Tony Clarke (Northampton Independent Voice): Damian Green's role in allegedly "grooming" Graham Galley, an assistant private secretary in the Home Office, and a former Tory election candidate, is still to be fully determined. One can only wonder at what "inducements" would have been put up to persuade the civil servant to leak highly confidential information to the shadow immigration minister in the first place. The Daily Mail and other right wing rags must have thought Christmas had come early as story after story was revealed to give them even more front pages to attack Johnny Foreigner with.

But Green's stupidity, and the distasteful thought of how cheaply politically sensitive information can be acquired are deemed (rightly so) secondary issues to the real crime committed here. That, in my view, was carried out by the Metropolitan Police the minute they entered the parliamentary office of the MP for Ashford and seized his computer. Whatever happened to parliamentary privilege? What on earth was the Sergeant at Arms thinking about allowing such access without the MP's agreement? and what role did the Speaker play in giving permission for such an affront to our democracy?

Of course no one is above the law. If Damian Green had been arrested, questioned, and suspected of breaking the law to the point of a charge being brought, and if a proper application had been made to acquire evidence from his Westminster office, then there are ways that that could have achieved through the proper channels. The whole issue could have been handled without Parliament seeming as if it is playing catch up on events afterwards and without every Westminster MP thinking to themselves: if it has happened to Damian Green then what safety and security do I have for my office and its content?

The subject matter of some of the leaks may in some instances not be seen as over sensitive, but the leak of a list of Labour MPs likely to rebel against the government's plans to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge could have altered the outcome of any parliamentary vote on the matter. As such it is as much an affront to our democracy as is the thought of the Met's finest storming into Portcullis House to raid the office of an elected member of Parliament.

But I should know all about that, shouldn't I?

You see in 2004 when my political assistant was arrested under trumped up charges of a breach of the Official Secrets Act (he never was guilty, despite being convicted), my office too was paid a visit in my absence, but not you will be pleased to hear without my permission given via the Sergeant at Arms. In addition, myself and Peter Kilfoyle were both questioned under caution for periods in excess of four hours, but neither of us were arrested. We both attended for interview under our own steam and on our own terms.

In fact, at the time I was a Special Constable and I met the two spooks from the anti-terrorism unit at the police station I worked out of at Campbell Square, Northampton. When I took them down to the interview room the desk sergeant said, "I am sorry Tony you will have to take your prisoners back into the holding bay as we are full up!" I explained that technically I was the prisoner and afterwards when I let the two officers out of the building, one of them told me that it was the first time in his career that he has ever been released from the cells by the accused! Needless to say, no charges were brought against myself or Peter, despite our insistence that if my political assistant was deemed guilty then so were we. Perhaps we weren't so easy a target?

So if they can get it partly right then, what went wrong last week with Damian Green? Why couldn't he have been asked to attend interview in the same way we were? Why couldn't they have asked him for permission to search his office? Of course he could have said no, but given his insistence on doing no wrong that would not have gone down well for him publicly or in any future trial? And why couldn't they have got most of what they wanted from Graham Galley's computer?

One of the worrying aspects of my case was that they accused myself and Peter Kilfoyle of interfering with another country's election by suggesting we plotted with US Democrats prior to the 2004 presidential election. They informed us that the member of the Democratic Committee we had met had had his computer seized over in the US to try and retrieve emails sent to and from Parliament.

What is clear from my experiences then and this latest episode is that procedures for how the police liase with Parliament and coordinate any proper investigation of its members are at best in need of updating or at worst non-existent. It is therefore high time for parliament to put its foot down and clarify, for the benefit of us all, what it will and won't allow by way of intrusion into the business of its members.

I also hope that Damian Green is bought to book for his actions. It would not be a satisfactory outcome for Parliament's privileges to be upheld at the cost of Mr Green and the others being seen to get away with leaking or receiving sensationalist reports on immigration from party-friendly civil servants acting not for their employer (i.e. us) but
for their political masters.

I will continue to watch this whole saga unfold with increased interest. Oh and if the two nice police officers who questioned me in 2005 are reading this, can I ask them if there is any chance of me receiving the copies of my tape recorded interview as requested and promised? After all I would hate for people to think that the Met had anything to hide.