| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the monopoly that has been established by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, the parliamentary computer provider, on the supply of computing equipment within the House, and of the sub-standard service that it has been providing to those who do not have what it calls standard equipment—by which it simply means equipment that it has provided. I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend's illustrious predecessor in
business questions in May, and the then Leader of the House referred it to the Information Committee on 2 June. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has received a reply, but I certainly have not. Will he investigate why, three months and one week after receiving a letter from the then Leader of the House, the Committee has made no response to a matter that concerns many Members? Indeed, I know that one of his Cabinet colleagues has mentioned it.
Mr. Hain: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, as am I, that there is great concern about the matter among right hon. and hon. Members across the House. I have not yet had a response from the Information Committee, but the situation is being investigated and progress is due to be made soon. I am worried about the fact that Members with non-standard equipment are barred from accessing the parliamentary video and data network. It is vital that Members and their staff have full access to the PDVN, and a sufficient quantity of standard equipment must be issued to ensure that that is the case. The House authorities need to take the matter forward urgently.
Pete Wishart (North Tayside): Can this House follow the example of the Scottish Parliament in having an urgent debate about the Dungavel detention centre and the policy of locking up the children of asylum seekers, especially given that we are told that this House is responsible for that policy? Although we welcome the concessions forced out of the Government by the Scottish people and the SNP, many people will have seen how unsatisfactory the devolution settlement has been in this respect, especially in terms of the shameful silence that has emanated from Scottish Ministers. Does the Leader of the House agree that there can be no grey areas in devolution when it comes to locking up the children of asylum seekers?
Mr. Hain: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's accusation of shameful silence on the part of Scottish Ministers, who are well aware of the situation and are addressing it. As for the substance of the issue, I shall make sure that the Secretary of State is aware of it.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the life of Anna Lindh, whom he and I met on numerous occasions—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)—when I held a Europe post in the Government. It is a terrible blow not only for Sweden, but for Europe, because she was a great internationalist. My right hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister of Sweden has made it clear that the referendum will go ahead on Sunday despite her tragic death. Whatever the result, it will have enormous implications for Britain's euro campaign. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate immediately after the referendum so that we can discuss the implications of the result on our strategy?
Mr. Hain: I very much echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. Anna Lindh was a doughty campaigner for human rights, going right back to her early days in the
struggle against apartheid. As well as being a lovely person and a great internationalist, she reflected with great integrity a range of commitments to social justice, civil liberties and international justice worldwide.As for the Swedish euro referendum, I am not aware of any statement by the Swedish Prime Minister, but I hope that fanatics, whether politically inspired or not, realise that murder will not derail the democratic process.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the Government published today their response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in which they explicitly reject two of its central recommendations on the number and role of special advisers. As that matter has caused the Government considerable difficulty, would it not be advantageous to have an early debate to allow the House to assist the Government in avoiding further embarrassment?
Mr. Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's interest in and concern about such matters. The truth is that despite the fact that many Conservative Governments over the years employed special advisers, this Government are the first ever to publish a model contract and code of conduct for special advisers. We accepted the report's recommendations, including the setting up of an ethics adviser, in their entirety but for two specific points, which I do not accept as being central—namely, that the number of special advisers should be subject to a statutory limit and that the Prime Minister should not have the ability, through an Order in Council, to appoint certain members of staff who are able to give directions and thereby to run his office properly. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's views, that does not detract from the Government's central commitment to accept the report and proceed in a way that enjoys full public confidence.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): My colleagues and I wish to be associated with the tributes paid to the Swedish Foreign Minister. We also remember the horror of the terrorist attacks in the United States two years ago.
The Leader of the House may know that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland is sponsoring a conference on broadband in Belfast early next month. However, does he know that no local broadband companies will be represented? A local company, KBL-Online, was refused both a platform and space at the conference, yet at one of the main sessions, NTR-Broadband, a Republic of Ireland-based company with no operational capacity in Northern Ireland, is being afforded participation. Will the Leader of the House therefore find time for a statement on the broadband conference so that assurances can be given that no local companies have been unfairly disadvantaged or disregarded during the Government-sponsored event?
Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Anna Lindh and 11 September.
I must confess that I am not aware of the representation at the conference, but given the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am sure that the organisers will take note of them.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on enforcing civil judgments? I want to draw his attention especially to the conduct of Preston Beaumont Interiors, which operates in and around Cheshire. There are civil judgments against it but it is ducking and diving and avoiding them. That is an unacceptable effect of the court process, and such appalling business practices leave legitimate customers high and dry.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, I am concerned about my hon. Friend's remarks, especially since, with his long service in the House, he does not raise such matters lightly. I shall ensure that appropriate Ministers deal with those issues.
Points of Order
1.12 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House say in response to my question that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to make a statement at this stage on the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, despite the fact that Ministers are accountable to the House. I have the lobby briefing from No. 10, which states:
- "Downing Street said the Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon would make a statement to the House of Commons today on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the lead-up to the Iraq war."
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For clarification, are you saying that you have received no requests from the Secretary of State for Defence for the opportunity to make a statement specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee report? Otherwise, it would imply that the Secretary of State would try to do what he attempted the other day, when you correctly stopped him, and subsume a statement in a debate. Such matters should be kept properly separate. We must not allow them to be merged for the convenience of the Secretary of State or anyone else, must we? Can you clarify the exact position?
Mr. Speaker: Let me clarify the position as far as I know it. I am not responsible for ministerial statements; they are a matter for Ministers. I have received no notification of any statement from the Secretary of State for Defence. However, we are about to hold a debate on the Adjournment of the House. If the Secretary of State is in order, he will be able to say what he wants. When he was not in order the other day, I stopped him. If other hon. Members are out of order, I shall not be long in telling them so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |