Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate - Committee on the Issue of Privilege Contents


Examination of Witness (Question Numbers 1060-1079)

DR MALCOLM JACK

18 JANUARY 2010

  Q1060  Mr Blunkett: Dr Jack, this afternoon we have been using you in the traditional role of the Clerk, have we not? We have been taking your advice and reflections properly and you have been responding properly in the way that a traditional Clerk would do. I am just wondering whether in the revised role, which is new in terms of you effectively being a chief exec, reflecting on what has happened over the last year or two, you think there is a more proactive role for what is currently the Clerk of the House rather than a passive one. I get the impression we have a coming to the Oracle situation, as we have this afternoon.

  Dr Jack: I think so far as these matters are concerned which we are talking about, which are matters of privilege, it really comes back to the Speaker's authority. He is the custodian of the House's privilege and the Clerk of the House merely advises the Speaker on those matters. In this area the Speaker's pre-eminence, whatever you want to call it, is essential. I have plenty of other duties as chief executive that keep me busy.

  Q1061  Mr Blunkett: Without over-egging this, Chairman, I just want to get a reflection from Dr Jack about the lessons to be learnt in this, because this is what it is all about really, the future in terms of the role and the relationship of those like the Serjeant at Arms within that structure so that we can help individuals who fulfil the role they are given to be able to deal with circumstances that are moving rapidly. We are taking a forward look.

  Dr Jack: Absolutely. I think Ann Coffey has touched on this subject in previous sessions. First of all there is the Protocol, so at least it makes it much clearer what the respective responsibilities are of people. On the line management issue, the Serjeant's line manager is the Clerk Assistant and I think he needs to be more involved and aware in this kind of situation. We must collectively support the Serjeant perhaps more than has been the case, not assume an independence which I think was a little bit assumed in this circumstance partly because of the traditions of that office. There has always been a very direct line between the Serjeant and the Speaker on these kinds of matters, on security matters. I think the management lesson is that the whole team has got to be much more apprised of these matters and make sure that everyone is properly supported.

  Q1062  Chairman: One of the things that occurred to me with the benefit of hindsight, obviously, was that as soon as the words "arrest" and "Member of Parliament" were used the balloon had gone up. The first thing that would occur to me now would be "This is a potential crisis and, therefore, the four or five people who have got a direct input in this must meet as a matter of urgency—the Speaker, the Clerk, Clerk Assistant, the Serjeant and Speaker's Counsel".

  Dr Jack: Yes, absolutely. I think that lesson has been absolutely learnt and such an occurrence will not happen again.

  Q1063  Chairman: Without over blowing the parallel, it is a bit like a COBRA, there is a crisis and we need a mechanism for analysing the crisis and determining what steps should be taken.

  Dr Jack: It is rather curious, Chairman, that in other areas, in the executive area, we are already very advanced in this direction. For example, the heads of the various departments of the House, the directors-general, are all on a rota, a sort of COBRA rota, and if there is a physical disaster there is a whole set of actions that are put in place as an incident management drill but it is never applied in this sort of area.

  Q1064  Ann Coffey: There have been other crises recently as well that have tested and challenged the House of Commons, both Members and staff.

  Dr Jack: Yes, that is absolutely true.

  Q1065  Chairman: If people are being introduced to new positions, accepting all the while that this was part of Tebbit and the whole world was, as it were, in flux, then there has to be some kind of procedure to acquaint them not only with what happens on a day-to-day or even month-to-month basis but the thing which might come out of a clear blue sky for which they are responsible.

  Dr Jack: Yes, that is right, Chairman. That is a lesson that has been learnt.

  Q1066  Ann Coffey: The institution of the House of Commons itself is changing and if some of the recommendations of Tony Wright's Committee are accepted it will change even more. Of necessity that means how the institution itself is supported through staff and the administration also has to change. Do you think there are sufficient mechanisms in place for enabling that change to be made?

  Dr Jack: Yes.

  Q1067  Ann Coffey: Or do you think, which seems to me to be very clear, that the confusion between how the House operated in the past and the changes did contribute to the issues around Damian Green's arrest?

  Dr Jack: I think in a more general context what you are saying is absolutely right. The Tebbit Review gave the opportunity to make changes and, if I may say so, I took them myself. I pushed quite hard to get the Tebbit reforms through. The result of that really is a much more streamlined organisation that can deal with strategic matters which we could not deal with before. In this area we come back to a relic of history and I think that is one of the problems, that we are dealing with a very specific area that has a long history to it and has been traditionally handled in this way.

  Q1068  Chairman: And this is a unique institution.

  Dr Jack: And this is a unique institution.

  Q1069  Chairman: In his memorandum Sir William McKay set out what he called some unresolved imperatives. I just want to put them to you to ask if you consider that these are still relevant. You have mentioned some of them in the course of your evidence. I will just read them out: "Control of the premises is vested in the Speaker. The Speaker is the guardian of the House's privileges subject to the House itself. The House's privileges must not be infringed. Proceedings, and Members taking part in them, must not be impeded. Privilege does not afford protection from a proper search. The Palace of Westminster is not a sanctuary". Would you agree with Sir William McKay's analysis?

  Dr Jack: Yes, I would.

  Q1070  Chairman: Would you add anything to them?

  Dr Jack: Yes. I had a thought while I had been thinking about all of this, and that is perhaps to consider that the Speaker himself, or herself if there was a Madam Speaker, is rather isolated. As the Committee knows, when the House intervenes in court cases to establish whether privilege applies or not, to documents or whatever it is that are being used, the Speaker advised by the House authorities has to take that decision. I wondered whether it might be quite useful to have a panel for the Speaker, a panel of some senior Members, perhaps some Members of this Committee, whom the Speaker could consult. There is a parallel in the case of the Parliament Act when the Speaker looks at money provisions of Bills to establish whether Bills are money Bills or not. There is a small panel he can consult. When I was Clerk of Legislation the Members he consulted were very assiduous about responding to that. It could be that in this sort of way he could have a bit more support because I think the Speaker is quite isolated in a certain way in performing this function.

  Q1071  Chairman: And by the way in which we elect our Speakers they might have no direct or indirect experience of the issues that we are discussing?

  Dr Jack: Yes. That is a possible thought.

  Q1072  Ann Coffey: At the moment there is no way that MPs can feed in the changing nature of their correspondence with constituents because our job is also changing as well.

  Dr Jack: Yes, absolutely.

  Ann Coffey: We are doing the job in a different way than even I did when I first came to Westminster.

  Q1073  Mr Blunkett: It would entail clarity that the police cannot say to the Clerk, the Clerk Assistant or the Serjeant at Arms, "You cannot refer to anyone else in this matter".

  Dr Jack: That is right, Mr Blunkett. That has to be ruled out entirely.

  Q1074  Chairman: One technical point, Dr Jack. If, for example, a decision was taken that the proper course was for some kind of protocol between the Metropolitan Police and the House, using the term generally, who on behalf of the House would be a signatory to that? Would that be something which the Speaker, because of these principles we have discussed, would be required to be a signatory to or would you perhaps be in a position to be able to do that?

  Dr Jack: Yes. I think eventually that would be the case, it would be the Speaker who would have to approve that. I am just looking to see who signs the Australian document and there is no signature on it! Certainly he would have to be content with it but we, the authorities of the House, would—

  Q1075  Chairman: Would it require a resolution of the House?

  Dr Jack: I do not think so.

  Q1076  Chairman: That panel that you described might, of course, be an obvious source of advice as to whether this is something he should sign?

  Dr Jack: Yes, exactly. That is right.

  Q1077  Ann Coffey: You did mention earlier on, I think, that you had had conversations with several Members about their concerns in terms of what might be privileged correspondence and what might not be, is that right?

  Dr Jack: Yes, that is correct. It is the two things really. It is correspondence and the burden now of constituency work on Members which has completely changed in the period certainly that I have been here.

  Q1078  Ann Coffey: Yes, it has.

  Dr Jack: A lot of Members feel that there is a lack of connection and recognition of that change. The correspondence is one area where recognition has not been given.

  Q1079  Ann Coffey: One of the things that has changed is that there is an increased expectation for Members to take up local cases, local injustices on the floor of the House.

  Dr Jack: Yes, that is right. Another subject which I do not think we perhaps have time to go into would be if there were to be a Privileges Act whether you would want to introduce some notion of redress. I am thinking particularly I was involved in the case of Av United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights and although the European Court came out in favour of Parliament, and the UK was supported by a number of Member States, there were rumblings from the bench about the fact that there seemed to be no redress, no opportunity for anyone to say anything about a damaging matter that had been said about them in the House or something like that. I think that is another area of modernity which might be looked at.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 22 March 2010