Michael Martin is making his statement to the House.

[Swedes]

His face is almost purple with stress. And he's putting on that whiny Scots voice saying: "my hands were tied".

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the constitutional law that should be applied. There was no search warrant {shock]

oooh no warrent

can you please explain this is nice simple terms? from start to finish? i just keep catching bits and pieces.

em honestly no am just enjoying them rowing

Surely it is the job of the Sarjaent at Arms to know whether she has the power to stop the police entering the Palace. I find it really weird that the Speaker said "nobody told her she did not have to authorise entry".

We have something called the rule of law whereby no man (or woman) is above the law. And the police are not above the law either and they need to observe PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) and have things like warrants before they march in and start arresting people and searching through people's things.

All week I've been shouting at the telly, "No not a parliamentary privilege matter, a rule of law and exclusive cognisance (the way the house looks after its own affairs basically) matter".

Ohh. So interesing now.

I can explain it Ruddy:

A Tory frontbencher was being investigated for illegally leaking information he was getting from a civil servant working in the Home Office.

As part of the investigation the police entered Parliament to search his office and computers.

The entry of the police into his Parliamentary office raises constitutional questions. There is something called Parliamentary Privilege which gives MPs certain protections to allow them to carry-out their jobs etc. It is possible tha Parliamentary Privilege was breached by searching an MP's office.

The confusing thing is nobody seems very clear about whether the police did have the right to enter his parliamentary office, or whether the Speaker had the right to stop them.

On top of that people are questionning whether Ministers knew a member of the Opposition was going to arrested and whether the investigation was poltically motives (there is no evidence Minsiters did know).

Lol Swedes - slightly different messages about parliamenary privelege there. Who knows, eh?

The thing is there are cases where privilege protects members from the law. For example if they defame someone during a debate they can't be touched by the law. So in some ways they are above the law.

Parliamentary privilege only gives protection against civil proceedings (eg defamation) it gives no protection in criminal matters and never has.

IS that true Swedes?

If an MP admitted to a criminal activity during a debate in the House could the text of that debate be used as evidence in a court of law?

and also questions about what motivated the police to act as they did when it is absoloutely common practice for MPs to raise issues via info leaked by 'whistle blowers'
As the info was not in any way a matter of national security or anything else that might have conceivably justified arrest can't help wondering why the heavy handed reaction.
Nothing to do with the Home Secretary repeatedly being made to look like an incompetent prat by the leaks I am sure

The thing is Green seems to have sourced his leaks in a very systematic way that is not common. It seems possible that a member of the Opposition may have groomed a loyal Tory worker to apply for a senstive civil service position in order to systematically leak inforamtion.

Green's defense says that it would be a poor day for democracy if the Opposition could not expose embarrassing facts for the Government. That may be true but there are ways of doing that - should one of those ways be compromising civil service neutrality and encouraging civil servants to break the terms of their employment?

Artichokes - you could almost certainly make a decent argument about that, but it is almost irrelevant to anti-terror police holding an MP for 9 hours and searching his offices and siezing his posessions.

If a civil servant breaks the terms of their employment or is so impressionable as to be "groomed" by a politician, that is surely a matter for their line manager to deal with through disciplinary action. It is not terrorism when non-classified information is leaked.

Police arrested D Green on suspicion of "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office" and "aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office". But they have not charged him.

Upwind - they have not used anti-terrorism legislation to arrest Green so I am not sure I get what you are saying.

But why should MPs be any different in terms of how they're treated, Upwind?

If we assume for a moment that they had reasonable cause to suspect a criminal offence had been committed, then arrest, holding while searches are carried out, and searches, are perfectly normal parts of police procedure, aren't they?

Swedes - do you know that answer to my question of 15.22? If you do I would be genuinely interested.

Artichokes - NO they haven't used anti-terrorism legislation. I think you are confused. They used anti-terrorism police to carry out the raid.

The only reason parliamentary privilege is an issue is because people should be able to seek the advice of their MP in total confidence, sometimes about very delicate matters. The police removing this privileged information is a disgrace.

I did not realise they used anti-terrorism police. What were the reasons for that? I thought Upwind was implying they used anti-terrorism legislation which I knew they had not.

Whatfreshhellisthis - if the police wanted to search my office they would need a warrant. Because the police are not above the law either.

I don't dispute that the lack of warrant isn't on - but Upwind seemed to be implying that holding an MP for nine hours was somehow worse than holding anyone else, which I do dispute.

as for the antiterrorism police - if you're going to go search an MP's office, you're not going to use the local bobbies, are you? I suspect they were Scotland Yard officers who may or may not have been antiterrorism units, but I think that's all a bit of a red herring, if he wasn't arrested under anti terror laws.

I can't help but suspect that the real reason this has been such a big issue is because the opposition want to make it look as though the government knew about it and did it on purpose.

and if he was encouraging a Home Office civil servant to feed him information, that's pretty serious stuff.

I don't see how I implied any of those things! I am really not that subtle.

So far at least, there seem to be no grounds to believe that Green was actually involved in any kind of criminal activity. That is why arresting and holding him for 9 hours and using anti-terror police to raid his offices and go through his communications was wrong. Not because he is an MP, because there seems to be no basis for the action taken against him. Leaks of non-classified information are surely traditional? See here for a well known politician admitting to procuring it:

www.order-order.com/2008/11/brown-confesses-to-procuring-misconduct.html

It is serious in that it it should lead to disciplinary action against the person who leaks the information. But hardly illegal? If it is then Gordon Brown should be arrested since he has admitted his guilt.

Upwind's right. Since when was embarrassing the government a crime?

If there was anything important at stake, they'd be prosecuting under the Official Secrets Act, not desperately searching through the dusty old tomes to find some little-used excuse from the 18th Century.

Police action in marching into the Commons without even bothering to check whether they needed a search warrant is a. wrong and b. deeply worrying. If any of us contacts our MP, we are entitled to confidentiality. The police shouldn't be able to snoop without a by your leave.

Shame the Speaker seems never to have noticed all that business with Black Rod. We already have one of the weakest systems of checks and balances on the executive of any democracy and it just got a whole lot worse.

and holding an MP in custody for doing his job is pretty serious IMO.

I don't think the leak itself is the problem, from what I can see. What they're investigating is the systematic leaks which could possibly have been obtained in a rather deliberate way.

My understanding (I could be wrong) is that if MPs receive information they are allowed to leak it, but that they're not allowed to solicit information from government employees, or promise rewards for information, etc. That seems to be what's at stake here, whether the MP encouraged this civil servant to leak information, whether through promises of reward or advancement or whatever.