What a mess this is. The Speaker's astonishing statement yesterday, a masterclass in buck-passing, sought to blame both his own hand-picked Serjeant at Arms and the Police. The Serjeant had not known she was supposed to have a warrant, and the police violated their own code of conduct by not informing her she had the right to refuse.
Well, somebody has been telling porkies.
The Metropolitan Police have released a copy of their letter to the Home Secretary. In it, Commissioner Bob Quick flatly denies he did not tell Jill Pay she had the right to refuse. Furthermore, he says she even sought legal advice, and knew perfectly well she had the right to refuse.
Here's the money quote from the letter:
"The officers informed the Serjeant at Arms that the provisions of Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act required that they first seek consent of the person who occupies or controls the premises where they believe evidence may be found.
The officers explained the nature of the investigation and the purpose of the search and were satisfied that the Serjeant at Arms understood that police had no power to search in the absence of a warrant and therefore could only do so with her written consent or that of the Speaker. Prior to giving written consent the Serjeant at Arms told the officers that she would seek legal advice."
Who is being economical with the actualite? Did Jill Pay misinform the Speaker, saying she was never told she could refuse? Did the Speaker "misspeak" to the House? Are the police lying about what they actually said to the Serjeant at Arms?
This is serious stuff. The Conservatives have been ably led by Michael Howard MP and QC on this matter. His case for the prosecution should not rest until the inconsistency between Martin's statement and Quick's is clarified.
