ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Damian Green wants his DNA back

Ten days ago, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling demanded that the Government put a stop to storing the samples of innocent people on the national DNA database.

No surprise then, that shadow home affairs minister Damian Green - a free man after the CPS decided not to prosecute him over the Home Office leaks - is making an issue out of the fact that his DNA is now stored on that database.

According to The Times:

A sample was taken when he was arrested in connection with leaks from the Home Office and can be retained even though he has not been charged. The law also allows samples taken from people who are subsequently acquitted to be kept.

The Ashford MP and Tory immigration spokesman is to ask Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to remove his sample from the database. He said: "I believe that no innocent people should have their DNA on the database."

Quite right too.

Jonathan Isaby

Damian Green will NOT face charges over Home Office leaks

The Director of Public Prosecutions has just announced that Damian Green will not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.

The DPP said that the information handled was not secret, did not relate to national security, military or policing matters and that it was not highly confidential. He even added that some of the information leaked touched on "legitimate matters of public interest".

The Telegraph has published the DPP's decision in full.

Great news for democracy and a tremendous relief to Damian and his family.

CPS to rule tomorrow on the Damian Green case

Sky News are reporting that tomorrow the Crown Prosecution Service is to announce its decision on whether to proceed with a case following the arrest of shadow immigration minister Damian Green last November.

A decision is expected to be made public at 11am.

Mr Green was arrested and his house and Commons office searched (without a warrant, lest we forget) as the police investigated leaks from the Home Office, reportedly coming from a civil servant, Christopher Galley, who had met with Damian Green on various occasions and passed on information which he felt was in the public interest.

As long ago as mid-December it was being reported that the case was set to be dropped, but there is at present no indication of what the CPS decision tomorrow will be.

The ConservativeHome view remains that Mr Green was acting in the public interest and the sooner this cloud no longer hangs over him, the better.

Jonathan Isaby

Conservatives demand that innocent people's DNA must not be stored by the state

Some in the party - especially members of the David Davis and Dominic Grieve fan clubs - have privately expressed concerns about whether the recently-appointed shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, shares his predecessors' commitment to civil liberties.

He may be putting a different emphasis on the home office brief, but today Mr Grayling will please the civil libertarians in the party by championing the plight of the millions of inncoent people whose DNA is being stored by the Government.

He is demanding an immediate end to the practice and accuses the Government of breaking a European Court ruling by storing the samples as it currently does, a huge number of which are from innocent people - including tens of thousands of children - tested purely in order to eliminate them from criminal inquiries.

Mr Grayling says:

“People know that I believe we should be tough on crime. DNA data plays an important part in many modern criminal investigations. So it should be taken and used where needed.

"But I also believe in the fundamental principles of our nation – and one of the most important of those is that people are innocent until proven guilty. So if the system judges someone innocent, or if they are only peripherally involved in a case, there is no excuse for storing their DNA indefinitely.

"This practice has now clearly been ruled illegal by the courts. It is morally wrong as well. Yet Ministers are dithering about what to do. It’s very simple. They should stop breaking the law, and remove this data right now.”

The Conservative Party is announcing proposals to build on the existing system in place in Scotland, which would only allow Ministers to order DNA from innocent people to be retained in cases involving some sexual and violent offences – and only then for up to five years (rather than indefinitely).

Incidentally, this is also a theme which Hammersmith and Fulham MP Greg Hands took up in this CentreRight post last summer: his DNA has remained on the national database after he was interviewed in the wake of his uncle's murder.

Jonathan Isaby

Liam Fox attacks Muslim fanatics who branded British soldiers as "babykillers" during homecoming parade

Soldiers returning from Iraq - and marching through Luton as part of a homecoming parade - were greeted with banners branding them as "butchers, war criminals, murderers, terrorists — and baby killers" by Islamic extremists.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Express: “This was a very offensive protest by a tiny number of known extremists who should not be allowed to tarnish the reputation of Luton’s Muslim community."

The police had to form a protective cordon around the Islamic fanatics when local people turned against them:

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox called the protests “disgraceful, appalling and offensive”.  He continued "It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests."  'The Sun Says' agrees:

"Our brave troops have enough to put up with as they risk life and limb in Afghanistan and Iraq.  To top it all, now they fly home to vicious abuse from Islamic fanatics.  The Royal Anglians had to face a chanting mob waving grotesque placards accusing THEM of terrorism and child murder.  Astonishingly, this despicable demo went ahead with police approval.  When it turned predictably ugly, who did our brave bobbies arrest?  Not the extremists who started the trouble, but a couple of locals who rallied to Our Boys’ defence."

What do readers think?  Should the police have approved this "despicable demo"?  I think not.  It was the wrong time and wrong place for such protests.

Tim Montgomerie

Will recession impact the debate on civil liberties?

The Economist wants to know.  The Bagehot column questions the depth of the party's commitment to civil liberties:

"The Tories... are recent and wavering converts to the eccentrics’ cause. Chris Grayling, the new shadow home secretary, has made manly noises about wanting “fewer rights, more wrongs”. Other leading Tories are privately more authoritarian than their party’s officially liberal line. But they have made some commitments—to scrap ID cards, for example—that will be difficult to disavow, if and when they take office."

It reviews the trends that might impinge on civil liberties and those that will help them to flourish:

To impinge: "Precedents in Britain and elsewhere do indeed suggest that freedom often contracts in line with GDP. People get angry. They misbehave: crime may rise, as a leaked Home Office memo predicted last year. They march, demonstrate and occasionally riot: newspapers this week reported lurid police warnings about a forthcoming “summer of rage”. They become more susceptible to extreme, xenophobic voices: there is widespread anxiety in British politics about a breakthrough by the loathsome British National Party at the European elections in June. Capturing a Euro-seat would represent a triumph for the far right greater than any achieved by Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts in the 1930s. The big risk to civil rights could come in the way the government responds: in the methods it uses to contain the wrath, to cater to it and to distract the wrathful. It would, sadly, be unsurprising if ministers were to echo far-right rhetoric about immigrants instead of wholeheartedly repudiating it; they might tout even more inhumane policies towards asylum-seekers and terrorist suspects. Demos may be met with harsh counter-measures (Liberty was formed to protest against police treatment of the “hunger marchers” who came to London during the Depression)."

To flourish: "Even if penury encourages ministers to take shortcuts, a lack of cash for security projects will help. The technology of unfreedom is costly: number-plate recognition systems, identity cards and the government’s assorted, panopticonic databases of DNA and other information are hugely expensive (always much more so than is at first estimated). They will be a much harder political sell when spending in other areas is being cut. Faith in such databases has anyway been undermined by civil servants’ unfortunate habit of leaving discs and computers on trains, by the pool, etc. That incompetence has contributed to a general loss of confidence in government. The campaigners’ hope is that, as public disenchantment sharpens, it will take in a scepticism about over-mighty criminal-justice policy as well as about economic oversight."

Iain Dale has blogged about tomorrow's session at the Convention on Modern Liberty on The Right and Civil Liberties.

David Cameron tells Iain Dale that extra state funding of political parties is "last thing you want to spend money on" during these tough times

Iain Dale has released the advance text of an extended interview with David Cameron.  It will be published in full on Wednesday in the March issue of Total Politics magazine.

Some highlights are pasted below:

Any extra state funding for political parties is off the agenda in these "straightened" times: "There is no enthusiasm for state funding. I would like to have the cap at £50,000 and I have always argued that if you can deliver that, then there might be some legitimisation of some limited state funding, but at a time of straightened public finances it’s about the last thing you want to spend any money on. So I absolutely recognise we will need to do better on small donations. Could that be accompanied by some sort of tax relief on donations to encourage giving? Maybe that’s one answer. What we want is parties that have, as a matter of course, to engage massively with people in order to win support and win donations at the same time. Any reform has got to be focused on that. Yes, we do still take some very big donations because we have to compete with the Labour Party who can literally pick up the phone to three unions and get the money, but we have massively broadened the number of people giving £50,000."

Lords reform is also a low priority: "In terms of reform, having a more elected chamber, which is what I favour, to be frank is not an urgent priority. The urgent priority is to sort out the economy and introduce social reform programmes."

Asked if he is a focus grouped politician: "Bullshit! There are lots of misconceptions in politics and you shouldn’t worry too much about them, but I would argue that this Conservative Party which I am leading is one of the least focus group, opinion poll-led parties for a long time. Did I ask a focus group before saying I am a marriage nut? Did I ask a focus group about gay marriage? Of course not! I just don’t! I have never pre-tested a speech, which I know other politicians do. I think our Prime Minister does. Of course, we hold focus groups to try to find out what the mood of the nation is and understand it. Of course, we have regular reports and opinion polls. It would be crazy not to. But I really don’t think this party, this leader, my team are obsessed by focus groups, and it’s a great misconception that we are. It’s frustrating."

Asked about David Davis' decision to fight a by-election on civil liberties: "Because I am quite a logical person, I couldn’t get the logical connection between the loss of a vote in the Commons and a decision on something the whole Conservative Party was united about and the decision to resign and fight a byelection. I am very fond of David. We worked extremely well together - perhaps better than many people predicted. He is an extremely talented politician. It did demonstrate, and perhaps surprised some people, that the Conservative Party cared so much about civil liberties, but we do. I tried to persuade him out of it because I didn’t think it was the right thing to do, so I didn’t think it was something the Conservative Party could say, well that’s our policy – when we disagree with something we’ll all fight byelections. You can’t do that, so that’s why I had to say quite rapidly that I was going to have to get a new Shadow Home Secretary."

Iain Dale will be posting more on his own blog.

George Osborne suggests that banning Geert Wilders was wrong

Yesterday, after having first indicated that the Conservative Party would not be making on comment on the Geert Wilders row, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling did issue a statement in which he attacked the Government's inconsistency over which "extremists" it would and wouldn't allow into this country.

He did not, however, appear to want to condemn the Government's decision to ban Mr Wilders from entering Britain, saying in fact that the Conservatives supported the ban if he has "expressed views that represent a threat to public security".

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has this afternoon commented on the matter to the Manchester Evening News - and whilst he repeats Mr Grayling's point about the Government's inconsistency, he seems to suggest that the ban was wrong:

"My personal view is by banning him [Wilders] in such a public way, he has been given far more publicity than would have been the case. I am not sure how thought-through this really was."

Jonathan Isaby

Tories choose silence on Geert Wilders

3.45pm: Chris Grayling told me earlier that the party would NOT be issuing a statement on this issue but forty minutes ago this statement was released from his office:

“We have consistently called on the Government to tackle extremists. If Geert Wilders has expressed views that represent a threat to public security, then we support the ban. But people like Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for the terrorist organisation Hizbollah, have not been banned. The Government must apply the criteria governing entry into the UK consistently.”

***

You don't have to agree with the very strong views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders to worry at the British Government's decision to ban him from entering Britain.

The Times thinks his views are "laughable", "inflammatory" and "illiberal" but still runs a leader this morning entitled 'Let Him In':

"The right to oppose, mock, deride and even insult people's beliefs is essential to a society where bad ideas are superseded by better ones. There is no right to have one's emotional sensibilities protected, for it is no business of government to legislate for people's feelings. Mr Wilders' views are obnoxious, and (not but) his freedom to express them must be defended."

On CentreRight yesterday Douglas Murray noted the hypocrisy of the Government's position:

"Numerous extremist clerics still come into this country each year and numerous others (not least those filmed by the Dispatches crew) remain happily untroubled by our authorities despite being filmed calling for the murders of Jews, homosexuals, Hindus, Muslim apostates and others.  This country hosts many ambassadors – official and unofficial – for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah who call for the annihilation of whole peoples.  These people do not find themselves deported, nor barred from entry or re-entry into the country."

One often gets the impression that the Government will bend over backwards to appease extreme Muslim opinion.  It is also disappointing that the Conservatives are silent on this issue of free speech.  Speaking to CCHQ and Chris Grayling this morning I was told not to expect a public statement.

Tim Montgomerie

> Related link from The Telegraph's Damian Thompson: "On three separate occasions, [Douglas] Murray has found himself on a panel with Tory spokesmen. And, each time, the Tory has told him off for using the phrase "Islamist terrorism". The approved word is "criminality". As Murray told me: "It's as if they can't see the difference between stealing a handbag and setting off a car bomb outside a nightclub.""

Gay rights groups attack Tories for protecting right to make "temperate criticism" of homosexuality

Dominic Grieve - now the party's Justice spokesman - has this afternoon defended the amendment put down by former Home Secretary Lord Waddington .  The Waddington amendment - passed last year - states “for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.  Gay rights groups are up in arms, however.  Ben Summerskill of Stonewall accused the Conservatives of throwing "a bit of red meat for the Tory Right."

This was what Dominic Grieve said in the Commons earlier today:

"Mr Speaker, it wouldn’t be a New Labour justice Bill without some attempt to curtail freedom of speech. The balance between protecting society from incitement to homophobic hatred … and preserving legitimate public debate is a delicate one.

Agreement was reached on this particular question after prolonged debate in the other place last year. Words that incite violent hatred have no place in civilised society; temperate criticism should be permitted. I would remind the Secretary of State that he and his ministerial colleagues voted to accept the amendment that he now seeks to strike out.

That amendment came at the end of lengthy debate, in both houses, in which a variety of safeguards were put forward to try to achieve consensus in a difficult area. What can possibly have changed since we last debated, and settled, this matter?  There is not a shred of evidence to support the view that the saving clause introduced by Lord Waddington will prevent the new offence from being prosecuted successfully in those cases where it is justified.

After all, if the Government were really concerned about protecting gay people, they wouldn’t be amending last year’s legislation, they’d be implementing it.

Again all talk, no action. The only conceivable motivation for revisiting the question now … is the cheapest kind of party political posturing. We will resist this amendment."

Police entered ANOTHER Tory MP's office

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."

David Davis calls for Bob Quick to substantiate his allegations against Tories or be replaced for inquiry into Damian Green

In another low in the relationship between the Conservative Party and London's police, the Met's Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Damian Green investigation has accused the Tories of dirty tricks:

"The police officer leading the Whitehall leaks inquiry has accused the Tories of endangering his family's safety by leaking information about his wife's wedding-car hire business. Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick claimed he had fallen victim to dirty tricks in an attempt to sabotage the investigation that led to the arrest of Tory front-bencher Damian Green. But the Conservatives flatly denied the allegation and cast doubt on his fitness to continue as head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism squad."

On this morning's Today programme former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said that Mr Quick should either substantiate his allegation that the Conservatives conspired with the Mail on Sunday for yesterday's story - 'Security scare over wedding car hire firm run from top terror police chief's home' - or another senior officer should be put in charge of the controversial investigation into Damian Green's conduct.  Listen to David Davis here.

Related link: Lessons from the Damian Green affair for Tory strategy.

10.30am from the Press Association: "Tory leader David Cameron has demanded that Britain's anti-terror chief should retract claims that his party had tried to undermine a Whitehall leaks inquiry."

11.15am: Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve MP has issued this statement after Bob Quick apologised: "We accept Assistant Commissioner Quick’s unreserved apology and this draws a line under the matter.”

Damian Green's case set to be dropped

The last fortnight and a half has been a very long one for Damian Green and his family.

It was back on 27th November that the shadow immigration minister was arrested and questioned for having received and then made public leaked information from the Home Office, as a squad of anti-terror police raided his Commons office and scoured his homes, seizing papers, telephones and computer equipment in the process.

Today, there are reports in the Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times which state that the police are preparing to drop the case against him, not least because of the "bungled and possibly unlawful way in which his House of Commons office was searched".

ConservativeHome has previously made it clear that we believe Damian Green was acting in the public interest and guilty of nothing more than doing his job, so any suggestion that the case is to be dropped must be welcomed.

However, it may not be until he is due to answer bail in February that he is officially given the all clear. For the sake of him, his family and the wider political process, the sooner this can be done the better.

And only then will Damian Green be able to give a full account of events, which will doubtless raise a further raft of questions about how an Opposition MP came to be treated in this way.

Jonathan Isaby

The Sergeant-at-Arms can't have ever watched Juliet Bravo

Anyone who has ever watched a TV cops drama knows that you ask the police for a warrant when they turn up to search your premises.  It is totally unacceptable for the Sergeant-at-Arms not to have asked that basic question.

Statement from Home Office "mole"

A lawyer has made a brief statement on behalf of Christopher Galley, the (currently suspended) Home Office civil servant at the centre of the inquiry into leaks to Damian Green.

This is what he had to say (not verbatim):

Galley and Green first met in 2006 at the Commons and stayed in contact over two years.

Galley gave Green information that was important for the public to know in an open democratic and parliamentary system.

Green received it in that spirit and used it in the course of his parliamentary duties.

He believed it would be used in a responsible manner in the public interest.

Galley was arrested in dawn raid by anti-terror police on 19th November, held for 17 hours and released after exhaustive questioning, throughout which he cooperated.

Those who sanctioned that style of arrest should decide if it was necessary and proportionate.

"If there was ever a case of don't shoot the messenger this is it."

He has been bailed to return to the police in January.

Given that he is under active police investigation, he cannot answer questions or make any further statement.

Dominic Grieve and Harriet Harman on the Damian Green arrest

6.30pm update:

The Telegraph reports that Damian Green has been instructing Michael Caplan QC, the eminent solicitor who famously represented General Pinochet, when the former Chilean dictator was arrested on a Spanish warrant while visiting London for medical treatment in 1998.

---

Sky News has just interviewed shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, and Harriet Harman, the leader of the House of Commons, on the issue of Damian Green's arrest.

Dominic Grieve was pretty scathing about the interview given earlier this morning by his opposite number, Jacqui Smith. He said the most important question needing an answer was what she knew and why she acted in the way that she did. Significantly, he said that from his interpretation of her answers (or lack thereof) on the Andrew Marr show, "I think she knew there was an MP involved in this investigation and she decided to simply sit back on her hands," meaning that she therefore has a great deal for which to answer to Parlaiment.

He added that it was wrong of her to insinuate that there were national security issues at stake in this investigation and that his view was that the grounds for arresting Damian Green and searching his homes an offices were "flimsy and trivial".

Interviewed shortly beforehand on Sky News, Hariet Harman sought to give an assurance that she appreciated the "big constitutional principle" involved over the arrest of an MP in these circumstances. "As Leader of the House, I am in no doubt how deeply MPs feel about it... MPs should be able to get on with their job without the interference of the law," she said.

But she refused to condemn the actions of anyone involved and after revealing that she had disucssed the matter with the Speaker, she refused also to disclose the contents of that conversation. She did say, however, that the Speaker "might well want to review the processes by which authorisation is given to search the Palace of Westminster."

Jacqui Smith refuses to apologise to Damian Green

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has today repeatedly refused to apologise for the way in which the police arrested Damian Green and searched his homes and offices under anti-terrorism laws on Thursday.

Interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning, she was given the opportunity to apologise on at least three occasions, but resolutely refused to do so. She said that she believed in the principle of operational independence for the police and that it would therefore be wrong to intervene.

She said that this was not an investigation into whether an opposition politician was using information he received to embarrass the Government, but rather into a "systematic series of leaks from a department dealing with some of the most sensitive and confidential information in government".

Ms Smith said that the leak investigation was initiated by the Cabinet Office alongside her permanent secretary, and that no minister has asked for it. She also reiterated that she was only told about Damian Green's arrest and the searches at his homes and offices after they had happened.

Earlier on the programme, former Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke compared Damian Green's arrest to the stuff of "President Nixon's America".

He said that if the Home Secretary/Prime Minister had not been told beforehand of the arrest then on being told afterward the least they should have done would have been to apologise to Damian Green and his family and to launch an inquiry.

Furthermore, he said that the Speaker and Serjeant-at-Arms should have told the police to "go away" when they sought to search a parliamentary office on the basis of "parliamentary privilege".

This is not a police matter but about our democracy

Did you watch Gordon Brown say that this was not a matter for him but for the police?  Even if we believe his claims not to have known about Damian Green's arrest until after it had happened, his answers to Adam Boulton's questions were wholly inadequate.  The Prime Minister expressed no concerns at the simultaneous swooping of anti-terror police on a Member of Parliament's home, constituency office and parliamentary office.  He was silent about the implications of anti-terror police confiscating an MP's correspondence with constituents, his phone and computer and searching through historic love letters between Damian Green and his wife.  He said nothing about the disabling of Mr Green's parliamentary email service, such that constituents receive an automatic reply saying that the account has been disabled for security reasons. It's just a matter for the police, Mr Brown kept saying.  That was a completely inadequate answer from a man who regularly received leaked documents when Labour was in opposition.  The Prime Minister needs to realise that people are very concerned about the integrity of our democracy as a result of Thursday.

Most public anger from the Tory benches is, however, being directed at the House of Commons Speaker, Michael Martin.  The Daily Mail records the fury of Douglas Carswell MP - a regular critic of Mr Martin - and also of Iain Duncan Smith:

"If it turns out that the Speaker gave the go-a-head for this raid, I will be demanding to his face, on every occasion that I can, that Mr Martin now quit. The purpose of the Commons Speaker is to preside over an institution that holds government to account – not to give the green light to police raids against legitimate opposition... There needs to be a pretty good explanation as to why he sanctioned this raid. If the Speaker can’t provide one, he should go. I have spoken to MPs on both sides of the Commons who are shocked and outraged by this." - Douglas Carswell MP

"Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith wrote to the Speaker last night to protest at the ‘abuse of the principle of the supremacy of Parliament’. Mr Duncan Smith told Mr Martin that he and other officers of the House had a ‘prime responsibility to make sure that the agencies of government do not consider it their right to treat Parliament like any other department or agency in the land’. He demanded: ‘Who else will our constituents feel they can turn to, to settle legitimate grievances, if they come to believe that the police or any other agency can cow this House into subservience?’ Mr Duncan Smith called for a parliamentary inquiry into the affair and an emergency debate as soon as Parliament returns next week." - Daily Mail

"Is it not a breach of Parliamentary Privilege for the police to arrest a Member of Parliament for using information he received for Parliamentary purposes?"

And other questions for ministers; all just released by the formidable brain of Dominic Grieve:

The "judicial intimidation" of Damian Green

Lots of posts last night so I thought I'd try and summarise what we know in one post:

What happened?  Damian Green was arrested yesterday and his Kent and House of Commons offices searched by nine counter-intelligence officers.  Mr Green spent nine hours in custody but has not been charged. He was apparently under investigation for handling four leaks of Home Office information on matters relating to the Government's record on immigration.

Why?  The authorities may have wanted to frighten Mr Green. They may have wanted to frighten all civil servants and MPs and stop the increasing regularity of leaks from Whitehall.

Mr Green has the Tory leadership's support: David Cameron is standing by Mr Green and is "very angry" at what some Tories are describing as "Stalinesque" behaviour by the authorities.  "Stalinesque" might be thought to imply suspicion of Gordon Brown's involvement but his office were very quick to deny involvement.  As Greg Hands has noted, however, it was a typical Brownian denial - not absolving him comprehensively from involvement.

When did ministers know?  This is now one of the most important questions.  Even if Brown didn't know when did the Home Secretary know?  Given that Boris Johnson and others received prior warnings - but were unable to act - it seems very unlikely that a Home Office Minister (who did have the power to stop the police and may have even had to sanction what happened) did not have prior knowledge.  Such is the reputation of this Government, few are likely to believe ministers' denials anyway.  If Jacqui Smith did know she should resign.

Why were counter-terrorism powers used?  This seems to be yet another example of their misuse.  As David Davis told Today, this had nothing to do with terrorism and comes close to "judicial intimidation".

MPs will be outraged at the police searching one of their colleague's offices: There is something worryingly undemocratic about the police entering an MP's Commons office and undertaking a search.  There is probably no coincidence in the fact that parliament wasn't sitting yesterday.  As Iain Dale noted in a superb post, if MPs had been sitting many might have "physically barred" the police's way.

Many, many MPs receive leaks: As the BBC's Norman Smith told Today listeners at about 6.30am if every MP who had been passed confidential information was arrested the Commons would be half-empty.  Jim Naughtie himself noted that Brown made his early reputation by receiving numerous leaked documents from inside Whitehall.  There's extraordinary hypocrisy here - not least from a Government that couldn't/ wouldn't keep its own Pre-Budget Report secret over last weekend. 

This is another PR disaster for the Government: It's not just the BBC that is incredulous.  The Daily Mail leads with the story and as the beneficiary of some of the leaks is going to be very sympathetic to Mr Green.  There are few areas of Labour's record that exhibit more incompetence that its record on immigration.  The public are unlikely to have sympathy with attempts to hide, for example, the fact that 5,000 illegal workers were cleared for security details.  That story is reportedly one of Damian Green's leaks and a very clear example of whistleblowing in the public interest.

Britain is not Zimbabwe: Yesterday's events were deeply worrying but Britain is not Zimbabwe and we must be careful about suggesting otherwise.  To do so risks insulting the suffering of women like Memory.  As Robert H Halfon has previously blogged: We must not trivialise real evil.

Tim Montgomerie

When did ministers know?

Newsnight reports that Boris Johnson was told of the police's intention to arrest Damian Green and objected.

That must mean the Home Secretary was also told and did nothing to stop the heavy-handed policy sting.  Unlike Boris, Jacqui Smith had the power to stop the sting.

Ben Brogan blogs that Brown knew nothing of this.  The Tory use of the term "Stalinesque" to describe today's events might suggest they think otherwise.

ConservativeHome's view: Damian Green was acting in public interest

The above story - click here - detailing the breakdown in security that has stemmed from Labour's failure to control our borders is one very good reason why Damian Green was certainly acting in the public interest when he received information of a confidential nature from within Whitehall.  Much is still unconfirmed but this - ConHome is being told - is one of the stories resulting from Damian Green's source(s).

There is also something extraordinarily over-the-top in how nine counter-intelligence officers were involved in today's operation against Damian Green.

And why today when Parliament has gone into temporary recess before the Queen's Speech?  Did the Government want to avoid awkward parliamentary questions?

Tim Montgomerie

11pm: Alistair Burt MP has left this (verified) comment:

"This man is my friend whom I have known for over thirty years. A more conscientious and public spirited politician you could not hope to find. I hope the Goverment has good lawyers to defend itself in due course, because Damian's friends will take them to the cleaners if he does not. When we think about the deception and deceit which has characterised this Government, the arrest of an Opposition politician just takes the biscuit. A step too far. We now have to remove not just a useless Government, but a dangerous one. And you can quote me."

Cameron "supportive" of Damian Green and angry at "Stalinesque" treatment of him

Damian Green was arrested in Kent. Taken into London to be interviewed by Met.

DG is saying his actions in exposing the Government's record on immigration were manifestly in public interest.

He denies any wrongdoing and stands by his actions.

The authorities' actions are being described by Tory sources as "Stalinesque" citing the fact that nine couter-terrorism police officers were involved in interviewing DG and searching his Kent home and Commons offices.

It is being said that it is "inconceivable" that Government itself weren't involved in authorising today's behaviour by police.

David Cameron said to be fully supportive of Damian Green and angry at today's events.

Tim Montgomerie

Treasury mole leaking to Damian Green?

Paul Waugh has more.

9pm: My understanding is that Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister, has been arrested but not charged for receiving information covered by the Official Secrets Act.

9pm from James Kirkup @ The Telegraph: "The following facts have just been supplied to journalists at Westminster by Conservative Party spokesmen: "Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman was arrested earlier today. He was detained on suspicion of aiding or procuring misconduct in public office.  The arrest is connected to the disclosure of several Home Office documents over the last year. Police officers searched Mr Green's home in Kent and his Commons office. At the time of posting, he remains under arrest at a central London police station.  He has not been charged with any crime. Mr Green denies any wrongdoing and and has not been charged with any crime."

9.05pm: The papadoms have arrived at my table in the Indian, Rochester Row!

Tim Montgomerie

David Davis' champagne moment

The former Shadow Home Secretary obviously didn't get the memo.  David Davis enjoyed a few glasses of champagne in a Commons bar last night with the Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti and his successor Dominic Grieve.  And who can blame him?  Labour suffered a massive defeat in the Lords yesterday on the issue that he has made his own; '42 days'.  There were 309 votes against the Government.  118 in favour.

After the vote Shadow Security Minister, Pauline Neville-Jones, said:

"The vote was decisive. The proposal to extend pre-charge detention failed on three significant grounds: necessity, desirability and practicability. On all sides of the House of Lords the majority view - drawing on significant experience in policing, security and the law - was that these provisions should be completely removed. The Government produced no evidence to support an extension to 42 days.  The extension would have been disproportionate and, in any event, so unworkable that the police and prosecutors would not have used it."

So heavy was the defeat that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has now decided to remove the 42 days proposal from the Counter Terrorism Bill.

WATCH: Lords defeat Government on '42 days'

2pm: Parliament blog on Lord Tebbit's support for 42 days