Yesterday December 3rd marked an unusual and significant day in British Politics with far reaching consequences which one suspects the majority of UK and overseas watchers will not understand or in truth care much about. Disentangling what has become party political from what is fundamental to the British Constitution has rapidly become difficult. I suggest the first issue is to the balance between the British Government and Parliament with the USA parallel the balance between the role and power of the President and Congress
Dictatorship government whether through a Monarchy, a Fascist, a Communist, a Pope, a King David, or a Muslim Cleric, or a Sandhurst trained General is a comparatively simple and effective form of government. You tell someone what to do and they do it but in such a way to put their individual authority on the action to cement their position and provide an escape route and an appropriate life style should you be over thrown, as sometimes you were part of over throwing others.
There are two rules about this chain of ruthless getting rid of anyone who shows opposition or might threaten your position and wealth acquisition. You must show unequivocal and constant loyalty to your leader, because the leader’s personal spies will always be checking on you just as your spies will be advising you about the loyalty of those lower in your chain of command. The second rule is that you only rob the country and its citizens of a level of wealth proportionate to your position, but sufficient to give the proportion required to those above you in the chain of command. The problem about these structures is that they can become counter productive in that so much is being taken out of the country literally, and stored in vaults in more stable political and economic states that far from the country progressing, it becomes more and more poor, the unrest of the people progresses and despite the likely consequences of opposition the people or a section of them rise up. Of course the more effective the power and personal wealth acquisition structure has become the longer it can take for the discontented to be able to overthrow the system and then only with external funding and specialist direct assistance. This has been the situation throughout human history with the concept of a democratic multi party state backed up by a constitution and the rule of law still a new development and requiring continual nurturing. Clearly a government must protect itself from unconstitutional threats.
It also is understandable that those engaged in running a democratic government find it difficult to stand outside their day to day situation and assess the impact of their actions in terms of does it strengthen or weaken democracy, the rule of law and so on. Democratic governments by nature will become for more sensitive to criticism because they know that words can lead to their rapid downfall from individual office and collectively as a parliament from power. There is therefore merit in the approach of the USA system and others which have a fixed term Parliament and Administration with its leaders unable to seize an opportunity to call an election on their terms or for an opposition to create such unrest, uncertainty and doubt within the governing party that they can defeat the government on such an important issue that the Prime Minister and their Government is forced to resign and call an early General Election to the advantage of the Opposition, if the opinion polls and canvasses can be trusted.
In both the fixed term Parliament and the variable term within a maximum term Parliament there is only a short window of a year or two to make major legislative change, because then everyone begins to concentrate on what needs to be done to achieve a second, a third and a continuing term of office, as individual participants and collectively as a governing or power holding political party..
I have come to understand more clearly why in the USA there is a transitional period of months rather than days or weeks because the change in administration is so comprehensive and to a degree bi partisan and that even when the Ministers are selected by the head person, they can only take office after approval of the Senate and one assume that also those taking control of the Federal Commissions and Agencies are also subject to the same scrutiny.
I also have the impression that in the USA white citizens do feel and guard their freedoms and sense of equality under the constitution, whether it is freedom of information , freedom to bear arms in self defence under the constitution and such like, because unlike in the UK and Western Europe the white population does not have the same Feudal background. I say white because until now there was feudalism in the USA first towards the actual native Americans, then with the actual Slavery of the Blacks, and the economic slavery of those from Mexico and other parts of central America. Those from the Middle East and Orient also suffered economically and politically and men did no enfranchise women until the last century and promoted the education, the economic and political freeing of women until the mid century. So in the UK, in the USA and in Europe Democracy has been a white male thing and I mention this because interestingly all the speakers yesterday who took every opportunity to attack or defend the arrest of Damian Green were male.
As previously written the arrest of Damian Green does raise important issues for the sovereignty of the people against the state, a concept with in reality only opposition tend to worry about. Although in fairness there have always been those in Government who also worry too, although their tenure in office tends to be shorter than average.
