Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
1081-1099)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CRESSIDA DICK
QPM
18 JANUARY 2010
Q1081 Chairman: Assistant Commissioner,
thank you very much for attending on the Committee to give evidence.
We are very grateful.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Thank
you, Sir.
Q1082 Chairman: I believe you have
just come back from holiday. I hope you were a little warmer than
we were in this country. We should offer our congratulations on
your appearance in the New Year Honours List.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Thank
you very much, Sir. The north Norfolk coast is not noted for warmth
at this time of year, so I was very grateful to be allowed to
come this week rather than last. Thank you very much.
Q1083 Chairman: You have been good
enough to provide us with a statement. I do not think it is necessary
for us to ask you to read that, but that statement will be published,
as you are probably aware, as part of the proceedings of the Committee.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Yes.
Q1084 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Assistant
Commissioner, can you begin by advising us before the events of
October 2008 what experience did you personally have with regard
to the investigation of either leaks or possible breaches of the
Official Secrets Act?
Assistant Commissioner Dick: I
had some considerable experience of leaks generally, sad to say
including in my own organisation, and had dealt with a number
of leak investigations. In terms of the Official Secrets Act,
you will see perhaps that I had only been in Specialist Operations
for about 18 months at that time and we had had some Official
Secrets Act cases and I had, indeed, attended a couple of times
at the Cabinet Office for what would be called case conferences
in relation to Official Secrets Act matters, but I had not personally
led an Official Secrets Act investigation. I had dealt with leaks
really quite a lot, I am sorry to say.
Q1085 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Thank
you. In your memorandum, paragraph 11, you say that in relation
to the five identified leaks the initial view from the Crown Prosecution
Service was that Official Secrets Act offences might not have
been made out and that what they might be concerned with was more
the possible offence of misconduct in a public office.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Absolutely.
Q1086 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: This was
in October and, therefore, presumably even at that early stage
you and your colleagues were aware that it was unlikely—not
impossible but unlikely—that you were dealing with an Official
Secrets question?
Assistant Commissioner Dick: In
relation to the five offences which at that stage had been linked,
had been identified as potentially linked, and, indeed, therefore
gave us some investigative opportunities, yes it appeared, and
as we now know of course, they were not Official Secrets Act offences.
However, as I think you know and I say in my statement, we were
initially dealing with 31 and we had not ruled out that whoever
the suspect might be for those five linked they could have been
involved in others of the 31, including those which might pertain
to the Official Secrets Act.
Q1087 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Would
it also be fair to assume that although the part of the police
operation which you were part of in the Metropolitan Police was
known as the Counter Terrorism Command, there was never any question
in your mind or that of your colleagues that there were terrorism
or terrorist related offences that were involved in the inquiries
you were being asked to scope and to help take forward?
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Firstly,
just to say I was not actually in the Counter Terrorism Command—that
is a slightly semantic point—I was in Specialist Operations
and when Mr Quick was away I was his deputy, so I stepped up for
him, and his role, of course, sits above the Counter Terrorism
Command and also Security and Protection Commands which were mine.
I was quite clear that although we might be dealing with Official
Secrets Act offences we were not dealing with any Terrorism Act
offences yet.
Q1088 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I think
it is almost an accident of administrative history that because
the Specialist Operations Branch which used to undertake leak
inquiries had been merged with the Anti-Terrorist Branch they
were both under the umbrella of an organisation in the Metropolitan
Police that was known as the Counter Terrorism Command.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Yes.
It was a very definite decision to bring the two sides together.
I have no doubt that was a good decision and it has improved our
effectiveness. One part of the responsibilities of the old SO12
Branch was to deal with Official Secrets Act matters and leak
investigations relating to potential Official Secrets Act cases
because they quite simply had, first of all, the required vetting
levels to deal with such sensitive things and, secondly, the experience
of working with, for example, the intelligence agencies and others,
which as you know is quite a specialist world. That was why they
dealt with these sorts of things.
Q1089 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I understand
these considerations but I want to put to you for your view what
could be said to be the consequences of those decisions that were
taken, not so much the merger but the title of Counter Terrorism
Command that was chosen for the whole operation. In her memorandum
to the Committee the Serjeant at Arms, when she was explaining
what happened, how she became first aware of the possibility of
a Member of Parliament being arrested, said at paragraph three
that when Chief Superintendent Bateman asked to see her he said,
"Police officers from the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism
Command would arrest a Member". Then she went on to say at
paragraph six of her memorandum that when she first saw the Speaker
she said: "I told the Speaker that the police had informed
me that officers from the Counter Terrorism Command were going
to arrest a senior Member of Parliament". The former Speaker
in his memorandum to us at paragraph five of his memorandum said,
and this was his first awareness of there being anything likely
to happen: "The Serjeant told me that Counter-Terrorism officers
from the Metropolitan Police were investigating a Member and might
wish shortly to arrest that individual for conspiring to commit
misconduct in public office". He then said at paragraph six:
"I was extremely concerned that a Member was being investigated
by anti-terrorist police. In my mind I had an idea of Islamist
or Irish terrorism. I had no idea at the time of the very different
type of offence with which Mr Green would be accused". Given
the two quotations that I have given from the Serjeant at Arms
and the former Speaker, in your experience, and you are obviously
a very experienced police officer, do you think it was reasonable
or wise that the police officers who spoke to the Serjeant at
Arms did not make clear that although they were from the Counter
Terrorism Command what they were investigating, as far as they
knew, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or
terrorist related offences?
Assistant Commissioner Dick: I
think it is very important, whoever the officers are who attend
in any circumstances, that they make it clear who they are, where
they are from and what it is they are investigating, absolutely.
You know I was not present for those conversations.
Q1090 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I know.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: I
do take your broader point. I think it is very regrettable if
anybody became confused by the title. I have to say I have not
heard of it before. It was something that I remember we debated
when we were bringing the two units together and we talked about
the title. There are a number of issues that officers from SO15
deal with which are not strictly speaking terrorism matters. It
is not unusual for them to go into other environments and say,
"We are from the Counter Terrorism Command, but we are here
dealing with X, Y or Z". If on this occasion, as it appears,
as you have read out to me, that the parties were confused by
that then I think that is regrettable.
Q1091 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: They were
not so much confused as misled surely? It was not that they misunderstood
what they were being told, it was what they were told implied
to them, and to any reasonable person, that this was likely to
have something to do with terrorism related offences. They were
not confused; they were misinformed. I am not suggesting deliberately
but as a result of the words used by the police officers in question.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Again,
I was not there for the conversation.
Q1092 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I understand
that. There are two quite separate issues involved. There is the
question of whether it is wise for the organisation within the
MPS to call itself the Counter Terrorism Command when it clearly
covers other matters which have got nothing to do with terrorism.
There is the separate but equally important question that, given
that title, the police officer on this occasion did not make clear
that despite the command from which he came, the inquiry which
he was relating to the Serjeant at Arms, and which she then went
on to inform the Speaker, had nothing to do with terrorism. That
may be part of the explanation for some of the consequences that
flowed from that, which is why you are here today.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: If
I could just correct one thing. I would not want you to think
that officers from the Counter Terrorism Command are routinely
dealing with traffic offences or anything like that. They are
dealing with a variety of things, all of which have some link
back to their terrorist training and their skills.
Q1093 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Forgive
me for interrupting you, but what has a leak with regard to a
possible offence of misconduct in a public office necessarily
got to do with terrorism?
Assistant Commissioner Dick: What
I am trying to say is that they had the skills to deal with something
which at that stage might well have included national security
matters. They had the confidence of the intelligence agencies.
That was why in those times we deployed those kinds of people.
Sir, I do not want to fall out with you about this. I absolutely
accept that if people were, I say confused, you say misled by
the presence of counter-terrorism officers then that is very regrettable.
I have not heard of it in other situations and we must seek to
avoid it in the future.
Q1094 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: You mentioned
national security and Official Secrets considerations. I am sure
you will agree that there are many aspects which do involve national
security and which might involve a breach of the Official Secrets
Act but which nevertheless also have nothing to do with terrorism.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Exactly,
that is my point as well.
Q1095 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: In any
event, can I leave with you at least the suggestion that you might,
as a very senior member of the Metropolitan Police, discuss with
your colleagues in the Metropolitan Police whether it might be
appropriate to consider some new nomenclature at the very least
for that particular part of the Metropolitan Police's responsibilities.
It is not the first time that members of the public as well as
Members of Parliament have been confused, because journalists,
when they are told that police officers from the Counter Terrorism
or Anti-Terrorist Branch are investing something or other, not
unreasonably assume, as did I, and I suspect many other MPs when
we heard about Damian Green being arrested by counter-terrorism
officers, that this is even more serious than the police officers
thought it was likely to be.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: I
absolutely do take your point. We will go away and think about
it.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I am most grateful.
Q1096 Chairman: It had some practical
application in this case in relation to the Speaker because Sir
Malcolm has followed this issue on a number of occasions and he
asked now Lord Martin a question on 2 November 2009, question
152. He said: "I am asking you when you were first informed
on the Wednesday, the day before they arrested Mr Green, and on
Thursday when you were told that an arrest was likely later that
day—and you have told us in some detail about your view
of the responsibility of the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant
at Arms—what you considered your responsibility?" You
can understand why we were exploring that.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: Yes.
Q1097 Chairman: Lord Martin's reply
was very interesting. He said: "I feel my responsibility
was that I was dealing with an anti-terrorism squad. I did not
know all the facts and I felt that I could not interfere with
an anti-terrorism squad". There is an illustration of the
fact that this description, as Sir Malcolm pointed out by way
of his question, had a practical outcome in this particular case.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: I
understand that. The solution is unlikely to be for us to say
that inquiries will always be dealt with in another part or, indeed,
not in the Counter Terrorism Command, but the solution may be
around how we articulate what we are doing and the branding we
give it at that stage. This is fine detail perhaps.
Q1098 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: You have
tempted me to come back once more, if I may. I appreciate that
it may mean police officers are much more careful about clarifying
that it has got nothing to do with terrorism, but there is still
the problem that when it is announced that someone has been arrested
or something has happened which involves police from the counter-terrorist
department, our friends in the media will not unreasonably assume
and report on television, on the radio, in newspapers, because
it makes it a much more interesting story and then there is maximum
confusion and gross unfairness to the members of the public involved.
I do seriously suggest that either the name of your department
should be changed so that they are not described as counter-terrorist
officers, or matters which cannot possibly be linked to terrorism,
such as leak inquiries and misconduct in a public office, are
not dealt with by police officers who are described in those terms.
Assistant Commissioner Dick: I
will take that back, Sir.
Q1099 Chairman: Can I ask you about
scoping. What was the nature of your involvement in scoping in
this matter?
Assistant Commissioner Dick: You
will have seen from my statement, Sir, that I was not aware of
this matter at all until 9 October. That was when Mr Quick was
due to go abroad, so he briefed me for the first time about the
matter. As I understand it, he had already identified the senior
investigating officer, he had already had a case conference with
officials from the Cabinet Office, and he had already indicated
that we would not go straight into an investigation, we would
want to get clear what it was that we were dealing with, ie a
scoping. This is a process that I am very familiar with. He asked
me to sit in in his absence and manage the scoping at my senior
level on behalf of the Commissioner and also to manage the relationship
with the Cabinet Office as the people who were making the referral.
For the period that Mr Quick was away that was exactly what I
did. I never had a meeting at the Cabinet Office—I know
that is something that has been asked before—but I did speak
very early on to Mr Wright.
| 
