Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
200-217)
MR BORIS
JOHNSON
3 FEBRUARY 2009
Q200 Chairman: Was he not present
at the Cathedral?
Mr Johnson: —to check whether
any of my office had contact with him.
Q201 Ms Buck: Was he not at the Cathedral?
Was he not at the event for Damilola Taylor?
Mr Johnson: Yes, he was. But I
do not believe we discussed it. I would have to go back and check.
Chairman: What is the answer? Did you
discuss this with the Leader of the Opposition or not?
Q202 Mr Buck: Did you talk to the
Leader of the Opposition at that event?
Mr Johnson: Whatever conversation
may have taken place between me and the Leader of the Opposition
about this matter, I am afraid the substance of it does not spring
immediately to my mind.
Q203 Ms Buck: I think you can understand
that there are issues of concern about Parliament and the sovereignty
of Parliament but also legitimate areas of concern about the political
briefing in this that would equally apply if it was a Labour Mayor.
Mr Johnson: I see. If you are
asking me did I give the Leader of the Opposition any kind of
tip off or advance warning, or did I favour the Leader of the
Opposition with any sort of news that I might have or valuable
information that I might have, I have to say that not only did
I not have any valuable information but I certainly did not furnish
him with it.
Q204 Chairman: And you did not discuss
it with him.
Mr Johnson: Well, you know—
Q205 David Davies: He had already
been informed, had he not?
Mr Johnson: I think it might have
cropped up at the Cathedral, but whatever conversation took place
was exceedingly brief since Gordon Brown decided that it would
be quite wrong for me to be sitting next to him and so I was moved
somewhere else. My recollection of the matter is that the Prime
Minister was appalled at the idea that I might be sitting next
to him inside the Cathedral—
Q206 Chairman: This is not the subject
of the inquiry.
Mr Johnson: —and I was moved
some distance from the front row, so any conversation that might
have taken place between me and the Leader of the Opposition was
made very perfunctory, thanks to the sensitivities of our great
leader.
Q207 Chairman: Anyway, you are telling
this Committee quite clearly that you did not have a conversation
with the Leader of the Opposition before the arrest; you may have
had a conversation after the arrest, it was very perfunctory;
and you have not really discussed it in substance with him. Is
that what you are saying?
Mr Johnson: That is certainly
right, yes.
Q208 Tom Brake: Returning, Mr Mayor,
to the difficulties you may have in distinguishing between your
roles, was it appropriate for you as Chairman of the MPA to issue
a statement expressing concern over the arrest?
Mr Johnson: As I say, I think
the MPA is there to serve as a critical friend and monitor of
the MPS and that is what I was doing.
Q209 Tom Brake: Before you decided
to issue a statement, did you take any advice from anyone as to
whether this was an appropriate course of action for the Chairman
to take?
Mr Johnson: I might have consulted
my immediate team.
Q210 Tom Brake: Who presumably said,
"Great idea. Go ahead."
Mr Johnson: If you are asking
me was I advised to do this by anybody else, then no. I thought
it was the right thing to do. I thought it was inevitable that
I would be asked about this arrest. It was inevitable that I would
be asked to give some comment on it and I saw no reason not to
and every reason to say what I thought.
Q211 Tom Brake: With hindsight and
after some time for reflection, would you do this again in the
circumstances?
Mr Johnson: The Metropolitan Police
Authority is not in my view there to be the spokesman, the potparol,
of the MPS. It is not there to represent the MPS to the wider
world and it is there in part to act as a critical friend. If
there are going to be issues where I was specifically alerted
in advance to a controversial decision, then I see absolutely
no harm, and, indeed, every right and duty, in making my views
plain.
Q212 Martin Salter: Mr Mayor, I think
we are both agreed that MPs should not be above the law. Would
you not agree that if a member of the public admitted to regularly
receiving information that was leaked to them which related to
matters of national security in particular, you would expect the
Metropolitan Police to investigate?
Mr Johnson: Of course.
Q213 Martin Salter: As Chairman of
the Metropolitan Police Authority, would you expect the police
to investigate claims from senior politicians that they regularly
receive leaks on matters relating to counter-terrorism or to matters
of national security? We do have on the record—and I have
been worried in this inquiry that the police have arrested the
wrong man—the admission on, I think, 28 November from the
former Shadow Home Secretary in which he said quite clearly—and
it was on the BBC so it must be true—"Our job when
information comes up is to make a judgment: is it in the public
interest that this should be made public or not? In about half
the cases there are reasons, perhaps national security or military
or terrorism reasons, not to put this information that we receive
into the public domain." We have had it in black and white
that the former Shadow Home Secretary was receiving matters relating
to national security as a result of an operation being run within
the Home Office. As Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority,
are you concerned that the former Shadow Home Secretary has not
been brought in for questioning, given your earlier answer?
Mr Johnson: With great respect
to you, Mr Salter, and to this Committee, for which I have a lively
respect and appreciation, I think it would be completely wrong
of me to get dragged into any commentary on matters you have just
raised, upon which, quite frankly, I am not qualified to pronounce.
Q214 Patrick Mercer: With reference
to the inquiry into your conduct by the Metropolitan Police Authority
and the Greater London Authority, what is the situation at the
moment?
Mr Johnson: It is ongoing.
Q215 Patrick Mercer: Can you elaborate?
Mr Johnson: I think it will reach
a critical moment at some stage in the near future, but I am not
quite sure when.
Q216 Chairman: Mr Johnson, the Home
Secretary has announced at the evidence session she gave to us
that she is going to conduct a review once the whole process is
completed and the police have made up their mind whether or not
there are going to be any charges brought against any of the players
in this matter. Do you welcome the fact that there will be a review
of the processes?
Mr Johnson: I do very much welcome
that. I think it is important—and I am saying this without
prejudice to any particular investigation—that leaks and
leak inquiries and information received by Members of Parliament
in the course of their duties, particularly in opposing or even
in supporting government policies, should not, in principle, be
matters of criminal procedures.
Q217 Chairman: Are you planning any
internal reviews following the conclusion of this matter? Or would
you like to be part of the Home Secretary's review on this?
Mr Johnson: I will wait to study
the terms of her review.
Chairman: I know at the beginning you
said that you felt if you did not attend today this might be misconstrued
by others. Can I assure you that if you had not been able to attend
the Committee would have understood.
Mr Johnson: I am grateful.
Chairman: We are very grateful to you
for coming today.
| 
