The arrest of Damian Green was not a personal attack; in fact it was a necessary step in a much larger investigation into a series of damaging leaks from the Home Office. The material disclosed was claimed by the Daily Mail to have ‘severely embarrassed’ the Government with details being leaked of a number of said parliamentary failures over problems such as immigration and the relationship between the current recession and rising crime rates. (‘Police state Britain: MPs want protection after arrest of Tory for telling truths Labour didn't want you to know’. The Daily Mail (29-11-2008).

Mr Green gave a public statement upon his release stating ‘I have, many times, made public information that the Government wanted to keep secret. Information which the public has a right to know’. (www.damiangreen.org). Now this may seem a very noble stance but the reality of the situation is that often the very reason that such information has not been disclosed is because it may do more harm than good.

Professor Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University, a renowned constitutional expert recently stated that the Damian Green affair is simply a ‘strorm in a teacup’. He believes that the important principle is that ‘MPs - apart from when they're speaking in the chamber and dealing with constituents' correspondence - are as subject to the same laws as the rest of us’ (‘Row over Green 'grooming' claims’. BBC News (01-12-2008). We do not know exactly what information Mr Green is said to have leaked but if the police have reason to want to question him about it then it is their duty as an independent body to do just that. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has been made no comment over the arrest other than to say that ‘It was a police matter’. (‘Police state Britain: MPs want protection after arrest of Tory for telling truths Labour didn't want you to know’. The Daily Mail (29-11-2008)). To interfere in police investigations would be, to quote Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, ‘Stalinist’. We must put our trust in the police to do whatever is necessary to gather evidence and Mr Green’s position as a public figure should not be an automatic shield to being searched, arrested or prosecuted.

One of the main points of contention over Damian Green’s arrest is the fact that the Metropolitan Police spearheaded a search of his Parliamentary office and encroached into his place of work. Yet the police did not actually do anything wrong in carrying out the search. Both the acting commissioner, Sir John Stephenson and the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin have confirmed that the search was indeed carried out by consent. The Government had the opportunity to object to the search and they failed to do so and the responsibility for that should lie with the Speaker of the House himself. Mr Bob Marshall is the first Labour MP to call for the Speaker to step down following what he states was ‘a deplorable breach of his duties’. (MP urges Speaker to quit over Greengate’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5297901.ece)

Following such an onslaught of criticism from MPs and the general public, it is apparent from Mr Martin’s speech that he is now attempting to lay the blame firmly at the feet of the Serjeant at Arms, who he says signed the Consent Form ‘without consulting the Clerk of the House’. However, we must not allow this to distract us from the crucial fact that procedurally the police did everything they could to uphold their obligations. They were not at fault in seeing through an investigative operation with the consent of the Government behind them.

If we consider the nature of Damian Green’s arrest it boils down to three aspects: his detention at the police station for nine hours; the search of his office and finally the search of his home. Are any of these features out of place in a standard police arrest? No.

Being detained for nine hours is not extraordinary when the police are attempting to collate and consider evidence from a dual search being carried out, in addition to interviewing the suspect and taking statements. Mr Green was back with his family the very same day and although it may have been an upsetting experience for him, the restriction on his liberty for nine hours was out-weighed by the more pressing need to get to the bottom of a serious investigation. As for the alleged ‘ransacking’ of Mr Green’s office and home, this was a search and the police are required and trained to be thorough in their investigations. Once again, the fact that Mr Green is an MP does not mean that strict confidentiality and privacy extends to all aspects of his life. Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford University explains that legal privilege does not extend to MPs offices in the same way it attracts to proceedings in Parliament. Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith also supports the actions of the police in carrying out the controversial searches by stating, ‘The police should follow the evidence where it takes them’ (MP's arrest not Stalinist - Smith http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7757170.stm) The police were simply doing their job and if the Government really did strongly object then they should have refused to consent to the search when they were given the opportunity to do so. Perhaps this will encourage the Government to reasess their response to cases like this in future.

.