Damian Green controversy continues...

There have been quite a few new developments on the Damian Green affair since i last posted.

So what's happened...

• The Tories have said only four leaks were being investigated by the police. The police say they are looking at 20 possible leaks.
• We learned that it was Bob Quick, assistant commissioner special operations in the Metropolitan Police, who authorised the police raids though it is not known when the decision was taken and who else was involved in the decision making process.

• It was revealed that David Cameron, the Mayor of London, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office were all told about the impending arrest. However, the government still claims that no minister had a clue the arrest of an MP was going to take place.
• Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, not content to claim that she did not know about the arrest of Green before it happened also claimed she not to know that a Tory MP was under investigation. This was then directly challenged by her Shadow, Dominic Grieve, who said she “knew very well” that an MP was being drawn into the investigation, but “just decided to sit back on her hands.”
• Dominic Grieve also rejected Smith’s claim that it was proper that ministers kept out of police investigations, saying that “all sense of proportion and common sense” had been lost. The police appeared to have been acting on “flimsy and trivial grounds,” he said.

• Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith are still trying to distance themselves from the whole affair by hiding behind the "operational independence of the police."
• This though is "not good enough" for David Cameron who, writing in the News of the World, accused Gordon Brown of being a “hypocrite” for failing to condemn the police operation. This is because it is widely thought that Brown received and benefited from more civil service leaks than anyone else while the Tories were in power. Cameron wrote: "The question is, does he think it is right for an MP who has apparently done nothing to breach our national security to have his home and office searched by a dozen counter-terrorism police officers, his phone, Blackberry and computers confiscated, and to be arrested and held for nine hours?” Cameron added: “When it comes to vigorous opposition, if this approach had been in place in the 1990s, then Gordon Brown would have spent most of his time under arrest. He made his career from passing on Whitehall leaks. And he’ll be guilty of hypocrisy if he doesn’t speak out.” McCavity Brown trying to distance himself from controversy? I don't believe it!

• Harriet Harman departed somewhat from the government's script on the arrest by raising concerns about the search of an MPs Common's office by the police. She said: “I think the Speaker might well want to review the processes by which authorisation is given to search the Palace of Westminster. We have got to be sure that whilst MPs are not above the law, that they are able to get on with their job without unwarranted interference by the law. These are very, very big constitutional principles, we have to make sure they are protected.”
• But the constitutional expert, Vernon Bogdanor, has rejected the arguments of some that ‘parliamentary privilege’ protects MPs from having their Common's offices searched by the Police: “MPs are subject to criminal law as much as the rest of us. Their parliamentary privilege only extends to speeches in the chamber, not their offices.” Bogdanor said therefore the Speaker was within his rights to let the police to search Green’s office. He said: "The police followed the correct procedure in asking the Speaker, Michael Martin, if they could search Damian Green's office. Had the Speaker refused, he could have been accused of condoning suspected wrongdoing. An MP's office cannot be out of bounds for the police. Suppose that an MP had committed a theft and had hidden stolen goods in his office. Would it seriously be maintained that the police should not have a right to search that office?"
• The Speaker, Michael Martin, plans to respond to all the furore over his role by making a statement to MPs on Wednesday as soon after the State Opening of Parliament as possible.
• Iain Dale has posted about a leaked email (i kid you not) sent from Harriet Harman's office asking for a meeting to "discuss arrangements for the Queens (sic) Speech and considerations in advance of the Speakers (sic) statement on Police action and Parliament." Those invited were Jacqui Smith, Jack Straw, the Chief Whip, Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell, Serjeant at Arms Jill Pay, Parliamentary Clerk Malcolm Jack, Tom Healey from the Cabinet Office, Brown's principal private secretary James Bowler, and a representative from the Speaker's Office. Dale said he was concerned that no representatives from the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats were invited. The clear worry is that the principal protagonists are meeting to get their story straight, arrive at a common position and influence what the Speaker says in his statement tomorrow - and of course you can't do that with Tories and Lib Dems present. Harman's office has responded denying any attempt to influence the statement or anything else untoward, claiming it is essentially a meeting about logistics and fitting everything around the Queen's Speech. As Dale says, it's beyond parody, isn't it?

• We have also learned that the House of Commons office of Damian Green is routinely swept for electronic bugging devices, along with other offices belonging to senior Conservatives, amid fears of covert monitoring. There are said to be "major concerns" at the highest levels of the Tory party over suspected monitoring by the authorities.

• MPs are threatening to disrupt the state opening of Parliament tomorrow in protest at the arrest of Shadow Minister Damian Green. Leading the charge is said to be former Home Secretary David Davis who has put himself at the head of preparations for a cross party protest. Davis said that he has been studying parliamentary procedure to find the most effective way of registering MPs’ anger. One option is to force a debate on the so-called sessional orders, he said, adding that any protest would take place after the Queen had delivered her opening address. He suggested that he was ideally suited to co-ordinate any cross-party action. “I don’t think that this is something that can come from the front bench."

• The identity of the whistle-blowing civil servant became known over the weekend to be Christopher Galley, a 26 year old assistant private secretary at the Home Office. He then broke cover on Monday flanked by his lawyer (who, incidentally, represented Lord Levy during the cash for honours scandal). Galley was revealed to be a former Conservative council election candidate who had first met Damian Green in the Houses of Parliament in 2006 and “regularly” supplied him with information for the next two years. Galley's lawyer said the leaked information was “important for the public to know in an open and democratic parliamentary system.” His lawyer also insisted the leaked documents were “embarrassment material” and important to holding the Government to account. “It’s really not state secret, national security, terrorism, financial jeopardy, loss, gain or otherwise — nothing remotely like that,” he said.
• Detectives disgustingly accused Damian Green of “grooming” the young civil servant during his questioning. A senior Conservative told the Times: “Damian was very angry at this clear attempt to provoke him and did not reply. As a party we want to make it clear that this was grossly inappropriate but symptomatic of the cack-handed way the police have conducted this investigation.” The accusation of “grooming” is incendiary because of its connotations with paedophilia. The word “grooming” means: "The act of attempting to gain the trust of a minor with the intention of having a sexual relationship with him or her." A much better word for the police to have used would have been “procuring.” The police arrested, though did not charge, Green under the Common Law offence of “suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office." In other words, they believe that Green did not just passively get given the information which he subsequently leaked by actively sought the information, encouraging the civil servant to provide it.

• The Metropolitan Police's Acting Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, has ordered, as of today, an investigation into his police force's own investigation of the Home Office leaks. Sir Paul said: "I am properly concerned about the issues being raised within the continuing debate surrounding the ongoing investigation into the leaking of government information." He added that there would be an "urgent review of our decisions, actions and handling of the investigation to date." He has appointed British Transport Police Chief Constable Ian Johnston to head up the inquiry and will report back to the Metropolitan Police in two weeks. It is the first clear sign that the Met realises that it has made a mistake with its leak investigation. Sir Paul has come under pressure and has had his judgement called into question. The Met has got involved in something that it ought to have seen was the equivalent of a political grenade and has managed to get every main political party and everyone in the media against them. Following on from its handling of the cash for honours investigations this is the last thing the Met needed. The Met should have told Sir David Normington when the Home Office Permanent Secretary made the complaint that leaks of non classified information were not a matter for a police inquiry. When approaching a bear trap, the sensible thing is to walk around it, not step on it! Nevertheless, this investigation into an investigation potentially gives the police a get out clause if it wants to draw the matter to a close. It would be humiliating for the police but bringing an end to its leak investigation would be the best course of action. The Met cannot afford to damage its reputation any more.
• The Times reported today that the police also want to question David Davis who used to be Damian Green's boss. However, they are wary of doing so because of raising the temperature, escalating the controversy further. Will the police never learn!!!