The first item below shows the Assistant Commissioner who ran the
arrests and searches flatly contradicting the Speaker. One of them
is lying!
cs
=========================
FINANCIAL TIMES 4.12.08
Tory MPs claim cover-up over Green arrest
By Jimmy Burns
The row over the arrest of Damian Green, shadow immigration minister,
intensified on Thursday with opposition MPs accusing the government
of a cover-up after it emerged that a parliamentary committee set up
to investigate the case may not meet for months.
Separately, the head of the police squad investigating Mr Green
defended his officers, contradicting previous accounts - including
that of Michael Martin, speaker of the House of Commons - that
suggested the police had failed to follow the law.
Teresa May, the opposition leader of the House of Commons, criticised
ministers for wanting the committee, which will be set up on Monday,
to adjourn immediately until police had completed an investigation
into alleged leaks of Home Office information to Mr Green.
She also claimed that the committee of seven senior MPs may be loaded
in the government's favour and accused ministers of attempting to
"curtail debate" on the matter by limiting it to three hours on Monday.
Earlier Harriet Harman, the Labour leader of the House of Commons,
said the committee would represent "the balance of the House" - in
other words, a Labour majority - with the prospect that it would also
be chaired by a Labour MP.
The government's position was defended by Jacqui Smith, home
secretary, who told MPs that it was their obligation not to prejudice
an ongoing police investigation.
Ms Smith told MPs she "wholeheartedly" supported the right of every
MP to "do his job", hold the government to account and make available
information that was in the public interest.
However, she said: "The systematic leaking of government information
raises issues that strike at the very heart of our system of
governance."
She added: "Such activity threatens the respected role of the civil
service in supporting our democracy in a politically impartial,
honest and professional manner."
Ms Smith's comments left unclear whether the government believed the
police had acted within the law in raiding Mr Green's parliamentary
office without a warrant.
In a letter to the Home Secretary made available to MPs, Robert
Quick, the Met's assistant commissioner, said that prior to searching
Mr Green's parliamentary offices police officers had informed the
House of Commons security officer, the Serjeant at Arms Jill Pay,
that they they had no power to proceed with the search without
obtaining her written consent.
Mr Quick said the officers had proceeded with their search only after
Ms Pay had granted her consent after seeking legal advice. He also
told the home secretary that police had followed established protocol
by notifying the speaker after the MP had been arrested.
On Wednesday Mr Martin accused the police of failing to explain "as
they are required to do" that they could not automatically enter the
House of Commons. The police are required to inform people of their
right to refuse searches that are not supported by a warrant.
Responding to Ms Smith, Dominic Grieve, shadow home secretary, said
that what had happened had "nothing to do with national security and
everything to do with political embarrassment".
He alleged that the leaks pointed to incompetence at the heart of
government on a range of issues, which ministers had been trying to
keep from the public.
Mr Grieve also attacked the conduct of the police. "Police tactics
were heavy handed and incompetent at best, and at worst an
unwarranted assault on democracy."
=====================
FINANCIAL TIMES 4.12.08
Jacqui to go? Yes, prime minister
By Sue Cameron
One of the maxims of that great fictional mandarin Sir Humphrey
Appleby is that if you really want to find the cause of a government
leak, you do not set up a Whitehall inquiry, which is only ever for
show. Instead you call in the Special Branch. Yet it is a pity that
Sir Gus O'Donnell, real-life cabinet secretary, seems to be taking
the Yes Minister TV scripts as a template. Sir Gus was the man who
called in the police to investigate Home Office leaks. (No, it was
not Sir David Normington, top civil servant at the Home Office. He
had the idea but it was Sir Gus who gave authorisation, so triggering
the arrest of the Tory MP Damian Green - and a huge furore.) What
nobody can understand - including Sir Antony Jay, author of the Yes
Minister series - is what could have possessed Sir Gus.
"It's not his proper job to call in the police - it's not what we ask
officials to do," says Sir Antony. "This has political fingerprints
all over it. There are so many calls for the police to investigate
real crime - yet they send 20 officers to arrest a Tory frontbencher!
