Morning:
6°c
In one sense, though not the sense in which he meant it, the defence by the former Home Secretary, John Reid, of the police's behaviour towards Damian Green ("everyone is subject to the law") is quite correct. Why should MPs imagine themselves exempt from the vast increase in state power under New Labour? Why, after so many attacks on our freedom, does Parliament erupt in real anger only when its own liberty is attacked?
The traditional answer is that Parliament is the fount of liberty; attacking it harms the very roots of freedom. There is still much truth in this. Parliament is one of the best parts of the political system: a place where ministers and officials must come to answer questions and to which they must, at least in theory, not tell direct lies.
It is a trove of information for those bothered to look. Contrary to reputation, it has large and growing numbers of members like Green: decent, committed, independent-minded and public-spirited. In an age of unelected bureaucrats, those chosen by, and accountable to, the people deserve respect.
Yet Inspector Knacker felt able to invade the Commons, seize an MP's private papers and lock him up - for the "crime" of receiving leaks - only because Parliament has abdicated some of its role and respect. Calling it the fount of liberty might nowadays induce smirks from a representative sample of voters, or more relevantly a representative sample of policemen.
The diminution of our freedom didn't just happen, it was voted for by Parliament itself, the body supposed to protect us. Among the things MPs gave the police were far wider powers of warrantless entry and search,which, over Mr Green, were duly exploited, as such powers tend to be, in undesirable ways. Remember the anti-terror laws used to spy on people putting their rubbish in the wrong bin?
It was Parliament's job to foresee, and forestall, such consequences but it did not, perhaps partly because Tony Blair's government timetabled so many Bills that MPs took to passing some of them without proper debate. Blair himself seldom bothered with the place. Nobody in Parliament, apart from a few backbenchers, protested.
The Commons' pathetic, barely-articulate Speaker, Michael Martin -who looked like dog-meat yesterday, his text of self-exoneration trembling in his hands - has been rightly savaged for letting the police in. But he is only the worst in a long line of second-raters elected to the role, the physical manifestation of the Commons' feebleness. If the House were serious about its rights and privileges, it would not have chosen such a man to uphold them.
The fact that the title "Leader of the House" belongs not to the Speaker but to a government minister shows where the real power lies. The reason for the Commons' weakness and acquiescence is, of course, that it is controlled, through its party majority, by the Government.
That is why some of the task of holding that same Government to account has moved away from Parliament. And that is why we should defend not just Damian Green but also the man who leaked to him.
Even some journalists have written that while Mr Green was simply "doing his job", there is a case against the Home Office whistleblower, Christopher Galley. I profoundly disagree.
Mr Galley was also doing his job - indeed, he was doing the same job as Damian Green, to uphold high standards of public administration, surely any public servant's first duty. Remember what he exposed: systematic attempts by ministers to deceive Parliament and the public over the fact that, for instance, up to 11,000 illegal immigrants had been cleared to work as security guards and in sensitive buildings, including Parliament itself.
As government arrogance grows, whistleblowers from within like Galley are becoming as important and legitimate a part of our political system as MPs. If information is power, they tip the balance of power slightly less against us. They help make up for ministers' deficiencies in honesty and Parliament's deficiencies in scrutiny.
In the 19th century, when the Commons was genuinely powerful, it quickly obtained all the information it needed about the Crimea fiasco. For our equivalent military disaster, Iraq, it was whistleblowing, not Parliament, which got us the truth.
The Downing Street memo, the Attorney General's legal advice, the revelations over the WMD dossier - every single significant piece of information over the decision to go to war came either directly through, or as a consequence of, leaks. Parliament's role, by contrast, was to be deceived by ministers before the war (something for which MPs have never held anyone to account) and then to frustrate examination of the issue afterwards.
The then chairman of the Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee, a government trusty called Donald Anderson, held an embarrassment of an i nquiry, more interested in attacking me and my whistleblower, David Kelly, than in getting to the bottom of the dossier. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by the former Government Chief Whip, was little better.
On a smaller scale, a few brave whistleblowers did more to expose the truth about Ken Livingstone and the dodgy LDA grants than months of work by the London Assembly. Whistleblowing is a useful political barometer: bad policies and governments are more leaked against than good ones.
If MPs' outrage at the Green Raid is a little naive, it is also useful. It may finally have brought home to important people just how much trouble our free society is in. Unfortunately, however, Parliament is already reverting to form over the issue.
