| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. The reality is that Parliament is a reflection of the electorate, so it is important that he give an undertaking that major security changes that can be openly debated are debated. Will he assure us that no decisions will be taken in the Easter recess without Parliament being offered an opportunity to express an opinion?
Mr. Hain: We have already confirmed—indeed, Mr. Speaker's letter did so—that any permanent changes will be subject to decision by Parliament. I have a responsibility, as does the Speaker. Indeed, you have the primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, along with the House authorities, the House of Commons Commission and the relevant Committees of the House, for ensuring that security arrangements are secure. We are in an entirely different era, and I do not think that my hon. Friend wants or expects us to debate every security change in the open before we decide whether to proceed with it. That would be virtually opening the door to the attacks or threats that would undoubtedly follow. Let us
approach this on the basis of consensus, but also with seriousness. I do not think that my hon. Friend or the House would want me as Leader of the House or those who are actually responsible for security—I myself am not—to take a casual attitude to this extremely important issue. The House has been under attack before from terrorists, and we want to make sure that it is not again.
Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): Will the Leader of the House confirm that, when the Finance Bill reaches the Committee of the whole House, we will have an opportunity to discuss the Chancellor's job-destroying and fraud-prone suggestions for strip stamps on bottles of Scotch whisky? Does he, like me, look forward to Scottish Labour Members, some of whom have large whisky interests in their constituencies, explaining why they voted for this damaging measure?
Mr. Hain: These matters were debated in the Budget debate, and the Budget's approach was overwhelmingly endorsed in a vote earlier this week. It is a travesty to say that those measures are job-destroying. I like a drop of malt whisky—no doubt the hon. Gentleman does too—but the Chancellor's measures are designed to stop fraud. The whisky industry, the economy and the Exchequer are the victims of widespread fraud at present. The measure is designed to stop that and protect the Scottish whisky industry in particular, so I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome it.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok) (Lab/Co-op): When does the Leader of the House expect to find time to allow us to debate the appointment of the United Kingdom Commissioner to the European Union? Does he agree that that appointment is not a long-service award and that it is essential that whoever is appointed has the credibility that comes from the support of the House of Commons as a whole?
Mr. Hain: That sounds like a job application to me.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Has the Leader of the House heard the outrageous suggestion that the House should no longer sit on Fridays, thus depriving it of a valuable part of its activities? Is he also aware of the even more ridiculous suggestion that if the House did not sit on Fridays, it would somehow improve security? If that were the case, is not the logical extension of the argument that the House should not sit at all?
Mr. Hain: That suggestion appeared in reports either this morning or yesterday, and was one of the many press reports swirling around, very few of which have any connection with reality. The House has already decided to sit on 13 of the 36 days available, so we do not sit every Friday, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He is nodding in agreement, so I assume that he approves.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman wants us to sit on Friday every week.
Mr. Hain: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman put that to a vote and see how many of his Conservative
colleagues support him. Fridays are often important days for constituency business, and allow us another day in addition to the weekend to be in our constituencies to meet and serve our constituents. He may be able to get back to Bromley on a Friday afternoon, but it is not possible for those of us who live far from London to get to our constituencies. I have seen an early-day motion to the effect that the House should not sit on Fridays, but it is only one of the many options that will no doubt be submitted to the Modernisation Committee after the review of the hours of the House conducted by the Procedure Committee.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): On security, does my right hon. Friend agree, especially in view of some newspaper reports, that it is not simply a matter of protecting Members of Parliament but the hundreds of people who work in the Commons and the Lords, who are as entitled to protection and security as ourselves? If certain measures are considered necessary in view of the acute terrorist threat, we should keep that very much in mind and not simply think about ourselves.
Mr. Hain: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As he said, the matter affects the security not just of Members in the Chamber and elsewhere but the many staff who serve us so well and diligently. As he will recall, the assistant of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) was attacked and killed in his surgery. Such incidents cannot be dealt with by protection in the House, but we must be alert to the security threat to everyone who works in the House, not just Members.
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD): What advice can the Leader of the House give to Members in whose areas post office closures have gone ahead without proper consultation or provision of information? What can we do, and is the only alternative to seek judicial review?
Mr. Hain: Clearly, there have been instances of such closures. In my capacity as Secretary of State for Wales, I am aware of cases in which there has been a lack of proper consultation and proper involvement by local Members of Parliament, which is regrettable and deplorable. However, the hon. Lady will know that there was a debate on the subject yesterday, and she herself secured an Adjournment debate on it. The Government are well aware of people's concerns, as are senior managers in the Post Office.
Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): Next Wednesday, the House will have an opportunity further to improve the Higher Education Bill. Will my right hon. Friend do whatever he can to try to ensure that the principle of variability remains in the Bill, as it is important both for universities such as the university of Derby, with a fine tradition of encouraging young people from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education, and for universities wishing to attract additional students to minority courses? Does he also agree that the principles in the Bill of deferred fees, payment later in life and much more generous grants should be applied across the board and extended to further education where they will offer just as much, if not more, help as they will in higher education?
Mr. Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the principle of variability allows flexibility to, for
example, charge no fee for a physics course. We are short of physicists, chemists, electrical engineers and others, as there has been a long-term slide in the number of students doing such courses. An incentive through the fee structure for students to take such courses would be a big boost to the country and the economy. It is therefore imperative that the Bill go through unamended, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind. As the Secretary of State for Education and Skills made clear, any amendments could effectively kill the Bill and it is important that what the House voted for in Committee and on Second Reading goes through so that students, especially those from a low-income background, can be properly supported with new grants and other assistance, and so that universities can get the finance that they need to become world-class universities, which is essential to the future of the British economy.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): When can we have a debate on the report of the Procedure Committee on Sessional Orders so the House can decide what it wants to do about the unsightly cacophony on Parliament square? The Leader of the House may remember that I asked last year for a debate on the matter, and he said it was important and that the debate should take place sooner rather than later. A fortnight ago he was asked about it, and he said that he hoped to be able to give some welcome news in the not-too-distant future. We have not had any. What is going on?
Mr. Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. We are all concerned about the matter. The Home Secretary has been examining it, and when he is ready to present proposals, we will have a way forward to put to the House. The position remains that we will have a debate and a decision as soon as I am able to arrange it. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are equally concerned about the matter, because you told me so. Members on both sides of the Chamber are concerned, but we need to proceed in the proper fashion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |