Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
280-299)
DR MALCOLM
JACK, MS
JACQY SHARPE,
MR MICHAEL
CARPENTER AND
MS VERONICA
DALY
9 NOVEMBER 2009
Q280 Chairman: I go back to this
point which to some extent you underlined in your own evidence
that with these rather complex responsibilities communication
between the people exercising the complex responsibilities is
absolutely essential.
Dr Jack: Yes; absolutely.
Q281 Chairman: When did you first
look out the McKay memorandum in response to these events? Presumably
you were aware of the McKay memorandum.
Dr Jack: Yes. I knew that advice
existed. I cannot pretend that I knew the detailed provisions
of the McKay memorandum. As you have already said, this was not
an everyday occurrence. I first got hold of the McKay memorandum
on the next day when I had learned from Sky News that a Member
had been arrested and his offices were being searched.
Q282 Chairman: And that is true,
that you first knew that a Member had been arrested and that his
offices were being searched when you saw this on Sky News.
Dr Jack: Yes, that is right, which
would have been about 2.20, something like that.
Q283 Chairman: No-one had thought
to give you information about that.
Dr Jack: No, I knew nothing about
it. I knew nothing about the events of the morning, the signing
of the consent form.
Q284 Chairman: Would it generally
be accepted among those senior individuals with responsibility
for the conduct of the House of Commons that you were the person
to approach in relation to matters of privilege?
Dr Jack: I would hope so.
Q285 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Would it
be fair to say that it was quite extraordinary that the Serjeant
at Arms and thereafter the Speaker were aware of the imminent
arrest of a Member of the House and that the Clerk of the House
had no knowledge of this until he saw it on Sky TV?
Dr Jack: Well, it was certainly
a peculiar situation. I was very startled.
Q286 Chairman: Is that something
of a euphemism Dr Jack? Were you angry?
Dr Jack: I was startled. I am
trained to respond to situations and do something about them.
Q287 Chairman: The word can mean
many things. You can be startled because you step off the pavement
and a motorcar comes past. This was an issue, if I may put it
this way, right at the heart of your responsibilities to the House
of Commons.
Dr Jack: Yes.
Q288 Chairman: That would be well
known and understood.
Dr Jack: Certainly; yes, of course.
Q289 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Is it possible
that the Serjeant thought you had been consulted because of the
conversation she had had with you on the afternoon before?
Dr Jack: No. I think you would
have to ask the Serjeant that; I just do not know.
Q290 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: The particular
reason I ask you that is because in his statement of 3 December
the Speaker said that the consent form was signed by the Serjeant
without consulting the Clerk of the House. On one interpretation
it could be suggested, although you might not have been aware
of the significance of it, that you were consulted about the procedure
and that the Serjeant thought you had indicated that she had delegated
authority if she thought it appropriate to sign that form. I appreciate
that those were not the precise words you used or you were asked
about but is it possible that she was left with that impression
by you?
Dr Jack: I just do not know what
impression she was left with. The context of the discussion on
the previous day did not focus on consent forms or warrants or
anything of that sort.
Q291 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: It did
focus on whether she had authority to deal with matters involving
the search of a Member of Parliament's desk.
Dr Jack: Yes; correct. Yes.
Q292 Mr Henderson: You said in answer
to my previous question a couple of minutes ago that you thought
that the new structures were working and that the main players
understood the responsibilities. This suggests to me that this
is evidence which counters that assessment.
Dr Jack: I do not think any structures
work. Human beings work within structures and some structures
are better than others. I do not think a structure will, as it
were, eliminate human nature.
Q293 Mr Henderson: So were relationships
at a working level effective between yourselves and the Serjeant?
Dr Jack: Yes, I would say they
were. That rather gives me the opportunity to put something on
record which I would like to put on the record. I think the Serjeant's
behaviour was very uncharacteristic of her in that my experience
of the Serjeant is that she is a very consultative manager. I
see her performing on management boards and so on. This particular
need to be confidential in this case was uncharacteristic of her.
Q294 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Is it possible
that, if she had been informed that these were counter-terrorism
police and that this was a matter which might involve security
and matters of that kind, not having had experience of these sort
of matters that she felt she had to accept that and act accordingly?
Dr Jack: Yes. Yes; I think that
is the case.
Q295 Chairman: That leads me to this
question. When the Serjeant was appointed to her office, which
was designed to deal specifically with questions of security and
indeed with questions in relation to the police, was there any
kind of induction in the sense of "One of the things you
need to keep in mind is the McKay memorandum"?
Dr Jack: I think there was induction
and certainly security was emphasised. I would be very surprised
if the McKay memorandum itself was part of that.
Q296 Chairman: You told us a little
earlier that although it was not a frequent occurrence for the
police to be interested in searches, nonetheless it was not something
which had not happened before.
Dr Jack: That is correct, but
not in the case where a Member had been arrested and was a suspect.
The cases I was thinking of were searches of offices of staff
who worked for Members and this sort of thing.
Q297 Chairman: Did the "what
if?" question specifically refer to the search of a Member's
office?
Dr Jack: The "what if?"
question was whether there could be permission to search offices
and it occurred to me to ask whether this was a Member's office.
Q298 Chairman: Was the answer in
the affirmative?
Dr Jack: Yes, that is right. I
was thinking of the privilege aspect of papers and so on.
Q299 Chairman: You having just given
us that answer, again I have to put to you that I was startled—to
use your own word—that you did not seek a more detailed
account of what she was enquiring about.
Dr Jack: The matter was put to
me so hypothetically that there was no context to it. As I say,
I have dozens of enquiries of this nature during the day. I absolutely
accept in hindsight that I wish I had done.
| 
