MPs urged not to debate security in public
The Speaker, Michael Martin, has this lunchtime asked MPs not to debate yesterday’s security incident in public.
His comments came before the Leader of the House, Peter Hain, announced the business schedule for the next session of Parliament. The annual autumn recess begins today to allow MPs to attend their autumn party conferences.
Conference managers, particularly for the Labour Party, are likely to be reviewing their security preparations following yesterday’s incident whereby a number of pro-hunting protestors gained entrance to the House of Commons debating chamber.
Mr Martin had been expected to brief MPs on the response to the invasion, but he instead told MPs that he did not want this afternoon’s question and answer session to be discussed on the floor.
Instead he urged MPs who wished to make a submission to speak to the chairman of the joint committee, or write to him. Mr Martin said: “There are serious questions arising from that incident which will be discussed by the Joint Committee on Security and the House of Commons Commission.”
An investigation by the security services into an earlier breach of security when the Prime Minister was hit by flour bombs is due to report soon.
In a later statement, Mr Hain warned that: “The blunt truth is that the House of Commons is operating as if in a bygone age. This is the age of the suicide terrorist and our security arrangements are antiquated.”
He urged both the Lords and Commons to act urgently and appoint a single director of security of Parliament, who would be accountable to the Speaker and the Lords’ chair of committees, but work directly with the security services and the police.
In another development, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, confirmed that the Met believe the stunt was an “inside job”. In a statement, Sir John also highlighted difficulties with the current system whereby contracted officers work under the direction of the Serjeant at Arms, saying: “Yesterday’s incident causes me to reflect on whether this is the best way for security arrangements to continue in the future”.
“For instance, the contract states that police officers cannot go into the chamber without express permission and direction of the Serjeant at Arms. Perhaps this is something we need to revisit.”
