The BBC has the story of the police's arrival at Daniel Kawczynski MP's Commons office.
Thursday update: The Speaker has rebuked Mr Kawczynski over the matter - BBC report here. And Daniel Kawczyndki has now issued the following statement:
"I welcome the Speaker’s statement to the House in response to my complaint that the police had entered my office without consulting me and threatened to seize potentially confidential constituency correspondence from a young member of my staff and a student intern.
"I wish to make it clear that I fully support the police in all their efforts to keep Members of Parliament, their staff and the public safe and secure. Indeed, had the police approached me personally and explained the circumstances of their investigation, I would have cooperated fully, while obviously ensuring there was no unjustified breach of the duty of confidentiality I owe to my constituents. It goes without saying that if they had not been sure, as they already were in this case, that the substance was not harmful, then protecting public safety would be paramount and I would have made no objection to their actions.
"I do hope, however, that the police will reflect on their actions in this case and learn important lessons: Telephoning an intern to ask if they could come around immediately to show my staff some handwriting samples does not constitute making an appointment with me; stating to junior staff in my absence that if correspondence was not provided voluntarily, they had the power to seize it, was also unacceptable. It was also absolutely clear from the televisions all around Parliament that I was not only in the Chamber at the time but actually making a speech on pensioners and their savings.
"I welcome the Speaker’s ruling that from now on if a Police Officer wishes to enter the office of an MP and to try to secure any documentation he or she will first of all need to inform the Serjeant at Arms and the MP in question. This is important as it will allow the MP and the Commons authorities to make appropriate time to sit down properly with the police and see how best they are able to assist them with their enquiries while properly considering the rights of their constituents."
Cue the usual "Zanu-Lab Police State" comments...
Posted by: Will S | January 21, 2009 at 21:13
It is all highly dubious. I am rather concerned that this can happen after the situation over Damian Green.
Posted by: James Burdett | January 21, 2009 at 21:17
Heir Brown,has go his storm-troopers to do his dirty work again.
Posted by: Richard | January 21, 2009 at 21:17
I wonder is Mugabe taking lessons from Brown,or the other way round? both un-elected,un-wanted,out of touch fools.
Posted by: Richard | January 21, 2009 at 21:20
Looks like plod were seeking evidence in support of another investigation, but failed to have the courtesy to ask for assistance.
Conspiracy or cock-up? The latter I think, but a staggering display of not thinking before acting.
Posted by: John Moss | January 21, 2009 at 21:29
What has actually been done wrong here? The office wasn't searched so is there need of a warrent? I think the big mistake was that of the MP handing over the documents.
The real questions are: How did the police officer conduct himself? Did he ask for a document or demand a document? Did he give the impression to the MP that he had no choice?
What is the procedure? Because the PM and HS have tried to pull off a cover-up with regards to them having Mr Green arrested for doing his job of exposing their previous cover-ups, we haven't been able to have a proper investigation and decision on protocol.
Posted by: Tristan Downing | January 21, 2009 at 21:47
I happened to see him raise it as a point of order in the House. It seems like the police went in to check some correspondence for "handwriting" samples.
It isn't clear whether this is connected to any parliamentary activities, but Kawczynski said (I paraphrase) "it is to my eternal shame that I gave into the police and handed the documents they asked for. It is something I'll live with for the rest of my days"
I think we should avoid jumping to conclusions as it's not clear if the government had anything to do with this. There will be questions about protocal for police operating in parliament, but we should avoid making it too political...for now.
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | January 21, 2009 at 21:52
Speculation.
Google Otis Ferry Daniel Kawczynski
Posted by: tim | January 21, 2009 at 21:59
John Moss
I hope you are right,it is a cock-up,funny how it is always is the Conservative offices though.
Labour claim the Tories still have about 10 very sensitive documents that have been leaked.
Labour would very much like to get that information back before the Tories release the informaton to the public where & when opportunity presents.
Posted by: Richard | January 21, 2009 at 22:03
tim @ 21:59 - I think you could be right!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | January 21, 2009 at 22:30
Of course, if the police were racing into a MP's office to protect them and their staff from chemical attack, no-one would complain. But the police apparently knew it was a "non-noxious" substance they were investigating.
It is a shame that even an 'officer based at the Palace of Westminster' has not realised that going into an MP's office requires some tact; doing so when the Member is actually speaking in the Chamber, without discussion with the Member first, and confronting his staff instead is just plain stupid.
I expect Daniel would happily have cooperated had the situation been handled with some tact, and I am not surprised he reacted angrily. I doubt he handed over confidential constituency correspondence without some significant pressure from the police, given he says he is now shamed he did so.
Perhaps the officer is hoping for a promotion to join Bob Quick's team?
Posted by: torygrandad | January 21, 2009 at 22:59
Maybe they were after his taxpayer funded cornflakes? :-P
(See: http://tinyurl.com/cq62mk)
Posted by: AJJM | January 21, 2009 at 23:45
Office or orifice?
Posted by: GB£.com | January 22, 2009 at 08:09
I am reminded of a scene in a British wartime propaganda film "The Hitler Gang" when just after Hitler had taken emergency powers the scene is a room where a Committee Meeting is taking place. The Chairman is indulging in the usual rather boring procedural matters that we have all had to endure at such meetings and is saying something such as "...I shall therefore move the reference back to the executive at the next plenary meeting..." These are the last words he speaks as the door bursts open and Nazi Stormtroopers enter, shoot him dead and say "All Political Parties are abolished!"
A bit dramatic to be sure but as this is the second Tory MP in a few months to have his Parliamentary Privilege usurped there is something seriously adrift at the House of Commons and it appears that the Tories are on the receiving end. The present Speaker, Gorbals Mick, is a disgrace and a Labour cats-paw. Is there any way that a vote of no confidence in him could be moved? One thing is certain, if the Conservatives do win the next General Election he must be replaced by someone more suited to the task, e.g. Alan Haslehurst.
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 22, 2009 at 10:47
If Daniel Kawczynski had wised to make a stand on this issue he should have withheld the document and told the policeman to b*gger off. If, on the other hand, there was a real and genuine hunt for a mad poisoner then it was his duty to assist.
The police are often lacking in judgement these days and sometimes out of control but I think this incident is a storm in a teacup.
Posted by: David_at_Home | January 22, 2009 at 11:23
Have WE not briefed our MPs on future raids? If not, why not?
Why do the police not know their powers?
The Speaker's office must remonstrate with the police in a very tough way.
Why didn't the MP call someone ie Andrew McKay or the Speaker's Office.
Posted by: Eurofighter | January 22, 2009 at 11:28
What an idiot. I can't believe he handed over the document. These people are supposed to have brains. Why didn't he call someone with a few more wits? There must be someone in the Tory party who knows the law.
Posted by: resident leftie | January 22, 2009 at 12:34
Gorbals Mick has actually admonished Daniel Kawczynski and not the Police!!!!!! Speaker Lenthall must be turning in his grave!
"May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am."
http://www.explore-parliament.net/nssMovies/01/0199/0199_.htm
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 22, 2009 at 22:31
Maybe the MPs want the police to leave them alone, even when they happen to be the target of a crime. You are supposed to be opposed to crime you know!!
The speaker got it about right (for once). Mr Kawczynski might be tall, but if asked to play the part of one of Snow White's friends it would have to be Dopey.
He has now succeeded in 'tipping off' the sender of these letters that the police are on the case. You couldn't make it up.
Posted by: JB | January 22, 2009 at 23:03
The issue is whether or not the police acted in a bad way. Did they demand anything or intimidate staff? Or did they just make a request that the MP agreed to?
Was there a reason not to help the police?
Posted by: Tristan Downing | January 23, 2009 at 01:54
Gorbals Mick is quickly becoming even more of a joke than Brown.
Posted by: Super Blue | January 23, 2009 at 10:51