Daniel Kawczynski MP persists in his complaint about police's arrival in his office

On Thursday the Speaker accused Daniel Kawczynski MP of "rushing" to judgment on the appearance of police officers at his Commons office.  Mr Kawczynski is persisting in his concern that the police behaviour was inappropriate and has written to the Speaker setting out his concerns.  The full text of his letter is pasted below.

> Newsnight's Michael Crick has blogged on the issue and in sympathy with Daniel Kawczynski.

"Mr Speaker

I refer to your Statement to the House in response to my complaint that the Police had entered my office without consulting me and threatened to seize from a young member of my staff and a student intern confidential constituency correspondence. I do feel that it is imperative that I clarify the facts with you regarding what actually happened on Wednesday night.

You mentioned in your Statement that the Police Officer arrived by appointment to see a member of my staff. This is simply not the case; there was no appointment, and the Police Officer in question arrived at my office after telephoning less than five minutes before. Whilst I appreciate that my staff were told that the police were coming to talk to them, I absolutely do not accept that when the police arrived – less than five minutes after their original call – they were doing so by appointment. The police informed my young researcher who has very limited experience of working in the Commons that they would be coming and did not seek any agreement. As I was speaking in the Chamber my researcher obviously could not get hold of me to try to come to the office in order for me to be present when the police came. Your previous ruling that the police had to consult with the Serjeant at Arms before entering an MP’s office seems to me to imply that it is imperative for an MP to be present in his office before the police arrive and start to interact with junior staff.

In approaching my staff directly, the police put them under undue pressure which they should not have had to bear, and in asking my staff to hand over documents the Police Officer in question was asking my researcher to make a decision which simply was not his to make. My team are young, relatively inexperienced, and still learning, and I am extremely protective of them. My researcher took exactly the correct course of action in refusing to hand over the letter when he was told it could be seized and in coming to get me from the Chamber. He should not have had to come to me; the police should have come to me first.

As a fellow Member of Parliament, you will appreciate well how closely I guard the confidence of my constituents. I deal on a daily basis with highly confidential personal documents. My constituents, as well as those of every other Member of this House, must be certain that their personal information will be viewed only by their Member of Parliament and his staff. The police action on Wednesday immediately called this certainty into question and I maintain that I treated this matter with the level of seriousness its implications demanded.

I am disappointed that in your Statement to the House you said that I had rushed to a conclusion before making my Point of Order. I understand well that the police were doing their job, and that they were undertaking an important investigation with a national security undertone. I do feel however, that in putting pressure on my staff to hand over a document which was not theirs to give, the police acted in a way not befitting this House. Had the same happened to your office, I think that you too would have been just as concerned as I was.

I met yesterday with the Serjeant at Arms, as well as with Chief Superintendent Bateman, the most senior Police Officer on the Parliamentary Estate. Having listened to my concerns, they were in agreement with me about how serious the police action was that was taken on Wednesday, and about its implications for the work undertaken by all Members of this House.

Mr Speaker, despite the negative media attention that I have received since raising this issue in the House, I still feel justified in doing so and would take the same course of action again were I to be presented with the same set of circumstances. I feel that the action taken by the police was serious, it needed to be raised, and had I not raised it, I would have been doing my constituents a profound disservice. I thank you for introducing new rules and regulations about the way Members and the police interact with one another as a result of all this and I know that I do not stand alone in my gratitude for clarifying some of the important grey areas remaining after the Damien Green incident.

My understanding from your previous ruling on Damian Green was that the police could not enter an MP’s office without first consulting the Serjeant at Arms. As they did not do this before entering my office and as the Police Officer put my young interns under huge pressure to hand over confidential documents without first consulting me, I felt that the Police Officer had broken the rules which you yourself have made. I therefore had no option but to raise the issue as a Point of Order. I am therefore very disappointed and concerned that you have labelled my actions as being hasty. I hope to raise these concerns with you directly and would be grateful for a meeting at your earliest convenience.

When I finally arrived in my office to meet with the Police Officer she had already got sight of the document she wanted. The division bell had rung whilst I was discussing the case with her and so obviously I had to make a decision much sooner than I would have liked as to whether or not it was appropriate to hand over the letter she wanted. I was on a 3 line whip to vote as it was an Opposition Day motion. Clearly the situation was not condusive at all to discussing such a serious matter with a Police Officer. Why could she have not taken the time to arrange to meet with me directly at a mutually convenient time to sit down and raise the issue with me. That way I would have been more than happy to help with her enquiries and to hand over whatever material she needed.

Finally I am deeply concerned that in the morning immediately after the incident members of my staff and I contacted your office to request a meeting. We were unable to secure one. Obviously such a meeting would have given me the opportunity to clearly set out to you, personally and directly, why I felt compelled to raise this Point of Order. You have made a Statement about my actions without allowing me to put my side of the case to you and this greatly disappoints me.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Daniel Kawczynski MP"

Comments

[Simon]

Speaker Martin gets it wrong - again

The behaviour of the police has been cavalier and not in the best interests of justice or maintaining a good relationship with the Commons

It really is time to get some proper accountability built into our police system. Not to LPAs or the Home Office - but the people.

We pay for them, we deserve proper oversight.

[Norm Brainer]

A well written letter.

I did think the Speaker sounded hasty in saying that Daniel Kawczynski was hasty, and wrong in doing so anyway - is a speaker supposed to gloat like that?
Another reason for the Speaker to go.

Parliament is in a bad way what with Brown & co coming up with crazy policies, denying us of an election or even parliamentary votes (on the few days it stands) then having the Speaker so openly biased and the police seemingly able to just wander in and steal confidential things.

And this reflects on the country with our social and economic stabilty falling apart -Broken Parliament resulting in broken society, broken economy, broken Britain.

[Sally Roberts]

I agree that this is a well-written letter and I am also impressed that Daniel is "protective" of his staff as a good employer should be!
If the Police are found to have lied in their account then this is very serious indeed. However, I am sure they will manage to wriggle out of it somehow!

[AJJM]

Have they given him his cornflakes back yet?

[pp]

The full story suggests Mr Kawczynski deserves a bit more sympathy than he originally got, however MPs are entrusted with the soverignty of this country and should not be suceptible to being pushed around by anyone.

All credit to Mr Kawczynski for immediately admitting and acknowledging his error (which hopefully will be a lesson to all other MPs). Contrasting this with the home (economics) secretary on misuing kinfe crime stats could not be more revealing.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I wonder how Mister Speaker Martin would react, if some police suddenly appeared in his office??? I suspect he would react slightly more strongly, with much WEIGHT thrown around!!!

[Mike Crahart]

I'm beginning to see a pattern here, this is the second time during the watch of the Labour government that this has happened!

New Labor = Old Soviets?

[rugfish]

I have difficulty marrying these two contradictory statements.....

"As a fellow Member of Parliament, you will appreciate well how closely I guard the confidence of my constituents. I deal on a daily basis with highly confidential personal documents. My constituents, as well as those of every other Member of this House, must be certain that their personal information will be viewed only by their Member of Parliament and his staff".

"I would have been more than happy to help with her enquiries and to hand over whatever material she needed".

Is correspondence to MP's from their constituents, 'confidential' or are they not?

If letters had a degree of criminal suspicion about them then surely an MP has no duty to break that confidentiality by allowing them to be "seized" police inquiry which is without a bench warrant, otherwise ANY documents could be categorized suspect within national security laws until proven otherwise?

The Sergeant at Arms, could in that case, have made a decision to allow or not to allow the seizure and the MP would know precisely whether or not to hand over the said documents and have grounds to break his confidentiality.

I smell another rat and trust he will continue to pursue it.

[DJT]

Did you really expect this disgrace of a speaker to find in favour of a Conservative MP? Not a chance!

History will one day look back at Gorbels Mick in disgust!...erm actually we might already be doing that!

[John Ward]

The most interesting thing about all of this is how it has suddenly become almost the norm to enter (Conservative) MPs' offices on very slim pretexts.

Anyone with a knowledge of how Communist and similar regimes came into being will be well aware of how those who wield power use their militia to do their dirty work, and start to gear laws toward that end.

All of this gives vital clues to where our country is heading, which is =several million times more important than any of these individual incidents, important though they nonetheless are.

This country already is a totalitarian State, and will soon be among the worst ever encountered on Planet Earth in recorded history, unless Brown and Co are kicked out with the next few weeks..

[Norm Brainer]

unless Brown and Co are kicked out with the next few weeks..

Well, exactly.
The bad economy and the mess they're making of that is acting like a smokescreen to hide the much worse things that are going on.
We'll still have an economy come a 2010 election (even if it's rescued by the IMF) - money comes and goes, but liberties are hard fought and hard to regain once lost.
It's not just liberties though with harperson creating and entrenching class, race and other segregations which is the path to war.

[David_at_Home]

We all, MPs included, have a moral duty to assist the police to detect crime. There is often a legal requirement to do so too.

The problem is that Britain’s New Model Police “Service” can sometimes be arrogant and overbearing and, occasionally, corrupt. So the individual, MP or otherwise, has to make his decision how to react and I’m sure this can be very difficult when the Plod’s visit is unexpected. My view is that, unless there is a very good reason not to, one should assist the police.

Mr Kawczynski made his decision when the police came knocking, it was probably the correct decision, and he will just have to live with it.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

An honourable member indeed.

[Steve Foley]

As a matter of urgency if Cameron win the next General Election and Mike Martin has not stood down at the Dissolution, kick him upstairs with a Peerage and find a decent Speaker, Alan Haselhurst or even Ming Campbell in his place.

The man is simply not fit for purpose and in the real world would have been sacked from any decent job.

[Gareth]

How did such a dim man become an MP?

[MartinW]

This is extraordinary behaviour by both the police and the Speaker. The timing of the 'police raid' was clearly deliberate - they certainly knew that Daniel Kawczynski was speaking in the Chamber on a whipped motion, and would therefore be safely out of the way. As for the Speaker, the man is a disgrace to the Office. He was ill-informed, not aware of the facts. There is plenty to say about Speaker "Old Labour" Martin, and not much of it complimentary.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I would go along with everything that you have said John Ward @ 15.36, and I will mention a little incident that I witnessed the other day, which would/could fit in with what you have said, it remains to be seen!

I was watching the News on an independent station (obviously not the BBC!) and one of the senior political reporters for the station, was at a news briefing that Brown was giving. The person stood up and asked a pretty 'straight' question (which I cannot exactly remember now - only the effect and image!), Brown answered him, obviously annoyed, but it was the threat in his manner and in his voice as well as what he said, that made a shiver run down my spine - and I am not a shrinking violet. I am not making this up, I was shocked at the time, and I haven't seen the reporter since. Maybe he has had some leave, or is just behind the camera, after all all the reporters seem to take turns in front of the camera.

[David Sergeant]

The police were not only wrong, they deliberately used underhand tactics. The point is that the Speaker mislead parliament in order to cover up the police failings. And the media arn't interested.

[tim]

Why has the Tory front bench distanced itself from Daniel?

[Super Blue]

Why has the Tory front bench distanced itself from Daniel?

Posted by: tim | January 24, 2009 at 22:06

Because he is quite clearly in the right. I was managing a Deputy Speaker's surgery this morning and even he is embarrassed about Gorbals Mick's antics.

[Super Blue]

Sorry, Tim, read a "not" that you didn't use. My second paragraph holds. However, we should be supporting Big Daniel against "Grumpy" Martin (to continue another poster's analogy).

[Alex Swanson]

I sympathise with Daniel, but . . .

. . . it must be remembered that the police have for years been demanding extra powers and laws, up to and including the authority to shoot innocent people dead without warning, and that the Conservative Party has blindly supported them. People like myself have been complaining for years about police abuse of power, and the Tory leadership has frankly treated us with contempt. Perhaps in future such experiences will be taken a little more seriously.

[Tapestry]

Gorbals Mick is a cowardly NAZI pig, whose behaviour is stinking out the Commons. He is fit for electoral slaughter at the earliest opportunity, along with economy-wrecking Leninist Brown. Where did all these shits appear from? Surely the Labour Party has one or two people vaguely resembling human beings they could call on to serve. It appears they don't.

Dan Kawzynski is a brave man with his long neck stuck firmly out for what he knows to be right, and against what he knows to be wrong. We should back him to the hilt, and Cameron too, or it shows weak and valueless leadership.

[Super Blue]

PS The Speaker misunderstands the people of Britain. We don't mind paying his air fares between London and Glasgow. I would pay the next one myself: ONE WAY!

[john p reid]

sally said if the polcie have lied then that is serious , a lie os willingly misleading someone by alterign the perception or defintion of the facts to give an untruth, if one the other hand daniel kawcynski has lied then he should apologise too

[Super Blue]

PS On tonight's news: the next Commissioner will be Sir Paul Stephenson, Blair Minor's no. 2.

The policing regime that shot an innocent Brazillian and arrived mob-handed to arrest Damian Green. More of the same to come, I'm afraid.

[Cheap Air Jordans]

I believe the fate, believe firmly can look for the life in the world here of another half.