THE fuse for the extraordinary turf war between ministers and the Speaker which burst into the open yesterday was lit several days earlier at a meeting of a body few people knew existed.
The Joint Committee on Security, a group of senior MPs and peers from all parties which advises the Speaker and chairman of the House Committee in the Lords, met late last week to discuss a delicate matter.
David Veness, Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism chief, and a counterpart from MI5, who are both reviewing security at the Palace of Westminster, have kept in touch with the parliamentary authorities and knew of their hostility to their key proposal.
They want a new post of a security director responsible for both Houses with the powers to cut through the myriad chains of command and take sole charge of protecting Parliament.
Before submitting their final report, they sought to find a way through the impasse by presenting the committee with an interim discussion document, focusing on their concerns on governance. An informed source told The Times that this paper set out three options: closer co-operation between the two Houses and the police and MI5, on which they agreed, and a security adviser or director of security, both of which were thrown out.
Advertisement
The option of a head of security was rejected on grounds that a “unicameral” director with executive powers would not work because of the separate nature of the Lords and Commons and their operations. It was supported by the committee’s chairman, the Government’s deputy chief whip Bob Ainsworth, and the Lib Dem whip Andrew Stunnell but opposed by Patrick McLoughlin, the Conservative’s deputy chief whip, and all four peers on the committee.
The plan was also fiercely resisted by the two officials currently in charge of security: the Serjeant at Arms, Sir Michael Cummins, and Black Rod, Sir Michael Willcocks.
Instead the committee agreed to maintain the status quo, with the Commons and Lords running separate security operations but with more formal steps to co-ordinate their work and improve their access to outside security advice.
These included the creation of a new advisory body drawn from both the Metropolitan Police and MI5, a single strategic security plan for the entire parliamentary estate and expanding the membership and role of the committee itself. The MPs and peers also suggested steps to improve links between officials in the Commons and Lords and experts at a lower level in the Metropolitan Police and Security Service.
The final report of the security review is expected to contain a series of measures. But the post of security director is seen as central in enforcing the changes in both Houses through a single command structure and in giving authoritative internal security advice.
Advertisement
The source told The Times: “No one came to us and said we could not go ahead with the September sitting with all this building work going on, or that it was not safe or secure.”
One theory is that opponents of a security director believe it would set a precedent that would be followed by other “unicameral” appointments such as a director of catering for both Houses and erode their separate traditions and cultures.
The Speaker, Michael Martin, is by custom solely in charge of Commons security and has been at loggerheads for months with ministers, led by Commons Leader Peter Hain, who have been pressing for a more professional approach to protecting MPs from the terrorism threat. This intensified in May after demonstrators threw purple flour at Tony Blair during Prime Minister’s Questions, exposing a weakness in Commons security.
Mr Hain tried to put himself at the head of calls for a new approach to Commons security and pledged to MPs that he would publish an executive summary of the findings of the security review. The Times reported in June that this prompted the Speaker to issue Mr Hain with a formal rebuke for intruding on his powers. For a period, this appeared to have won the Speaker respite in this turf war.
This weeks events, however, have immeasurably strengthened the hand of Mr Hain and his supporters.