So it was all Jill Pay’s fault. That was Michael Martin’s verdict. He didn’t know. The Serjeant At Arms should have asked for a warrant and she didn’t. Nor did he shrink from dumping on her. He’ll grant a debate on Monday and set up a committee of grandees (just as he did with the expenses furore). Here are the key points from the Speaker’s statement.
–“Parliamentary privilege has never prevented the operation of criminal law” – except when they’re dodging expenses fraud, or voting to exempt themselves from their own FOI laws.
— “On Wednesday last, the Met informed the Serjeant at Arms that an arrest was contemplated. I was told in the strictest confidence by her that a member might be arrested and charged, but not further details were given to me.” So this would have been a good time to go on full alert? Dust down the Commons rule book? It seems not.
— “I have been told that the police did not explain, as they were required to do, that the Serjeant at Arms was not obliged to consent or that a warrant could have been insisted upon.” So he’s accusing the police of deceiving the Serjeant at Arms. But she should have known warrants anyway. An ex-soldier, as the Serjeant At Arms used to be, might have more of an excuse for not knowing this but Jill Pay was a Head Office Keeper in the Commons for ten years before taking her job. And she still didn’t know the rules?
— “I regret that a consent form was then signed by the Sergeant At Arms without consulting the clerk of the house”. A sackable offence, then. And you have to ask why Martin, having been alerted to this a day earlier, wasn’t more closely on the case.
— “I must make it clear to the House I was not asked the question of whether consent should have been given or whether a warrant should have been insisted upon.” But he should have made damn sure that, knowing an arrest was coming, he was ready for the police when they’d come. He did’t.
— “From now on a warrant will always be required” – growls of anger. This should always have been the case
— “Every case will have to be referred for my personal decision” – so he isn’t going to resign, then.
— “I have decided myself to refer the matter of the seizure of material to a committee of seven senior and experienced members nominated by me to report as soon as possible”. Urgh, not again. His Members Estimate Committee was a dozen grandees with 136 years experience between them.
And the points or order…
— MICHAEL HOWARD kicks off but went too slowly laying out the details of his case. When he got to “this attack was entirely without precedent…” the Speaker interrupts him. “This is a point of order, and not a debate.” He’s right, technically, but they all have something to say.
— MENZIES CAMPBELL next – I suspect a co-ordinated old ex-leaders thang. Ming looking down at his notes every two seconds, reminding everyone why he was a such a dire Lib Dem leader.
— JOHN REID comes back, with his trademark flash of menace. “We are all, as citizens of this country, subject to the law” – party politics coming here. “Some of these points would carry a little more weight had it been made in [the Levy investigation] period]
— DAMIAN GREEN takes the stage – people will know who he is, for once! “An MP endangering national security would be a disgrace” and then his money shot “The day when exposing facts that ministers would prefer to keep hidden is a crime will be a bad day for democracy in this country.”
— DENIS MACSHANE “As a former minister, the systematic breach of confidence in a minister’s office destroys confidence in democratic government especially when it is colluded and complicit with one of the Opposition parties.” Again, Labour siding with police. Note the suggestion: that Green was not just picking up brown envelopes, but ordering leaks.
— DAVID WINNICK doesn’t just breath, but breathes fire. “There was, sir, a breach of parliamentary convention and I would like to see a position where the senior police officers involced came to the house to explain their conduct”
So Martin will hang on to the end. He shouldn’t. And personally, I thought it pathetic of him to dump on Pay. While it was primarily her fault, he should have been right on the case because he was warned. I suggested he should resign out of protest, not guilt, and CoffeeHousers – Craig and Carol-Ann –reproved me saying that he’s not the type to go under any circumstances. They were right.
Comments