Ribble South and West Lancashire Liberal Democrats

Liberal Democrat anger over delays to committee on MP office searches

Liberal Democrat MPs have opposed government plans that delay investigations by a committee into the searching of offices on the parliamentary estate.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, had asked for a committee to be set up to review the seizure by the police of material belonging to Conservative MP Damian Green. But MPs from across the parties were unhappy about the make up and remit of the committee.

An amendment proposed by senior Liberal Democrat, Sir Menzies Campbell, sought to ensure the inquiry committee was made up of seven senior MPs appointed by the Speaker, rather than being overrun by Labour MPs reflecting the Government's majority in the House of Commons. It would also have allowed the committee to begin work immediately, rather than waiting indefinitely until police inquires had been completed.

The amendment gained cross-party support, but was narrowly defeated by just four votes.

Shadow Leader of the House, Simon Hughes, spoke first from the Liberal Democrat benches, reminding MPs that: "we are precious about our rights and liberties for ourselves, but because we hold them on trust for our constituents".

He accused his opposite number, Harriet Harman, of, "arrogantly and disrespectfully" adapting the Speaker's original requests for the House of Commons to investigate, "in the interests of Parliament, to what she wants the House to do in the interests of the Government."

Referring to the clause calling for adjournment of the committee whilst police inquiries are carried out, he said: "The Leader of the House knows perfectly well what "any relevant inquiry" means; the meaning is clear and it could be weeks, months or years. She knows that. Things might not just be thrown into long grass; they could be put off until the other side of the next general election. This is a ridiculous proposal."

He raised questions as to how the police entered without a warrant, highlighting that:

"Many citizens...understand the law very well. If the police knocked on the door of one of my constituents, everybody inside would know two basic things. First, they do not have to let the police in unless they have a warrant. Secondly, that applies not only in respect of a warrant for the person in question, but if the police are looking for somebody upstairs."

"We were elected to stand for the independence of this place. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the Chamber will support the amendment and say to the Government, "I'm afraid that this is not your business. Hands off."

Menzies Campbell similarly emphasised the constitutional importance of the debate in the opening of his speech:

"I firmly believe the matters we are discussing are precisely what gives us the power and the influence to deal with issues such as economics, council housing and the like. Our responsibilities involve both the scrutiny of Government and the redress of grievance. If we cannot be confident that our communications with our constituents are confidential, there is necessarily an inhibition in our ability to fulfil those responsibilities.

He responded to government calls for respect for the operational independence of the police in the matters, arguing:

"...that cannot be interpreted as being a shield against accountability. The police are accountable for their actions to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary is, in turn, accountable to this House of Commons. It is also said - I have said it myself - that we are not above the law, but that does not mean that we can be subject to illegality. It does not mean that we can be treated differently from other citizens.

Commenting on the Government's proposals as a whole, he said:

"It is profoundly disappointing that the motion does not meet what is required. The remit is far too narrow - this House is surely entitled to investigate the whole circumstances surrounding this unfortunate affair. The time scale it sets out is risible; can one imagine what the public's response will be when we tell them that this important Committee, which is made up of seven wise men and women, has met and appointed a Chairman, but has then adjourned indefinitely? That is a real indication of hands-on government; we will be laughed out of court if that is how we proceed, but that is what the motion will impose upon us."

Read Simon Hughes' full speech here

Read Sir Menzies Campbell's full speech here

The amendment was defeated by 285 votes to 281, with the Government's subsequent committee proposals passed by a majority of 23.