Member News
The Metropolitan police's decision to launch the surprise arrest of MP Damian Green was "disproportionate" and ill-handled, a Commons committee has said.
While not guilty of a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, the conduct of the police in this matter "clearly fell below acceptable standards".
The committee also said former Speaker Michael Martin "failed to exercise the ultimate responsibility, which was his alone, to take control and not merely to expect to be kept informed".
Green, shadow immigration minister, was detained by counter terrorism police on November 2008.
His Commons office was searched as part of an investigation into a leak from the home office.
Police did not obtain a warrant for the search on the parliamentary estate, which angered many MPs.
Green was not charged with any offences, despite being told he could face life in jail if convicted.
The committee was set up to examine police searches on the parliamentary estate.
It has criticised the House authorities, the home office and the Met police in its report.
"We consider that home office officials were at fault in allowing an exaggerated impression to be formed by the cabinet office of the damage done by the leaks," the MPs said.
"The reference to national security in the letter from the cabinet office to the Met police of 8 October 2008 was ill-judged.
"We agree with the home affairs committee that giving the impression that national security had been damaged by the home office leaks was hyperbolic and unhelpful."
There is strong criticism of the police's approach - "difficult to understand or justify" - and their arrest of Green - "poorly executed and in any case quite unnecessary, since the police could have arranged to interview him by appointment".
The MPs also condemned covert use of electronic surveillance, and said the search warrants obtained were "sloppy" and "their inconsistency with the true character of the leaks uncovered in the actual investigation which must have been known and understood as a result of the scoping operation".
"We would expect the House authorities to co-operate fully with police operations genuinely directed against a possible terrorist threat, but they ought not to allow a mistaken perception that alleged offences might be linked to terrorism to over-ride their better judgement," the committee said.
"We consider that the failure by any police officer expressly to advise the Serjeant at Arms of the right to refuse consent was symptomatic of the sloppy approach of the police in this case.
"It is true that failure to do so does not necessarily make a subsequent search unlawful but there was no excuse not to observe proper procedure."
The committee concluded that "seriously inadequate communication" between three key figures — Speaker, Clerk of the House and Serjeant at Arms — resulted in complete misunderstanding about the proper process for allowing a search of a MP's office.
"Had all three been more persistent in their questions and more forthcoming in their responses they must surely have appreciated the nature of events and their unfolding significance.
"We agree with Lord Martin of Springburn that the House officials should have served the Speaker better, and the Clerk of the House has rightly apologised that matters were not better handled; but it was inescapably Mr Speaker Martin's responsibility to make sure the right questions were asked.
"Mr Speaker Martin failed to exercise the ultimate responsibility, which was his alone, to take control and not merely to expect to be kept informed."
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd