Later this morning I expect the CPS to announce that they will not prosecute either Damian Green or Chris Galley for misconduct in public office or conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office. Readers of this blog will know that I think the initial bringing in of the police, and the arrests, were a scandal – a scandal obscured by the silly, wrong-headed “controversy” about the entirely lawful search of Damian Green’s office; I am also not satisfied that the police and CPS have acted speedily enough in resolving this matter. It seems to me they have had more than ample time to consider this before now.
But what concerns me right now is the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report into this affair, and its Chairman, Keith Vaz’s, interview this morning in which he assured BBC listeners that he is confident that calling the police in was all the work of civil servants and that no ministers were involved in the decision.
What? His committee heard evidence that the Home Secretary was not only frustrated about the leaks before the police were called in (Jacqui Smith’s answer to question 13), and not only angry about them (Sir David Normington’s answer to question 14) but that she had steam coming out of her ears about it (Sir David Normington’s answer to question 15); that her view – not simply civil servants’ – was that secret information might be at risk (Jacqui Smith’s answer to question 11), that the two of them took the decision together to begin an inquiry (Sir David’s answer to question 16), that at the time civil servants wrote to the police on 8 october 2008 the Home Secretary was being kept informed weekly of what was going on (Sir David’s answer to question 36), and that Jacqui Smith agreed with the decision to refer the matter to the police (Jacqui Smith’s answer to question 53).
Here’s the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which, although it does refer (para. 7) to ministers’ frustration about the leaks, fails for some reason to mention the Home Secretary’s agreement to bringing the police in (para. 10) but talks of it as a decision taken by Sir David and “the Cabinet Office” – the committee seems never to have asked whether Cabinet Office ministers were consulted at all. The committee concludes that the frustration of civil servants led them to exaggerate the national security implications of the leaks – failing to mention ministers’ frustration. And finally, Keith Vaz’s words this morning depart significantly from the evidence his committee heard, in as much as he says ministers had no involvement at all.
Something very wrong is happening here. The Home Secretary had steam coming out of her ears and agreed with referral to police: had she not agreed, clearly no reference would have been made. Yet Keith Vaz chooses to interpret what happened as entirely the work of civil servants? I don’t think the evidence his committee heard justifies what he said this morning, and I suspect him of minimising ministers’ role for political reasons. In the worst traditions of loyalty to politicians rather than the public, the civil service will take the rap for this matter as though it had acted on its own; and Labour MPs are happy to whitewash their party seniors, failing in their duty to hold government to account. We need an inquiry into Keith Vaz as much as anything else.
A final point on a side issue: the committee, while urging a debate about whether to refer the searhc of Green’s office to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and unfortunately perpetuating the myth that Parliamentary Privilege was involved at all, nonetheless also concludes that the search followed “the procedure set down in statute”. In other words, it was lawful.
The search of Damian Green’s office was lawful and parliamentary privilege never protected members from criminal investigations.
Of course Ministers knew full well everything about the decision to call in the Police. Given the nature of the present government, it is quite simply unimaginable that the civil service would act on its own.
let me pay my compliments on a very clear, and well-researched, blog entry. The detail, and coverage, makes a compelling case, and this detail is sadly lacking in so much of the broadcast and written media.
per