Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
700-719)
MS JILL
PAY
7 DECEMBER 2009
Q700 Chairman: That is very helpful.
Thank you very much for that. I think it leads quite naturally
into your account of the events as you recall them. Perhaps you
would just start with the document?
Ms Pay: Yes, of course. "On
Thursday 20 November 2008 Chief Superintendent Ed Bateman, head
of the Metropolitan Police on the Parliamentary Estate, asked
to see me on a basis he described as very confidential. He said
that papers concerning a Member of Parliament had been sent to
the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration. He said that,
depending on the CPS advice, either there would be sufficient
evidence for the police to make an arrest or there would not be
and nothing would happen. He did not say that anything would occur
in the precincts but he did say that if the MP was arrested this
would be a very significant event. I asked Chief Superintendent
Bateman what it was about and he said he could not tell me anything
more at that time. There was no mention of searching a Member's
office during this conversation; nor was the question of consent
to search a Member's office raised. On Monday 24 November I met
Chief Superintendent Bateman to talk about a different matter
and I asked him if there was any more news about the subject we
had discussed the previous Thursday. Chief Superintendent Bateman
said there was not and that he would let me know as soon as he
heard anything. On Tuesday 25 November at about 4.30pm Chief Superintendent
Bateman asked to see me and he told me that the CPS considered
there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation and that
the Member was going to be arrested. He said he could not tell
me the identity of the Member or what the allegation was at this
stage. Chief Superintendent Bateman told me that the suspect was
a very senior member of the Conservative Party and that the allegation
was to do with the recently publicised Home Office leaks. He said
that police officers from the MPS Counter-Terrorism Command would
arrest the Member, possibly the following afternoon, and that
they would want to search all of his premises. I asked what he
meant by `premises' and Chief Superintendent Bateman listed them:
the Member's Westminster office, the constituency office and the
two home addresses in London and the constituency. I asked what
the MP was going to be charged with and Chief Superintendent Bateman
said that he could not tell me then, but he would bring the investigating
police officers from the Counter Terrorism Command to meet me
the next day and they would give me more information. At this
stage, the possible search of the Westminster office had been
raised with me but nothing was said about the mechanics of the
search. Chief Superintendent Bateman again told me on this occasion
that all this was very confidential and that I could not tell
anyone. I insisted that I had to tell the Speaker to which Chief
Superintendent Bateman said, `Okay, but as long as it is only
the Speaker you are telling.' Chief Superintendent Bateman made
it clear that this whole case was being kept very confidential
and that the more people who knew about it from outside the police
the greater the risk of prejudicing the criminal investigation.
On Wednesday 26 November I telephoned Angus Sinclair, the Speaker's
Secretary, at around 9.30am and said that I needed to speak to
the Speaker as soon as possible on a very confidential subject.
Angus Sinclair suggested I wait to see the Speaker before the
daily Speaker's conference and when the Speaker arrived Angus
Sinclair told him that I needed to speak to him urgently about
a very confidential matter. The Speaker and I went to an area
where we could speak in private. I told the Speaker that the police
had informed me that officers from the Counter Terrorism Command
were going to arrest a senior Member of Parliament, a Conservative,
possibly that afternoon, and that they would want to search his
Westminster office, his constituency office and his two home addresses
immediately after the arrest. I had no more information at that
time but I told the Speaker that I would telephone him later that
afternoon when I had more details. The Speaker asked me to call
him on his mobile because he would not be in the Palace and he
said he would keep the information confidential. At 3.30pm on
Wednesday 26 November four police officers came to meet with me
in my office: Detective Chief Inspector Jim Stockley, who was
the senior investigating officer, Detective Inspector Piers Dingmans
and Detective Sergeant Steve Walker, all from the Counter Terrorism
Command, and Chief Superintendent Ed Bateman. Detective Inspector
Dingmans led the introductory part of the meeting. I asked him
who the Member was but Detective Inspector Dingmans said that
they could not tell me. He said the fewer people who knew his
identity the better and that it was essential to maintain confidentiality.
