Security lapse
Sir: Theassassi nation of A ireyNeave and the letter from Matthew Parris, which caused such a fuss during the election campaign, come as small surprise to one who was continually amazed by the lax security arrangements at the Palace of Westminster when working there last year.
After an initial interview lasting less than half an hour with a Labour Member of Parliament who asked no searching questions about my background or political affiliations nor asked for references, I was engaged as his private secretary. Later, I was to find that a pretty face appeared to be sufficient qualification for several other MPs, one of whom, a Tory, gave me complete responsibility for dealing with his post in his absence. The temptation to send out letters of the Parris type was almost overwhelming; given a desk and a telephone with the imposing House of Commons address on the letterheads gave one an unwarranted sense of power.
Entrance to any part of the Parliament buildings seemed easy enough at any time; just the mention of any Member was enough, if stopped by security guards; the production of my pass was rarely needed. Despite the written request on the back of the identity card to return it to the Serjeant-at-Arms on relinquishment of an engagement at the Palace, how many, one wonders, are not returned and could be used at some later date for ulterior purposes? (Mine was returned.) As for other forms of security, I was told that doors are kept unlocked because too many people were getting raped behind them! Another source advised me to look after my handbag since 'no one could be trusted around this place'. Every Member of Parliament who does not bother to find out what lies behind a pretty face is to be regarded as a security risk; anyone so carless should not be there. Such carelessness is an affront to Parliament and the nation and symbolises the preoccupation with selfaggrandisement that blinkers our leadership.
Joan Woolard 23 The Middlings, Sevenoaks, Kent
Previous page
