Sir Gus clearly hasn't heard of mobile phones!

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee earlier today as part of the Committee's inquiry into Whitehall leaks.

When asked why Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office, had not notified the Home Secretary immediately about the impending raid by the police on Damian Green's office and why it took a couple of hours before she was informed, Sir Gus said:

"I'm sure he [Sir David] would have tried to contact her as soon as possible, but she [Jacqui Smith] was in Brussels at the time."

Is that supposed to be an excuse? Has Sir Gus not heard of mobile phones? His statement before the Committee was just not credible! If it was decided she should have known, it was surely not beyond the capabilities of our civil service to inform the Home Secretary immediately, even if she was in Brussels!

Ignorance is bliss for Jacqui Smith

Earlier today Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, gave a statement about the arrest of Damian Green to the Commons. She told the House that on the 17th November she had been told by Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, that an arrest of a civil servant was likely in the next few days. On the 19th the civil servant was arrested. On the 27th November, Sir David Normington was notified by the police at 1.45pm that a search of an opposition front bench MP's homes and offices was imminent. Sir David was subsequently told that an arrest had been made. The Home Secretary said she and other ministers only learned about the searches and arrest after they had taken place.

Questions, questions... so many questions!

1) So, Sir David was told an arrest of a civil servant was likely in the "next few days." Ok, so why did the police not give him a similar kind of in advance 'heads up' about the arrest of an MP?

2) The Home Secretary failed to tell us whether Sir David or anybody else in government was told on the day the arrest of the civil servant took place that it was about to take place. She just said on the 19th the civil servant was arrested. Did the police say the arrest of the civil servant was imminent on the 19th? If not, why not? If yes, then did Sir David notify the Home Secretary before the arrest took place?

3) On the 17th November, Sir David notified Jacqui Smith that an arrest of a civil servant was likely in the next few days. Why, when Sir David was told by the police at 1.45pm on the day of the arrest did he not then inform the Home Secretary immediately what he had been told? Surely she would have been interested?

4) Why did the police inform Sir David a couple of days in advance of the civil servant's impending arrest, yet only told him about the searches of a MP's homes and offices 15 minutes before they began?

5) Why was Sir David only told by the police that the searches of a MP's homes and offices were about to take place but was only told about the arrest of the MP after it had happened?

6) Why is Jacqui Smith seemingly so happy to have been kept in the dark by the police and Sir David? John Reid, the former Labour Home Secretary, said after her statement that had he still been Home Secretary he would have expected to have known about the arrest of an MP in advance. This was a point another former Home Secretary, Ken Clarke, had made several days ago. Reid also added that he would not have been as "placid" in his reaction to not being informed as Jacqui Smith.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven! The police kept Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, completely in the dark about an investigation into leaks from her own department and the arrest of a shadow Home Affairs Minister. The police kept Sir David Normington partially in the dark. Information they did provided him, as the source of the complaint to the police about the leaks, was inconsistent to say the least. It should have been far more forthcoming and far more timely, not last minute. And Sir David seems to have taken a conscious decision to keep what limited information he knew about the police's actions towards a MP to himself yet shared the information he knew about the imminent arrest of the civil servant with the Home Secretary. Why the inconsistency, Sir David? Finally, as for Jacqui Smith, she's in ignorant bliss! She knew nothing and as far as we can tell knowing nothing is how she likes it. I'm so pleased we have such an intellectually curious Home Secretary!

She also told us in her statement that even if she had been informed about the searches and arrest of a MP in advance she would have done nothing as it would have been "wholly inappropriate for me to seek to intervene in the operational decisions being taken by the police. I will not do that; and I should not do that." So once again she hides behind the operational independence of the police. She knew nothing, isn't bothered that she didn't know, and would have done nothing even if she had known. I thought Labour said the Conservatives were the "do nothing" party? She epitomises the "do nothing" minister! She should have known and she would have been well within her rights to have asked pertinent questions about what the police planned to do. This in no way would have affected the police's operational independence as she would have only been asking questions and seeking reassurances, not directing the police, telling them how to act.

It is becoming clearer than ever that the reason Jacqui Smith has acted like a dumb-blonde is because she had motive. She wanted the investigation to be pursued vigorously even if that entailed arresting an opposition front bench MP. Had she been kept in the loop she would have had MPs and the media calling for her to resign or to be sacked for allowing such a deplorable thing to happen when national security was clearly not at stake. By being purposefully kept in the dark - and it has to have been a conscious, calculated decision to do so - she is able to claim that she knew nothing and the police were just doing their job.

Heads should roll for this. Sir Paul Stevenson, the Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Jacqui Smith and Sir David Normington should consider their positions for their collective complicity!

Is Cameron being naive about leaks?

Some are arguing that Cameron is being naive by being so supportive of leaks from civil servants to oppositions because if he were to become Prime Minister he will have trouble denouncing leaks as he embraced them so wholeheartedly when in opposition.

Nick Robinson made this point in his blog saying: Would David Cameron, as Prime Minister, "feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."

In the debate that followed the Queen's speech, Labour MPs also tried to make this an issue.

Dr. Tony Wright, the chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, said: "The right hon. Gentleman would like to become Prime Minister one day. Is he really telling the House that as Prime Minister he would be perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?"

Then Dr. John Reid, the former Home Secretary, stood up and asked Cameron: "This follows on from the point just made, which is one of fundamental principle. Whatever happened during this specific case—all of us have concerns about that, and they will be addressed—what the Leader of the Opposition is saying from the Dispatch Box is tantamount to the creation of a new principle if he were Prime Minister... He is announcing in advance that, as Prime Minister, he would be perfectly happy for any civil servant, on their own judgment, to release any information other than that classified for national security purposes and that he would support its publication for the public. Is that what he is saying?"

So, is Cameron being naive?

Cameron's position is basically:

1. "Of course no Government—I have worked for a Government—want to see information leaked."

2. But... it is not "right for the police to arrest a Member of Parliament for doing his duty."

3. Cameron distinguishes between information which is released that is merely embarrassing to ministers who would prefer it remain hidden but is in the public interest and information that compromises national security.

This to me seems quite a pragmatic, reasonable approach to leaks and not in the least bit naive. Cameron is well aware that government's use leaks to further their own ends. He understands that as Prime Minister he is not going to like leaks. He worked as a special adviser in the last Conservative government who suffered miserably from leaks - many of which fell into the hands of Gordon Brown. Cameron, however, is pragmatic enough to distinguish between leaks that there is a legitimate public interest to have the information in the public domain and information which threatens national security. He might not like it as Prime Minister; he doesn't have to. He just has to accept it happens and is a fundamental part of our democracy. MPs should only be arrested for compromising national security.

As for any additional the points raised by Robinson, Wright and Reid, let's address them in turn:

Will Cameron "feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years." No, of course not. He would instigate a leak inquiry to find the 'mole' like any Prime Minister would. Oppositions try and spring leaks. Governments try and plug them. Would this be consistent with Cameron's current position on leaks? Yes, so long as he did not instigate a police inquiry into leaks that did not compromise national security. Remember, from 1996 onwards, leaks to Labour from 10 and 11 Downing Street became so bad that a full-scale internal investigation was launched by John Major's government into the issue but at no point were members of the Opposition arrested by the terror squad and rightly so!

Would Cameron feel "perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?" No, of course not. He would feel very uncomfortable but the answer to the point above also holds true for this one as well.

Is Cameron's position some kind of new 'Cameron Doctrine' as Reid seems to imply when he says Cameron is creating "a new principle" on the acceptability of leaks? No. All oppositions have a very different view on leaks to when they enter government. Just ask Gordon Brown. If there is anything "new" it is just that the question of leaks has come to fore like never before with the arrest of Damian Green and Cameron has been forced to explicitly state the de facto position held by all oppositions throughout the ages as he has had to come to the defence of his shadow immigration minister.

In addition, Reid went on to say: "He is announcing in advance that, as Prime Minister, he would be perfectly happy for any civil servant, on their own judgment, to release any information other than that classified for national security purposes and that he would support its publication for the public. Is that what he is saying?" Again, no, Cameron would not be happy. But like i argued above, he doesn't have to like it or accept it. His response just has to be proportionate and not involve the police investigating and arresting an opposition MP for "doing his duty." Reid cracked me up when he said "for any civil servant, on their own judgment." I'm not sure if Reid understands how leaks work. Any whistle blowing civil servant is hardly going to ask his superiors for their judgement on whether they should leak or not are they?! Of course they are going to have to use their "own judgement" and then take the consequences. That is what makes whistle blowers so brave because they have to act alone knowing full well that the organisation they work for will seek to persecute them. Also, as we're on the subject of John Reid, Cameron rightly noted that the leaks came from Reid's old department which the then Home Secretary had labelled as "not fit for purpose." Thus there was a clear public interest in exposing its failings.

There are two more points that need to be addressed. The first is the question about the difference between receiving leaks and inducing leaks. This to me seems like very grey territory. Those who normally pose the question do so in a very black and white way. By "receiving leaks" they are implying the MP has adopted merely a passive role and by "inducing leaks" they mean the MP has built a relationship with the 'mole' and persuaded them to release the information. But if you are a MP and have been sent information more than once from a single source there would have to be some type of limited relationship. Moreover, if you got sent some really juicy information would you not also want to say to your source "if you've got anything else like that, I'd be grateful if you could send it my way again." Are all these Labour MPs who are adopting a 'holier than thou' approach to these leaks really saying that their Dear Leader, Gordon Brown, who received multiple leaks when he was shadow Trade Secretary and then shadow Chancellor, was purely a passive player who found these leaks were continuing to drop on his lap without any encouragement whatsoever from him? Is it really conceivable that every time Gordon Brown received a new leak it was from a different source every time, completely out of the blue? Come off it! As for the more pernicious form of inducements, such as offering payment, the lawyer of civil servant leaker Christopher Galley, made clear that no inducement of this kind was made to his client from Damian Green or any other Conservative.

The second, and final question, that needs to be addressed is the independence of the civil service. It has been suggested that using a single source for multiple leaks somehow undermines the independence of the civil service which is supposed to be impartial and impervious to political interference. I appreciate the seriousness of this charge. Ministers also must feel that they can trust their civil servants. However, i would argue that one civil servant leaking to the opposition is not enough to compromise the entire civil service's independence and impartiality. The civil service has not become Tory as a result of some kind of covert insurgency. Whistle blowers are found in all organisations and institutions, whether governmental or NGOs. Moreover, specifically on the issue of trust, i understand its importance. However, i would suggest one's answer will depend on which side one stands on the dividing line between trust overriding public interest considerations or public interest considerations overriding trust (and with it, possibly operational effectiveness). And this is unlikely to be a simple black and white answer. The problem is, we have a very secretive form of government despite the Freedom of Information Act - which was dramatically scaled back from Labour's promises when they were in opposition unsurpringly. Oppositions are always in favour of more openess. They soon change their tune when in government. Ministers are not open about mistakes and failures because they know that the opposition and media will vilify them. Consequently, they very rarely own up to anything. In this environment, i would suggest, the only way for the people to know what their representatives are doing in their name, let us not forget Ministers work for us, is for whistle blowers occasionally deciding unilaterally (yes, John Reid, "using their own judgement") that the information they have before them ought to be in the public domain and not hidden, even if this does undermine the trust ministers have in their civil servants. Call it a necessary evil, if you will.

What are the police up to?

The Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stevenson, said earlier today when addressing the London Assembly that what the Met are investigating is a substantial number of leaks from the Home Office which "potentially" involve "national security."

What is he playing at?

Either the leaks compromised "national security" or they do not. Surely he has ascertained by now whether the leaks were just embarrassing information for the government but in the public interest or grave threats to our national security?

Damian Green and David Cameron have strongly denied the leaks have compromised “national security” and have challenged people to explain how they are wrong. Looking at the information Green has published over the last two years, none stands out as putting, in any way, national intelligence, national security or international relations at risk.

What is more, why are the police investigating Green under a Common Law offence and not the Official Secrets Act if the national interest was being compromised?

The only explanation I have for why Sir Paul is using the “national security” argument is that it gives the police an excuse to continue their investigation. It also allows the government to continue to support the police investigation (and hide behind it).

Speaker: The police didn't have a warrant

The Speaker, Michael Martin, has just given a historic statement to the Commons, overshadowing the Queen's Speech in the process, about the raid on Damian Green's Common's office.

It was an amazing statement. In short, what we learned was that the Speaker did not know what was going on. The Serjeant at Arms did know but she did not know what she was doing. And the police overreached themselves.

The Speaker began by quoting Erskine May about Parliamentary Privilege and other rules about Parliament to claim that no MP was above the law and the police were allowed to go about their business. This chimes with what the Oxford University constitutional expert, Vernon Bogdanor, has said on the matter.

Michael Martin then went about setting out what he knew. He said the police had written to the Serjeant at Arms about a possible need to arrest and search an MPs Common's office. The Speaker emphasised the word "might" and said the identity of the MP was unknown at this point.

On the day of the arrest/raid, last Thursday, the Speaker was informed by the Serjeant at Arms that the search of an MP's office "might" take place. Again, note the "might."

Then, the Speaker told us, his very limited involvement ended. In astonishing revelations, the Speaker then revealed that the police entered Damian Green's Common's office without a warrant (despite using warrants to enter his homes and constituency office). Not only did the police not offer a warrant (because they didn't have one), they also did not tell her that she could refuse their entry consequently. Furthermore, the Commons Clerk (basically the chief exec of the Commons) and the Serjeant at Arms did not even ask for one. This really is extraordinary. It was the Serjeant who authorised the police's admission to Green's office and she did this by merely signing a consent form from the police. At no point did she consult the Speaker. He was only told about what had happened in the evening. The Speaker said he regretted no warrant was asked for and regretted the police were allowed to remove Green's computer which had details of his constituents on it.

Michael Martin then set out what he was doing next. 1) He is to set up a Committee of seven senior MPs (appointed by the Speaker). 2) He has granted a debate on Monday about the issue (though the government gets to set the terms of the debate motion). 3) He is to set out a protocol of future procedure. One key facet will be that warrants will always be required in any future search of an MPs office.

These measures are welcome though MPs raised concerns after the Speaker's statement in Points of Order about whether the debate on Monday will be curtailed by the government. Surely even this government wouldn't be that stupid?

What was disappointing, though perhaps predictable, was the response of some Labour MPs. Their hypocrisy was astounding. They are all sat behind a Prime Minister, who as Shadow Chancellor, made his career out of handling and publishing leaks. Labour just does not seem to get it. Of course, as a government, it is profoundly annoying that embarrassing information leaks from the civil service to your political opponents. But it is a fact of life in our democracy. An essential part. It should not lead to MPs being arrested. What we are talking about is simply embarrassing information which is in the public interest to be revealed. As Damian Green himself noted, it would be a disgrace if information that compromised Britain's national interest was being leaked. But that is not what we are dealing with here. Why else did the police arrest Green under a Common Law offence and not the Official Secrets Act. Labour MPs are being, quite frankly ridiculous, banging on about the independence of the civil service, the civil service code and how leaks compromise the effectiveness of departments. If they feel that strongly I would suggest Labour MPs elect themselves a new leader who has not been so compromised and tainted by handling leaks!

UPDATE: After the Speaker said he regretted no warrant was asked for in his statement, MPs then debated the Queen's Speech. But Conservative MPs in particular were keen to pick up on the Speaker's regret. They wanted the Prime Minister to admit that he too regretted the police had entered Green’s office without a warrant. Bizarrely, but predictably, the Prime Minister once again hid behind “operational independence of the police” to avoid expressing an opinion. The Prime Minister was asked multiple times and each time he refused to properly answer. The reason for this has to be because he is in full support of the leak inquiry and police investigation, despite being previously a significant beneficiary of leaks himself when in opposition. When Brown refuses to answer the direct questions to him he just makes himself look pathetic and increasingly a figure of ridicule. It is a huge character flaw of his.

All governments don't like leaks

Well, that is not strictly true. Governments like to leak themselves to drive the news agenda and to make their enemies - whether in opposition parties or within the party of government - look bad. But governments do hate leaks that go against them because leaks reveal embarrassing material, make them look not in control of events, and not in control of the news agenda.

Mandelson has told Sky News today: "I also have to say I think that for many Conservatives, it is a self-serving smokescreen, behind which to hide their own apparent collusion with a Home Office official who was allegedly systematically leaking Home Office papers to the Conservative Party, in order to pursue his own personal political ambition. I would like to know from the Conservatives whether their frontbench and their leader knowingly colluded with that civil servant in riding a coach and horses not only through the Civil Service code but also through the law."

Talk about a smokescreen of his own! Oppositions have to use leaks because of the secretive nature of British government. The Freedom of Information Act is no where near as open as in the United States and thus oppositions need to supplement the information they can acquire officially via FOI requests with leaks. Leaks can also prove far more timely as this government often fights the release of information under FOI. When the information finally does get revealed, its political significance is often diminished. Mandelson has taken the high and mighty approach talking about the Civil Service code but he will be acutely aware that Labour hugely benefited from leaks when opposition, and no politician more so than Gordon Brown.

Mandelson is therefore being disingenuous. This post is not intended to make an overtly party political point other than to highlight the Labour government's hypocrisy towards leaks. The point is that when in opposition a party will embrace leaks. When in government they will rail against them. The Conservatives, like Labour, will no doubt turn against government leaks when they return to government. They will try and stop them and no doubt will criticise them to. But hopefully the next Conservative government will not take leak inquiries to the extremes Labour has and seek the arrest of civil servants and MPs who have not violated the Official Secrets Act.

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!!!

The arrest of Damian Green

Outrageous! It is unprecedented that an MP has been arrested for receiving and revealing leaked information, or "aiding and abetting misconduct in public office" as the police put it, and had his homes and offices searched. This is especially the case as none of the information leaked put, in any way, national intelligence, national security or international relations at risk.

Green has essentially been arrested for releasing information that is in the public interest but not in the government's interest. His arrest follows the arrest last week of a Home Office official who the police believe leaked the immigration information to Green.

It is also important to remember that it is a part of our democracy that civil servants leak information to opposition politicians which is in the public interest. And before anyone takes the high and mighty approach to leaks, the government uses leaks all the time. How else did we know about the fall in VAT and the increase in the top rate of tax before the Pre-Budget Report was announced? Government ministers leaked the information to help drive the news agenda. And what about Robert Peston, the BBC's economics editor, who has been the recipient of leaked information regarding the nationalisation of banks by the government? That information was not from wicked civil servants but from government ministers. Is the Metropolitan Police going to arrest him too?

There are many questions that need to be answered:

1) The Prime Minister claims that he knew nothing about this (a claim David Davis says he finds "extraordinary"), Labour HQ have released a statement that no minister had prior knowledge, and the Metropolitan Police have said in a statement that the arrest was made without any ministerial influence. "The decision to make today's arrest was taken solely by the MPS without any ministerial knowledge or approval." But even if the Prime Minister knew nothing, is it conceivable that the Home Secretary would not have been informed prior to an arrest of a Member of Parliament? If she did not know, why was she not informed?

2) Why did no minister know about the arrest prior to it taking place if David Cameron and Boris Johnson had both been informed? I agree with David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, it is "astonishing" that no one in senior government also knew.

3) If Jacqui Smith did know beforehand, however, why did she not call off the arrest? Could it have been because the Met's investigation into the alleged leak of confidential government material followed their receipt of a complaint from the Cabinet Office and thus she did not want to call off an investigation into a complaint the government had itself made? Also, was it not in the Home Secretary's interests to pursue this investigation which was, after all, an investigation about leaks emanating from her own department? There is clearly motive on Smith's part...

4) If the government was not involved or aware, what do they think of yesterday's arrest? Do they condemn it like the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have? David Cameron has described it as "heavy handed;" David Davis said the arrest was somewhere between "an astonishing error of judgment" and "judicial intimidation;" and the Lib Dems have said Damian Green's arrest was a "worrying development" with serious implications for the balance of power between the government and parliament. Chris Huhne, the party's home affairs spokesman, has said: "Receiving information from government departments in the public interest and publicising it is a key part of any MP's role. It seems that either the law needs to be changed over the police have overstepped the mark." Does the government agree?

5) If the police did act alone the decision would have had to have come from the top. Is it a coincidence that the arrest came on the last day of Sir Ian Blair's tenure as Metropolitan Police Commissioner? It is highly plausible that as an act of revenge against the Tories who forced him out of his position early, New Labour's favourite policeman gave the all-clear for the arrest or even instigated the arrest of a senior Conservative frontbench MP.

6) Why on earth were counter-terrorism police and counter-terrorism powers used to arrest an MP over leaked government documents? This is not what the legislation was drafted for! The Counter-Terrorism legislation has been repeatedly abused by the police and needs to be re-drafted much more tightly. On the day of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, this arrest did not place the police nor the government's legislation in a positive light.

7) Why did the police use such "heavy handed" tactics? Not only were nine counter-terrorism police officers used, they chose to arrest Damian Green rather than just question him; they chose to search his homes and offices - including his Commons office; and then held him for nine hours at a police station - only bothering to start questioning him after seven hours had passed. These are the tactics of intimidation which some have even described as "Stalinesque." David Davis has claimed that the move was designed to intimidate whistleblowers across Whitehall and it is difficult to disagree with him. He stated: "What we are seeing here is something designed to intimidate whistleblowers across Whitehall and actually to undermine the role of opposition doing its job, and doing its job properly in the public interest." Guido reckons it was a move to intimidate a Treasury mole who many believe exists and is passing information to George Osborne. Will Osborne be arrested now?

8) Finally, why did the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker give the police the authority to search Damian Green's House of Commons office? Conservative MPs are said to be very unhappy with the Speaker and Iain Dale called the move "outrageous." Dale also highlighted the fact that the police had waited until the Commons was no longer sitting so that there would be no opposition from Tory MPs trying to bar their entry to Green's office.

Lots of questions lacking answers. Damian Green is safe, he was just doing his job and will continue to do so, but the whole incident does not place Labour or the police in a very good light. Expect this story to run...

UPDATE: So, David Cameron told the arrest before it happened. So did the Mayor of London. So did the Speaker of the House of Commons. So did Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office. But the Prime Minister, Home Secretary nor any other minister had a clue the arrest of an MP was going to take place and were thus kept in the dark by the police.

This account is seriously stretching credibility! Surely the Home Secretary knew? But if we are to take the government at its word (and you'll excuse the scepticism developed after 11 years of untruths) that ministers honestly did not know, then why the hell were they not told! Why did the police inform other politicians but no government ministers? Was it a conscious decision not to implicate the government as it would put ministers in a difficult position? By not telling them the police could go ahead and the government gets its leak investigation including Green's homes and offices searched.

Finally, why did Sir David not tell Jacqui Smith? Did Sir David, like the police, consciously choose not to implicate the Home Secretary so that the investigation could run its course? This can be the only explanation for the Home Secretary not knowing! Plausible deniability!

UPDATE 2: Damian Green was not the only politician who built his reputation by handling leaked government information. Gordon Brown was a past master of using leaks to make a government's life difficult. Check out Guido and an excellent dossier compiled by Danny Finkelstein. Are the counter-terrorism police about to come for Gordon and detain him for 9 hours? I think not somehow! Double standards!