Yesterday was a day of pageant when the Queen and her Peers dress up in expensive fancy dress and others put on their best bib and tucker to open Parliament. This usually happens in the autumn rather than Winter so the delay merits a mention. It is quite a show with even the State Crown and other emblems of a constitutional monarchy get a ride in a royal carriage Buckingham Palace the Palace of Westminster with a Royal Escort so they can be placed in appropriate areas before the Queen, the Prince, her ladies in Waiting make their carriage procession through the streets of London. Two members of the government are held as hostages at the Palace to prevent the Queen being taken hostage by her Parliament and the reading of the political Programme of the government by the Monarch is held in the House of Lords with only a small percentage of the Members of the House of Commons actually being able to stand within the House of the Lords to hear the speech direct.
The speech was only interesting because it been pruned down to half the usual size in what is likely to be the last full year of legislative activity before a General Election. Some speculate that this is because a General Election could be called next Spring if the runes are good. Others because the Economic situation is so precarious that the Government needs to devote all its attention. Some claim that the government has run out of ideas and the Conservatives claimed that most of the proposal in the Speech were theirs, which could be correct and creates in own problems for the Official opposition because if the ideas were Conservative they can hardly create a vigorous opposition to the legislation when it is debated and therefore their opportunities to create a political storm grabbing public attention, and swing votes, will be reduced, especially if the national and international approach to the economic crisis works. Certainly Mr Brown continues to appear to increase in personal self confidence and to be enjoying himself in the House, something which Prime Minister Blair never leant to do, although he was a brilliant performer at the despatch box.
Hopefully, but I doubt it, the Government has learnt one of my mantra’s that Government is about governing, that is taking Executive decisions on a day to day basis and decisions are needed and that most legislation is more trouble than it is worth, except in occupying the time of one’s own supporters who are not members of the Government in the sense of having paid government positions, or unpaid positions as a kind of government Intern.
Yesterday however the State opening of Parliament and the Queen’s speech and the first day of debates on the Government programme for the year was secondary to the Damian Green Affair which is now likely to become an important event in British History and could affect whether the next government is Labour or Conservative. One problem is that the leaderships of all the major parties now realise this and are doing their best to maximise political capital. Unfortunately Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed to take the initiative, although the government Whips had organised several counter attacks to those which came from all around the House.
As is custom there were several important issues being raised at the same time and which merited dealing with one by one.
First is the questionable practice of Opposition Members of Parliament and backbenchers within the government having Civil Service contacts within the administration who pass then oral information and copies of documents. This is wrong in principle but everyone does it. George Brown the Prime Minister made his political reputation within the Labour Party by doing it, and most Members of Parliament would do it if given the opportunity. The Government was strongest yesterday when they challenged the Tory leader whether he was advocating that this became the norm and therefore not something which a civil servant should be punished for.
There is provision under the Freedom of Information Act for a Public Servant to release restricted information in specified circumstances but this no longer includes the Public Interest defence, And in general my sympathy is with the Government in a situation where there was prolonged leaking of information over a two year period and some twenty documents are said to be involved of what four created political storms.
If I understand the position of Mr Cameron correctly he is not saying that Civil Servants should be able to disclose confidential without consequences but that the punishment for the civil servants should be proportionate. If a Civil Servant releases classified information, especially information which could affect the security of the state then that individual should not be surprised if there is a criminal prosecution and a prison sentence. The question is what is the information which can be dealt with internally under the contract of employment and information that that requires reference to the police. I listened careful to what the Home Secretary had to say this morning. The sequence of events has become clearer. The Home Office has suffered from a successful of leaks during the past two years and attempted by the head of the permanent staff at the Department to locate the source so it appears that the Permanent Secretary as such posts are called suggested to the Minister that the matter be referred to the Cabinet Office. It was the permanent secretary to the Cabinet office who called in the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police to assist in detecting the culprit or culprits.
