I was about to write a lengthy post about the role (real or imagined) played by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the arrest of Damian Green, but Ben Brogan has beaten me to it. It seems to me it is of crucial importance to establish whether Jill Pay, the Serjeant at Arms, was indeed told by the Police that the DPP had approved the search of Damian Green's office. She maintains that's exactly what she was told. The Police have remained silent on the issue, while the DPP has denied any involvement. Mr Speaker needs to clear up that issue on Wednesday.
Ben Brogan fingers the Parliamentary Clerk - now the most senior official of the House of Commons - as the man with questions to answer.
When the Speaker comes to make his statement on Wednesday to MPs, he will of course be relying on the three officials in front of him for advice in the event of any 'trouble'. And the senior official giving advice? Why, none other than the Parliamentary Clerk, Dr Malcolm Jack.
It was only very recently that the Serjeant at Arms was downgraded to a more junior role with a 50% salary cut. In the past, the position has always been held by a retired military man. All of the Serjeants I have met over 25 years have struck the fear of God into many of those who dealt with them, and would have been more than capable of telling a representative of the Met where he could shove his search warrant. Jill Pay does not have that authority, and from what I know of Dr Jack he is more a Reverend Slope figure.
But in the end this was Mr Speaker's call. Rumour has it that as soon as Parliament was prorogued on Wednesday evening he hot footed it north. Did he know what was brewing before he left the building, and if so, why didn't he change his plans?
32 comments:
"The Speaker has left the building"
The concert is over for democracy.
Iain: Would that be as in North of Watford? Capital N old chap if you don't mind we would rather not be belittled by someone South of Watford.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but so far as I am aware a search of the premises of someone arrested for a serious criminal offence does not require a warrant. Should MPs believe they should enjoy special treatment in this regard then unlike the hoi polloi they are uniquely positioned to grant it to themselves. And are the police in the habit of asking the DPP for his view on potential searches?
Labour is bound to win any Speakership election in the next eighteen months, simply on account of there being more Labour MPs than all the others put together. Betty Boothroyd only got in because the Tories couldn't get their act together and agree on a single candidate.
And the alternation thing is just an urban myth, dragged out by either party when it doesn't get its own way. If anything, there is now an alternation between the Right (Boothroyd) and Left (Martin) of pre-Bliarite, because pre-Bennite, Labour in order to keep them both sweet.
So, Frank Field for Speaker? Or Kate Hoey? Perhaps. But only after Michael Martin has voluntarily retired.
By the spring of 2010, Martin will be just short of his sixty-fifth birthday, so he might very well do just that: retire voluntarily.
Some ghastly New Labour clone might then be imposed on his seat. But David Cameron's intra-Scottish class war to remove him from the Speaker's Chair (just listen to how Cameron speaks to him at PMQs, as if addressing a waiter at a Bullingdon Club dinner) will have come to nothing.
Not the only Cameron intra-Scottish class war that will come to nothing, of course.
Jimmy said...
Perhaps I'm missing something, but so far as I am aware a search of the premises of someone arrested for a serious criminal offence does not require a warrant. Should MPs believe they should enjoy special treatment in this regard then unlike the hoi polloi they are uniquely positioned to grant it to themselves. And are the police in the habit of asking the DPP for his view on potential searches?
December 01, 2008 6:33 PM
Don't be so damned silly. Are you seriously saying that the leak of a document relating to an illegal immigrant being employed in the HoC is a serious criminal offence?
Time you woke up and smelled the coffee!
The problem is that the Speaker often looks as if he wouldn't know what he was told even if he was told it in plain English.
@ David Lindsay
"just listen to how Cameron speaks to him at PMQs, as if addressing a waiter at a Bullingdon Club dinner"
Careful! Your raging class prejudice is manifesting itself. And that is hardly a perception you might wish to give, is it?
So, tell us, how is a waiter at a Bullingdon Club dinner addressed, old chap? Is it ever so slightly condescending? Is it in that gratingly superior manner?
Just like your magnificent self, then.
Clown.
Cato,
A serious criminal offence I believe (and my knowledge here may be rusty) is one carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The answer to your question therefore would appear to be "yes".
I read today that the Anti Terrorism legislation allows the police to self certify a search warrant...
Could this be why Anti Terror police were used, and the confusion as to the legislation?
With regards to the Home Secretary, her careful answering of questions and failure to answer a specific question repeatedly put to her, makes it blindingly obvious she knew more.
When specifically asked if she knew an opposition MP was involved she kept referring back to not knowing Damien Green was about to be arrested and searched.
