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]

This is useful:

"chapter seven of Erskine May ? parliament's rule book ? states that parliamentary privilege has never "prevented the operation of the criminal law"."

and this:

Whitehall sources said national security fears were raised even though none of the four Home Office documents released to the press by Green was related to the issue. They said the systematic nature of the leaks, and the fact they originated from the home secretary's private office, raised fears that a mole with access to national security documents was at large.

this is what Mandelson said:

"The separate and equally important issue is the apparent relationship between the opposition and a Home Office official, who in an attempt to pursue his political ambitions in the Conservative party, allegedly, systematically passed sensitive and classified Home Office papers to the Conservative party, apparently in the full knowledge of the Conservative frontbench and in complete breach of the civil service code and the law."

Whatfreshhell - I suspect there will be no such charges brought.

I think the Speaker, Michael Martin, should resign, he is incompetent. And I don't believe Gordon Brown was unaware of what was going on.

Also, do you all think Brown and Darling should be arrested under the same ancient common law for procuring Robert Peston (BBC) to leak financial news about the banking crisis?

WhatFresh - I think you are right that the use of anti-terrorism police is a red-herring. According to Sir John Stephenson "He was arrested by counter-terrorism officers because special branch, which used to deal with cases like this, has merged with the counter-terrorism command". So actually he was arrested by Special Branch.

MPs are entitled to expose information that happend to come into their possession but to entice a civil servant to leak is wrong. This civil servant had stood for a Tory seat and worked for Green before joining the civil service. He seems to have systematically leaked, in the knowledge that the Tory front bench knew, and therefore probably because he expected his career to benefit.

Swedes - what evidence is there that Peston was procured to leak? First of all how do we know he got his info from Government (quite a few city types were party to the same info before it was announced). Also Peston would not have been promised rewards in terms of promotion or future work for the Government.

Also if Minsiters knew in advance about Green's arrest then why the police are denying it while admiitting that they told Boris Johnson, David Camerson, Dominic Greive and the Speaker? Do you really beleive the police would be that willing to lie to please the Government?

I doubt there will be charges brought either, as it will be difficult to prove.

Brown Darling and Robert Peston is different though, isn't it - Robert Peston is not a government employee and presumably did not solicit the information, it's just assumed he would want it, as a BBC journo.

They shouldn't have leaked the information, but that's the not the same issue as someone deliberately encouraging a civil servant to break the law.

Passing confidential information to anyone not allowed to view it is illegal - the civil servant was clearly breaking the law.

Aiding and abetting and encouraging someone to break the law is also illegal.

But leaking information you have received that you didn't ask to receive is tolerated if it's in the public interest. So if Damian Green was passed the information without asking for it, he could leak it. But if he was asking this civil servant to pass it to him, especially if he was promising advancement of some sort in return, that's very serious, especially considering where this man worked and the level of access he had.

The lack of a warrant seems to have been a fuck up, but I REALLY don't believe that Special Branch would fail to tell the Serjeant at Arms that they had the right to refuse the search, that's basic police procedure. I suspect some arse covering going on.

"I REALLY don't believe that Special Branch would fail to tell the Serjeant at Arms that they had the right to refuse the search"

The Serjeant at Arms is a very high ranking officer of Parliament. She is paid around £100k a year. Her job is to run security in Parliament. I cannot beleive she needed to be told she had the right to refuse a search. I know that and I do not work in the field. For her not to advise the Speaker that they had the right to refuse a warrant-less search is . However, she may have known and she may have told him, he has a history of blaming staff for his own cock-ups.

Isn't the point that the civil servant (forgotten his name in this instance, sorry) is a public servant? If a public servant feels informaiton should be in the public domain then he is isn't necessarily morally corrupt if he seeks to use HM's loyal opposition in order to bring the information to the attention of the public.

Swedes - civil servants work for the Government of the day. They should be politically neutral so that they can earn the trust of whichever Party is elected. They are bound by a code that says they will not leak. If they do leak then it undermines their credibility in the eyes of Minsiters and you will soon end up with a US type system where almost all government employees are poltiical appointees because the President would trust nobody else. Do we want Whitehall run by 100,000 political appointees like Alastair Campbell?

Also, it is one thing for a civil servant to decide to leak one piece of info because they sense corruption or criminal intent. But to continuously leak bits and bobs of info is different. Especially if that leak is encouraged by promises of reward from the Opposition.

exactly artichokes - I suspect arse covering both by the Speaker and the Serjeant - please miss, they never said we had the right to refuse the search.....

but leaving all that aside, a good proportion of MPs making lots of fuss about parliamentary privilege are Tories trying to discredit the government, and cover up the fact that their Party was acting deeply dubiously.

it's all a fuss about nothing.

The most important part of this whole debacle is that the Home Secretary and other Government memberss were attempting to hide information that should have been in the public domain. Over and over again.

If it is true that D Green was promising some sort of Conservative office reward to the civil servant concerned then the police will no doubt charge Green. Until they do so Green is innocent.

hmmm - interestingly though Swedes, the information isn't what the Opposition is making the most fuss about. In fact it's hardly even mentioned in the whole thing.

They're getting all exercised about whether parliamentary privilege has been breached, because they know damn well they were completely in the wrong to solicit the information in the first place.

Whatfreshhell - Well parliamentary privilege being breached means that DGreen's confidential matters between his constituents and their MP have become non confidential. It is absolutely right that this should be dealt with first and foremost.

Any discussion on the specifics of the case at this stage would be sub judice as D Green might be charged and specific discussion would be prejudicial to the case.

I don't agree that the possible breach of confidentiallity between Green and his constituents should be dealt with first and foremost.

Of first and foremost concern is whether a member of the Opposition Front Bench broke the law.

The confidentiality matter is secondary IMO. Partly because it is Special Branch that saw the info, not the national press or any old gossip. Secondly, does the confidential nature of MP's constituency correspondance really require special protections above the law? More so than correspondance with doctors? Teachers? Social Workers? If this had been a police raid of a social worker's office none of this fuss would be made and yet they are liekly to have information that is just as sensitive.

"Any discussion on the specifics of the case at this stage would be sub judice as D Green might be charged and specific discussion would be prejudicial to the case."

Which is why Cameron should have thought carefully about going into the details of the alleged leaks during the debate today.

holding an MP for something that isn't a crime IS bloody important.

And also leaking information (not under the official secrets act), as case law has shown, is not illegal. It may be sackable for, but it is not ILLEGAL.

And yes, correspondence between an MP and constituents does deserve special protection and GETS special protection under the law. And this was interfered with by the police. I don't think people understand the fragility of democracy.

It does nto get special protection under the law, it gets it under parliamentary privilege and that is different to statute law. And it is questionnable whether privilege was breached in this case.

Absolute privilege is part of the law.

And it doesn't only protect MPs.

I have noticed that no one has actually been charged with anything? Classic "police state" tactics to put the frighteners on someone.

I think Michael Martin should resign. He has been an awful speaker and this is the cherry on the cake.

Well, I'd certainly consider my confidentiality had been breached if some coppers decided to seize my correspondence from my MP's office, thanks very much. I didn't write to Inspector Nark of the Yard.

It's not a Labour/Tory issue - although of course lickspittles like Mandelson will try to use tribal loyalties to distract everyone from the main issues. But there are members of every party who are extremely concerned about this.

It's a scary world out there, with the police assuming they can just ride roughshod over the law at the very same time as the jury in the Jean Charles de Menezes case are being prevented from doing their job.

Nice. Not only are the Met happy to carry on shooting innocent people, juries aren't even allowed to consider that they may have broken the law, and the frighteners are being put on our elected representatives.

Yes with regards to the de Menezes case the judge has instructed the jury to decide between "lawful killing" or an "open verdict". Can not for the life of me understand why the jury cannot come up with its own verdict. It stinks.

It's a coroner, not a judge. And coroners are a law unto themselves.

AFAIK the role of the jury at an inquest is to determine how the deceased came to die. Cannot understand then why the jury is being prevented from doing their job.