Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
720-739)
MS JILL
PAY
7 DECEMBER 2009
Q720 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: You offered
an additional statement at the beginning of your evidence where
you said, if I recollect, that in retrospect you would have preferred
to have rejected the requirement for confidentiality and consulted
your colleagues earlier. Can you just remind us of the timing
when you say in your additional statement that you believe you
should have consulted your colleagues?
Ms Pay: I think on the Wednesday,
early evening, after I had gone back to meet the investigating
officers, we had completed that meeting, we had arranged to meet
next morning. I had telephoned the Speaker and I think after that.
Q721 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: That is
Wednesday 26 November?
Ms Pay: Yes, in the early evening.
That evening I should have. With hindsight, I would prefer to
have gone and spoken to the Clerk of the House at that stage.
The wisdom of hindsight is great.
Q722 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: You were
first approached about these matters almost a week before on Thursday
20 November.
Ms Pay: Yes.
Q723 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: You have
said in your statement that you were told by Chief Superintendent
Bateman that there was a significant possibility that there would
be sufficient evidence for the police to make an arrest of a Member
of Parliament.
Ms Pay: Yes.
Q724 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Did he
on that occasion say what you have told us he said the next time
you met him, that you must not discuss this with anyone else?
Ms Pay: He said that it was very
confidential at that stage, but at that stage it was 50/50. Either
the Crown Prosecution Service were going to agree that there was
evidence or they were not and nothing was going to happen. It
was quite hypothetical then.
Q725 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Knowing,
as you knew on Thursday 20 November, that there was at least a
serious possibility that a Member of Parliament was going to be
arrested some time in the near future, did you not give some thought
to whether it might be appropriate to mention it to the Speaker
at that stage or to the Clerk of the House at that stage?
Ms Pay: I did think about it but
in security terms there are many times when some intelligence
comes through that says something might happen and it might not
happen. I prefer to have more solid evidence or to be more sure
of the facts rather than go and talk to somebody about something
that might happen or might not happen.
Q726 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I understand
that but in the period that you have been Serjeant at Arms have
you ever been told on any other occasion of the possibility that
a Member of Parliament might be arrested?
Ms Pay: No. That was the first
time.
Q727 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Given the
seriousness that that implied, surely this would distinguish such
information from the other examples you might be having in mind
in terms of whether you should have at least informed the Speaker
and/or the Clerk of the House?
Ms Pay: At the time I felt that
it was not a strong possibility. I did not know what the charge
was. I did not know at that stage it was to do with the leaks
from the Home Office. I had no idea whether it was a criminal
offence, whether it was a civil offence. It could have been a
major road accident. I had absolutely no idea of the context at
that time.
Q728 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Let me
take you forward, if I may, to your meeting again with Chief Superintendent
Bateman on Tuesday 25 November referred to at the bottom of page
one of your statement, when you say that he informed you then
that there was, in the view of the CPS, sufficient evidence to
support the allegations against the Member and that the Member
was going to be arrested. I think you were told on that occasion,
according to your statement at the top of the following page,
that the Member would be arrested possibly the following afternoon
and that they would want to search all his premises. That was
at 4.30 on Tuesday 25 November and you have told us how you then
had a discussion with Chief Superintendent Bateman when you insisted
that you had to inform the Speaker.
Ms Pay: Yes.
Q729 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Having
been given information that an MP was going to be arrested and
his premises searched at 4.30 on Tuesday 25 November, knowing
that that was going to be likely to be implemented the following
day, why did you not immediately inform the Speaker of what you
had been informed? You have told us that you did not in fact attempt
to speak to the Speaker until the following morning.
Ms Pay: Because I knew I was definitely
going to see the Speaker the following morning and I felt that,
because the arrest was not likely to happen until the afternoon,
that was the time to tell him, when I knew I was going to see
him.
Q730 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Did you
give any thought to informing him—never mind consulting
him—right away, given the seriousness of what was involved?
Ms Pay: I did not feel the need
to tell him that evening. I felt that the following morning would
have been in good enough time.
Q731 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I think
you have indicated to us you had had no previous experience of
what was involved if a Member of Parliament was about to be arrested
or premises were about to be searched and yet, having been told
that was likely to happen the following day, neither the Clerk
of the House nor the Speaker was informed right away. Do you not
think in retrospect that it might have been reasonable and fair
to the Speaker that he should know at the earliest possible moment
that—
Ms Pay: I think with the wisdom
of hindsight it probably would have been prudent to tell him that
evening but as far as the Clerk of the House was concerned I was
still under this blanket of confidentiality, if you like, about
not telling him. I was insisting that I had to tell the Speaker.
Q732 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Did you
feel that you were under a legal obligation to accept the police
request?
Ms Pay: No, not a legal obligation.
I felt that I was just getting this information a little bit at
a time and I felt that, if I did talk to anybody else about it,
I was not going to get any more information.
Q733 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: I am particularly
interested in what you were informed as late as Tuesday 25 November
because by that stage it was not just, as it were, drip information;
a Member of Parliament was going to be arrested, possibly the
following afternoon. Premises were likely to be searched. I remain
puzzled why you did not immediately feel, given that the Speaker
obviously has the overall responsibility for these matters, that
he was entitled to know right away.
Ms Pay: I can only say that at
the time I felt that the next morning was timely to tell him.
Again, with the wisdom of hindsight, yes, I think it probably
would have been preferable to tell him that evening, but at the
time, because I knew I was going to see him the next morning,
I felt that was the opportunity to tell him.
Q734 Chairman: Did you know that
the buck stopped with the Speaker, as Sir William McKay has put
it?
Ms Pay: Yes. I know that the Speaker
is responsible for the precincts and everything that happens,
but the terminology that is generally used in terms of security
is that the Speaker delegates executive authority to the Serjeant.
Q735 Chairman: On the question of
confidentiality, was this something which had arisen on previous
occasions?
Ms Pay: No, this was the first
time.
Q736 Chairman: Chief Superintendent
Bateman on previous occasions had not, as I understand your evidence,
approached you and discussed something in such terms that you
were not to tell anyone else?
Ms Pay: No, this was the first
time that this had happened which I think is why I took that quite
seriously. We frequently had confidential conversations because
that is the nature of security and intelligence, but this was
the first time that he had talked to me in these terms about not
telling others.
Q737 Chairman: When we were talking
about induction, I think we both understood that really to be,
putting it colloquially, the nuts and bolts of the job. Did anyone
in the course of that period or at any other stage in your time
at the Palace explain to you the McKay principle, that the buck
stops with the Speaker?
Ms Pay: Not really the McKay principle,
no. As I said, my understanding has always been that the Speaker
has total responsibility but in terms of security he delegates
executive authority to the Serjeant at Arms. My line to the Speaker
is direct on security, although my line management is through
the Clerk Assistant and the Clerk. In security terms it is direct.
If I could perhaps just give an example of that, when we had the
Plane Stupid people on the roof of Westminster Hall in February
2008 and it was mooted that there could have been the involvement
of an insider in that investigation, at that stage, because of
this allegation about an insider, I went direct to the Speaker
on that until we had that confirmed, who that person was and who
they were sponsored by. That was an accepted route.
Q738 Chairman: When did you first
learn that terrorist offences were not involved?
Ms Pay: On the Tuesday afternoon
when Chief Superintendent Bateman told me it was to do with the
leaks from the Home Office.
Q739 Chairman: Did that cause you
to reflect on the fact that you had been bidden to exercise absolute
confidentiality on this one?
Ms Pay: No. It had not crossed
my mind that it may have been related to terrorism and that is
why there was the confidentiality. I always understood that the
confidentiality was that the police wanted to keep it very tight
lest anybody outside should hear about the investigation or the
possible arrest.
| 