Is it because officials are terrified of Gordon Brown? Did this start
with the prime minister's pique over the leaks?"
One key question is whether Sir Gus consulted the PM about sending in
the police or whether he told him. The Cabinet Office says Sir Gus
informed the PM. (Backseat Brown, eh?) Of course, the advantage of
telling ministers is that they can then deny involvement. As Sir
Antony says, the fallback for a good civil servant advising an
obdurate minister is: "If you must do this bloody silly thing, don't
do it this bloody silly way." Whitehall has always put a high premium
on "deniability".
On the same point, there has been much talk of safeguarding the
operational independence of the police. Jacqui Smith, the home
secretary, has been particularly anxious to say she did not interfere
in any way. (Be fair. She is only the home secretary. It is more than
her job is worth to intervene.) Yet I understand that officials in
the Cabinet Office were on the blower, "keeping in touch" with the
police throughout the investigation.
Apparently the police were not disclosing any of the evidence they
were finding. (So what were they telling officials about the leaks?)
The police might have benefited from studying Yes Minister on
Whitehall plumbing: "I give confidential briefings; you leak; he has
been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act." (Sir
Antony points out that the act is designed to protect officials, not
secrets, which may be why it has not been used in the Green case.)
At the heart of the current dispute is the belief that it should not
be a criminal offence to leak information that embarrasses ministers
but does not endanger national security - as police chiefs and, even
more, Sir Gus and Sir David should have been aware. So is there now
any danger that Sir Gus or Sir David might have to ... er ... ? "No,
no," says Sir Antony before I can even finish the question. "It can't
harm Sir Gus's career prospects - he's like the Queen, there isn't a
higher job for him to go to. No, Sir Gus will carry on. I don't see
him being made a scapegoat - certainly not now when the game is pass-
the-parcel and it's being played at very high speed. No, if there has
to be a high-level sacrifice, it will need to be a high-level
minister. Like the home secretary. An official won't do. Parliament
wouldn't accept it."
Misinformation?
In case the police, Sir David, Sir Gus, Ms Smith or Mr Brown have
lost the Yes Minister plot on secrecy, here is a note from Sir
Humphrey to the PM:
"What is the difference between a breach of the Official Secrets Act
and an unofficial briefing by a senior official? The former is a
criminal offence. The latter is essential to keep the wheels turning.
Is there a real objective difference? Or is it merely a matter of
convenience and interpretation? You, prime minister, will inevitably
argue that it is up to you to decide whether it is in the public
interest for something to be revealed or not. This would be your
justification for claiming that a leak ... which must have come from
an official is a breach of the act. However, this raises some
interesting constitutional conundrums.
1. What if the official was officially authorised?
2. What if he was unofficially authorised?
3. What if you, prime minister, officially disapprove of a breach of
the act but unofficially approve? This would make the breach
unofficially official but officially unofficial. I hope this is of
help to you." Of course.
=====================
PRESS ROUND-UP 4.12.08
"The Metropolitan Police, whose inquiry was headed by Assistant
Commissioner Robert Quick, was also thrown on the defensive by the
Speaker's attack on detectives for failing to provide full
information to Ms Pay over the raid's legality. Although officers
obtained warrants for the raids on Mr Green's constituency office and
home and his London home, Scotland Yard insisted the Serjeant's
approval was adequate for entering his Commons office." - Independent
"It is hard to believe that Damian Green, the rather hapless MP for
Ashford, has become a celebrity but, after yesterday, who can doubt
it? He sat there, free at last, head bowed, arms crossed, legs
jiggling up and down. It was supposed to be the Queen's day, but it
was Damian's day instead." - Ann Treneman in The Times
"Speaker Martin portrayed himself as a regretful bystander as
officers were ushered in, despite lacking a search warrant. In his
account, the buck appeared to stop anywhere but at the door of the
lavishly appointed Speaker's quarters. Even so, listeners might have
concluded that Widow Twankey could have made a better job than
Speaker Martin of defending the legislature against the executive." -
Mary Riddell in the Telegraph
=========================
FINANCIAL TIMES 4.12.08
Tory MPs claim cover-up over Green arrest
By Jimmy Burns
The row over the arrest of Damian Green, shadow immigration minister,
intensified on Thursday with opposition MPs accusing the government
of a cover-up after it emerged that a parliamentary committee set up
to investigate the case may not meet for months.
