Supplementary memorandum by Lord Martin
of Springburn
I have followed closely the evidence which the
Committee has received during its enquiry. I hope in the circumstances
that the Committee will permit me to submit these further points
for clarification.
My comments on the evidence submitted by the Serjeant
at Arms, Ms Jill Pay, relate to the paragraph numbers in her memorandum
to the Committee.
Paragraph 6 (Meeting with the Speaker on 26 November):
This paragraph indicates that the Serjeant informed me that the
Police were intending to arrest "a senior Member of Parliament,
a Conservative" and that "they would want to search
his Westminster offices|.after the arrest". I would like
to emphasise that on 26 November, contrary to the Serjeant's recollection,
I was not told of the Member's party affiliation or his seniority.
In addition, the Serjeant made no mention of the proposed search
until the following day, 27 November. The assertion that she mentioned
a search on this occasion is incorrect.
The same point arises in paragraph 21 of the
Serjeant's memorandum which describes the telephone call she made
to me later on 26 November. No mention of a search was made until
the following day.
I regard this as an important point; and I am
in no doubt about the very limited nature of the Serjeant's initial
reports to me on 26 November.
Paragraphs 7 to 11 (Meeting with Police on 26
November): I would like to stress that I had no knowledge of the
Serjeant's very important discussion with the four Police officers
on 26 November. If I had known that the four officers were present;
and that the Police had proposed a search of the Westminster office
on the basis of personal consent by the Serjeant and without a
warrant (unlike the searches of the other premises), I would certainly
have realised then before the search took place that all was not
well with the process, and that urgent consultations with officials
were essential before the matter went any further.
Again, if I had known that the Serjeant "felt
under considerable pressure" at this key moment in the series
of events, I would have intervened.
Paragraph 18 (Letter to accompany the consent):
The Committee will recall that in my own evidence I asked about
the existence of the two letters from the Serjeant. I had no knowledge
at any time of the first letter from the Serjeant which accompanied
her consent.
Paragraph 19 (Meeting at the Serjeant's residence):
It might be worth mentioning here that the residence of the Serjeant
is next to the residence of the Clerk of the House, and the residence
of the Speaker's Secretary is nearby. These residences are provided
to enable senior staff to be available on site when needed whatever
the hour. In view of the unease felt by the Serjeant, it is unfortunate
that the opportunity was not taken early on 27 November for urgent
consultations between these staff.
Paragraph 23 (Telephone call early on 27 November):
I would like to make the following comments on this and subsequent
paragraphs:
The Serjeant informed me, in what was
a brief telephone call, that the Member to be arrested was Damian
Green; that a single police officer (not four officers) was present
with her; and that "a search of his office will take place
today".
There was no mention of a consent form;
and I would like to reiterate that I definitely assumed that the
search had been authorised through the issue of a warrantthe
usual procedure for a police search. I had been given no information
to lead me to suppose that such a procedure had not been followed.
If the Committee will permit me to say
so, I have found it disturbing to learn that the Serjeant rehearsed
what she planned to say to me with the four Police officers; and
that the officers were able to listen to her conversation with
me. This surely cannot be right.
Paragraph 28 (Events later on 27 November):
The Serjeant indicates that she told Malcolm Jack that she "had
consulted with the Speaker on three occasions". In fact,
in her three conversations with me the Serjeant simply conveyed
information to me. This was not consultation in any sense that
a Member of Parliament would understand, that is to say seeking
an opinion, advice or approval.
The lateness of the information which I received
from the Serjeant early on 27 November gave me very little opportunity
to intervene and seek full details of what was being proposed.
As Sir Malcolm Rifkind noted in his question Q 731, it would have
been "reasonable and fair" for me to have been informed
at the earliest opportunity. If I had been informed late on 25
November or in the course of 26 November, I would have arranged
for consultations with the senior staff involved, including Counsel.
I was available in the House of Commons throughout 25 November;
and on my mobile phone on 26 November.
In response to question Q 804 by Anne Coffey
MP, the Serjeant said that no information had been kept from me
"apart from the conversation that we did not have, about
a warrant". In fact the evidence shows that:
I was not informed of the Serjeant's
crucial meetings with police officers or of the details of those
meetings.
I was not informed of the approach which
the Serjeant made to the Clerk Assistant and subsequently the
Clerk of the House and the advice which the Clerk gave.
I was not aware that the four police
officers were privy to my conversation with the Serjeant on 27
November or that the Serjeant had rehearsed with them how she
should report the matter to me.
January 2010
|