Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
340-359)
DR MALCOLM
JACK, MS
JACQY SHARPE,
MR MICHAEL
CARPENTER AND
MS VERONICA
DALY
9 NOVEMBER 2009
Q340 Ann Coffey: Going back a bit
because this issue of relationships and structure of the House
and how it works is of great interest, Chief Superintendent Bateman
is a Metropolitan Police officer and at the same time he has a
duty to the House. Presumably it is very important for the Serjeant
to have good working relationships with the police on the estate.
Do you think within the context of that, and that is quite a complex
situation, that might have led to a lack of clarification between
the very distinct rules they had in this particular situation
of the Serjeant and the Chief Superintendent?
Dr Jack: It would be better if
you asked that question of the Serjeant but yes, the need to have
close relations with the police is an essential part of the Serjeant's
duty in the execution of her security responsibilities.
Q341 Ann Coffey: Do you think perhaps
there needs to be further clarification in this area for the future?
Dr Jack: Yes, that could be helpful.
Q342 Chairman: Might that clarification
deal also with the question as to whether the Speaker or the Serjeant
can ever give consent without having obtained the agreement of
the Member concerned?
Dr Jack: That would return us
to the matter of exclusive cognizance, the privileges of the House
and the Speaker's authority to act on that basis. It always has
been assumed and the McKay guidance assumes it, that the Speaker
has that authority.
Q343 Chairman: Perhaps we may come
back to that when you come on another occasion.
Dr Jack: Yes; sure.
Q344 Chairman: May I ask one or two
questions relating to the period after the search, some of which
you answered as we went through the earlier questions. You told
us that you found out about the search from Sky TV, is that right?
Dr Jack: Yes; that is correct.
Q345 Chairman: And about the arrest.
Were you aware that there was no search warrant?
Dr Jack: No, I was not aware at
that moment.
Q346 Chairman: When did you first
become aware of that?
Dr Jack: When the Serjeant arrived
in my office. As soon as I heard the news I summoned the Serjeant
immediately and asked to know what was going on, because this
was the first that I had heard about the whole matter. In the
meantime I retrieved the McKay file, which was easily available
in my office, on arrest and search and started to prepared advice
for the Speaker on the basis of a warrant.
Q347 Chairman: When did you finally
find out that there was no warrant?
Dr Jack: When the Serjeant came
to see me, I asked to see the warrant.
Q348 Chairman: The Speaker and indeed
the Speaker's Secretary talked about a restraining letter.
Dr Jack: Yes.
Q349 Chairman: How did that come
to be written and who was its author?
Dr Jack: I would not myself describe
it as a restraining letter. When I saw the consent form that the
Serjeant showed me, I noticed, among other things, that no offence
was stated on it. I thought it was important that there should
be some record of why the office was being searched, for a number
of reasons. First of all, we needed to have a record of it, Mr
Green was also entitled to know why his office was being searched
and in any development of a trial, there could be admissibility
questions which would relate to exactly why the search was taking
place. I had no notion that it restrained in any way. It was simply
a clarification of the situation, but I thought an important one.
Q350 Chairman: Was it a letter which
acknowledged that the Serjeant had given consent to the search?
Dr Jack: Yes, that is right.
Q351 Chairman: Given on the grounds
of a search for material relevant to the allegation of aiding
and abetting misconduct in public office which the Metropolitan
Police had reason to believe was in these premises.
Dr Jack: Yes, that is correct.
Yes.
Q352 Ann Coffey: Could you have stopped
the search?
Dr Jack: No, I could not. I had
no authority to stop the search.
Q353 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Why could
you not have withdrawn consent?
Dr Jack: I did not give the consent
in the first place and it is not for me to give consent. Consent
is given by the Speaker.
Q354 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Did you
enquire whether the Speaker had given consent or whether the Serjeant
at Arms had given consent?
Dr Jack: Yes, I did. When the
Serjeant came to see me, going back again to that sequence, and
showed me the consent form, I then asked her whether she had consulted
the Speaker about this and I was then told about the events in
the morning, the telephone call that she had made.
Q355 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Did she
indicate that the Speaker had agreed that she should sign the
consent form?
Dr Jack: Yes, she did. She said
that she had consulted the Speaker.
Q356 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: This is
very important as you will appreciate. It is one thing for her
to have consulted the Speaker, by which she might have meant informed
the Speaker of what was happening. Did she give you the impression
that she had obtained the Speaker's consent to the consent form
being signed by her?
Dr Jack: Yes, that was the impression
that I had.
Q357 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: It was
the impression or did she expressly say that or did you expressly
ask that?
Dr Jack: I asked her whether she
had consulted the Speaker. I am trying to be very accurate here.
Q358 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I do appreciate
that. Is it possible that there was a misunderstanding between
you because she may have understood you to be saying did she consult
the Speaker, meaning did she inform him what was happening, whereas
you might have been asking whether she had obtained the Speaker's
consent? You implied that you thought she had told you that she
did have the Speaker's consent.
Dr Jack: Consulting the Speaker
is asking for the Speaker's opinion about something.
Q359 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: That would
have been what you intended her to understand.
Dr Jack: Yes; certainly.
| 
