Mr Paul Tyler (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Several hon. Members who have contributed, including 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.

See this speech in context