Richard Bacon says:
The arrest of Damian Green is a catastrophe which affects every MP. It
also raises exceptionally serious questions about the behaviour of the police,
the actions of both ministers and senior civil servants in the Home Office and
the conduct of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The right to oppose the government of the day is vastly more important than
which political party happens to hold office. It is the cardinal fact which
defines us as a free country.
If Damian Green were suspected of murdering someone, there would be no
objection to gathering evidence where ever necessary. But this is
not the case. He is an effective Opposition politician who has
exposed facts which the government of the day finds embarrassing and
which the public has a right to know. Ministers say they were kept
in the dark about Green’s arrest. This is barely credible but if
it is true then what were civil servants up to? Sir David
Normington, the permanent under-secretary at the Home Office, is in the
firing line because he should not have triggered the police
investigation. And the police – in the person of Sir Paul
Stephenson, the acting head of the Met Police – should have refused
Normington’s request, telling him that leaks of unclassified documents
were not a matter for the police.
Neither seems to have understood that we don’t do political arrests in
this country and that the legitimate job of the Opposition – paid for by
taxpayers – is to annoy the government and hold it to account. The
fact that civil servants thought ministers being annoyed was a reason to
call in the police is bad enough. The fact that the police
should think that ministers and senior civil servants being annoyed was
enough to warrant police action is truly alarming. Stephenson has
shown that he lacks sound judgement.
What is worst of all – profoundly shocking – is that the police should
search an MP’s office looking for material given to that MP by civil
servants. In common with other MPs, I have been sent material by
civil servants which it was in the public interest for everyone to know
about. As a member of the public accounts committee, I was sent a
dossier in 2006 by a civil servant who was distressed that foreign
workers were abusing the tax credit system to buy homes abroad.
The insider sent me documentary evidence that immigrants from eastern
Europe were coming to the UK, taking low-paid jobs and then applying for
tax credits. Once the claim had been set up, the fraudsters were
returning to their home country but the tax credit payments continued to
be paid into their bank accounts. They then used the money to buy
property in eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the experienced anti-fraud teams
in HM Revenue and Customs who could have helped the situation were being
made redundant to meet government efficiency targets.
I passed on the material to the National Audit Office for investigation
but I would not have tolerated the police snooping around my office
looking for it, which would have exposed the civil servant in question.
It is paramount that MPs can hold information without fearing a knock on
the door from the police.
What is truly surprising in this episode is that the Speaker of the
House of Commons allowed the search of an MP’s office to take place.
I cannot accept that this was the correct decision. It leaves me
wondering how I can have any confidence that the Speaker would defend my
right as a Member of Parliament to hold sensitive information without
the fear of a police raid.
If the Speaker knew about the proposed raid and gave clearance for it,
he made a dreadful mistake. If he didn’t know about the raid until
it was too late to stop it, then he still failed to defend the rights of
MPs. I have a sinking feeling that the Speaker has let us down in
something of incalculable importance and that it is now hard to see what
he is there for.
We have to know how this happened: exactly who gave permission
for the raid on Damian Green’s office at Westminster? The police
would not have taken this action without permission.
The only certain fact is that the raid occurred. It seems unlikely
that the granting of permission for a police raid would have been the
unaided decision of the Serjeant-at-Arms, Jill Pay. She is a
servant of the Speaker and would not have had authority to give
permission without consulting either the Speaker or the Clerk of the
House.
The position of the Clerk of the House, Malcolm Jack, is central. Either
the Clerk of the House was consulted and he advised that the raid
should be permitted; or he was consulted and he advised that it was
not
permissible but he was ignored; or he was not consulted. If he was
not consulted this would beg two questions: Why not? And why hasn’t he
said so?
The basic premise must be that the Clerk of the House would have been
consulted by the Speaker. If this is the case, then either the
Speaker went against the advice of the Clerk of the House, which is
difficult to believe, or the Clerk of the House advised that the raid
was permissible. The logic of the position is that the Clerk of
the House was consulted and advised that the raid was acceptable.
And it wasn’t. So his position may be in doubt.
The Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, appears to
understand the magnitude of what has happened. Senior Labour Party
figures such as David Blunkett and others have also expressed their
disquiet. Our political system can only operate if there is
agreement between the parties on certain fundamentals. One of
these is that those in government do not use the resources of the State
to harry and intimidate their opponents.
The Sessional Orders which the Speaker will read out on Wednesday at the
State Opening of Parliament refer to the “undoubted rights and
privileges” of MPs. This means something. It is of course true
that so long as the government commands a majority in the Commons it
should get its business after due debate. But on Wednesday, before
we debate the Queen’s Speech – which is after all just one legislative
programme of one particular government – we will need to debate
something of much more fundamental and lasting importance, which is the
rights of MPs and Parliament in our State.
We are not a free people by accident. It is the result of choices
and hard work and lives given in sacrifice. This whole business
makes me suspect that the ruling elite are losing respect for those in
whose interest they are meant to be functioning.
A parliamentary colleague has been arrested for doing his job.
Making this right and protecting our Parliament transcend everything
else. There may be the need for a string of resignations. It is
imperative that these events do not set a precedent but rather that they
define the point at which those responsible finally understand that they
have gone too far and that they must pay the price for having done so.
