Category Archives: Jacqui Smith

The bloodletting begins

It seems that we are already seeing the beginning of the bloodletting which was expected to start after this week’s Euro elections.

The BBC has just reported that Jacqui Smith is set to resign as Home Secretary, which may give some credence to speculation that the Prime Minister intends to move Alistair Darling to the Home Office, to make way for Ed Balls at the Treasury.

None of this would be likely to be greeted positively; Balls is roundly disliked within the Labour Party and it would be widely regarded as unacceptable to have a Scottish MP in charge of policing in England and Wales.

There will undoubtedly talk of “rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic”, but at least the Titanic slipped quietly under the water.  SS Labour is unlikely to be so quiescent.

Don’t think so

jacqui-smithJacqui Smith has announced that she will not, after all, be making a statement to the House on the Damian Green affair next week, on the basis that the investigation was an operational matter for the police.

I have the feeling that the House may take a somewhat different view.

 

Legitimate public interest

It is hard to overstate the significance of  the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to drop charges against Damian Green.

The DPP has stated clearly that the documents leaked by the Home Office official, Christopher Galley, to Damian were not secret, nor was the leak a threat to national security:

“It did not relate to military, policing or intelligence matters. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. Nor, in many respects, was it highly confidential.

“Much of it was known to others outside the civil service. For example, in the security industry or the Labour Party or Parliament.

“Moreover, some of the information leaked undoubtedly touched on matters of legitimate public interest, which were reported in the press.”

The DPP’s decision amounts to a complete exoneration of Damian.  It also raises serious questions as to:

  • the judgment of Jacqui Smith in deciding to refer the issue to the Metropolitan police;
  • the judgment of the police in deciding to pursue the investigation and, in particular, to raid Damian’s office in the House of Commons;
  • the response, or lack of response, of the Speaker when informed that the police were seeking access to the House to search Damian’s office.

The issue of Damian Green’s arrest is far from over; indeed it has only just begun.  As Harriet Harman acknowledged, big constitutional principles are at stake.

I look forward to the Government’s statement next week.

Alp yourselves

snow_chainContemplating, as I am, the not wholly appealing prospect of a difficult journey through a snow-bound mid-Wales for a meeting in Llandrindod Wells tomorrow, I was intrigued by the latest piece of travel advice from the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon:

“Why has nobody got snow chains and why are you all whingeing about what the Government hasn’t done?  If you live in the Alps you have snow chains in the back of your car. So why have none of you intelligent, capable people got chains?”

Taking his counsel to heart, I consulted the Halfords website, but decided, on balance, that £54.99 was a bit steep for insurance against a once-in-eighteen-years event.  I might have made a different judgment had I indeed been living in Kitzbühel, rather than on the North Wales coast.

Nevertheless, Geoff’s robust disclaimer of responsibility for providing a reliable transport system is, in an odd way, refreshing.  It’s rare for any New Labour minister to suggest that there may be  limits to the role of government.   Perhaps his new-found enthusiasm for self-help will permeate into other departments of state. 

If so, I look forward to the day when Jacqui Smith urges people to defend themselves, their homes and property against criminals, by any reasonable means at their disposal, without fear of incurring the displeasure of the constabulary and courts.   That would be a real step forward.   She should have a word with Geoff.

Roadmap to our souls

surveiilanceCongratulations to the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald, for his ferocious attack on Government plans to intercept every single electronic communication, whether by telephone or on the internet, that takes place in the UK.

The Guardian informs us that Jacqui Smith will be publishing a consultation next month on proposals to monitor telephone calls, texts, e-mails and chatroom use.  No doubt readers of this blog, among others, will be attracting the attention of the Home Office snoopers if Ms Smith’s plans come to fruition. 

Sir Ken, who is a longstanding critic of the Government’s clinically paranoid approach to security issues (he inveighed heavily earlier this year against the proposals for 42 days detention) has told the Guardian of his concern that the plans for total interception of communications would produce “an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information”, with the Government in possession of a “roadmap to our souls” that would be a “complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail” : 

“The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people.” 

Sir Ken is entirely right, but I doubt whether his criticism will deter the Government, who are hell-bent on monitoring, scrutinising, filing and regulating almost every facet of our existence.  

The cost of the scheme has been estimated at an astonishing £12 billion.  Given our present straitened economic circumstances, one might have thought that Ms Smith would consider it a better application of public funds to spend a smaller sum on a more effective, intelligence-led surveillance programme that would target the terrorists while leaving the law-abiding majority free to continue surfing the net and texting friends without worrying about the virtual presence of Home Office eavesdroppers.  

But that, sadly, is not the way this Government works.

Big constitutional principles

The issue of the arrest of Damian Green and the police’s entry into Parliament continues to gather momentum.

The Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, has stopped short – just – of condemning the police action, but has acknowledged that “big constitutional principles” are at stake and called upon the Speaker to review the processes by which authority is given to enter the Palace of Westminster.

Jacqui Smith, by contrast, still doesn’t appear to understand just how big the constitutional principles are, continuing to assert the need for “police operational independence”.

Scotland Yard, however, does seem to have begun to appreciate the enormity of what has happened. According to the Telegraph:

Some senior ranked officers at the Met and outside the force are “baffled” and “deeply worried” by the decision to launch an official investigation into the complaint made by the Cabinet Office, and said that they would be “amazed” if a criminal conviction was secured.

The Telegraph continues:

A senior source said: “If leaks threaten to cause damage to the state, in the sense of official secrets or national security, then of course they should be investigated as a criminal offence. However if the leaks are damaging to the serving government, that should be a matter for them to sort out, rather than the police.”

And that, of course, is the point. What has happened to Damian Green looks very much like a witch-hunt inspired by Government anger at the release of entirely correct information which has proven embarrassing. But the Opposition doesn’t exist to spare the Government’s blushes; it is there to keep them on their toes, which, to an extent at least, is what the Press exists for, too.

At the moment, the police and senior civil servants are carrying the can for last Thursday’s cack-handed operation. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary deny that they had any prior knowledge of the raid (which, to say the very least, puts Jacqui Smith’s degree of control of her Department in serious doubt).

And I believe them, really I do. Every word of it.

Because if it were to turn out that they were aware of what had been planned, it wouldn’t just be a question of their resignation; it would be the end of this Government.

Matters of principle

Today’s papers devote extensive coverage and comment to the arrest of Damian Green. All, from broadsheets to redtops, express varying degrees of outrage at the police incursion into Parliament. Even the Mirror’s rabidly anti-Tory commentator, Kevin Maguire, is constrained, grudgingly, to voice his support for the “Ashford One” in his blog.

The Telegraph is the most trenchant in its criticism. It declares the police action “an affront to MPs of all parties and to Parliament itself”; and so, indeed, it is.

After next week’s State Opening, urgent questions will undoubtedly be tabled. There will assuredly be demands for a statement explaining the circumstances that led to the authorisation of the police raid. MPs will certainly be concerned and probably very angry.

Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith have protested that they had no prior knowledge of the police action. I fully accept their word, although I find it remarkable that that should be the case, given that the Speaker, David Cameron and Boris Johnson all clearly did know about it.

Smith also asserts that she believes in the “operational independence of the police”, which is a most commendable belief.

But what of the primacy of Parliament, its hard-won privileges and the constitutional imperative that Members of the House of Commons should be free to perform their duties without fear of the knock at the door? Are the Prime Minister and Home Secretary concerned about those principles, too? Would they be outraged if they suspected that those fundaments of our democracy were under assault?

If so, then I would expect both Brown and Smith to join their colleagues in the chamber next week to demand an explanation of how it came to happen that counter-terrorism police marched into the Commons office of a Member of Parliament, searched his papers, seized his computer, BlackBerry, mobile telephone and bank statements and froze his e-mail account.

If they decide not to be there, Members on both sides of the House will want to know why.

Why Labour are doing so badly

Last week’s quarter point cut in Bank of England base rate appears unlikely to filter through to borrowers to any appreciable extent. Only a handful of lenders have passed on the cut through their standard variable rate deals and several, including Nationwide, Alliance & Leicester and Britannia have actually increased the rates they charge borrowers.

Today, Halifax announced that it is increasing one of its two-year fixed mortgage rate deals from 6.09 per cent to 6.59 per cent, adding £46 a month to borrowers’ repayments on a £150,000 loan.

Meanwhile, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has announced funding for 300 additional police posts to target radicalisation among young Muslims.

The coincidence of the announcement with the local government election campaign has not gone unnoticed. Announcements of this sort ought not to be made during the “purdah” period of three weeks prior to an election. Indeed, it was the “purdah” rule that was cited as the Post Office’s reason for suspending the round of branch closure announcements. Sauce for the goose is apparently not sauce for the gander.

I doubt, however, that Smith’s announcement will do Labour much good. People have become accustomed to their M.O.

I received an e-mail from a constituent today that sets out, more simply and eloquently than I ever could, precisely why Labour, for all their continued spinning, are doing so badly in the polls:

People need to see something being done that has some sort of effect for them. Working class people like us judge the state of the economy on what is in our own pockets. If we have less money, things are bad, if we have more, things are good. It is a simplistic and basic way of assessing and passing judgment on forces which are often beyond our control or understanding.

Crime and anti-social behaviour is no different. It doesn’t matter what the statistics say. It doesn’t matter how many glossy reports we see in the papers promoted by PR departments about multi-agency action days and initiatives. People judge the situation on what they see. If the peaceful enjoyment of their home comes easier, things are good. If the nuisance continues or worsens, things are bad.

It need not be any more complicated.

Nothing to add, really.

Peckham Wry

What is it about Peckham that causes so many problems to Labour MPs?

Yesterday, the area’s parliamentary representative, Harriet Harman, decided to go on a walkabout in her constituency. Not only was she accompanied by four strapping police officers, but she was encased in a rather fetching Kevlar™ stab-proof vest.

The suggestion that she had plumped for that particular wardrobe item because Peckham was a dodgy area didn’t go down too well with the locals. Mrs Beatrice Smith, 63, commented:

“The only time we see Harriet Harman is either on voting day or doing some PR stunt. There is a lot of trouble on the estates but we don’t get given stab vests.”

This morning, on the Today programme, a shrilly defensive Ms Harman was given a bit of a roasting by John Humphrys (who could scarcely suppress his delight at her discomfiture). No, she didn’t wear a stab-proof vest to walk about her constituency beacause she didn’t feel safe without it, she insisted. Perish the thought. She had simply put the gear on as a “courtesy” to the bobbies who were escorting her.

Digging herself deeper into the hole that was threatening to collapse on top of her, she confided:

“Just as I might wear a hard hat on a building site or an Indian outfit going to meet Indian constituents, it’s just about wearing the kit.”

Harriet has clearly learned nothing from the experience of her cabinet colleague, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who last January told the Sunday Times that she wouldn’t feel safe walking alone after dark on the streets of Hackney, or even Kensington and Chelsea, but that she had once “bought a kebab in Peckham” at night. It later emerged that she had been accompanied on her intrepid foray by “a man with broad shoulders”. That didn’t go down too well with the locals, either.

Tomorrow, in Gordon’s absence, Harriet will field Prime Minister’s Questions. Something to look forward to, if only to see what “kit” she decides to put on.

Poisoned Chalice

Yet another very serious security lapse, this time in the House of Commons itself. A Brazilian illegal immigrant, who had absconded from Heathrow airport over three years ago, was found to be working as a cleaner in the House, using a security pass belonging to another person. Even worse, the breach, which was apparently detected and reported to the immigration minister, Liam Byrne, as long ago as 31 January, was confirmed only last night, when the Home Office was contacted by the Daily Telegraph, which had received leaked reports of the incident.

Coming so soon after last year’s scandal, when 11,000 illegal immigrants were found to be working in the security industry, this episode is bound to put further pressure on the hapless Jacqui Smith, the latest in a long line of cabinet ministers to regret drinking from the poisoned chalice that is the Home Office.

It is also very likely to provoke accustions of a cover-up. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the memo sent to Liam Byrne on 31 January describes the level of controversy as “high” and advises a “reactive” approach to the media, “given recent coverage of security guards employed illegally at Government offices”.

A proactive approach, i.e. making a clean breast of the cock-up, would, I suppose, be too much to hope for.

Parliament is full of overseas cleaners; no doubt the Home Office, now the gaff has been blown, will be conducting an urgent audit to confirm their credentials.

Welcoming the Fed

I was delighted to welcome a delegation of North Wales Police Federation members to Parliament this afternoon. Five coachloads of police officers had travelled from North Wales to lobby parliamentarians over the government’s betrayal on police pay.

Over 22,000 serving officers marched past the House – a most impressive sight that will have dismayed Jacqui Smith. At last, Labour seem to have kept their promise to put more police on the streets.

Pick up the phone, Jacqui

Jacqui Smith’s admission to the Sunday Times that she wouldn’t feel safe walking alone at night on the streets of Hackney, or even Kensington and Chelsea, is arguably candid but nevertheless deeply worrying. Revealing, too, are the terms of her response, which was: “No. Why would I do that?”

Ms Smith made it clear by the manner in which she framed her answer that she understands only too well that anyone venturing out on the streets of many of our towns and cities after dark is simply asking for trouble. But the point is that, as Home Secretary, it is her job to make those streets safe, which she isn’t achieving.

If she wants to learn why so many of our streets are unsafe, she could do worse than consult His Honour Judge Ian Trigger. Last week, in Liverpool Crown Court, Judge Trigger gave vent to his obvious frustration and despair when passing sentence on a teenager who had beaten an elderly woman about the head with an iron bar. The youth was on bail at the time.

Judge Trigger told the yob (and I make no apology for quoting him at length):

 

“It is the fault of politicians that bail is so readily granted, rather than judges or magistrates.

 

“Parliament, and its woeful and indeed dreadful concentration on rights, forgets duties and responsibilities. It has meant people like you have the right to bail in these circumstances.

“We are living in a society which is bedevilled by wild feral youths such as you.

“Before we plunge into even greater violence at the hands of lawless and irresponsible youths it is time for us to address the problem.

“It is time for parents to resume control over their offspring.

“It is time for parents to teach values and respect to their children, value and respect for other people and not allow their offspring to engage in selfish and irresponsible behaviour.

“It is time for the police to be released from administrative tasks and red tape and be once more a visible 24-hour presence on our streets, particularly in our violent hotspots.

“It is time for the public not to criticise the police but support them so that wild youths like you are brought to justice.

“And it is time for Left-wing intellectuals and well-meaning do-gooders to abandon their obsession and concentrate on the obligations and responsibilities which we all owe each other.

 

Ian Trigger knows exactly what is happening in our inner cities. He has what must be the dispiriting task of dealing with the consequences of Labour’s failure on violent crime every working day of his life.

 

So, if Jacqui Smith won’t venture out on the streets of London after dark, she could at least pick up the phone and speak to Judge Trigger, to find out from someone experienced and sensible just how bad it is.

Police 2.5

Chief constable Richard Brunstrom has called the Home Office’s handling of the police pay issue “shabby and dishonourable”.

He is entirely right. Over the last few days, I have received dozens of letters and e-mails from serving officers outraged by the decision not to backdate the recently-awarded 2.5 per cent pay increase. This will have the effect of keeping the settlement within the Treasury-imposed limit of 2 per cent for public sector pay reviews. It is a cynical, devious manoeuvre.

The police are now to be balloted by their Federation on whether they want the right to strike. This is an appalling state of affairs, at which we should never have arrived. It is wholly attributable to Jacqui Smith’s bungling incompetence, so amply demonstrated in so many other respects over the last few weeks.

I doubt she will remain in office much longer.

Grumpy Gordon

Gordon Brown’s performances at PMQs get no better. He comes across as bad-tempered and petulant.

Today, he was asked repeatedly by David Cameron to say when he was told by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith that thousands of illegal immigrants had been found to have been employed in various sensitive security positions, including guarding the Prime Ministerial car.

Of course, David’s purpose in asking the question was to unearth whether Jacqui had kept the difficulties to herself – showing her to have been unforthcoming toward her own Prime Minister – or whether Gordon had been complicit in her attempt to keep the problems out of the press.

Gordon refused repeatedly to answer the question, despite Tory cries of “when?”, preferring instead to say that Jacqui had been “focused on getting on with the job”.

One can’t blame Gordon for not wanting to answer the question (although his refusal did make him look shifty), but one can fault him for his grumpy, humourless demeanour. He really has to learn to live with his new role and try to adopt some of Tony Blair’s better attributes, most notably his coolness under fire. At this rate, he won’t last the course.

No Time for Spin

Jacqui Smith’s career as Home Secretary got off to a promising start. I was present in the House when she made her statement on the Glasgow airport terrorist attack; she came across as calm and self-assured. I was reasonably impressed.

Her handling of the understandable public anxiety in the wake of the shooting of Rhys Jones, however, has been considerably less impressive. A Labour friend chided me gently last week for my criticism of her as “another talking head”; he said that she was still clearly shocked on Thursday morning by what had happened in Liverpool the previous day.

Well, that is true, and in fact I gave her credit for that. However, Jacqui Smith is also our Home Secretary and we are entitled to look to her for leadership at such a time.

Since Thursday, Ms Smith’s performance has not, in all frankness, improved. She still talks, feebly and inappropriately, about “acceptable behaviour contracts”, which seems rather like applying a sticking plaster to the stump of an amputated limb.

More seriously, however, she continues to push the line that “statistics aren’t a help but gun crime is down”. Now, that is plain wrong, as Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has pointed out. Today’s Sunday Times reports that Davis has written to Ms Smith drawing her attention to Home Office statistics revealing that “gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998”.

Quite properly, Davis has warned the Home Secretary not to repeat the mistake, made by most of her predecessors, of preferring spin over substance. Ms Smith would do well to heed the warning. David Davis is a formidable opponent whose intervention has resulted in the premature termination of more than one ministerial career.