At that point their work could have been completed and the decision taken for the matter to be dealt with under employment procedures. It was not and the decision taken to arrest the identified source. At present it must be assumed that this decision was taken by the Permanent Secretary of Cabinet without political consultation.
The second issue is the role of Members of Parliament in accepting such information. They are in a different position from Civil Servants and from Member’s of the Public and their motives for accepting and using the information will vary. One suspects as with the Enigma machine that much of the information, whether oral information or documents is not used directly, in part to protect the source, in part because it is classified information, and in part because the recipient does not want to alert that they have the link and the information in hope that even more significant information will become available. In this case it is significant that the claim is that some 20 documents were released over a period of two years but that only four of these have hit the headlines and given the ongoing nature of the contact it would be surprising if documentary information was the only information that passed between the provider and the recipient.
Yesterday there were three developments which helped to progress public knowledge of what is the position and what has happened.
First in the morning there was a special meeting of the London police Authority during which the acting head of the Police in London denied that their had been any political involvement in the carrying out of the investigation to date and which arose because of a complaint made to the police by the administration. This was a brave assertion because at that point the inquiry into the actions of the police had just commenced. It is also important clarify that what he was saying is that there had been no direct police contact with politicians about the matter prior to the arrest. However he could not know if politicians had indirect contact through civil servants.
It is not generally known that if a member of staff of public or private agency commits an offence within and as part of their employment there is no requirement in law for the police to brought in. It is a well known fact that many bank employees are not referred to the police and prosecuted because to do so would undermine the confidence of the public in the banking system, although one suspects that has now all changed with the public having no confidence in the banking system. One cannot help feeling that the media, public and political wrath which has now descended on Harringey, however well deserved, has in part been caused by the failure to hold the top bankers to account, because we need then to get us out of the mess which they have created. Regarding Harringey the wrath is deflecting attention away from the failure of government to take effective action for more than a year until the wrath of Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time.
He also denied that there had been no bugging of the office of Damian Green by the police or use of the Civil Servant to implicate Mr Green. However the Police denial does not mean that the Government at a political or administrative level did not authorise bugging by the counter terrorism security services if they had evidence that national security was involved. I make this point because yesterday the most senior Policeman in London at present made the point that they had not been asked to just a leak of low level information from the administration to a Member of Parliament, but of information had a potential national security significance. This indicated that there was no immediate hard evidence of a leak of national security but there was belief/hope that there had been, or that they needed the equipment and papers of the Member of Parliament to confirm the evidence in their possession. However irrespective of who authorised the police to investigate and set the terms of the investigation the issue is whether the police will feel able to continue a prosecution and if they do if it will succeed. Boris Johnson the Mayor of London said in answer to a question from the London Assembly that his hunch was that a prosecution will no go ahead and indeed a prosecution would see the end of the hopes of Speaker Michael Martin’s ambition to continue as Speaker in the next Parliament and would be damaging for the Tory front bench now that they have set out their stall. Because of this one also understand the closing of ranks behind the government and the pressure that will be exerted by the civil service, if not the by Government politicians for a successful prosecution to be achieved.
The decision of the police to set up an arms length police investigation into their own actions can be interpreted two ways. It can be a way of placing the entire police force behind their London colleagues against political interference and political intimidation if the report exonerates all aspects of the action, or it can be a way of dropping the prosecutions because of technicalities in how the operation was carried out. I say prosecutions because if no action is taken against the Member of Parliament it is difficult to see how criminal proceedings could also be taken against the Civil Servant.
The second event yesterday was the statement made by Speaker before the debate on the Queen’s Speech which was itself something of a non event. Before I forget the Queen announced a State visit from the President of Mexico. The Speaker made his statement and then allowed in effect a mini debate for half hour on what were points of order. What the speaker said and what he announced shook the foundations of Westminster. He admitted that the police did not have a warrant to search the room of the Member within the Palace or to take away property and had relied upon written consent being given by the Sergeant at Arms, the person whose main responsibility is the security of the Palace, balancing the need to ensure the right of citizens and visitors to have access to the Members and to the Parliamentary processes, ensuring the safety of everyone, especially in the era of international terrorism. The Speaker was originally not told that the name of the Member of Parliament was not given. Secondly the Sergeant at arms was not advised by the police that they did not have a warrant and that she should refuse them entry. One member on a point of order queried the time of day when this happened and whether the Sergeant had first consulted or attempted to consult one of the House of Commons lawyers before giving the written consent for the police to enter the office and take away information. This announcement shocked and incensed many members of the Commons, including David Winnick who I had contact with over child care matters forty years ago, wanted those involved summoned to the bar of the House to explain themselves.
The speaker announced that he was setting up in effect a special committee of privileges comprising seven senior members to investigate the matter and advise the Housing or what action should be taken in addition to the action he was already announcing and to report with a short time table. He invited Ming Campbell who spoke to participate.
I will come back to yesterday but to-day there were two further developments as the matter was first discussed during the weekly statement on future business and then with the statement of the Home Secretary, a further two hours of pointed questionings and defending by Government Ministers. The first development which angered opposition members and surprised some Government back benchers the Speaker’s committee is to reflect political representation in the house and will therefore have a majority of member representing the government (4) with only three places to the Conservatives and Liberal democrats and none for other parties. Both the Speaker and the Labour Leader of the House made the point that this resolution is open to amendment for debate on Monday. However the next bombshell was that the intention will be for the committee to be set up and appointed and then adjourned until completion of the police inquiries. This again take the initiative back from the Opposition and raises further question on the future of the Speaker as he appears to being cut adrift by the Government. The next matter of matter controversy was the announcement that only a half a days debate will be allowed on Monday that is three hours. Again the leader of the house pointed out that this could be amended, as well as the house going into private session if this was war around the Government pressure that nothing should be said which could be interpreted. There is now a challenged to the opposition to must enough votes to force a change in the composition and timing of the Speaker’s inquiry and the length of the debate on Monday
Returning back to the statement of the Speaker yesterday and the debate on the Queen’s speech. The most senior members of the Tory Party entered the fray such as former leaders such as Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith and heavy weights such as Ken Clark. There was reference to comments made earlier by former Home Secretary David Blunket and Harriet Harman has made known her reservations. One immediately felt this issue more than any other, including the state of the economy would govern the future of this Parliament and possibly the next. However the extent and force the comments from the Tory benchers seemed to drive more and more backbenchers behind the Government. The Prime Minister maintained a wry smile as Opposition members drew his attention to doing over a long period precisely what Damian Green was now being accused of.
Harriet Harman the Leader was clearly placed in a difficult position by number Ten and some of Cabinet Colleagues, possibly the Dark Prince who leapt to the Government defence in a newspaper article earlier in the week. As she justified the approach now being taken. The Home Secretary and Harriet also pushed what they are hoping will be the governing principles for how the matter will be debated in future. These included that Members of Parliament are not above the law, (to which the Opposition drew attention, nor are the Police), that Members of Parliament had rights and privileges in terms of the duties to their constituents and that it was important to maintain the impartiality and political neutrality of the Civil Service. The fourth was that the police should able to do their work and conduct their investigations free from party political interference. I thought the Home Secretary did an excellent of stone walling as had the Prime Minister, urging everyone to become more even tempered, go back to the priority issues of concern to the public and await the outcome of the official enquiries organised so far
There were two other points which emerged. First the Home Secretary quoted the police as saying that Damian Green was being investigated both for the misuse of confidential information in pubic office but also for the soliciting/grooming of someone for information. Mr Green produced the statement of his arrest which made no reference to this aspect. Secondly it was suggested that the statement now made by the police about what happened when the requested access at the House varied differently from the statement which the Speaker made to the House. Later the Liberal Democrats indicated they would not participate in the Speakers Committee as present constituted.
As a member of the public one is left with the impression that everyone is now trying to put themselves in the best light and discredit others.
Dictatorship government whether through a Monarchy, a Fascist, a Communist, a Pope, a King David, or a Muslim Cleric, or a Sandhurst trained General is a comparatively simple and effective form of government. You tell someone what to do and they do it but in such a way to put their individual authority on the action to cement their position and provide an escape route and an appropriate life style should you be over thrown, as sometimes you were part of over throwing others.
There are two rules about this chain of ruthless getting rid of anyone who shows opposition or might threaten your position and wealth acquisition. You must show unequivocal and constant loyalty to your leader, because the leader’s personal spies will always be checking on you just as your spies will be advising you about the loyalty of those lower in your chain of command. The second rule is that you only rob the country and its citizens of a level of wealth proportionate to your position, but sufficient to give the proportion required to those above you in the chain of command. The problem about these structures is that they can become counter productive in that so much is being taken out of the country literally, and stored in vaults in more stable political and economic states that far from the country progressing, it becomes more and more poor, the unrest of the people progresses and despite the likely consequences of opposition the people or a section of them rise up. Of course the more effective the power and personal wealth acquisition structure has become the longer it can take for the discontented to be able to overthrow the system and then only with external funding and specialist direct assistance. This has been the situation throughout human history with the concept of a democratic multi party state backed up by a constitution and the rule of law still a new development and requiring continual nurturing. Clearly a government must protect itself from unconstitutional threats.
It also is understandable that those engaged in running a democratic government find it difficult to stand outside their day to day situation and assess the impact of their actions in terms of does it strengthen or weaken democracy, the rule of law and so on. Democratic governments by nature will become for more sensitive to criticism because they know that words can lead to their rapid downfall from individual office and collectively as a parliament from power. There is therefore merit in the approach of the USA system and others which have a fixed term Parliament and Administration with its leaders unable to seize an opportunity to call an election on their terms or for an opposition to create such unrest, uncertainty and doubt within the governing party that they can defeat the government on such an important issue that the Prime Minister and their Government is forced to resign and call an early General Election to the advantage of the Opposition, if the opinion polls and canvasses can be trusted.
In both the fixed term Parliament and the variable term within a maximum term Parliament there is only a short window of a year or two to make major legislative change, because then everyone begins to concentrate on what needs to be done to achieve a second, a third and a continuing term of office, as individual participants and collectively as a governing or power holding political party..
I have come to understand more clearly why in the USA there is a transitional period of months rather than days or weeks because the change in administration is so comprehensive and to a degree bi partisan and that even when the Ministers are selected by the head person, they can only take office after approval of the Senate and one assume that also those taking control of the Federal Commissions and Agencies are also subject to the same scrutiny.
I also have the impression that in the USA white citizens do feel and guard their freedoms and sense of equality under the constitution, whether it is freedom of information , freedom to bear arms in self defence under the constitution and such like, because unlike in the UK and Western Europe the white population does not have the same Feudal background. I say white because until now there was feudalism in the USA first towards the actual native Americans, then with the actual Slavery of the Blacks, and the economic slavery of those from Mexico and other parts of central America. Those from the Middle East and Orient also suffered economically and politically and men did no enfranchise women until the last century and promoted the education, the economic and political freeing of women until the mid century. So in the UK, in the USA and in Europe Democracy has been a white male thing and I mention this because interestingly all the speakers yesterday who took every opportunity to attack or defend the arrest of Damian Green were male.
As previously written the arrest of Damian Green does raise important issues for the sovereignty of the people against the state, a concept with in reality only opposition tend to worry about. Although in fairness there have always been those in Government who also worry too, although their tenure in office tends to be shorter than average.
Yesterday was a day of pageant when the Queen and her Peers dress up in expensive fancy dress and others put on their best bib and tucker to open Parliament. This usually happens in the autumn rather than Winter so the delay merits a mention. It is quite a show with even the State Crown and other emblems of a constitutional monarchy get a ride in a royal carriage Buckingham Palace the Palace of Westminster with a Royal Escort so they can be placed in appropriate areas before the Queen, the Prince, her ladies in Waiting make their carriage procession through the streets of London. Two members of the government are held as hostages at the Palace to prevent the Queen being taken hostage by her Parliament and the reading of the political Programme of the government by the Monarch is held in the House of Lords with only a small percentage of the Members of the House of Commons actually being able to stand within the House of the Lords to hear the speech direct.
The speech was only interesting because it been pruned down to half the usual size in what is likely to be the last full year of legislative activity before a General Election. Some speculate that this is because a General Election could be called next Spring if the runes are good. Others because the Economic situation is so precarious that the Government needs to devote all its attention. Some claim that the government has run out of ideas and the Conservatives claimed that most of the proposal in the Speech were theirs, which could be correct and creates in own problems for the Official opposition because if the ideas were Conservative they can hardly create a vigorous opposition to the legislation when it is debated and therefore their opportunities to create a political storm grabbing public attention, and swing votes, will be reduced, especially if the national and international approach to the economic crisis works. Certainly Mr Brown continues to appear to increase in personal self confidence and to be enjoying himself in the House, something which Prime Minister Blair never leant to do, although he was a brilliant performer at the despatch box.
Hopefully, but I doubt it, the Government has learnt one of my mantra’s that Government is about governing, that is taking Executive decisions on a day to day basis and decisions are needed and that most legislation is more trouble than it is worth, except in occupying the time of one’s own supporters who are not members of the Government in the sense of having paid government positions, or unpaid positions as a kind of government Intern.
Yesterday however the State opening of Parliament and the Queen’s speech and the first day of debates on the Government programme for the year was secondary to the Damian Green Affair which is now likely to become an important event in British History and could affect whether the next government is Labour or Conservative. One problem is that the leaderships of all the major parties now realise this and are doing their best to maximise political capital. Unfortunately Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed to take the initiative, although the government Whips had organised several counter attacks to those which came from all around the House.
As is custom there were several important issues being raised at the same time and which merited dealing with one by one.
First is the questionable practice of Opposition Members of Parliament and backbenchers within the government having Civil Service contacts within the administration who pass then oral information and copies of documents. This is wrong in principle but everyone does it. George Brown the Prime Minister made his political reputation within the Labour Party by doing it, and most Members of Parliament would do it if given the opportunity. The Government was strongest yesterday when they challenged the Tory leader whether he was advocating that this became the norm and therefore not something which a civil servant should be punished for.
There is provision under the Freedom of Information Act for a Public Servant to release restricted information in specified circumstances but this no longer includes the Public Interest defence, And in general my sympathy is with the Government in a situation where there was prolonged leaking of information over a two year period and some twenty documents are said to be involved of what four created political storms.
If I understand the position of Mr Cameron correctly he is not saying that Civil Servants should be able to disclose confidential without consequences but that the punishment for the civil servants should be proportionate. If a Civil Servant releases classified information, especially information which could affect the security of the state then that individual should not be surprised if there is a criminal prosecution and a prison sentence. The question is what is the information which can be dealt with internally under the contract of employment and information that that requires reference to the police. I listened careful to what the Home Secretary had to say this morning. The sequence of events has become clearer. The Home Office has suffered from a successful of leaks during the past two years and attempted by the head of the permanent staff at the Department to locate the source so it appears that the Permanent Secretary as such posts are called suggested to the Minister that the matter be referred to the Cabinet Office. It was the permanent secretary to the Cabinet office who called in the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police to assist in detecting the culprit or culprits.
At that point their work could have been completed and the decision taken for the matter to be dealt with under employment procedures. It was not and the decision taken to arrest the identified source. At present it must be assumed that this decision was taken by the Permanent Secretary of Cabinet without political consultation.
The second issue is the role of Members of Parliament in accepting such information. They are in a different position from Civil Servants and from Member’s of the Public and their motives for accepting and using the information will vary. One suspects as with the Enigma machine that much of the information, whether oral information or documents is not used directly, in part to protect the source, in part because it is classified information, and in part because the recipient does not want to alert that they have the link and the information in hope that even more significant information will become available. In this case it is significant that the claim is that some 20 documents were released over a period of two years but that only four of these have hit the headlines and given the ongoing nature of the contact it would be surprising if documentary information was the only information that passed between the provider and the recipient.
Yesterday there were three developments which helped to progress public knowledge of what is the position and what has happened.
First in the morning there was a special meeting of the London police Authority during which the acting head of the Police in London denied that their had been any political involvement in the carrying out of the investigation to date and which arose because of a complaint made to the police by the administration. This was a brave assertion because at that point the inquiry into the actions of the police had just commenced. It is also important clarify that what he was saying is that there had been no direct police contact with politicians about the matter prior to the arrest. However he could not know if politicians had indirect contact through civil servants.
It is not generally known that if a member of staff of public or private agency commits an offence within and as part of their employment there is no requirement in law for the police to brought in. It is a well known fact that many bank employees are not referred to the police and prosecuted because to do so would undermine the confidence of the public in the banking system, although one suspects that has now all changed with the public having no confidence in the banking system. One cannot help feeling that the media, public and political wrath which has now descended on Harringey, however well deserved, has in part been caused by the failure to hold the top bankers to account, because we need then to get us out of the mess which they have created. Regarding Harringey the wrath is deflecting attention away from the failure of government to take effective action for more than a year until the wrath of Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time.
He also denied that there had been no bugging of the office of Damian Green by the police or use of the Civil Servant to implicate Mr Green. However the Police denial does not mean that the Government at a political or administrative level did not authorise bugging by the counter terrorism security services if they had evidence that national security was involved. I make this point because yesterday the most senior Policeman in London at present made the point that they had not been asked to just a leak of low level information from the administration to a Member of Parliament, but of information had a potential national security significance. This indicated that there was no immediate hard evidence of a leak of national security but there was belief/hope that there had been, or that they needed the equipment and papers of the Member of Parliament to confirm the evidence in their possession. However irrespective of who authorised the police to investigate and set the terms of the investigation the issue is whether the police will feel able to continue a prosecution and if they do if it will succeed. Boris Johnson the Mayor of London said in answer to a question from the London Assembly that his hunch was that a prosecution will no go ahead and indeed a prosecution would see the end of the hopes of Speaker Michael Martin’s ambition to continue as Speaker in the next Parliament and would be damaging for the Tory front bench now that they have set out their stall. Because of this one also understand the closing of ranks behind the government and the pressure that will be exerted by the civil service, if not the by Government politicians for a successful prosecution to be achieved.
The decision of the police to set up an arms length police investigation into their own actions can be interpreted two ways. It can be a way of placing the entire police force behind their London colleagues against political interference and political intimidation if the report exonerates all aspects of the action, or it can be a way of dropping the prosecutions because of technicalities in how the operation was carried out. I say prosecutions because if no action is taken against the Member of Parliament it is difficult to see how criminal proceedings could also be taken against the Civil Servant.
The second event yesterday was the statement made by Speaker before the debate on the Queen’s Speech which was itself something of a non event. Before I forget the Queen announced a State visit from the President of Mexico. The Speaker made his statement and then allowed in effect a mini debate for half hour on what were points of order. What the speaker said and what he announced shook the foundations of Westminster. He admitted that the police did not have a warrant to search the room of the Member within the Palace or to take away property and had relied upon written consent being given by the Sergeant at Arms, the person whose main responsibility is the security of the Palace, balancing the need to ensure the right of citizens and visitors to have access to the Members and to the Parliamentary processes, ensuring the safety of everyone, especially in the era of international terrorism. The Speaker was originally not told that the name of the Member of Parliament was not given. Secondly the Sergeant at arms was not advised by the police that they did not have a warrant and that she should refuse them entry. One member on a point of order queried the time of day when this happened and whether the Sergeant had first consulted or attempted to consult one of the House of Commons lawyers before giving the written consent for the police to enter the office and take away information. This announcement shocked and incensed many members of the Commons, including David Winnick who I had contact with over child care matters forty years ago, wanted those involved summoned to the bar of the House to explain themselves.
The speaker announced that he was setting up in effect a special committee of privileges comprising seven senior members to investigate the matter and advise the Housing or what action should be taken in addition to the action he was already announcing and to report with a short time table. He invited Ming Campbell who spoke to participate.
I will come back to yesterday but to-day there were two further developments as the matter was first discussed during the weekly statement on future business and then with the statement of the Home Secretary, a further two hours of pointed questionings and defending by Government Ministers. The first development which angered opposition members and surprised some Government back benchers the Speaker’s committee is to reflect political representation in the house and will therefore have a majority of member representing the government (4) with only three places to the Conservatives and Liberal democrats and none for other parties. Both the Speaker and the Labour Leader of the House made the point that this resolution is open to amendment for debate on Monday. However the next bombshell was that the intention will be for the committee to be set up and appointed and then adjourned until completion of the police inquiries. This again take the initiative back from the Opposition and raises further question on the future of the Speaker as he appears to being cut adrift by the Government. The next matter of matter controversy was the announcement that only a half a days debate will be allowed on Monday that is three hours. Again the leader of the house pointed out that this could be amended, as well as the house going into private session if this was war around the Government pressure that nothing should be said which could be interpreted. There is now a challenged to the opposition to must enough votes to force a change in the composition and timing of the Speaker’s inquiry and the length of the debate on Monday
Returning back to the statement of the Speaker yesterday and the debate on the Queen’s speech. The most senior members of the Tory Party entered the fray such as former leaders such as Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith and heavy weights such as Ken Clark. There was reference to comments made earlier by former Home Secretary David Blunket and Harriet Harman has made known her reservations. One immediately felt this issue more than any other, including the state of the economy would govern the future of this Parliament and possibly the next. However the extent and force the comments from the Tory benchers seemed to drive more and more backbenchers behind the Government. The Prime Minister maintained a wry smile as Opposition members drew his attention to doing over a long period precisely what Damian Green was now being accused of.
Harriet Harman the Leader was clearly placed in a difficult position by number Ten and some of Cabinet Colleagues, possibly the Dark Prince who leapt to the Government defence in a newspaper article earlier in the week. As she justified the approach now being taken. The Home Secretary and Harriet also pushed what they are hoping will be the governing principles for how the matter will be debated in future. These included that Members of Parliament are not above the law, (to which the Opposition drew attention, nor are the Police), that Members of Parliament had rights and privileges in terms of the duties to their constituents and that it was important to maintain the impartiality and political neutrality of the Civil Service. The fourth was that the police should able to do their work and conduct their investigations free from party political interference. I thought the Home Secretary did an excellent of stone walling as had the Prime Minister, urging everyone to become more even tempered, go back to the priority issues of concern to the public and await the outcome of the official enquiries organised so far
There were two other points which emerged. First the Home Secretary quoted the police as saying that Damian Green was being investigated both for the misuse of confidential information in pubic office but also for the soliciting/grooming of someone for information. Mr Green produced the statement of his arrest which made no reference to this aspect. Secondly it was suggested that the statement now made by the police about what happened when the requested access at the House varied differently from the statement which the Speaker made to the House. Later the Liberal Democrats indicated they would not participate in the Speakers Committee as present constituted.
As a member of the public one is left with the impression that everyone is now trying to put themselves in the best light and discredit others.
No comments:
Post a Comment