skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
PMQs was an extraordinary and riveting affair today. Most would have expected the economy to dominate today as David Cameron had the news that unemployment is forecast to hit 2 million by Christmas and the Bank of England has predicted the economy will contract by 2 percent, to go on. Brown and Labour no doubt were also looking forward to the economy being brought up after the Governor of the Bank of England today gave tentative support to a fiscal stimulus package proposed by the government.
However, that is not what happened. Cameron intended to go on the economy but first wanted to raise the horrific case of poor Baby P, a 17 month old baby boy, who had been repeatedly tortured and then murdered by his mother and two men (one of which was the mother's boyfriend). Baby P had head injuries, a broken back, nine fractured ribs, fingernails and a toenail missing, a severe mouth injury, a ripped ear and extensive bruising on his body. He was found dead in his blood spattered cot. The three despicable people have now been convicted (though not sentenced yet). Prosecuting QC Sally O’Neill told how a family friend revealed the depth of the abuse as the child was used like a punchbag. She said the stepdad would “pick him up by his throat, punch him and spin him around on the computer chair until he fell off.” What is truly shocking is that on Baby P's final day alive, August 2, police told his mother that they would take no further action over suspicions she had assaulted him.
Cameron understandably wanted to know why Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department was being allowed to investigate her own department. Let us also remember this is the same Haringey Children's Services department which had failed to protect Victoria Climbié 8 years ago.
The PM responded with his usual prevarication, giving a dry response focusing on process and procedure. He even talked about executive summaries! But unsurprisingly, Brown did not answer the question.
Cameron asked again. And again no answer from Brown.
Cameron had meant to go on to his set of economic questions by this point but he was incensed by Brown's response. He said he had asked a straightforward question and had received no answer. The Labour MPs were loudly barracking the Tory leader at this point and the Speaker was forced to intervene and tell them to be quiet on what was a very serious matter. Cameron became angry and quite emotional and laid into the Labour Party. He detailed the horrific nature of the case and the abject failure of the social services. He asked his question for a third time but said he did not expect an answer from Brown.
The PM went back to his pre-prepared point about the Laming report and the national inquiry being conducted by Lord Laming. But then Brown made a grotesque error. Always the factional, partisan politician, he accused David Cameron of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue! The Conservative benches went mad but not as mad as Cameron who went apoplectic with rage and rightly so. Brown had made an outrageous suggestion. Cameron said the PM had made a cheap point after he had asked some very reasonable questions. He asked Brown to withdraw the attack.
Brown withdraw any remark? You must be kidding! To do that he would have to admit to making a mistake and an error of judgement which Brown with his huge chip on his shoulder and character flaw just simply cannot do. So with no sense of the trouble he was in, Brown just said there was common ground and again pointed to the steps he was going to take.
Cameron was not going to let this lie. He said Brown had accused him of party politics. Cameron said he had intentionally not mentioned that Labour ran Haringey Council and nor had he done so at the time of the Victoria Climbié inquiry. He asked again for the PM to please withdraw the comment.
The PM had lost the plot and just said that the whole House would want to be united. It was a bit late for that Gordon after your shameful antics!
Cameron, in his last intervention, said in a resigned, and disappointed tone that Brown won't withdraw the remark. He said he had only been trying to raise the point made by Brown's own Children's minister that people should not investigate their own conduct.
The PM merely said there would be an independent investigation and immediate action.
PMQs today has shown Gordon Brown and the Labour Party in damning light. Their behaviour was shameful and extremely callous given what was being discussed was the tragic, and avoidable death, of a 17 month old baby boy.
Brown looked evasive, shaky and cold hearted. He looked like he was trying to score points. The PM is politically tone deaf. He comes across as inhuman because he completely lacks empathy.
In contrast, Cameron was genuinely passionate and humane. This was not synthetic rage. He had said at the very beginning of his exchange with Brown that he had intended to go on the economy afterwards but he was so taken aback by Brown's response that he could not let it drop.
At this point it is worth mentioning Nick Robinson who, along with Brown and Labour, did not cover himself in glory. The BBC's political editor was on the Daily Politics show and he took the very cynical view that Cameron's decision to use all 6 questions was a combination of genuine disgust at the PM and political calculation that he couldn't believe his luck as it meant he did not have to go on the economy. He also tried to defend the Labour benches saying they were fired up to attack Cameron on the economy. I would say that such comments are not very becoming of Robinson and quite frankly indefensible. Even Jon Cruddas (Labour) and Charles Kennedy (Lib Dem) - both in the studio - did not make such crass comments. In fact they gave dignified responses which reflected well on both of them.
Had Cameron faced Tony Blair at the dispatch box today, PMQs would have been an entirely different affair. Blair always had a knack of being able to judge the political mood and he would have shown the requisite empathy that the situation deserved rather than badly miscalculating and turning an issue that ought to have unified the House into a bad tempered political affair.
I'd also say that the Speaker, Michael Martin, who has had his detractors of late - me included - performed excellently today, as he has of late. He had to intervene several times during the Brown/Cameron exchange and it was clear to me that he judged the public mood much better than Brown and reprimanded the Labour MPs for their barracking on the sensitive issue. Credit is given when it's due. Well done Mr Martin!
The only one that matters:
Brown - 0/10 - The Prime Minister and the Labour Party were an absolute disgrace today!!!