Separately, the head of the police squad investigating Mr Green
defended his officers, contradicting previous accounts - including
that of Michael Martin, speaker of the House of Commons - that
suggested the police had failed to follow the law.
Teresa May, the opposition leader of the House of Commons, criticised
ministers for wanting the committee, which will be set up on Monday,
to adjourn immediately until police had completed an investigation
into alleged leaks of Home Office information to Mr Green.
She also claimed that the committee of seven senior MPs may be loaded
in the government's favour and accused ministers of attempting to
"curtail debate" on the matter by limiting it to three hours on Monday.
Earlier Harriet Harman, the Labour leader of the House of Commons,
said the committee would represent "the balance of the House" - in
other words, a Labour majority - with the prospect that it would also
be chaired by a Labour MP.
The government's position was defended by Jacqui Smith, home
secretary, who told MPs that it was their obligation not to prejudice
an ongoing police investigation.
Ms Smith told MPs she "wholeheartedly" supported the right of every
MP to "do his job", hold the government to account and make available
information that was in the public interest.
However, she said: "The systematic leaking of government information
raises issues that strike at the very heart of our system of
governance."
She added: "Such activity threatens the respected role of the civil
service in supporting our democracy in a politically impartial,
honest and professional manner."
Ms Smith's comments left unclear whether the government believed the
police had acted within the law in raiding Mr Green's parliamentary
office without a warrant.
In a letter to the Home Secretary made available to MPs, Robert
Quick, the Met's assistant commissioner, said that prior to searching
Mr Green's parliamentary offices police officers had informed the
House of Commons security officer, the Serjeant at Arms Jill Pay,
that they they had no power to proceed with the search without
obtaining her written consent.
Mr Quick said the officers had proceeded with their search only after
Ms Pay had granted her consent after seeking legal advice. He also
told the home secretary that police had followed established protocol
by notifying the speaker after the MP had been arrested.
On Wednesday Mr Martin accused the police of failing to explain "as
they are required to do" that they could not automatically enter the
House of Commons. The police are required to inform people of their
right to refuse searches that are not supported by a warrant.
Responding to Ms Smith, Dominic Grieve, shadow home secretary, said
that what had happened had "nothing to do with national security and
everything to do with political embarrassment".
He alleged that the leaks pointed to incompetence at the heart of
government on a range of issues, which ministers had been trying to
keep from the public.
Mr Grieve also attacked the conduct of the police. "Police tactics
were heavy handed and incompetent at best, and at worst an
unwarranted assault on democracy."
=====================
FINANCIAL TIMES 4.12.08
Jacqui to go? Yes, prime minister
By Sue Cameron
One of the maxims of that great fictional mandarin Sir Humphrey
Appleby is that if you really want to find the cause of a government
leak, you do not set up a Whitehall inquiry, which is only ever for
show. Instead you call in the Special Branch. Yet it is a pity that
Sir Gus O'Donnell, real-life cabinet secretary, seems to be taking
the Yes Minister TV scripts as a template. Sir Gus was the man who
called in the police to investigate Home Office leaks. (No, it was
not Sir David Normington, top civil servant at the Home Office. He
had the idea but it was Sir Gus who gave authorisation, so triggering
the arrest of the Tory MP Damian Green - and a huge furore.) What
nobody can understand - including Sir Antony Jay, author of the Yes
Minister series - is what could have possessed Sir Gus.
"It's not his proper job to call in the police - it's not what we ask
officials to do," says Sir Antony. "This has political fingerprints
all over it. There are so many calls for the police to investigate
real crime - yet they send 20 officers to arrest a Tory frontbencher!
