Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: It is to address such matters that, as I shall explain, a major comprehensive security review will shortly be carried out by the security services and the Metropolitan police commissioner. The fact that everything cannot be addressed at the same time does not mean that we should not reduce the risk in the Chamber, the heart of our democracy. I shall explain in a moment how progress has been made on that issue, but first I must make it clear that I did not consult the Prime Minister or the Cabinet on the decision. This was, and still is, a matter for the House, not the Government.
I regret the need for the screen, but I believe that it is necessary and in the best interests of our democracy. To ignore the advice that we received would have been irresponsible, putting at risk not only Members but our staff, visitors and the very functioning of our parliamentary democracy. I congratulate those responsible for installing and overseeing installation of the temporary screen over the Easter recess. Its swift and efficient installation has meant that we have been able to maintain, unbroken, our cherished tradition of public access to our proceedings.
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Lab): One of my worries about access concerns the increasing difficulty of arranging tours for our constituents, given the changes in sitting hours, which I support. One proposal was to fit a glass window at the back of the Gallery so that it would be easier for people just to walk through. Will the proposals for a screen at the front of the Gallery for security reasons mean that we are no longer able to look at other proposals for increasing access for our constituents so that they can come and view us in the Chamber?
Mr. Hain:
No, not at all. On Monday, I went up to the Gallery to look out from behind the screen and see the
22 Apr 2004 : Column 465
view that visitors will have. I pursued with House officials the question of whether it would indeed be possible to return to the matter, and I was satisfied that it would be. Arguably, it would be easier to return to the original proposal, which was considered a year or so ago, but not taken up. My hon. Friend is welcome to pursue the matter, and I am certainly willing to look at it again.
I hope and believe that Members and visitors alike will find the temporary structure unobtrusive. On Monday, I sat in Strangers Gallery behind the screen. The view is clear and the sound very good. Indeed, I am advised that it is better than before. While the screen is functional, however, it cannot be said to be fully in keeping with the architecture of the Chamber, and its permanent replacement will meet much better the concerns of those responsible for our architectural heritage. As I have said, an explanatory memorandum is available in the Vote Office showing clearly what the permanent structure will look like. In the event of a positive vote this afternoon, it is planned that work will take place in summer 2005.
Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): I am interested to learn that my right hon. Friend sat in Strangers Gallery behind the screen this week. Yesterday, a guest of mine attended Prime Minister's questions, and he told me that the sound feed filters out all the extraneous noise that many people enjoysome of us may be ashamed of itand which is a feature of the occasion. Has my right hon. Friend considered how we can reflect the atmosphere of the House for people in Strangers Gallery if an acoustic barrier has been created by the screen?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is one of the issues that we will seek to address in the event of a permanent screen being agreed. We neededI will explain whyto put up a temporary screen quickly, or else we would have advertised the problem before we had provided security protection for the House. I believe that people will understand that.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): The Leader of the House mentioned architectural merit. The photographs show a very modern screen. If he wants something that fits the character of the House, should we not go back to the sort of screen that existed before 1948before the bombingat the Ladies Gallery end, which was a grille that no one could see through?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making a serious suggestion. The point of the proposition is to provide a screen that does not impair sight or the experience of being a visitor to the Chamber. I think he will find that it will do that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): I much regret the necessity for the screen, but if that is the advice that we are given, we must follow it. Will the Leader of the House deal with access to the east and west Special Galleries? The present screen covers only the Strangers area, but the Special Galleries are not covered. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how those areas will still be accessible by Members' guests.
Mr. Hain:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and seeking clarification. It may be
22 Apr 2004 : Column 466
convenient for me to deal with it now. Access to the Special Gallery will still be available to Members, who will be able to seek tickets for two guests from the Serjeant in the normal way. What will be different is that although an application to the Serjeant may still be made in the usual way, Members will be required to testify that guests are known to them personally and that they vouch for the conduct of such guests. In the event of such conduct being unacceptable, Members will have to answer to the House for it. The procedures have been changed, the tickets look rather different, and the extra protection about which the hon. Gentleman sought clarification is operating.
Mr. Hain: I will take one more question on that point, but I must make progress or Members in all parts of the House will not have the full picture revealed to them in order to debate it.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): When the Leader of the House says that Members can authorise people to come in front of the screen, will that be only Members who have taken the Oath?
Mr. Hain: I assume so. I will take advice on that and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Since the Speaker is nodding to help me out, I think the right hon. Gentleman has the answer to his question.
David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): Further to that point, can the Leader of the House confirm my information that the only serious breach in the Palace of Westminster took place before the 1979 general election, resulting in the death of the right hon. Member for Abingdon, the late Airey Neave? That involved the misuse of an officially registered security pass to gain access to the Palace of Westminster. Will the Leader of the House give some time in his statement to the procedures that will be tightened up for the issuing of security passes, given that those who receive such passes do not go through the security screen on the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Hain: I will, indeed. That will be the subject of the wide-ranging security review that the Speaker has ordered, with my support and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 12,900 security passes are issued in the Palace of Westminster, excluding Members and Peers, so it is an issue.
May I make a minor correction, or a major one, to his point? The murder of Airey Neave was not the only breach of security. In 1970, a CS gas canister was thrown into the Chamber, requiring evacuation. We have moved on, as I will explain shortly, to a different level of terrorist threat, which is not necessarily as visible as a CS gas canister. We saw what happened in 1970. The procedures put in place, with airport-type security checks before one can enter the Palace, are intended to prevent such incidents, but we face a different problem in the case of terrorist weapons that are not so visible.
There will be Members who question the value for money of both temporary and permanent structures. The temporary structure has cost £600,000; the
22 Apr 2004 : Column 467
proposed permanent structure £1.3 million. I appreciate that that will seem a considerable sum to our constituents, but I believe it is money that must be spent. There are many constraints on carrying out major works in the Palace.
Although the debate focuses on the security of the Chamber, the screen is only one element of heightened security precautions throughout the parliamentary estate. As I said, a thorough review of security is also being carried out by the security services and the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Hain: I will make a little progress, then I will give way.
We must not forget our responsibility towards everybody who works here. This is a high priority for the House administration, and detailed security advice is being given to all House staff, together with briefings for Members and Members' staff. I stress that the security screen has been installed following the unanimous decision of the House of Commons Commission, with the support of the informal joint committee on securityan all-party decision. This is a House matter, I repeat, not a party or Government matter. The defence of Parliament against terrorist threat is not a party matter, but one that we must all have regard to.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |