| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heald: That point is strong and important. Pass security should be tighter, and the matter is being addressed even before the review is completed. I would not choose to change this building unless I thought it necessary, but sadly I do.
2.28 pm
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the shadow Leader of the House.
I have just returned from the United States, where I visited ground zero in New York earlier this week. The people in New York are not maudlin and looking backwards, and they are getting on with their lives. One of my friends was involved in the Lockerbie disaster, and another was in the World Trade Centre when it was destroyed—my first friend died; my second friend got out of the World Trade Centre. I have visited both the garden of remembrance in Lockerbie and ground zero, but I am not taking a maudlin look back at the events of 11 September.
When I was in the United States, the big issue was a commission of inquiry to look into how it came about that aeroplanes could be flown into the World Trade Centre, killing 2,800 people, leaving thousands of other people with their lives permanently destroyed, and leaving surviving dependents asking a number of questions. How had this come about? Could it have been prevented? Who knew what? That commission is so important that it obliged the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to come before it to answer questions about what she knew, and in the week ahead the President and Vice-President of the United States will be asked what they knew. The relatives and dependents of
22 Apr 2004 : Column 474
those who died, who are there to listen to the proceedings, ask: what could have been done to save our own? It has been argued that a 16-year-old student with hindsight is a greater man than the President of the United States. Today, we are able to ensure that there is no need for hindsight by avoiding an untoward event.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Stuart Bell: I should like to get on a little.
Of course no one wishes to separate us from our constituents, but we have to take into account the reality of the world in which we live. We know that we are unable to defend every installation in the country, but we are able to seek to defend what we used to call, and should still call, the mother of Parliaments. This is the essence of our democracy, known and recognisable in every country of the world. The objective of global-reach terrorism is to attack and destroy democracy. To have an untoward and unhappy event here, successful or otherwise, would not only taint our democracy, but the principle of democracy throughout the world.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
As the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House said, a thorough-going investigation of the entire parliamentary estate will include Committee Rooms, passes and security at every level, and will be taken with the utmost seriousness. Nevertheless, we have to keep our eye on the ball and stay focused. At Pearl harbour, the Americans lost all their combat aircraft because they were lined up so as to defend them against sabotage from Japanese on the island, but they were of course destroyed from the air. This is not about separating ourselves from the people who wish to see us, but about protecting this democracy of ours. We make this major decision in the interests not only of our democracy, but of our successors. No Parliament binds its successors, but the decisions that we make—
Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab) rose—
Sir Stuart Bell: Let me just finish this point. We are talking about whether and how we can protect future generations of Members of Parliament, future Governments and future Oppositions.
Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that when this Chamber was destroyed during the second world war, British democracy was irreparably damaged?
Sir Stuart Bell: This Chamber was destroyed in what was clearly a war. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should be subject to a biological attack and see our Members and staff destroyed.
Mr. Gray: We would sit in Church house.
Sir Stuart Bell:
That is a remarkable comment. Having been in this House for 22 years, I am struck by
22 Apr 2004 : Column 475
the frivolity of some of the questions that were put to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. I wish to keep this debate on a serious level by discussing how we are able to protect our people, our Members of Parliament and our Government from the kind of attacks that we are seeing worldwide. I could bring a map before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which shows terrorism with its global reach in all the countries of the world—even in Saudi Arabia, which is not a democracy as we understand it. These terrorists are no respecters of persons. To attack and destroy this House would be a major gain for them and a massive blow to our democracy and to democracies around the world.
Mr. Challen: In talking about this Chamber, does my hon. Friend envisage that this siege-like situation will continue in perpetuity? He did not cite examples of any other Chambers that have fallen prey to the particular kind of attack that appears to be envisaged here. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for us to consider these measures after the sarin gas attacks on the underground in Japan.
Sir Stuart Bell: We are talking about the threat of an imminent and serious attack. I make this speech as a member of the House of Commons Commission, where I have met, with other members, the head of our security services and the head of our Metropolitan police. Through the Speaker, we issued an invitation to all Privy Councillors to come and listen to what they had to say.
As for other Parliaments, two weeks ago I was in the National Assembly in Paris: there are the most stringent regulations for getting into that building.
Mr. Gray: There is no screen there.
Sir Stuart Bell: It might happen. I have been in the Dail and saw no difficulty in its proceedings.
We are talking about how, through this investigation and analysis of the parliamentary estate, we protect our democracy, right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament, and staff—everyone in this building.
Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not like a bombing in world war two. I have just taken at random an item from my handbag, compliments of Estée Lauder—one of several that I could have picked out. This would not have been removed from me, even with the most detailed screening of my handbag, but it could contain anything sufficient to kill everybody in this Chamber and in the Galleries. As a former member of the Commission of this House, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is its duty to listen to the expert advice that it is given and to implement it.
Sir Stuart Bell: I take the hon. Lady's point. There is no mechanism or screening procedure that finds chemical and biological weapons. Nothing in this world could have prevented the anthrax being taken into Washington—no such machine is available.
Sir Stuart Bell:
My hon. and learned Friend, who is about to intervene, would face an interesting situation in
22 Apr 2004 : Column 476
years to come if there were to be an untoward event in this Chamber followed by a commission of inquiry to ask who was responsible. He would not be the Queen's Counsel on that commission, because he would have to disqualify himself on the grounds of the early-day motion that he has tabled. As the Leader of the House said, it is a matter for each and every one of us to take our responsibilities seriously this afternoon—not to spend our time trying to make various points, but to focus on the matter that is before us.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many targets in this place and that many of us are at risk? Our visitors are at risk because they are part of the democratic process, and an attack on them would be an attack on the democratic process. We, too, are at risk; but if we protect ourselves, we increase, by a direct algebraic equation, the risk to them. Those people up there have absolutely none of the protection that we have arrogated to ourselves. That is an extremely offensive way in which to deal with our people.
Sir Stuart Bell: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the attacks of global-reach terrorism on democracy are attacks on us all and that we all may be subject to terrorist attack by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have talked about the parliamentary estate and commission of inquiry that we shall hold, with a full investigation of how we can protect people who wish to visit. However, we must consider how we can protect Government and Opposition Members and Members of Parliament generally. We are here to make decisions about how to protect not a future Wembley stadium, but the House—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |