Downing Street Says » Leak inquiry

Asked for the Prime Minister’s view on the conduct of the operation in the House of Commons to search Damian Green’s offices, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) replied that that the Prime Minister’s view on this matter in general was as he had said on Friday, that this was a matter for the police and it would be inappropriate to comment on the specifics of this case. The Prime Minister did believe that there were a number of important principles that needed to be considered. The first was as the Leader of the House was saying yesterday, that the law should not interfere with MPs doing their job, but it was also the case that MPs were not above the law. The third principle was that the impartiality and the professionalism of the Civil Service should not be undermined, and finally that the police should be operationally independent. So there were a number of important principles that needed to be considered, and there would be a time when any specific issues arising from this investigation could be discussed, but it would not be appropriate to get into a discussion now of the specifics of this case. This was for two reasons, firstly because it could potentially undermine an ongoing police investigation and it was important that we did not compromise the operational independence of the police. Secondly, we did not know the full facts of this case and therefore it was important that we did not rush to judgement. We needed to know what the full facts were before reaching any judgements on this.

Put that the “there will be a time” phrase was the same used about an inquiry into Iraq, and asked why the Government would not announce that there would be an inquiry once the police investigation was over, the PMS replied that there was an ongoing police investigation and we did not know what the facts were yet, and therefore everybody needed to be very careful about reaching any particular conclusions from this case because we were all operating in an environment where we did not know what all the facts were in this case.

Put that Harriet Harman seemed to be saying that there was a case for looking both at the law, and the police processes, and asked if she was speaking for herself or on behalf of the Government, the PMS replied that there may well be a time when it was right to look at any specific issues arising from this case, that was the point that Harriet Harman was making yesterday. But we could not do that without knowing what the facts of this case were, and we could not do that in a way that would potentially undermine the operational independence of the police in what was an ongoing police investigation.

Asked if we had any idea of the timeframe for this, the PMS replied that this was entirely a matter for the police.

Asked in what way was the Prime Minister fearful that the impartiality of the Civil Service had been undermined in this case, the PMS replied that this was not what he had said. He said that this was an important principle that we needed to bear in mind. At the moment there was an ongoing police investigation and we were not going to comment on any specific aspects of that investigation, and everyone should wait until we knew what the full facts were before passing judgement.

Asked what the Prime Minister thought were the important things to bear in mind when receiving information, as an experienced recipient of leaks, the PMS replied that this was not a very subtle way of asking him to comment on this case, which he was not going to do.

Asked to comment on the specific cases that the Prime Minister himself was involved in, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister had set out in general, and Harriet Harman had made clear, the principles that should be upheld. But he was not going to get drawn into a discussion about this specific case.

Asked if it was possible to make a distinction between information offered and information cajoled and encouraged from a civil servant, the PMS replied that he was not going to comment on the interpretation of the law. These were matters that were rightly for the police and the relevant authorities.

Asked about a leak inquiry launched into the Treasury’s leaking of market sensitive before last week’s Pre-Budget Report, the PMS replied that any questions about Budget leaks were best addressed to the Treasury.

Asked if there were any other ongoing police investigations into leaking, the PMS replied that he was not aware of any.

Put that Jacqui Smith had said that she was aware of the leak investigation going on and asked if the Prime Minister knew, and did he also know of the extent to which security had been breached, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister was aware that in general terms there was a leak inquiry underway, and he was also informed after the event that a Home Office official had been arrested.

Asked if he was aware that it was a police leak inquiry, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister was aware that there had been an arrest, and therefore by definition there was a police inquiry.

Asked if he was aware that an MP formed part of the inquiry, the PMS replied “no”.

Asked if there had been any discussions in No10 about a leak inquiry or a police investigation into Treasury leaks, the PMS replied that it was really a matter for the Treasury.

Put that people may not know the full specifics of the case, but one thing everyone did know was that a parliamentary office was searched, and asked if that was a concern for the Prime Minister, the PMS replied that there were a number of principles here that needed to be upheld. One of them was that the law should not interfere with MPs doing their jobs, and the PMS referred journalists to what Jacqui Smith said on this yesterday – “any investigation that involved an investigation of a senior political figure or elected representative was highly sensitive, and decisions needed to be taken very carefully about it.” But we also needed to be clear that MPs were not above the law, we did not know the full facts in this case, and therefore until we knew what they were and until the police investigation had been concluded, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on them.

Asked if the Wilson Doctrine still applied now the police were reading their way through Damian Green’s correspondence, the PMS replied that the Wilson Doctrine did still apply. But the principle that MPs were not above the law also applied.

Asked if any guidance had been issued to the police about how one should go about reading an MP’s correspondence, the PMS replied that there had been no attempt by the Government to interfere with a police investigation.

Asked why the Leader of the House did seem prepared to say that there would be an inquiry, the PMS replied that the Leader of the House did not say that. We did not know what the full facts were at this point in relation to this case. There may well be a time when we would need to look at any specific issues that arise from this case, but that time is not now.

Put that he had said the law should not impede an MP’s ability to do his job, and asked how Damian Green was supposed to do his job without his computers, mobile phone and email account, the PMS replied that he was not going to comment on the specifics of this case. It was also important that MPs were not above the law. We were not claiming that this case did not raise some difficult and very sensitive issues. Clearly it did as the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House acknowledged yesterday. But we were going to be very careful about commenting on the specifics of this case. We were not going to comment on this specific case at all until the police investigation had run its course, and until we knew what the full facts were. We did not know what the full facts were, and neither did anybody in this room.

Put that wanting to know the full facts before commenting implied that the Government was willing to have an inquiry to find out what the full facts were, the PMS replied that at some point more information would be known that was known at the moment about this case. That was the nature of any police investigation. At the moment we did not know what the full facts were, we did not know the exact reasons why the police had acted in the way they had. We were not going to do anything or say anything that would in any way comprise the police investigation, and we were not going to comment until we were in full possession of all the facts.

Put that there had been no attempt to interfere, and asked if there had been any contact between the Government and the police over the weekend about this case, the PMS replied that it was best to talk to the Home Office about the specifics. But so everyone was clear, there had been no attempt, nor would there be any attempt, by the Government to interfere with the specifics of a police investigation of this kind.

Asked if it would be legitimate for the Home Secretary to request an update from the police on the inquiry, the PMS replied that the Home Secretary would not be doing anything that would in any way comprise the operational independence of the police.

1 Comment »

The Speaker is now a palpable joke. Martin out!
Comment by tony — 2 Dec 2008 on 9:49 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, December 1, 2008

Leak inquiry

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries