For three hours on Monday afternoon 8th December 2008, a number of senior members of the House of Commons, the majority Conservative, several Liberal Democrats and some Labour spoke up for the principles at stake behind the attempted criminalization of a civil servant and a Member of Parliament, the arrest of that Member of Parliament by the use off excessive force, and terrorising family members. They concentrated on decisions to raid the premises of the House of Commons without a warrant and remove constituency papers, computer hardware, computer records, mobile phones and stopping telephone communication. Despite the almost unanimity of those speaking in favour of the amendment it was narrowly defeated by 285 votes to 281, with 29 Labour Members ignoring what was in effect a three line Whip to vote with the government. The substantive motion was then passed by a wider margin.
The Opposition lead spokespersons in the debate for the Conservative and Liberal democratic parties immediately announced they would not participate in the proposed committee for three reasons. Foremost because it would only meet when all the proceedings arising from the police enquiries had been completed. Secondly the terms of reference were limited to future action and not what had happened and thirdly that the proposed composition of the committee was biased towards the Executive and that all matters were contrary to what the Speaker of the House of Commons had proposed in his statement.
I emphasise that those Members who spoke in favour of an amendment to the substantive Motion were evidently concerned with the Principles which had arisen and not directly with the evidence justifying the case itself and spoke with a bipartisan passion rarely seen in Parliament in recent times and which put the Government, especially, Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of Labour Party, the Leader of the House of Commons and former civil rights lawyer to shame. The Speaker of the House of Commons was publicly humiliated, a number of Labour Party members were extraordinary in what they contributed to the debate and that the majority of Labour back bench Members of Parliament did their reputation no good by accepting this was a matter for the Executive and not for the House of Commons.
It is worthwhile repeating the known sequence of events, The Home Office was beset with a number of major leaks of information which they wished to keep confidential and were reported to Parliament and the media. It is claimed that normal departmental processes for security could not detect who and how many people were responsible and as result of this failure it was decided to refer to the Cabinet Office so they could invite the police to investigate. Having established the identity of the individual the decision was taken not to refer back to the Home Office the decision undertake disciplinary proceedings or investigate further the grounds of prosecution and this led.
It is unbelievable that Government Ministers were not advised of the outcome of the preliminary investigation to establish the identity of the individual responsible. The individual would have needed to be suspended in accordance with procedures and his staff association informed and involved. Only the government could confirm if the material admitted to believed to have been disclosed was classified and merited consideration for a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, Similarly it is inconceivable that if the Police reached the conclusion that they needed to investigate the role of a Member of Parliament they did not at inform Civil services officers and through those Officials, Ministers. There were various options available to Ministers, Officials and the police just as there were to Speaker of the House of Commons, other official of the House of Commons and Legal advisers to the Speaker and other Officials. Two former Labour Home Secretaries have expressed surprise at the failure of the Home Secretary to insist on being kept informed. I refer to my personal experience of over forty years ago when the government were directly involved in deciding the surveillance level of those involved in Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. on the tactics to be adopted in relation to individual demonstrations and on the nature and level of prosecutions. When I and others repeated the Foulness Demonstration it was a Government employed Lawyer to undertook the Prosecution and instructed what the Magistrates should do,
The sequence of events when the police decided to seek the permission of the House of Commons to search premises and take away material is also open to question on the precise series of steps and internal consultation which took place include the advice given by legal officers of the Commons employed to advise the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.
It was all too convenient for this to occur when Parliament had recessed. When Parliament reassembled the Speaker it was right for the Speaker to make his statement and to allow a number of points of Order so as to enable some immediate raising of issues . This was a House of Commons matter and it would en surprising if the speaker had not consulted both senior backbenchers and the Government about his statement in advance and indeed there was reference to the government calling a meeting to discuss this very matter and which passed to the Conservative Leader by accident!, The Speaker could not have been more clear about what was proposed with his Committee and the decision of the government to reject its three main components and top insist all their members attended and voted with the Government indicates that they not just disagree but wished to make a point to the Speaker that he carried out his role only with the approval of the Government.
There was the situation when the Home Secretary made her Statement and when the Prime Minister made his introductory statement to the Question Speech where the issue appeared to become divided on Party Political basis between the Government one side the main Opposition parties on the other. This was unfortunate and I was delighted to find that in between then and Monday that leading members of the House of Commons had got together with an amendment to the government resolution which put the authority for what was to be investigated, when and how with the Committee and away from the Executive.
It was unfortunate but understandable for the government to restrict the debate on the notion to there houses less time taken up with the motion to take only three hours and not the six requested. This took about an hour with a very heated debate in which it was evident that the Opposition were very angry and the government relying on its backbench vote. There was an element of tactics because keeping the Labour ranks available to vote until 5.30 was one thing on a Monday and keep them their until 9.30 to 10 another. However as a consequence as speakers in the debate kept the remarks pointed and focussed the position of the Government and few speaking supporters became more and more exposed.
The government and the majority of its Party members in the Commons were right that the their constituents are more concerned with the future of their jobs and homes as if asked with the reintroduction of capital punishment and flogging, the immediate closing of all borders except to existing British subjects, withdrawing immediately from European Union, Iraq and Afghanistan, cancelling all foreign aid and sacking of not shooting leading bankers.
It is possible that Home Affairs Committee will consider the matter and it is possible for individual issues to be taken up through a committee of privileges.
Given some the allegations and counter allegations made in the debate it is worth while looking into the background of those who leaked, those who were prosecuted and the role of Members of Parliament and Ministers in these matters. I will cover these tomorrow.
Last night I watched the last episode of this series of Spooks which even more unconvincing than last week. This had a major Russian network of sympathisers prepared to brink the country down upon being signalled and with placements in the armed forces, the police, and the state. It also indicated a large force of trained and armed Russian operatives prepared to kill. I did wonder if this was all code for Muslim extremists and sympathisers. London was saved from a nuclear devise in small case which would have killed everyone within 1.5 mile radius and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousand of others. Connie the traitor blew herself up in defusing the nuclear part of the bomb and Harry who succeeded in gaining the help of the London based Russian team but was then kidnapped as a prize and plane loaded to Russia. The series has turned into James Bond and lost all the gravitas from the in depth exploration of relationships.
The Opposition lead spokespersons in the debate for the Conservative and Liberal democratic parties immediately announced they would not participate in the proposed committee for three reasons. Foremost because it would only meet when all the proceedings arising from the police enquiries had been completed. Secondly the terms of reference were limited to future action and not what had happened and thirdly that the proposed composition of the committee was biased towards the Executive and that all matters were contrary to what the Speaker of the House of Commons had proposed in his statement.
I emphasise that those Members who spoke in favour of an amendment to the substantive Motion were evidently concerned with the Principles which had arisen and not directly with the evidence justifying the case itself and spoke with a bipartisan passion rarely seen in Parliament in recent times and which put the Government, especially, Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of Labour Party, the Leader of the House of Commons and former civil rights lawyer to shame. The Speaker of the House of Commons was publicly humiliated, a number of Labour Party members were extraordinary in what they contributed to the debate and that the majority of Labour back bench Members of Parliament did their reputation no good by accepting this was a matter for the Executive and not for the House of Commons.
It is worthwhile repeating the known sequence of events, The Home Office was beset with a number of major leaks of information which they wished to keep confidential and were reported to Parliament and the media. It is claimed that normal departmental processes for security could not detect who and how many people were responsible and as result of this failure it was decided to refer to the Cabinet Office so they could invite the police to investigate. Having established the identity of the individual the decision was taken not to refer back to the Home Office the decision undertake disciplinary proceedings or investigate further the grounds of prosecution and this led.
It is unbelievable that Government Ministers were not advised of the outcome of the preliminary investigation to establish the identity of the individual responsible. The individual would have needed to be suspended in accordance with procedures and his staff association informed and involved. Only the government could confirm if the material admitted to believed to have been disclosed was classified and merited consideration for a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, Similarly it is inconceivable that if the Police reached the conclusion that they needed to investigate the role of a Member of Parliament they did not at inform Civil services officers and through those Officials, Ministers. There were various options available to Ministers, Officials and the police just as there were to Speaker of the House of Commons, other official of the House of Commons and Legal advisers to the Speaker and other Officials. Two former Labour Home Secretaries have expressed surprise at the failure of the Home Secretary to insist on being kept informed. I refer to my personal experience of over forty years ago when the government were directly involved in deciding the surveillance level of those involved in Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. on the tactics to be adopted in relation to individual demonstrations and on the nature and level of prosecutions. When I and others repeated the Foulness Demonstration it was a Government employed Lawyer to undertook the Prosecution and instructed what the Magistrates should do,
The sequence of events when the police decided to seek the permission of the House of Commons to search premises and take away material is also open to question on the precise series of steps and internal consultation which took place include the advice given by legal officers of the Commons employed to advise the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.
It was all too convenient for this to occur when Parliament had recessed. When Parliament reassembled the Speaker it was right for the Speaker to make his statement and to allow a number of points of Order so as to enable some immediate raising of issues . This was a House of Commons matter and it would en surprising if the speaker had not consulted both senior backbenchers and the Government about his statement in advance and indeed there was reference to the government calling a meeting to discuss this very matter and which passed to the Conservative Leader by accident!, The Speaker could not have been more clear about what was proposed with his Committee and the decision of the government to reject its three main components and top insist all their members attended and voted with the Government indicates that they not just disagree but wished to make a point to the Speaker that he carried out his role only with the approval of the Government.
There was the situation when the Home Secretary made her Statement and when the Prime Minister made his introductory statement to the Question Speech where the issue appeared to become divided on Party Political basis between the Government one side the main Opposition parties on the other. This was unfortunate and I was delighted to find that in between then and Monday that leading members of the House of Commons had got together with an amendment to the government resolution which put the authority for what was to be investigated, when and how with the Committee and away from the Executive.
It was unfortunate but understandable for the government to restrict the debate on the notion to there houses less time taken up with the motion to take only three hours and not the six requested. This took about an hour with a very heated debate in which it was evident that the Opposition were very angry and the government relying on its backbench vote. There was an element of tactics because keeping the Labour ranks available to vote until 5.30 was one thing on a Monday and keep them their until 9.30 to 10 another. However as a consequence as speakers in the debate kept the remarks pointed and focussed the position of the Government and few speaking supporters became more and more exposed.
The government and the majority of its Party members in the Commons were right that the their constituents are more concerned with the future of their jobs and homes as if asked with the reintroduction of capital punishment and flogging, the immediate closing of all borders except to existing British subjects, withdrawing immediately from European Union, Iraq and Afghanistan, cancelling all foreign aid and sacking of not shooting leading bankers.
It is possible that Home Affairs Committee will consider the matter and it is possible for individual issues to be taken up through a committee of privileges.
Given some the allegations and counter allegations made in the debate it is worth while looking into the background of those who leaked, those who were prosecuted and the role of Members of Parliament and Ministers in these matters. I will cover these tomorrow.
Last night I watched the last episode of this series of Spooks which even more unconvincing than last week. This had a major Russian network of sympathisers prepared to brink the country down upon being signalled and with placements in the armed forces, the police, and the state. It also indicated a large force of trained and armed Russian operatives prepared to kill. I did wonder if this was all code for Muslim extremists and sympathisers. London was saved from a nuclear devise in small case which would have killed everyone within 1.5 mile radius and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousand of others. Connie the traitor blew herself up in defusing the nuclear part of the bomb and Harry who succeeded in gaining the help of the London based Russian team but was then kidnapped as a prize and plane loaded to Russia. The series has turned into James Bond and lost all the gravitas from the in depth exploration of relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment