MPs Warned of Al-Qa'ida Terror Threat to Commons
Views on BG | April 23, 2004, FridayThe Independent
By Ben Russell
A warning from the intelligence services that al-Qa'ida could mount a chemical or biological attack on the chamber of the House of Commons was delivered to MPs yesterday.
Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, told MPs that the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, had issued "clear intelligence" warning of the possibility of an anthrax or ricin attack on the heart of British democracy, and he called on MPs to approve a permanent glass screen to prevent terror attacks on the chamber.
Mr Hain said the deadly agents would cause "total contamination" of the chamber within minutes. He told MPs that Ms Manningham-Buller had made an "unequivocal recommendation" that a permanent screen capable of preventing bomb and gas attacks should be installed. In a stark description of the threat facing the Palace of Westminster, Mr Hain told MPs: "The security service recommendation for a screen is based on an analysis of threat vulnerability and the impact of possible chemical or biological attack in the strangers' gallery.
"Al-Qa'ida and associated networks have shown the intent and capability to mount attacks using chemical and biological materials. Using such materials in confined places is a good way of maximising impact."
He added: "If an al-Qa'ida group managed to throw a phial of anthrax or ricin into the chamber, or even worse a suicide agent released it without anybody noticing, which we have been advised is quite feasible, the particles would immediately begin spreading throughout the chamber. Because of the way the air flows work, within minutes total contamination could occur."
Ms Manningham-Buller has briefed senior MPs on the threat facing the Commons, which is already protected by armed police and a ring of concrete blocks designed to prevent a suicide attack from the road.
A temporary screen of bombproof glass, capable of withstanding a chemical attack, was installed in front of the Commons public gallery over Easter after the warnings were first received.
Yesterday MPs approved a permanent screen, costing Ј1.3m, to block off the public gallery. But Mr Hain faced bitter opposition from some MPs who warned that the security screen would not protect Parliament from attack, while further alienating voters from the public.
Bob Marshall Andrews, Labour MP for Medway, said: "It will be perceived that we are protecting ourselves and letting the rest go hang. This is a risk we must bear and a risk we must share." Sion Simon, Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington, also attacked the screen, saying that it "sends out all the wrong signals".
Mr Hain announced new controls on visitors invited by MPs to sit in the public seats outside the screened-off area and raised the possibility of a similar screen being installed in the House of Lords at some point in the future.
Outlining the effects of a chemical attack on the Commons chamber, Mr Hain said: "It is for members to decide if they are prepared to take that risk. I am not. The Speaker is not. The House of Commons Commission is not." He added: "I regret the need for the screen, but I believe that it is necessary and in the best interests of democracy. To ignore the advice we received would have been irresponsible."
By Ben Russell
A warning from the intelligence services that al-Qa'ida could mount a chemical or biological attack on the chamber of the House of Commons was delivered to MPs yesterday.
Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, told MPs that the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, had issued "clear intelligence" warning of the possibility of an anthrax or ricin attack on the heart of British democracy, and he called on MPs to approve a permanent glass screen to prevent terror attacks on the chamber.
Mr Hain said the deadly agents would cause "total contamination" of the chamber within minutes. He told MPs that Ms Manningham-Buller had made an "unequivocal recommendation" that a permanent screen capable of preventing bomb and gas attacks should be installed. In a stark description of the threat facing the Palace of Westminster, Mr Hain told MPs: "The security service recommendation for a screen is based on an analysis of threat vulnerability and the impact of possible chemical or biological attack in the strangers' gallery.
"Al-Qa'ida and associated networks have shown the intent and capability to mount attacks using chemical and biological materials. Using such materials in confined places is a good way of maximising impact."
He added: "If an al-Qa'ida group managed to throw a phial of anthrax or ricin into the chamber, or even worse a suicide agent released it without anybody noticing, which we have been advised is quite feasible, the particles would immediately begin spreading throughout the chamber. Because of the way the air flows work, within minutes total contamination could occur."
Ms Manningham-Buller has briefed senior MPs on the threat facing the Commons, which is already protected by armed police and a ring of concrete blocks designed to prevent a suicide attack from the road.
A temporary screen of bombproof glass, capable of withstanding a chemical attack, was installed in front of the Commons public gallery over Easter after the warnings were first received.
Yesterday MPs approved a permanent screen, costing Ј1.3m, to block off the public gallery. But Mr Hain faced bitter opposition from some MPs who warned that the security screen would not protect Parliament from attack, while further alienating voters from the public.
Bob Marshall Andrews, Labour MP for Medway, said: "It will be perceived that we are protecting ourselves and letting the rest go hang. This is a risk we must bear and a risk we must share." Sion Simon, Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington, also attacked the screen, saying that it "sends out all the wrong signals".
Mr Hain announced new controls on visitors invited by MPs to sit in the public seats outside the screened-off area and raised the possibility of a similar screen being installed in the House of Lords at some point in the future.
Outlining the effects of a chemical attack on the Commons chamber, Mr Hain said: "It is for members to decide if they are prepared to take that risk. I am not. The Speaker is not. The House of Commons Commission is not." He added: "I regret the need for the screen, but I believe that it is necessary and in the best interests of democracy. To ignore the advice we received would have been irresponsible."
» Subscribe to receive alerts by email for any of these keywords.
Share:
