who represent political interests and parties in this House will of course be updated. The one thing that would really restore confidence, however, would be if people did not mislead the public, inadvertently or deliberately, about what has or has not been said, what has or has not been inaccurately reported or, above all, which particular aspect relates to which particular threat. The idea that any reference to a document provided for background on Iraq should be made in this statement on the threat that is now being dealt with by the operational services in relation to domestic security would actually damage that trust and security. So my answer is, "Look at your own responsibility before you ask me about the responsibility of others."
Business of the House
1.7 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): May I ask the Leader of the House if he will please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 24 February—Second Reading of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill.
Tuesday 25 February—Progress on remaining stages of the Communications Bill.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Hear, hear.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that that measure is so consensual.
Wednesday 26 February—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Thursday 27 February—Motions relating to the Draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2003 and the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003, followed by debate on flood and coastal defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 28 February—Private Members Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 3 March—Motion to approve the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in Force of Sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, followed by debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the terrorist bombings in Bali on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
Is the right hon. Gentleman yet able to give any indication when Budget day will be? There is a growing mystery about that. I do not know why the Government are so coy about it, although I think that I can guess, but surely it is now way past the time by which the House should, in all decency, have been told the date of Budget day, to give not only us, but all those with a genuine interest—which, I suppose, includes everybody in the nation—proper notice. I would appreciate that, as, I think, would the House.
The newly established Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department has just announced that it is to investigate the role of the Lord Chancellor. I suppose that it will particularly consider his hybridity, because, as we know, he occupies a unique position straddling the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
Michael Fabricant: Like a colossus.
Mr. Forth: I will get my hon. Friend into Hansard by saying that he just said, "Like a colossus." I do not think that we should speculate on the exact stature of the Lord Chancellor at this stage—let us leave that to the Select Committee.
When the Select Committee has deliberated on the matter and presented its conclusions and recommendations, will we have the opportunity for a full debate on the Lord Chancellor's role and the Select Committee's views? That would be helpful.
Given the quickening pace of events at the United Nations, NATO and domestically, will the Leader of the House assure us that, were it necessary to recall the House next week during our short recess, arrangements are in place to do that at short notice and keep hon. Members kept fully informed?
Mr. Cook: Let me respond immediately to the last point. I do not envisage that it will be necessary to recall the House, but should such an eventuality arise, the option remains open. We have shown ourselves willing to recall the House on previous occasions. However, I would not wish people above us to take that response out of context as implying that there is any reason for believing that it will happen.
It is to the Government's and the House's credit that we have created a new Select Committee to cover the Lord Chancellor's Department. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the Department's many functions, which fully merit monitoring by a Select Committee. I welcome the increase in the ability and the capacity of the House to undertake its task of scrutiny. Of course, we will await the Committee's decisions with interest. It is premature to give an indication of the Government's response before an inquiry has begun, but we are co-operating with the Liaison Committee in determining the Select Committee reports that it would most like debated in Westminster Hall or the Chamber.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I take careful note of the fact that the Opposition have again demonstrated their enthusiasm for the Budget and an opportunity to rehearse the Government's success in securing the lowest inflation for a generation, the fastest growth in the G7 and—as announced in the past week—a further decline in unemployment. I shall ensure that the Chancellor is aware of the Opposition's keen interest in debating such matters.
I read yesterday's debate with interest. The shadow Chief Secretary got into difficulties in his interventions on the Chancellor. He appeared to experience problems in describing the way in which the Conservatives would achieve the 20 per cent. cut in public spending without affecting health and education. I am grateful that the shadow Chief Secretary at least agreed that the Government could share in the report when he writes it. It is surely in the interests of the Opposition as well as everyone else that he has adequate time to finish it before the Budget.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |