---

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Us.

Sir Stuart Bell: How can my hon. and learned Friend be so selfish as to sit here talking about himself? We are talking about other Members of Parliament and their families—those who might be left behind. How selfish can one get?

Mr. Simon: Are not we saying to people, "You can't throw a bag of anthrax on us, but you're welcome to come into Central Lobby and swing it around and kill as many Back Benchers as you like"?

Mr. Hain: The air supply is the same.

Mr. Simon: A screen does not work if the air supply is the same. It is pointless.

Sir Stuart Bell: No one in his right mind wishes anyone to come into the building with anthrax and murder anyone. As I said earlier, a full inquiry will cover the entire parliamentary estate, including the House of Lords. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House also made that point.

We must not confuse concepts. We are here today to decide whether there should be a permanent screen—I emphasise again that no Parliament binds its successors—to protect us and our democracy. Of course, I respect and wish to protect members of the public who come here at this time, and there are other
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 477
 
means of being in touch with constituents, such as by letter, fax, e-mail and television, which anyone in the country can see.

Mr. Mackay: The hon. Gentleman stated that there is no way that security can spot anthrax and related weapons of mass destruction. If that is the case, terrorists could go to Central Lobby, Portcullis House and elsewhere and use them. The Leader of the House has told us that the air system flows through the House and we would thus all be at risk. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) must therefore be right that the only purpose of the screen is to protect us. There is no other sensible reason for it.

Sir Stuart Bell: We are protecting not us but our democracy, our Government, our Opposition and our image as the mother of Parliaments to which other Parliaments look up and other democracies aspire. We are looking to prevent a victory for terrorism that would be perceived as such worldwide. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) says that the screen is an obstruction to or erosion of the relationship between our constituents and us and a victory for criminal terrorist organisations. He considers raising a screen a victory for terrorism. That is remarkable. What would be a greater victory for terrorism than the sort of untoward event that decimates Parliament, kills many innocent people and leaves grieving widows, widowers and children? How can concepts be confused to such an extent?

Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup): I agree with the hon. Gentleman's points but some of the interventions suggest that some hon. Members appear to believe that we are holding a debate about protecting Members of Parliament. However, they are not protected when they step outside the Gates. We are debating the protection not of individual Members of Parliament, Ministers or shadow Ministers but of the House when it sits. Which other Assembly meets so regularly, with the Government, the alternative Government and the legislature in one place? Those who go on about protecting Members of Parliament do not even understand the subject of the debate.

Sir Stuart Bell: I need no lessons from anyone about the way in which Members of Parliament can be exposed. I have been attacked twice in my surgeries. One Member of Parliament was seriously wounded and the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who made a pertinent point earlier, will remember that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament was assassinated. Members of Parliament understand the risk. The screen was not put up for my benefit—I never said that it was. It is there to protect our Parliament, our democracy and the concept of democracy. Hon. Members should understand that.

The House should support the motion, reject the amendments and thus make a clear statement that we take terrorism seriously in relation to our Parliament and Members of Parliament, of whatever party, and that we will not provide a hostage to fortune that could
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 478
 
be shown throughout the world as an example of the way in which democracy can be denigrated and destroyed.

2.45 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out "approves" and insert "declines to approve".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, we may take amendment (b), in line 2, at end add

"until the efficacy of the temporary screen has been assessed and until a comprehensive assessment of the appropriate access of constituents to Parliament has been approved by the House."

Mr. Tyler: Several hon. Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), do not appear to have read the modest, cross-party amendments that I move on behalf of senior colleagues.

I have genuine sympathy for the Leader of the House and the Commission because they clearly have a difficult dilemma. We should all recognise that and take seriously the advice that they—and through them, the House—have been given. I accept that there is a dilemma and that a balance must be struck— I hope that all hon. Members accept that. However, I hope that hon. Members also agree that the amendments constitute a reasonable method of dealing with the issue.

The amendments do not say, "Let's take down the temporary screen." That is an illusion that renders the majority of the preceding speech irrelevant to the amendments. The amendments make it clear that, by not agreeing to a permanent screen, we make it conditional on precisely the comprehensive analysis of the position that the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House believe to be so important. I am sure that we all agree with that. Clearly, it is absurd to consider in isolation a specific part of the parliamentary estate instead of examining carefully the estate as whole.

Hon. Members of all parties have made points on behalf of those who visit us, the staff whom the House employs and our staff. The risks that they take are not mentioned on the Order Paper. The screen will not help them. Indeed, if it deflects attention from the genuinely urgent issue of screening people who come into the parliamentary estate, we do them a disservice and put them at greater risk. It is important that those who believe that we must take a comprehensive view of the security of all the buildings understand that the screen could divert attention from what is genuinely important.

Mr. Hain: I note the serious and logical way in which the hon. Gentleman makes his case. However, if he were standing in my shoes, and the director general of the Security Service had approached him last year to say that her recommendation, based on intelligence, was to erect a screen in the Chamber, would he have said no to her? That is the decision that the House of Commons Commission and I had to make. [Interruption.] It is not a question of doing what we are told but taking serious advice from the director general of MI5, who hourly combats a terrorist threat from al-Qaeda. She said that the best way in which to protect the House was to erect a screen because the Chamber is a target.

Mr. Tyler: The motion relates to a permanent screen. The amendment deals with the way in which we assess
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 479
 
the necessity for a permanent screen. "I can do no other", as they say—the temporary screen is a fait accompli. This afternoon, we must decide whether we say yes to a permanent screen without a proper assessment of the present screen's efficacy. That is what is on the Order Paper, and that is the question that I am addressing.

I want specifically to deal with a point that the Leader of the House failed to address when he was asked in what way the temporary screen was inadequate. His only answer was that it was aesthetically inadequate: he did not like the look of it. That is an absurd argument. Indeed, if we are talking about a deterrent, this screen is potentially more effective, because it is a more visible barrier, than what is described in the explanatory memorandum. It is important that we distinguish between saying yea or nay to the temporary screen—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members take a different view on this. After just four days' experience of the temporary screen in the Chamber, we are being asked this afternoon to say yes to a permanent one. There are a number of reasons why I believe that that would be wrong.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made a specific point on which I might be able to help him. A permanent screen would provide a large number of benefits. They range from non-security issues, such as the fact that it would have non-reflective glass—we would not, therefore, have the effect that we see now from the Chamber—and that it would be less visually intrusive even than this relatively modestly intrusive one, to the fact that it would be more secure. The recommendation from the Security Service was for a permanent screen. The director general said that it was a matter for the House how it handled this decision; she was not seeking to influence that. We took the decision that it was right to have a debate of this kind, but she would have preferred it had we just gone ahead and erected a permanent screen without a debate. She sees even this debate as a risk to the House.

Let us be clear about the seriousness of the situation that we face. I understand and respect the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but he is not addressing the seriousness of the threat to the Chamber, which we were advised on.

---