---

Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester) (LD): I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement and
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1092
 
for coming to the House so quickly after this afternoon's events. This is a serious issue, made worse by the fact that we have faced similar breaches of security in the past. I hope that he understands that this is at best highly embarrassing and at worst could have had terrible consequences.

I agree with the Home Secretary's concerns about the activities of the protesters. Not only do they endanger their own lives but, at a time of heightened terror alert, they make the work of the police even harder.

The Home Secretary welcomed the fact that the alarm and camera systems worked, but they largely concern detection. Should we not have a system in place that makes the perimeter fence itself physically harder to climb in the first place? When the security commission reported earlier in the year, it found that the existing framework for dealing with security for the royal family was considered sound. Is the Home Secretary still confident about that statement?

Can the Home Secretary confirm who has responsibility for security in the royal household grounds? Is it the police, the Home Office or the new royal director of security? Does he acknowledge that with three organisations in charge of royal security, there will always be problems with communication and lines of accountability? Will he confirm how many of the commission's recommendations have been put in place? Will he tell the House whether the agreed annual plan on security at the palace has yet been agreed?

I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that there are only so many times that lessons can be learned and actions promised before the public lose confidence in the security systems that we have at both Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons.

Mr. Blunkett: Of course it is embarrassing when such incidents take place. That is self-evident and it is important to learn from it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned different incidents, and we have to be clear about who is responsible. Inside the Palace of Westminster, it is the House authorities. Inside Buckingham palace, it is the royal family and the new director of security, Brigadier Cook. All the recommendations of the Butler-Sloss commission have been put in place. Security outside the palace and security for the palace itself is the responsibility of the Metropolitan police, and they took that responsibility today, as I spelled out.

The hon. Gentleman asked about securing the outside fence. We are talking about two fences and a wall. A judgment was made, and nobody raised any objection when we put it in place after 11 September 2001, that the external view of the palace and its environment outside should be maintained as reasonably as possible. Of course it is possible to secure any building in the capital by making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere near that building or monument. That does not take a genius. It just takes great lumps of concrete and a terrible environment that ruins the capital city of our country and ensures that people cannot enjoy walking about and seeing monuments and palaces in a reasonable fashion.

The royal family do not want that, and I agree with them. We must therefore ensure proportionally that security protects life, while reasonableness secures an environment in which to live, walk and have our social
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1093
 
life—an environment that is not destroyed by the terrorists putting us in such fear that we cannot get anywhere near such buildings, including this building, which is the heart of our democracy. It is that proportionality that all of us seek to maintain.

Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): The House will welcome the Home Secretary being with us tonight and his reasonable response. Is it not a fact that for centuries in this country we have lived under the rule of law? No matter what the grievance, we must respect the decisions of the courts. Nothing, therefore, justifies taking the law into one's own hands.

The Home Secretary mentioned proportionality on at least two occasions. While it is right and proper that there be a proportionate response, those who conspire to breach the rule of law should be severely dealt with. Is it not a fact that the conspirators were on television giving interviews for their cause even before their arrest? If we believe in the rule of law, proper sentencing and proper deterrence, will that not deter the publicity stunt?

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the rule of law. The individuals and their group do a reasonable cause great ill. I agree that action needs to be clear and decisive. I have made it clear that the biggest threat to those individuals was the potential for a misjudgement to be made about their intentions. Had that happened, one or more of them might well be dead tonight. To those who think about carrying out similar stunts in future, I say that the more the tension rises and the greater the cry for action, the more likely it is that those who seek to protect us and the royal family will make a judgment at that moment that could lead to loss of life. That is why the incident was so serious.

Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): What action did the Home Secretary personally take to ensure that this sort of thing did not happen?

Mr. Blunkett: I have held regular meetings with the Metropolitan police. Last week, I held a meeting with Sir Ian Blair, the deputy commissioner, and with the head of SO 13 precisely to review progress in respect of the royal palaces. Had I not been holding regular meetings, and had I not been holding to account last week those who have operational responsibility, I would have been much more sheepish in entering the House for a statement this evening.

Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who seek to publicise what appears to be a responsible cause in such an irresponsible and high-risk manner do that political cause no good at all, not least when seeking to influence Members of the House? In fact, their actions today will have a negative effect on the cause that they were seeking to promote.

Mr. Blunkett: I very much regret that that will be the case. Any judgment about the responsibility of those who seek to act as role models for their own children and to promote a decent, genuine cause concerning the
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1094
 
rights of fathers must be that these people do tremendous harm to themselves and to their cause. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he should not be making a statement tonight, because it only gives publicity to people whose views we do not respect? Does he also understand that, when he discusses shooting individuals, he should make it plain that one should consider that course of action only if the threat to third parties is urgent and immediate, which was clearly not present in this case?

Mr. Blunkett: If you will forgive my introducing a lighter note, Mr. Speaker, I have just won a pound, because I bet someone earlier this evening that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make such an intervention. If I had not made a statement tonight, an urgent question would undoubtedly have been tabled tomorrow, and the question why I was not holding myself to account to the House would have been raised.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right on his substantive point, which is why the armed police officers present made a judgment. Police officers make a judgment on whether people who are armed or who threaten to take life in some other way are likely to carry out that threat, which is why the police officers involved today made that judgment.

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): In a perverse way, the activities of a number of individuals—whether they tried to get into Windsor castle, the Palace of Westminster or, indeed, Buckingham palace—have highlighted weaknesses within those palaces' security systems. To pick up one point that the Home Secretary touched on, is he satisfied that the obvious overlapping authority, rather than seamless authority, between those palaces and the Metropolitan police should continue, or, like a number of hon. Members, does he think that one individual should be appointed with the authority to deal with security both inside and outside all royal palaces?

Mr. Blunkett: This is my difficulty in answering that question how I want to: this House, not me, determines the line between security inside and outside the Palace of Westminster. In Buckingham palace—this is, of course, true of other palaces—the decision where the line between the royal household's authority and the Metropolitan police's authority lies is for the royal household. Following the Butler-Sloss report, we agreed a particular approach to the running of the royal household and the internal appointment of a director. It was agreed then that a clear division should be made, by which the Metropolitan police continued to act and to have authority on the palace's external protection. It is not for this House or me to determine tonight any change in that direction, but we must constantly examine whether we can ensure that the meeting of those two different franchises works effectively, and that is our challenge.

---