MPs are starting to divide on party lines so the Government will be able to use its majority to get itself off the hook. The House is also, typically, getting bogged down in a process issue - whether a search warrant was needed - and losing sight of the deeper questions raised by the police raid.
As this saga confirms, Britain's democratic institutions are relatively weak and ineffective. But that is compensated for by our strong democratic culture, manifest in a vibrant "civil society", pressure groups, media - and leakers. What we need to do now is entrench not just the rights of Parliament but also the rights of whistleblowers.
Reader views (30)
You state for he was arrested for 'the "crime" of receiving leaks'. Actually he wasn't. Receiving leaks is not a crime and he could not have been arrested for it, inducing someone to leak is a crime. If he did that he's guilty.
- Steve Way, Plymouth, UK, 06/12/2008 11:18
Report abuse
I do hope that when we have a Camoron Government that uses more spin than any previous Government and like last night's PPB is totally incorect and false, then the Standard and all other Tory Backers will emphasise how important it is to allow leakers to expose Camoron and Osborne as dishonest charlatans. If the attitude of the Media to the Tories at the moment is anything to go by we will get a new version of Pravda boasting about every Tory success.
- Harold Lloyd, Acton UK, 05/12/2008 18:39
Report abuse
W R Stevenson, London the reason we have government is to manage state affairs otherwise the state would be managed through the newspapers or public forums. I highly doubt that any government whether Labor, Tory or Lib Dem would have wanted that info in the public domain.
Just out of curiosity how beneficial has that leaked info been to you anyway. Going by your comments your mind is already made up about NuLabor.
- Sam, Southampton, 05/12/2008 17:04
Report abuse
Yes, indeed, Mr. Gilligan. Sadly our Judges are co-conspirators. These are dangerous times. Their duty lies in supporting Government - thus Hutton sleeps easy.
Old Men (such as I) and students of history recognise laws passed in recent years as the first steps to Dictatorship. "Ah," says Government to those doubters on its back benches, "But we would never use these laws in such a way."
Meanwhile the Anti-terrorist squad arrests women for reading in Parliament Square names of the British dead - and arrest a Member of Parliament for endangering the nation.
No need here for a vomatorium...
- Simon Gandolfi, Colwall, England, 05/12/2008 16:23
Report abuse
David and Sam in Southampton would learn alot if they read Paul Waugh's latest article in today's Evening Standard, where it clearly states the benefits of being a whistleblower when Labour was in opposition.
- Bingham Macnamara, lymington, hants, 05/12/2008 15:02
Report abuse
Strange! no mention of the fact, that Mr Galley, was once a member of Conservative future, stood as a Conservative candidate in a local election, applied for a job with the Conservative Party, and told friends he wanted to be a Conservative Prime Minister.
I'm all for whistleblowers, 'impartial ones' would
Mr Galley have leaked if he'd been serving a 'Conservative Minister' somehow I don't think so.
- David, london uk, 05/12/2008 10:40
Report abuse
I have already asked why the leaked information should not be in the public domain. No-one has answered that so far. Says it all.
- W R Stevenson, London SE26, 05/12/2008 09:58
Report abuse
Genuinely or not, some people seem to think that leaking secret government documents is always a crime.
This is not true. Under the Official Secrets Act, unauthorised disclosure of secret documents is a criminal offence only if the documents in question contained security and intelligence information, defence information,information concerning international relations, information which would assist a criminal or the commission of a crime, or secret information belonging to foreign governments or international organisations.
The information leaked by Christopher Galley, obviously does not belong to any of the above categories. This is why he was not arrested under the Official Secrets Act, but under an obscure law relating to an obscure offence of 'misconduct in public office'.
Misconduct in public office means to 'wilfully neglect to perform your duty and/or wilfully misconduct yourself to such an extent that would amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.'
Mr Galley, obviously, cannot be accused of this offence either, for the simple reason that his actions were, in fact, in the public interest, and, therefore, he did not abuse the public's trust in him, but quite the reverse.
The public must surely be grateful to him for having informed us on the dangers of our government's incompetence.
- Martha, London, UK, 04/12/2008 18:49
Report abuse
Sam, Southampton Read my earlier entry when the Conservatives were in power they prosecuted civil servents for leaking information.
As for those who think this is o.k then reflect on how you would feel if information about yourself became public knowledge (e.g you had xyz) and you were sacked after it became public knowledge.
Civil Servents like other public servents hold sensitive information and the best policy is to keep it secret. If you dont agree with a government you can always resign.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 04/12/2008 18:03
Report abuse
Whistle blowers seem to be the only redress there is for exposing incompetents. It is time we brought back impeachment and made any one receiving, spending and acting on behalf of the taxpayers liable for their inefficiencies.
