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


Memorandum from the Rt Hon the Lord Martin of Springburn

EVIDENCE OF DR MALCOLM JACK THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  From the observations made by Committee members during the Clerk of the House Dr Jack's examination, it is apparent the two key issues I feel compelled to comment on have already been grasped by the Committee. Nonetheless, I consider it appropriate that I formally submit a rebuttal (a) to the suggestion that it was my desire or direction for the search to be conducted (answer to Q371) and (b) there was no opportunity or authority for the Clerk to attempt to stop the search (answer to Q352).

Placing the matter in context, I support the Clerk's pragmatic colloquialism that his key duty and professional responsibility was to `protect' the Office of Speaker through proactive advice (Q221) which may include a proposal to convene meetings of relevant senior officers (Q246). I am also comforted to note the unreserved apology tendered by the Clerk (Q216) that matters were not better handled on this occasion.

Support for Search

  As the Committee is aware, on the Wednesday I had been alerted to the planned arrest of an unnamed Member by police officers who investigate terrorism, but it was only on the Thursday that I learned from the Serjeant which Member was involved and that his Parliamentary office was to be searched that day. This was the first time the subject of search had been raised in any context. I stress the Serjeant advised me of these facts—she did not seek my support or authorisation. She added that she was actually speaking in the presence of a police officer.

  On receiving this short briefing, I was mindful that if there was any likelihood of potential risk of harm to the reputation of the Office of Speaker, it was the Clerk's duty to discharge his responsibilities as articulated by him to the Committee and noted above.

  It was my reasonable expectation that the Sergeant would have liaised with her senior manager Dr Jack and that he would have taken the level of responsibility commensurate with his role. I reasonably expected the ongoing or proposed police action would have been confirmed by the Serjeant and Clerk as legal, proportionate and necessary. This would have included confirmation that the search was to be conducted under authority of a warrant issued by the competent legal authority.

  Had I been requested or invited to formally support or authorize the search, which I was not, I believe I would have sought formal confirmation of these reasonable expectations.

  Had I received such confirmation, and in the absence of any contrary advice from the Clerk, only then might I have very reluctantly acquiesced to the police action.

  As the Committee is well aware, from the time of my statement to the House on 3 December 2008 till today I have been unable to envisage any circumstances in which I would or could have supported or encouraged any Officer of the House to consent to a search being conducted within the precincts of Parliament without a warrant.

  As this was my unequivocal position during November 2008, I consider it beyond reason for anyone to suggest there had existed any credible belief that my desire or direction was for this search to be conducted.

Stopping the Search

  The Clerk suggests (Q352) there was no authority whatsoever for him to stop the search. He appears to substantially base this on his interpretation of the extent of delegated authority existing within the Office of Speaker.

  I have some difficulty with this assertion particularly when the Clerk had already utilised his own initiative and influence to pause the search, no matter how briefly, and cause an amendment to be inserted in the paperwork supporting the search activity.

  Even in its widest sense, provision of consent will rarely be binding for all time. The person providing consent surely has the basic legal right to review their decision and amend it, particularly in the event of changing circumstances.

  Therefore once the Clerk was aware that the search was being conducted without warrant, I suggest at the very least he had the ability and authority, in consultation with the Serjeant who had signed the consent form, to request the police pause their actions until the decision to consent was urgently reviewed by a wider forum, including myself. Such action would have been wholly in keeping with the Clerk's comments at Q221 and Q246.

  I accept the police officers involved may have concluded the search must continue, however, faced with formal withdrawal of consent, it would have been their responsibility to then obtain a search warrant or articulate the alternative legal authority under which they were now operating.

  In addition to these points I would like to briefly make reference to two Questions with regard to the Clerk's evidence:

    Q278 I fully expected the Serjeant as the officer who approached me to have kept the Clerk and the Clerk Assistant fully informed.

    Q308 I put the question to the Serjeant and the Clerk chose to intervene. My question related to the whole serious situation and was not restricted to the narrow definition of the PACE code.

15 January 2010





 
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