Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
240-259)
DR MALCOLM
JACK, MS
JACQY SHARPE,
MR MICHAEL
CARPENTER AND
MS VERONICA
DALY
9 NOVEMBER 2009
Q240 Mr Henderson: Does anything
come to mind where there is particular progress?
Dr Jack: We have had a very successful
experiment with the Members' centre, for example, in Portcullis
House which was the coming together of all departments of the
House to give as far as possible immediate advice to Members of
the House on the spot. I think many Members have found this extremely
useful. It is not always the end of their enquiry because the
Member then has to go on to wherever it is and perhaps get more
specialist advice but it has been very welcomed by Members.
Q241 Chairman: I noticed on the poster
outside the Members' Centre that it says one of the things you
can approach the Members' Centre about is the use of your allowances.
That has been particularly successful.
Dr Jack: Yes. That sort of initiative
will be extremely important when a new Parliament comes because
there will be a lot of new Members who will be looking for somewhere
to try to focus on.
Q242 Chairman: What was the rationale
for the redefinition of the role of the Serjeant at Arms?
Dr Jack: I am sorry, I did not
quite understand.
Q243 Chairman: As a result of Tebbit,
the role of the Serjeant at Arms was redefined by comparison,
for example, with the previous occupier of the post. What was
the rationale for that?
Dr Jack: I think it was actually
to produce a better coordination. Traditionally the Serjeant,
not only the Serjeant but in fact all the departments of the House,
had acted rather independently of each other though there was
a board of management. I think the idea was that the coordination
of aspects of the delivery of service should be better. So the
Serjeant was brought into the Chamber and Committee Services department
so that in fact the whole package was more streamlined.
Chairman: Perhaps we might now turn to
some of the events leading up to the search.
Q244 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: We have
been told in evidence that the day before Mr Green was arrested
the Serjeant had a private word with the Speaker and said she
had something very confidential to discuss with him and, although
she did not know which Member it might be, there was a possibility
that a Member might be arrested. Did you have any knowledge of
that conversation on that day?
Dr Jack: No.
Q245 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: In retrospect,
do you think it was appropriate that you were not informed of
this possibility by the Serjeant?
Dr Jack: It would certainly have
been better if I had been informed by the Serjeant.
Q246 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: If you
had been informed, what would you have done?
Dr Jack: I would have suggested
to the Speaker that all the senior officers involved in this business,
including Speaker's Counsel, should meet and discuss the matter
and consider all the aspects of it.
Q247 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Do you
have any understanding why the Serjeant did not think to share
this information with you?
Dr Jack: I did not on that day
but subsequently yes, I did. I think the Serjeant felt that she
was under a restraint of confidentiality.
Q248 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: When would
have been the first time you became aware of the potential arrest
of a Member of Parliament at that time?
Dr Jack: I think not until the
next day, until the arrest had actually taken place.
Q249 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Until the
arrest had actually happened.
Dr Jack: Yes, until the arrest
had actually happened. May I just fill that in a bit because I
do not want to seem to be skipping over anything? The Serjeant
came to see me in the afternoon—we are on the Wednesday
now—and we had a very brief meeting, an encounter, which
I think lasted three or four minutes. She asked me a hypothetical
question which was whether she had authority to permit the search
of offices in the precincts. I said that the authority was delegated
in her, as I explained earlier on, and I asked her whether she
was hypothesising about a Member's office. She said that she was.
I said that if there were such a circumstance, then the Speaker
would need to be consulted because that would go back to his authority.
Q250 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Can I be
clear about what you have just said? When you said that you indicated
to her that she had delegated authority, in what way did she have
delegated authority herself to decide whether to grant consent
for an office to be searched?
Dr Jack: The authority is delegated
to her from the Speaker in the general control of the precinct.
Q251 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I may have
misunderstood but I thought when I asked you earlier who had the
responsibility for determining whether a Member's office could
be searched you said only the Speaker had that authority. I have
no doubt you meant that he could delegate it to an individual
but are you suggesting he could delegate it in a general sense
and not in reference to a particular event?
Dr Jack: No. I think I am beginning
to understand now that, I am sorry, I have perhaps not been completely
clear. I do not think I was talking about the authority to consent
to a search but just the operational permission to allow a search.
During this encounter, which was very brief, we were not discussing
the basis of giving permission.
Q252 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I am sorry,
I am a little confused. Could we go back, not to the events of
that day but if you could just clarify again? If a request is
made by a police officer to the Serjeant as to whether she is
willing to sign a consent form to search a Member's office, does
she have the delegated authority to do that without reference
either to you or to the Speaker?
Dr Jack: No, she should get that
authority from the Speaker.
Q253 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: When on
the day she came to you and had that brief conversation you have
just referred to, you said a few moments ago that she did have
delegated authority. Can you clarify?
Dr Jack: Yes; I am sorry. We are
talking about two different things really, not to allow a search
by signing a consent form but that she had authority to permit
searches under whatever conditions there might be.
Q254 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Are you
saying she could have allowed Mr Green's office to be searched
even without signing a consent form.
Dr Jack: No.
Q255 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I am sorry.
I am still not clear what you are saying.
Dr Jack: I think we are talking
about the difference between a search by a consent form and permission
to search on some other basis.
Q256 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I am sorry;
I do not understand the difference. It may be my fault but I just
do not understand. The police requested her to sign a consent
form.
Dr Jack: Yes.
Q257 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: She signed
that consent form. Was there any other way in which she could
give permission for them to search Mr Green's office?
Dr Jack: No. On this occasion
that we are talking about there was no discussion about consent
forms.
Q258 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Accepting
that, I am still not clear when you said she was asking you whether
she had authority to allow a Member's office to be searched and
you have indicated that you replied to her that she did have delegated
authority and presumably she therefore went away thinking this
was a matter she could decide without reference to either you
or the Speaker.
Dr Jack: She would have needed
to get his authority—
Q259 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: That is
not what you said to her. You have indicated to us, unless I am
misunderstanding, that when she asked you whether she had delegated
authority to allow a Member's office to be searched you said yes,
she had. I do not know how you can say that and also say she would
have required the Speaker's permission.
Dr Jack: No, she would require
the Speaker's permission if she were to consent to the search
of an office.
| 