They are technically stealing our money and we do nothing about it.
- Michael, london, 04/12/2008 17:16
Report abuse
"This 'whistleblower' seems much more likely to be an untrustworthy right-wing employee on the make."
You pulled that one out of nowhere, didn't you?
Your political alignment, not to mention your rabid, ummmm 'dislike', for anything that doesn't agree with your preferences is showing mate - just a little. Quite a little bit, in fact.
- Rogan, Irving, 04/12/2008 17:05
Report abuse
I am wondering what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. Most people because of their morbid dislike for NuLabor are willing to let common sense fly out of the window. Leaking documents is a crime and an MP going ahead to reveal contents of leaked documents defies belief. At least we know what will happen when our conservative friends come into power. Can we deduce from this that under the conservatives it will be ok to leak official documents? Does anyone remember the leaked BNP membership list? Many of us howled and complained how unfair it is but then its fair for a home office employee to leak documents! Get a life people.
- Sam, Southampton, 04/12/2008 17:00
Report abuse
So a failed Tory candidate who is currying favour with his local M.P. is a reasonable judge of what to leak? Surely that is absolute rubbish. The fact that Damian Green and George Osborne allegedly have moles in Government departments is worrying. As far as Osborne is concerned he doesn't seem to worry about messing up the markets and costing Taxpayers money as long as he looks clever.
- Winston Kirkule, uxbridge UK, 04/12/2008 16:53
Report abuse
The information was paid for by the taxpayers. Why should it not be in the public domain?
Now if the Home Secretary had paid for it out of her own purse......
- W R Stevenson, London, 04/12/2008 16:10
Report abuse
Why have 11,000 illegal immigrants had been cleared to work as security guards even in sensitive buildings like Parliament? If you were planning to set up a Police State then having 11,000 illegal foreigners pointing the trigger of 11,000 of the 40,000 stun guns (which kill people) you have just ordered would probably be a good idea. After all, they are not likely to make a stand and risk getting shot themselves if there is no blood relation to us.
- Jane, london, England, 04/12/2008 15:52
Report abuse
What might be public interest for a certain group of people might not be for others. If we give the green light for our civil servants to say what they want to say, then i wonder where we would draw the line. What the leak has failed to say is how is it public interest to leak immigration information than David Cameron crossing the red light with his Bike. I believe someone who aspires to be a PM should lead by example. That is what i call public interest.
- Alex Lisinge, Putney London, 04/12/2008 15:48
Report abuse
I wonder what they are really frightened might get out? Perhaps we might find out what 'The Project' really is. The EU are worried. They want us now to believe that they like democracy. I wonder why they went to see the Russians to find out how to set up a Police State then?
- Jane, london, 04/12/2008 15:42
Report abuse
Some people commit murder because they sincerely believe God is telling them to do it. That doesn't make their behaviour acceptable or morally defensible. This 'whistleblower' seems much more likely to be an untrustworthy right-wing employee on the make.
- Paul, London, 04/12/2008 14:44
Report abuse
One hundred per cent on the nail Mr Gilligan - an argument that should be framed and riveted onto Speaker's chair and then branded on delicate parts of the PM. Someone ought to remind these subversives just how many parliaments around the world took their lead from Westminister, in the days when the UK enjoyed respect.
- Ken Pottinger, France, 04/12/2008 14:42
Report abuse
Mr Gilligan, I've always had a high regard for you since the Iraq-BBC stitch-up and this piece of yours says it all. We live in interesting times. Keep up the good work of speaking the truth.
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 04/12/2008 14:41
Report abuse
These Labour Orwellian clowns are desperate for to cling to power. They will threaten anyone who gets in their way. People are used by Labour only as votes. Labour are worried over lots of problems being leaked. Insiders say the only modern departments in government are Press Offices, who hold bring out your dead monthly so burying bad news is co-ordinated better.
Extraordinary that the government uses taxpayers money to pay people to deceive the public.!!
This attack is massive overkill to intimidate leakers and opposition MP's who may fear arrest and their homes invaded and families frightened as well as private papers taken away and lives disrupted. The Labour action is just what Mugabe does. This has a British way with lots of Labour puff on protecting national security.
Andrew Gilligan bravely revealed the war dossier was sexed up. Clearly it was sexed up. Labour effectively killed Dr Kelly. Campbell lead the attacks that killed him, and is so twisted he tries to claim sympathy for his worries about it. That is worth repeating, that Campbell who co-ordinated the effective killing, then wants sympathy for being worried! No shame for his dishonest deception of the public, No apology, or even sorrow for death of an innocent public servant and brave man. Campbell is typical Labour obsessed with power and money, smearing others, gaining power, and manipulating media to photoshop their own image. When will they be gone?
- Jim, bow, 04/12/2008 14:33
Report abuse
This article appears to think it's the role of civil servants to leak embarassing material to the opposition - it isn't.
The civil service exists to implement the policies of the government of the day. All civil servants should stand ready to serve an administration of any stripe, regardless of their own political views.
If an individual finds that their role causes an impossible clash with their personal beliefs they can resign or ask to move to another post. There may be circumstances where a civil servant should intentionally leak information. But if an individual believes that the public needs to know information that would otherwise be suppressed there are other ways for this to be handled without leaking frequently, directly and in person to an opposition MP.
If Stephen Galley felt strongly about the information he'd seen he could have sent it anonymously to Damien Green or any other MP - he didn't, although it would still have ensured that the information was in the public domain. Instead, he opted to have contact with the MP, apply for a job with him and also stood in a local election as a member of the same party as Green.
Did Galley expect to benefit from his relationship with Green? Did Green encourage Galley to leak information he would not have done otherwise? Who knows, but it certainly muddies the waters. Either way, are you seriously suggesting that civil servants should be encouraged to leak because they expect to benefit? I hope not.
- Tim, London, 04/12/2008 14:24
Report abuse
Andrew Gilligan talks of our - "strong democratic culture" well up to a point. Our Deputy Prime Minister has not been elected and sits in the House of Lords. And to quote Lord Mandelson "we live in a post democratic age"!
- Stevew, Birmingham UK, 04/12/2008 14:18
Report abuse
A brilliant piece which should be read by all MPs and which
hopefully encourages people of conscience who have the courage to expose corruption or deception by the government of the day.
For any whistleblower who abuses the system, laws already exist to handle the situation.
Mr Galley did us all a favour and should be thanked not smeared.
Its ironic that many of the same team who so callously hounded Dr David Kelly are now doing Gordon Browns dirty work.
- Jon Dee, N Warks UK, 04/12/2008 14:00
Report abuse
The informant was acting on what he thought would advance his career.
That is the crime.
- Politico, UK, 04/12/2008 13:20
Report abuse
Whilst the informant was allegedly being guided by Green!
- Steven, London, 04/12/2008 13:17
Report abuse
Fortunately the average voter of any class or area has an inherent sense of what is right or wrong, a basic Anglo Saxon/Celtic good sense and eventually they will prevail but it is going to be a long painful process. Our history tells us that those who overstep the mark, becoming too arrogant are eventually brought to bear, ask several former monarchs’s starting from 1215. The MP’s are shocked to find their tight little world is under threat, and they have only themselves to blame. The Roll Back of State arrogance starts here, it had better before the voter start civil disobedience and far worse.
- Dave Morris, Sunderland, 04/12/2008 12:55
Report abuse
Nonsense. Fine, whistleblow when its critical, but when your 'job' becomes continuously leaking you should expect to pay the price. What's next selling documents to un-friendly states? As a regular recipient of leaks you must also expect the Police to wonder what else you've received and not told the press about and potentially left at risk of interception by un-friendlies.
- Chris E, London, 04/12/2008 12:54
Report abuse
It must be remembered that when the Conservatives were in office they prosecuted civil servents that had leaked details.
Civil Servents (at least when I joined in 1969) had to sign the Official Secrets Act. It was a joke that you should not go home and reveal what colour phone you had!
This case appears more like where a mole is implanted in Government to reveal secrets. If this is the case then any other MP's (Including David Cameron) should be prosecuted.
Of course given the example set by Boris Johnson who fails to understand that as Mayor of London he has to wear different hats and when he is Chair of the MPA anything learned should be held in confidence.
In every day and every Kens offer to Boris of a training course appears to have been what Boris needed.
The question is - Does David Cameron want to Scrap the Official Secrets Act?
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 04/12/2008 12:20
Report abuse
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilence". Sometimes you have to take a strong principled stand on what some would try to depict as a relatively trivial misunderstanding. Does that sound very un-British? Keep blowing your whistle, Andrew. Hopefully others, too, will be emboldened to swing their elbows a bit to defend what is really important.
- Blackstone Coke, London, 04/12/2008 12:11
Report abuse