Detective Chief Inspector Stockley told me that the arrest would
not happen that afternoon, but he did tell me that the allegation
against the Member was aiding and abetting misconduct in a public
office and that the police thought there was evidence in the Member's
Westminster office to support the allegation. I asked what kind
of evidence and Detective Inspector Dingmans replied, `Evidence
that the Member encouraged leaks. That is, that he was pulling
leaks rather than receiving them.' This conversation led on to
the issue of what he described as lawful consent to search. Detective
Inspector Dingmans stated that for the other three premises the
police had obtained search warrants from a district judge. He
explained that for premises occupied by an individual a warrant
was necessary, but it was different when an organisation's premises
were being searched because then the police would need to ask
the person who has authority for the premises to consent to the
search. He said this was known as lawful consent. The officer
explained that, because this was not one of the Member's homes
or the constituency office, they would need my consent to search
his Westminster office. He said that the police needed lawful
consent to search which I, as Serjeant at Arms, was entitled to
give. It was not put to me that I could refuse my consent. At
no time did the police officers say that I could insist on a warrant.
The police officers convinced me that my lawful consent was what
was required instead of a warrant."
Q701 Chairman: I take it you have
used the word "convinced" deliberately in that context?
Ms Pay: Yes, I have. "I knew
that the CPS was satisfied that there was a case to be answered
because Chief Superintendent Bateman had told me on Tuesday 25
November that the Crown Prosecution Service considered there was
sufficient evidence to support the allegation against the Member.
I also knew that warrants had been given by a district judge for
the other premises, which the police had told me earlier in the
meeting. I asked if it was a civil or a criminal offence and Detective
Chief Inspector Stockley said it was a serious criminal offence.
I had already been told during the meeting that the allegation
was aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office. I then
asked if there would be a criminal investigation and he said there
would be. I asked how serious a criminal offence it was and I
was told that the Member could receive a sentence of 20 to 25
years for the offence. From this information I concluded that
something very serious had happened and that if I did not give
my consent to search the Member's office I would be obstructing
a criminal investigation. I felt under considerable pressure at
this stage. I adjourned the meeting with the police at approximately
4pm to seek advice. Detective Chief Inspector Stockley asked who
I was going to speak to and I said I would speak to the Clerk
of the House if he was available. I looked for the nearest possible
source of advice and visited Douglas Millar, the Clerk Assistant
and my line manager. I said to him that I needed advice about
whether I had the authority to give consent to a search by the
police. Douglas Millar said that I should go to the Clerk of the
House, Malcolm Jack, who was the expert in that area. I felt very
constrained by the confidentiality imposed on me by the investigating
officers. I went to see Malcolm Jack to ask him if I had the authority
to consent to the search of an office on the Parliamentary Estate
as part of a criminal investigation. Malcolm Jack said that I
had the authority to consent to a search but that if a search
concerned a Member's office I must consult the Speaker. I went
back to the meeting with the police officers at approximately
4.15pm and informed them that I had authority to consent to the
search, but I did not give consent at this point because I still
did not know which Member was being arrested. I asked the officers
what form my consent would take. The officers said that when they
met me next time they would have a consent form with them for
me to sign. They did not give me any more details about the case
but they arranged to meet me the following morning at 6.45am to
give me more information and to seek my formal consent. The police
convinced me that a warrant was not necessary because what they
described as lawful consent could be given instead of a warrant
due to the Palace being an organisation's premises rather than
an individual's premises. After the police had explained to me
the method by which I would give formal consent—signing
a form—I told them that I would also provide a letter because
I thought it would add gravitas to the proceedings. The police
replied that I could do that if I wanted to but that it was not
necessary. Detective Sergeant Walker said that the police wanted
to see me very early the next morning, Thursday the 27, because
they wanted to make the arrest that morning. Due to the early
hour I proposed that the police come to my official residence
the next day in view of the confidentiality surrounding the whole
matter. I thought this would be more appropriate and discreet
as I thought employees of the House might be suspicious if I was
seen with a group of police at that time in the Palace. It did
not occur to me at the time that I would be unable to speak to
anyone to obtain advice at such an early hour. Detective Chief
Inspector Stockley again emphasised to me the confidentiality
of the situation but I again stressed that I was going to keep
the Speaker informed. I rang Mr Speaker on his mobile at about
4.20pm and I told him that the arrest was not taking place that
afternoon but was likely to happen the next morning. I told Mr
Speaker that I now knew the allegation against the Member and
I read it to him: `aiding and abetting misconduct in a public
office'. The Speaker repeated the words and I confirmed the allegation.
I then said that the subsequent searches would happen the next
morning immediately following the arrest. I had not been told
the identity of the Member concerned and was therefore unable
to inform the Speaker of this fact. I told the Speaker that the
police had arranged to meet me at 6.45am the next morning but
I did not think he would want me to telephone him at that time.
The Speaker said that I could call him in his private apartments
at 7.30am because he would be getting ready to leave for Glasgow.
On Thursday 27 November at 7am the police arrived at my official
residence: Detective Sergeant Steve Walker and Detective Constable
Graham Bannatyne from the Counter Terrorism Command with Chief
Superintendent Ed Bateman and Police Constable Doreen Davis, plain
clothes, from the parliamentary police. DS Walker gave me the
full background to the matter and identified the Member as Damian
Green. He underlined the determination of the police to keep the
whole matter confidential. For the sake of accuracy, I went through
with the police what I planned to say to the Speaker. I telephoned
the Speaker at 7.30am as arranged and told him that the Member
was Damian Green and that he was going to be arrested that morning.
I confirmed the allegation as aiding and abetting misconduct in
a public office and I said that his offices at Westminster and
elsewhere were going to be searched following his arrest. I told
the Speaker that the police were with me in my residence and that
I had received a formal request from the police to consent to
the search of Damian Green's Westminster office which I proposed
to give. The Speaker thanked me for the call and I told the Speaker
that I would get in touch with him if the situation changed. After
talking to the Speaker, I signed the consent form. At no time
was I informed that I did not have to give my consent or that
I could insist on a warrant or that I could withdraw my consent
at any time. The police then left my house but the search team
remained on the Estate, waiting to hear when the arrest had taken
place so that they could begin the search. At 1.50pm DS Walker
called me to inform me that Damian Green had been arrested and
that the search was going to commence. I was already in Damian
Green's office because his staff were worried and had asked to
speak to me. The search commenced at 2.08pm. I did not contact
the Speaker again after the conversation on Thursday morning because
the situation was as I had explained to him. I nominated PC Doreen
Davis to be my representative during periods when I could not
be present at the search. I left Damian Green's office shortly
after the search commenced and went to see Malcolm Jack at about
2.20pm. I took with me the first draft of my letter to DS Walker
and the copy of the consent form I had signed. Malcolm Jack asked
to see the warrant and I told him the police had convinced me
that the consent form I had signed was lawful consent and was
instead of a warrant. I told Malcolm Jack that I had consulted
the Speaker on three occasions, the last time at 7.30 that morning.
At the time I thought that I did not need to ask the Speaker to
give his consent to the search, as I believed I had the authority
to give consent to the search myself. Malcolm Jack said that the
letter to DS Walker must include the alleged charge because it
had not appeared on the consent form. We agreed the content of
the letter and to whom it was to be copied: Damian Green, MP,
Malcolm Jack, Angus Sinclair, Ed Bateman and Michael Carpenter.
The letter is attached at annex A. I visited Damian Green's office
several times during the search and I was notified by PC Doreen
Davis at 8.42pm that the search had been completed at 8.35pm.
On Friday 28 November I spoke to Damian Green by telephone just
after 9am and we agreed that I would go to his office at 9.30.
I gave him the copy of my letter to DS Walker. Damian Green was
furious that I had given consent for his office to be searched,
but we agreed that our conversation at that time must be about
how he could continue his work as a Member of Parliament. After
our meeting I arranged for PICT to provide computers, a printer
and a fax machine to enable Damian Green and his staff to work.
I contacted DS Walker and arranged for Damian Green's diary and
Filofax to be photocopies and these photocopies were delivered
to his staff later on Friday, along with a photocopy of the exhibits
book that contained details of all the items removed during the
search of his office and from where in the office they were removed.
During Friday morning I had asked Chief Superintendent Bateman
for a definitive statement about the difference between seeking
a signed consent form and a search warrant. Assistant Commissioner
Bob Quick telephoned on Friday afternoon to explain this to me
and CS Bateman sent me a confirmatory email on the following Monday,
which was the briefing note used during the telephone conversation.
This read: `The MPS had reasonable grounds to arrest an MP for
conspiracy/aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office.
In order to secure evidence for this investigation they have identified
four addresses linked to him which they need to search. Search
warrants have been issued for three of those addresses under section
eight of PACE. In order for them to be issued, a district judge
has agreed with the information supplied by police and has issued
the relevant authority for their execution. The fourth address
is the MP's private office and a warrant for this address cannot
be issued if permission can be granted by the person in control
of it or who has authority for the premises. Consequently, permission
was asked for from the Serjeant at Arms to search the premises
and was duly granted.'"
Q702 Chairman: I think you have added
as annexes to your statement a copy of the letter you sent on
27 November to Detective Sergeant Steve Walker and we also have
attached a copy of the form which you signed?
Ms Pay: Yes.
Q703 Chairman: Would you just tell
us in general terms what your responsibilities are as Serjeant
at Arms?
Ms Pay: Yes. I am responsible
for security access and ceremonial activities in the House of
Commons.
Q704 Chairman: That is a redefinition
I think of the role of the Serjeant at Arms following the Tebbit
Report?
Ms Pay: Yes, it is. Those core
activities were expanded to take on works and estates and all
the accommodation services, so the Serjeant's remit was much larger
and wider before the Tebbit reorganisation.
Q705 Chairman: What kind of hand
over or induction did you receive when you took up the appointment
of Serjeant at Arms which, as you have pointed out, is unique
because of course it is an appointment of Her Majesty the Queen?
Ms Pay: My predecessor had left
the House's service in the second week in December of 2007 and
the Deputy Serjeant was in an acting role until I took over on
30 January. There was no direct hand over or induction.
Q706 Chairman: There were six weeks
of cross over during the time there was an acting Serjeant?
Ms Pay: There were six weeks,
yes, and I was working in the office with the Deputy Serjeant
all during that time.
Q707 Chairman: During that time were
you ever given to understand that you might find yourself engaged
in activities which would have an impact on issues like parliamentary
privilege?
Ms Pay: Not directly told during
that time but, because I had been working in the Serjeant's office
since 2001, I was aware of privilege. I am not an expert at all
but I was aware of the issue of privilege.
Q708 Chairman: You knew the sensitivities
around privilege?
Ms Pay: Yes.
Q709 Chairman: Were you aware that
what we call the "McKay Memorandum" existed, written
in the year 2000 by Sir William McKay?
Ms Pay: I was not aware of it,
no.
Q710 Chairman: No-one drew that to
your attention as being an issue which might become part of your
responsibility?
Ms Pay: No. Nobody drew it to
my attention. I was not aware of its existence until the events
of last November.
Q711 Chairman: If privilege was an
issue which might have an impact on the discharge of your responsibilities
but was not an area in which you had special expertise, as I think
you have just told the Committee, in your mind what was the way
in which you should react if any question of privilege arose?
Ms Pay: My understanding was that
Members are not above the law and the Parliamentary Estate is
not above the law. My understanding of privilege as it stands
is that it does not affect the removal of materials but it affects
how those materials are used.
Q712 Chairman: The Metropolitan Police
are here on a contract. Is that correct?
Ms Pay: Yes, that is right.
Q713 Chairman: Is this a contract
which you have the responsibility for supervising and enforcing?
Ms Pay: Yes, I own the contract.
Q714 Chairman: You I think are directly
engaged with the chief superintendent who happens to be the senior
representative of the Metropolitan Police at any one time. Is
that correct?
Ms Pay: Yes.
Q715 Chairman: What were your relations
with Chief Superintendent Bateman?
Ms Pay: A very good working relationship,
good information, regular meetings, a formal weekly meeting but
interaction virtually every day on various aspects of the operation.
Q716 Chairman: Running through some
of the evidence we have heard before, which I think you will have
read, there was a suggestion that you might have been intimidated
or something of the kind. How do you react to that?
Ms Pay: No, I am not easily intimidated.
I did not feel intimidated by any of the meetings or conversations.
Q717 Chairman: Do you think you were
misled?
Ms Pay: I do not want to make
an accusation of being misled, but I think there was a clear objective
to achieve consent to search and that was the focus.
Q718 Chairman: Looking back at the
events which surrounded the granting of consent, how would you
characterise them?
Ms Pay: Very last minute. The
information was drip fed to me so I only had a very small amount
of information day by day. The issue of my giving consent was
only raised on the Wednesday afternoon, 26 November, when they
intended to make the arrest the following morning, so I felt that
was very last minute.
Q719 Chairman: Did you take any opportunity
to take advice for example from the Speaker's Counsel?
Ms Pay: No, I did not.
| 