Home Secretary, we have arrested the mole, we know he was passing the papers to a leading Tory MP...
What would you like us to do Home Secretary?
Arrest them!, she may have replied.
She can now take the line that she has, I did not know that Damien Green was involved and was going to be arrested... I did not know a Shadow Minister was involved...etc.
I hope the journos keep pushing this question, time for Paxman to do to her what he did to Howard... what are the chances?
To be fair to Gorbals Mick, he was probably just going to his native Scotlannd - he's part of the Scottish Raj you know. I wouldn't read much into him returning home.
Jimmy,
"serious criminal offense" ?
Please.
Laughably obscure and unjust common law relic.
The "special treatment" here is the particular use of this obscure law, for which there is no direct precedent.
Had the police consulted the DPP, they would have been advised that its use was entirely inappropriate.
But of course you know this.
Marr: Did you know that a Conservative MP was being investigated before the arrest of Damian Green?
Smith: No, because, what I think is important here, is that actually the police are able to use their professional judgement to pursue an investigation.
Seems pretty clear to me.
"Laughably obscure and unjust common law relic."
If only he could put himself into some sort of legislative position, he might be able to do something about it.
Otherwise there's always the Human Rights Act.
I know that's what she said, but I find it stretching credulity to believe it. She is seriosuly suggesting that the Permananent Secretary made no mention that a Conservative MP was being investigated. I just find that incredible.
As I understand it, the Perm Sec was given five minutes' notice. Do you disbelieve him too?
I don't see her answer as in any way implausible. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could argue it would have been appropriate for her to get involved in the investigation of an opposition MP.
Jimmy,
you seem to share the deliberate obtuseness of David Boothroyd. Are you both programmed bots ?
As you are probably aware, the Law Commission called this obscure common law relic "overly broad and ill-defined".
The Nolan Report recommended its replacement by statute.
The CPS website strongly advises caution in its use.
And I'm sure you cannot provide a suitable precedent for its use in this manner.
Nigel,
Off the top of my head no. I recall seeing a reference to a similar case in 1970 but I'm afraid I've lost it.
Even if I accept your argument that the law needs to be changed, it's very much a sidebar to the central issues here. It's nevertheless a worthy topic in its own right. In that regard I would be interested if you can answer the question that I've not been able to persuade anyone here to address: If an MP induces a civil servant to spy on his minister, is that acceptable behaviour? Should the law (whether the common law or some new statute) deal with it?
"If an MP induces a civil servant to spy on his minister..."
Such speculation wold be entirely prejudicial, and you should know better.
The point is that this law has been in existence for a couple of centuries, and for the police to use it in this novel and arbitrary manner is plain wrong.
Nigel,
The question implies nothing about the present case. I merely sought your (anyone's?) opinion as to how the law should deal with such a scenario.
No-one seems to want to answer this.
Parliamentary Clerks are the officials in Government departments who handle departmental relations with Parliament (processing questions, etc).
I presume Iain is referring in fact to the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Head of the House of Commons Service and the Speaker's principal procedural adviser.
But I doubt Iain has any more idea than I do as to the channels of communication between the Clerk and the Speaker. He just has the brass neck to pretend he does.
Jimmy
"Perhaps I'm missing something..."
Only the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just go back to sleep, old chap.
He is what I believe they call in Yorkshire, a waste of skin.
Ooohhh...Iain!! Trollopisms now!! Is Madame Gorbals Mick Mrs. Proudie to Mr. Speaker's Bishop Proudie...given Mr. Clerk's Reverand Slope? Given their teetotal and general Glaswegian outlook, you might not be too much off point!!!
"from what I know of Dr Jack he is more a Reverend Slope figure."
That suggests that you either don't know very much about the Clerk of the House of Commons or you haven't read very much Trollope.
Interested in Iain's point about the Serjeant at Arms being downgraded from being a serious ex-military servant of the House.
Without overstating it it is worth remembering that political power is ultimately about force. It would be nicer if it wasn't but, like the right to bear arms, such things are not merely holdovers from a less civilised time before everything was run by lawyers.
Anything in this post you'd now care to update in the light of events, Iain - or are unsubstantiated smears on public servants still fair game in your book?
Eh? Today's events have justified very single sentence of this post. Perhaps you'd like to be clear exactly what you mean?
Apart from the central contention of the Brogan piece -- that the Commons Clerk in some way authorised the raid -- which you happily link to, repeat and generally amplify.
And your point is? Really, get a grip. Clark still has questions to answer, as the inquiry will no doubt verify.
Ah. Lost rag = lost argument. Goodnight.
Post a Comment