Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-59)
RT HON
JACQUI SMITH
MP AND SIR
DAVID NORMINGTON
KCB
20 JANUARY 2009
Q40 Mr Winnick: Are you of the view
at this particular stage that what happened as far the police
are concerned in the Palace of Westminster was right?
Jacqui Smith: You are asking me
the same question that you asked me last time. I have just explained
to you why I believe that as Home Secretary, during the course
of an ongoing police operation, it is not appropriate to make
comments on the methods that are being used as part of that police
operation.
Q41 Mr Winnick: Will you be willing
to come back to this Committee and answer questions on this particular
aspect once the police inquiry has been completed?
Jacqui Smith: I think I have made
quite clear that once the investigation is complete, if there
are any subsequent issues to do with the investigation that are
worthy of further consideration, then we would do so.
Q42 Chairman: Have you seen a copy
of the Johnson review?
Jacqui Smith: No.
Q43 Chairman: Do you expect to see
a copy?
Jacqui Smith: That was an internal
review that was made available for the Metropolitan Police. I
do not necessarily expect to see a copy of it, no.
Q44 Chairman: We accept there is
an operational independence for the police, but this case is exceptional,
is it not, in that you asked for an update of precisely what the
police is doing which you have then placed in the Library of the
House? That is not a routine thing for a Home Secretary to do,
is it?
Jacqui Smith: There are certain
things about which Bob Quick has written to me. When I made my
statement to Parliament I was also clear about the conversations
that I had had with the Acting Commissioner about the process
that was then underway. It is worth saying, as I said at that
time, that I have been extremely clear in every conversation that
I have had with the Acting Commissioner that in my view the process
of the investigation is wholly for the police to determine, but
what I was interested in was that, where it was possible for information
to be made available, for example, to Parliamentarians, I facilitated
that happening. I was clear that that was an investigation that
was being done proportionately and in a way such that the Commissioner
was able to reassure not just me and in public statements that
he made to the GLA that this investigation was being pursued in
an appropriate way.
Q45 Chairman: Your last letter to
him, your request for information, was put in the Library of the
House in December. Have you written to him since?
Jacqui Smith: No.
Q46 Chairman: Do you intend to write
again?
Jacqui Smith: No.
Q47 Chairman: Why is that?
Jacqui Smith: I do not believe
that what is most appropriate here whilst a police investigation
is going on is some sort of running commentary either from the
Home Secretary or from the Acting Commissioner.
Q48 Martin Salter: As we have heard,
on 8 October the Cabinet Office wrote to the police asking them
to investigate systematic leaks from the Home Office. They claimed
that there had been "considerable damage to national security
already as a result of some of these leaks". This was a claim
that was then ridiculed by the Opposition in the strongest possible
terms. However, on 28 November I note that the former Shadow Home
Secretary rather destroyed this claim by admitting that matters
covered by the Official Secrets Act were being passed to the Opposition.
He is on the record on 28 November as saying, "Our job when
that information comes to us is to make a judgment: is it in the
public interest that this should be known publicly or not? In
about half the cases we decide not to because we think there are
reasons, perhaps of national security or military or terrorism
reasons, not to put things in the public domain." Here we
have it in black and white that the Opposition are admitting that
they are receiving leaks of information that would be covered
by the Official Secrets Act. What is your reaction to the claims
made by the former Shadow Home Secretary? Secondly, why on earth
was the Official Secrets Act not used to make the arrests?
Jacqui Smith: On the first one,
as I have made clear in the Chamber of the House of Commons, I
do tend to agree with you that it makes the case that the former
Shadow Home Secretary appears to be proud of the fact that there
has been a systematic gaining of information by himself and people
who have worked for him that relates to the range of issues that
you have talked about, which more than slightly suggests that
our concern that there was systematic leaking going on had at
least "some basis", in the words of the previous Shadow
Home Secretary. On the second point about whether or not any charges
would be made under the Official Secrets Act, that is a decision
for the police in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service
in terms of the evidence which may or may not be available at
the time at which those decisions are taken.
Q49 Martin Salter: Do you think it
is entirely possible that the police had gone after the wrong
politician?
Jacqui Smith: Given that I did
not answer the question that Mr Winnick put to me, I think it
is probably a good idea that I do not answer that one either.
Q50 David Davies: Home Secretary,
did the police operation focus on all of the leaks or merely the
one which you know of which related to national security?
Jacqui Smith: I do not accept
the premise of your question. First of all, I think the Permanent
Secretary and the letter from the Cabinet Office makes very clear
the basis on which the reference to the police was made. Secondly,
I do not know the details of the evidence on which the police
are basing their investigation and neither does anybody else in
this room.
Q51 David Davies: The Permanent Secretary
has just told us that he knows of only one leak which he felt
related to national security that was referred to him beforehand.
The law is quite clear that the other leaks do not relate to a
criminal matter and therefore the police investigation should
have been focussed, and should continue to focus, on the one leak
that you know of that related to national security, should it
not?
Jacqui Smith: No.
Q52 David Davies: Or are the police
just helping you out because your Department is a bit embarrassed
by certain other information that leaked out?
Jacqui Smith: First of all, the
Permanent Secretary has been very clear, as is the Cabinet Office
letter, that the reason for the reference to the police and the
reason for the concern was on three counts: first of all, the
systematic leaking of Home Office information and the detrimental
effect that that was having on the operation of the Department;
secondly, given that it was not clear at that point who was doing
the leaking, where they worked, what they had access to and given
the sensitive nature of the information that we routinely deal
with in the Home Office, that that leak of potentially being at
the heart of the Home Office did make other information vulnerable,
and thirdly, that more widely the Cabinet Office had concerns
about issues related to national security. Where there had been
leaks, some of that information may well have been in the Home
Office.
Q53 David Davies: So they investigated
on the basis that it might have done?
Jacqui Smith: There is no question
as to whether or not those leaks had necessarily been part of
the 20 leaks. As the Permanent Secretary made clear, at the point
at which the reference was made to the police there was no "he",
there was not anybody identified. That was the point of making
a reference that was agreed by the Cabinet Secretary and the Permanent
Secretary and with which I agreed.
Q54 David Davies: Are you ever informed
in advance when individuals are arrested?
Jacqui Smith: Sometimes, yes.
Q55 David Davies: But not in this
case?
Jacqui Smith: No.
Q56 David Davies: Did you or anybody
else in your Department ask for you not to be informed if a Front
Bench politician was going to be arrested?
Jacqui Smith: As I have answered
at least three times on the record in Parliament, no.
Q57 David Davies: Sir David, you
must have had some idea when you read the papers that if you launched
a police investigation it could end in the arrest of an Opposition
politician. Did you ever discuss that possibility?
Sir David Normington: Of course
not. It is a mile away.
Q58 David Davies: You have never
discussed that possibility with anyone?
Sir David Normington: No.
Q59 David Davies: Finally, Home Secretary,
is the Assistant Commissioner a friend of yours? I just wondered
why you kept referring to him as "Bob" in some of the
interviews that took place afterwards.
Jacqui Smith: He is not a friend
of mine. I believe that I have a wholly professional relationship
with him.
| 
