| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): When does the Leader of the House intend to make a statement on security in and around this building? Can he tell us how many parliamentary security passes go missing each year? My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) extracted figures from Government Departments that show that 6,795 security passes have been lost from Government Departments in the past 12 months. Shockingly, the Ministry of Defence seems to have lost 3,007 passes in just 12 months. It scarcely gives us confidence in its response to terrorism.
Will the Leader of the House make it clear that that is much more important than the problem that could be identified as people climbing over the railings into this building? Will he lay to rest once and for all the suggestion that appeared yesterday that we are to have a concrete prison wall around these buildings with razor wire along the top? Will he explain to the public as well as to Members of Parliament that it is important that we retain this place as a monument of open democracy, rather than creating a symbol of terrorist success?
I think that the Leader of the House was here when the Solicitor-General made her statement in the House yesterday. Does he accept that there is a real problem about the contempt issue and that, if a constituent comes to our advice surgery and tells us about, say, a family court case in which they are involved, they may well be in contempt of court? In listening to them talk about that, we too could be in contempt of court. We
could refer to the matter in the House but not in the media. Will he undertake to examine the issue and look again at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, on which I serve, which have still not been properly debated in the House?
Mr. Hain: On the last matter, I realise the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I think that we all share. The Solicitor-General is looking into that matter, especially the position of Members of Parliament and constituents, who make contact with all of us every week, if not every day. Obviously, it is an important issue and we will monitor it closely. I will keep an eye on it on behalf of the House.
On passes, I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is a serious matter that must be dealt with. It is a problem principally for Government Departments, as he, to be fair to him, identified, but it is something that we must all be careful of. I hope that permanent secretaries and heads of security in Departments will take immediate action to ensure that the number of passes lost is kept to an absolute minimum and that proper procedures are in place to ensure that.
On the wider question of Parliament security and access for constituents, I share the hon. Gentleman's view that there must be openness and accessibility for all our voters and citizens because this is their Parliament, not ours. We are Members of it. It is a privilege to be voted here by them. It is important to maintain that openness and accessibility, but a balance must be struck with the security of the Palace of Westminster.
We are in a new era of threats from terrorists, including al-Qaeda and others, and we must take the proper security measures. That is what Mr. Speaker and I have been discussing with House officials and with others, including representatives of the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to ensure that we achieve proper security and better security than we have now. It is an evolving matter. It changed after 11 September with the armed police around the building. Those security measures must be taken forward and we must ensure that Parliament is protected.
To summarise, we need a proper balance between—
Mr. Tyler: What about the wall?
Mr. Hain: I have read in recent days the most amazing press reports, including some on the wall, which I know nothing about and by which I would be very surprised. Mr. Speaker asked, with my support and that of members of the House of Commons Commission, for a proper independent review by the security services and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. We await that review. Mr. Speaker took that initiative, which I very much support, to ensure that proper security measures are recommended and put in place; but, specifically on the wall, I cannot confirm that, in common with a lot of the other reports this week, and I would be very surprised if we went down that road.
Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House make sure his diary is free next Tuesday afternoon so that he can meet the Prospect trade union
members who are lobbying the House to oppose the Government's proposal to privatise the Forensic Science Service? Does he agree that although we have a good Government, that is an absolutely barmy policy?
Mr. Hain: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, except on the fact that we have a very good Government—I am glad that he acknowledges that. On the Forensic Science Service, he will have the opportunity to make representations to the Home Secretary—he may well have done so already—and to question Ministers during Home Office questions.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): The Leader of the House spoke earlier about the impact of the European Union on the United Kingdom. Is he aware that European employment directive 2000/78/EC could outlaw companies' long-service awards to their long-serving employees? Is not that a ludicrous intrusion into the sovereign domestic policy of this country? Will he arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and make statement on the matter? Does he agree with me—I am sure that most Members do—that long-service awards are a wonderful traditional way of recognising long, loyal service by an individual to a company or firm?
Mr. Hain: I agree absolutely that long-service awards are a vital part of our culture and tradition of recognising long service. I would be astonished if that were the impact of the directive, about which I know nothing. If it were, it would be ludicrous. As for the wider picture, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is one of the reasons why I have undertaken—I know that I will have his support on the Modernisation Committee—
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Oh!
Mr. Hain: Aside from the former shadow Leader of the House. Whenever I say "Modernisation Committee", he falls into rage and general—
Mr. Hain: Despair—well, there we go. The right hon. Gentleman is a perfectly preserved antiquated Member of Parliament, and I think that he should be kept that way—and given an award for his long service in that capacity.
To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), he illustrates one of the reasons why we want European scrutiny to be shared more widely, rather than to remain confined—albeit effectively and admirably—in the European Scrutiny Committee. That Committee does a great job, but Members at large ought to be more involved.
Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): Low pay is an issue in my constituency, especially among young people working in industries such as tourism and catering. When can we have a debate on low pay among young people, so that we can clarify the strategy to deal with it,
and make sure that both sides of the House are committed in the long term to resolving the problem of the exploitation of young people?
Mr. Hain: I would very much like a debate on those lines. Perhaps the Opposition will do the House a great courtesy by calling such a debate, so that we can see what their policy is on low pay. The Government's policy is clear: we have just announced an increase in the minimum wage, including for the first time the minimum wage for young people—16 and 17-year-olds—after a recommendation from the Low Pay Commission. Low pay has been a curse of the British economy for far too long. It survived under the Conservatives, whose leader said that the introduction of the minimum wage would lead to 1 million job losses. In fact, there has been an increase of about 1.8 million jobs. We can have high pay standards, competitiveness and economic success—they should march together.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Further to the significant questions on security asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), although the issue is sensitive, may we have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that before, for example, a screen is installed in the Strangers Gallery or a perimeter wall is erected, there will be a debate and a vote here in the Commons?
Mr. Hain: I have made clear what would happen, as did Mr. Speaker in his letter to us all and his announcement after the February recess. After Easter, there will be a debate on security. I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks: he understands that these are sensitive issues. The last thing that we want to do is alert potential terrorists or others to exactly what procedures we are introducing and the way in which we are coping with additional threats. He will want to join me in making sure that the House and the Chamber are free of threats from terrorists and others while preserving all the traditions and, indeed, the openness for which our democracy is renowned throughout the world.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |