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!
