Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
260-279)
DR MALCOLM
JACK, MS
JACQY SHARPE,
MR MICHAEL
CARPENTER AND
MS VERONICA
DALY
9 NOVEMBER 2009
Q260 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Then I
must ask you again. When she asked you on the day whether she
had delegated authority to allow a Member of Parliament's office
to be searched, why did you say to her that she did?
Dr Jack: I said that she had permission,
that she was the operating officer for the purpose of giving permission
to search.
Q261 Chairman: It is a question of
process rather than substance.
Dr Jack: Yes; exactly. That is
exactly correct.
Q262 Chairman: So as a matter of
process it would be the Serjeant to whom an approach would be
made for permission to search.
Dr Jack: Yes; exactly. That is
it.
Q263 Chairman: And in that sense
she had delegated authority.
Dr Jack: Yes; exactly.
Q264 Chairman: She did not have to
approach the Speaker himself.
Dr Jack: No; exactly.
Q265 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Now I understand.
Dr Jack: That is exactly it. I
am sorry I was not clear enough.
Q266 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: So she
was the person. The police were quite right to go to her.
Dr Jack: Yes; exactly.
Q267 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: But you
are saying that she did not have the right to sign that consent
form without clearing it with the Speaker.
Dr Jack: Yes; absolutely.
Q268 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Might she
have misunderstood, just as I misunderstood? Is it possible she
might have done?
Dr Jack: We were not talking about
a consent form.
Q269 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: She might
have thought she was.
Dr Jack: She might have thought
that.
Q270 Chairman: Does that not expose
the overwhelming requirement that at this level in the House of
Commons people should be entirely frank and open with each other?
Dr Jack: Yes; absolutely. That
is of course now incorporated in the protocol.
Q271 Chairman: You know that there
is some reference to the particular unit of the police force that
was responsible for this search, the anti-terrorist unit, by whatever
name it is known. Do you think that the fact that it was that
unit may have had the result of creating in the mind of the Serjeant
at Arms the view that she could not tell anyone about it?
Dr Jack: Yes, I do; yes I think
that is the case.
Mr Carpenter: I do not know whether
it is right now to point to the obvious fact that there is a world
of difference between a search conducted under a warrant and a
search conducted where consent has been given. In the minds of
peopleand of course I am necessarily having to anticipate
the evidence that other people might giveif they are thinking
this is a search with a warrant, then of course you are talking
about the mechanical process and how that is to be handled. Quite
a different question, if the real question that was not put on
that day, I would submit, is: is it permissible to allow the consent
of a Member's room without a warrant?
Dr Jack: That puts it rather more
clearly than I did, for which I apologise.
Q272 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: When the
Serjeant asked you this tentative question as to whether she had
authority and the question was in relation to the possibility
of a Member of Parliament's office being searched, even though
she may not have shared with you the information as to why she
was asking you that question, were you not curious? Did you not
think it appropriate that you should be involved?
Dr Jack: With the benefit of hindsight,
I wish I had been more curious. As I explained earlier on, it
is my lot to receive queries of all sorts from senior officers
and others throughout the day on any day and I did not think that
there was anything peculiar about this. I am trying to be very
clear about thoughts at the time rather than importing hindsight.
It may have occurred to me later that there was a connection with
a terrorist matter, that perhaps this was something to do with
documents or something in a room in the Palace which needed to
be searched. No, with hindsight, I wish I had been more curious.
Q273 Chairman: May I press you a
little on that? I was wondering how many times you had been asked
that question. Had you been asked that question before?
Dr Jack: Yes, indeed. We had discussions
about searches of offices on a previous occasion.
Q274 Chairman: Was that the occasion
which gave rise to the McKay memorandum?
Dr Jack: No, there have been other
occasions. There have been searches of offices of staff, for example.
Q275 Chairman: Like Sir Malcolm,
I am quite surprised that the alarm bells did not ring. I have
to put that to you.
Dr Jack: Yes, of course. I think
the alarm bells might have rung if I had known a little bit more
that this was a serious and imminent business. I had no idea that
there was any context to this. I had no idea that the Serjeant
was actually talking to the police.
Q276 Chairman: You did not know that
she had left three police officers in her office.
Dr Jack: No, I had no idea. The
question was posed in a complete vacuum.
The Committee suspended from 4.49pm to 4.56pm
for a division in the House.
Q277 Mr Henderson: May I come back to
this issue of consent? Was it your understanding before 16 November
that consent could be given for the search of a Member's office
without the Member agreeing?
Dr Jack: Yes; certainly yes. The
issue of a warrant and the procedure set out in what is known
as the McKay guidance, which the Committee now have, is based
on the premise that the Member will not be told in advance.
Mr Henderson: We were going to take up
this issue a little later. I do not know whether it is appropriate
to do it now.
Q278 Chairman: Perhaps you would
like to come back to that point. There is one question I wanted
to ask. Dr Jack, you expressed a view that you would have expected
the Serjeant to tell you about the approach of the police. Would
you have expected the Speaker to tell you that he had been told
that there was a matter of confidentiality but it involved the
anti-terrorist police?
Dr Jack: I can only say that I
was not consulted.
Q279 Chairman: You were not at all.
Dr Jack: No.
|