Is it because officials are terrified of Gordon Brown? Did this start
with the prime minister's pique over the leaks?"
One key question is whether Sir Gus consulted the PM about sending in
the police or whether he told him. The Cabinet Office says Sir Gus
informed the PM. (Backseat Brown, eh?) Of course, the advantage of
telling ministers is that they can then deny involvement. As Sir
Antony says, the fallback for a good civil servant advising an
obdurate minister is: "If you must do this bloody silly thing, don't
do it this bloody silly way." Whitehall has always put a high premium
on "deniability".
On the same point, there has been much talk of safeguarding the
operational independence of the police. Jacqui Smith, the home
secretary, has been particularly anxious to say she did not interfere
in any way. (Be fair. She is only the home secretary. It is more than
her job is worth to intervene.) Yet I understand that officials in
the Cabinet Office were on the blower, "keeping in touch" with the
police throughout the investigation.
Apparently the police were not disclosing any of the evidence they
were finding. (So what were they telling officials about the leaks?)
The police might have benefited from studying Yes Minister on
Whitehall plumbing: "I give confidential briefings; you leak; he has
been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act." (Sir
Antony points out that the act is designed to protect officials, not
secrets, which may be why it has not been used in the Green case.)
At the heart of the current dispute is the belief that it should not
be a criminal offence to leak information that embarrasses ministers
but does not endanger national security - as police chiefs and, even
more, Sir Gus and Sir David should have been aware. So is there now
any danger that Sir Gus or Sir David might have to ... er ... ? "No,
no," says Sir Antony before I can even finish the question. "It can't
harm Sir Gus's career prospects - he's like the Queen, there isn't a
higher job for him to go to. No, Sir Gus will carry on. I don't see
him being made a scapegoat - certainly not now when the game is pass-
the-parcel and it's being played at very high speed. No, if there has
to be a high-level sacrifice, it will need to be a high-level
minister. Like the home secretary. An official won't do. Parliament
wouldn't accept it."
Misinformation?
In case the police, Sir David, Sir Gus, Ms Smith or Mr Brown have
lost the Yes Minister plot on secrecy, here is a note from Sir
Humphrey to the PM:
"What is the difference between a breach of the Official Secrets Act
and an unofficial briefing by a senior official? The former is a
criminal offence. The latter is essential to keep the wheels turning.
Is there a real objective difference? Or is it merely a matter of
convenience and interpretation? You, prime minister, will inevitably
argue that it is up to you to decide whether it is in the public
interest for something to be revealed or not. This would be your
justification for claiming that a leak ... which must have come from
an official is a breach of the act. However, this raises some
interesting constitutional conundrums.
1. What if the official was officially authorised?
2. What if he was unofficially authorised?
3. What if you, prime minister, officially disapprove of a breach of
the act but unofficially approve? This would make the breach
unofficially official but officially unofficial. I hope this is of
help to you." Of course.
=====================
PRESS ROUND-UP 4.12.08
"The Metropolitan Police, whose inquiry was headed by Assistant
Commissioner Robert Quick, was also thrown on the defensive by the
Speaker's attack on detectives for failing to provide full
information to Ms Pay over the raid's legality. Although officers
obtained warrants for the raids on Mr Green's constituency office and
home and his London home, Scotland Yard insisted the Serjeant's
approval was adequate for entering his Commons office." - Independent
"It is hard to believe that Damian Green, the rather hapless MP for
Ashford, has become a celebrity but, after yesterday, who can doubt
it? He sat there, free at last, head bowed, arms crossed, legs
jiggling up and down. It was supposed to be the Queen's day, but it
was Damian's day instead." - Ann Treneman in The Times
"Speaker Martin portrayed himself as a regretful bystander as
officers were ushered in, despite lacking a search warrant. In his
account, the buck appeared to stop anywhere but at the door of the
lavishly appointed Speaker's quarters. Even so, listeners might have
concluded that Widow Twankey could have made a better job than
Speaker Martin of defending the legislature against the executive." -
Mary Riddell in the Telegraph
Posts
