Yesterday I suggested that examination of the cases where prosecutions have occurred when Civil Servants have released classified information under the Official Secret’s Act merited consideration in order to make a judgement about the wisdom of seeking to bring criminal charges against a civil servant and a Member of the House of Commons for the release of information and the receipt of information which to date is reported not to be classified information or information covered by the official Secret’s Act.
There were two post World War Two situations involved subsequent Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his son in Law Duncan Sandys.
Duncan Sandy’s, the son in law of Winston Churchill, a Member of Parliament and a serving officer in the British Army asked several Questions in the House of Commons regarding matters which were alleged to be of national Security. He was approached by two secret service officers who warned him that he was placing himself at risk of prosecution and he then reported the matter to the Committee of Privileges which upheld the position of Members in relation to the Official Secrets Act, but which could discipline a Member over a breach if it wished.
Duncan Sandys fought and was wounded in the Expeditionary Force to Norway and while still a serving officer was given Ministerial appointments involving defence and the conduct of the war by his father in law, until the General Election in which he lost his seat. He then returned to Parliament as a Member of the House of Lords, serving in the Macmillan Government as Secretary of State for the Colonies and then in relation to the newly formed Commonwealth. He had determined what was in National Interest to raise matters of Security in Parliament
More attention has been given to the fact that Winston Churchill at first with the approval of a government Minister within the Conservative Party received classified information on the lack of readiness of the armed services to fight a war if the country was attacked. In defence of the Government’s position, the overwhelming majority of the British people, were still affected by the horror and magnitude of the losses of the Great War, the first World War, and were against rearmament and war. The problem was the knowledge and assessment of the future intentions of Germany under Hitler and that there were many in the UK, at the highest levels within society who then favoured the approach of Hitler and the fascists against the potential thereat of the Communists. Had the Communists gained control of the Labour Party it is not inconceivable that we would have had a military led counter coup in the UK as there was in Spain.
Churchill continued to receive information which he used to press that Britain was better prepared and which can be said to have led to his gaining first a Ministerial appointment and then to be asked to form a Government a National Government which included Ministers from all the main Political Parties.
I have dwelt on what happened at that time because in some respects we are in no different a situation with the unpopularity of British military action anywhere, including Afghanistan and with considerable opposition to the measures which have been taken to combat the Muslim fundamentalist or extremist led war against the USA and UK in particular, also against Russia and elsewhere. The government is better placed than that of the 1930’s to assess the continuing threat and make judgements about the action required while achieving a balance between action required instant global communication and maintaining the basic standards and freedoms which British society is still based and which was the basis on which two world wars were fought.
In 1984 Clive Pointing a Civil Servant at the Ministry of defence sent two documents to Tom Dalyell a Labour critic of the Falkland’s campaign which revealed that contrary to what the Conservative Government had told Parliament, the Belgrano had been sighted a day earlier than admitted, was outside the exclusion zone and was sailing away from the British Task force when it was attacked and sunk with heavy loss of life. Thus it was an act of revenge for British losses in much the same way Britain launched major bombings of German cities in revenge for previous indiscriminate bombings. In this instance Mr Ponting had disclosed official Secrets in war time under the Official Secrets Act and expected to be prosecuted and to go to prison. He pleaded not guilty claiming that the matter was in the Public Interest and that disclosure to a Member of Parliament was Privileged. The Judge supporting the executive attempted to gain a conviction by telling the jury that the public interest had to be determined by the government of the day and not individual civil servants. A point which Labour Members of the Commons have made several times over the past days. In this instance the jury rejected the direction the judge and acquitted Mr Pointing. The Conservative government reacted with fury and brought in a new Official Secret’s Act which removed the Public Interest defence, but only in relation to National Security matters. Following his resignation from the civil service after the case he was appointed a Reader in the Department of Politics and International Affairs at the University of Wales until his retirement in 2004. His published works include The Right to Know, Whitehall Tragedy or Farce, A green History of the World, 1940 Myth and Reality, Churchill, Armageddon The reality behind distortions, Myths, Lies Illusions of World War II, Thirteen Days Diplomacy and Disaster the Count down to the Great War, The Crimea War, the story behind the Myth, Gunpowder, the story his last published work in 2005. Now only 60 further work can be expected.
David Shayler has been described as a born rebel who applied to an unusual public advertisement for a job in 1989 for someone who was not expecting Godot to arrive, who was interested in current affairs, had common sense and an ability to write, thinking it was for a creative job in the media. Instead he was recruited to the M15, first monitoring left wing groups and other political activists, then moving a section which was concerned with Irish terrorism and then the Libyan desk which he headed and where he learned of an MI6 plot to kill Colonel Gadify. He left after 5 years unhappy with the administration of the home service. The plot was carried out but the bomb placed under the wrong car. After he left service he sent a dossier to the new Home Secretary and the Parliament and Security Committee and the police on the matter because he claimed the assassination attempt was carried out without the authority the appropriate Minister as required in Law, and that the intelligence services were planting false stories in the media one of which was later confirmed when the Sunday Telegraph published a false story. Shayler made other claims that the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London could have been prevented if the intelligence service had acted on prior knowledge and that the 1993 Bishopsgate Bombings could have been prevented. He was arrested at the request of British Government while in France and held in a French prison for four months before it was decided not to agree to extradition because the government request was politically motivated. He returned to Britain and was arrested, and charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act and the judged rules at the pre trial hearing that he had to disclose all information and argument beforehand. He tried to argue public interest and that he had no other means to pursue concerns. The judge directed the jury to find him guilty. He was sentenced to six months and released from an Open prison after seven weeks. He had planned to stand against Tony Blair in the 2005 General Election.
Shayler subsequently joined the 9/11 Truth movement which claims that all or part of the US government view is intentionally inaccurate but he was ejected from the movement for proposing crackpot explanation and is regarded by them as an agent provocateur working to discredit legitimate questions. His subsequent claims have become more and more extreme claiming he is the reincarnation of various important people of past times.
However the significance for me is his uncontested claim that the MI5 monitored Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw the present Minister for Justice and Harriet Harman. What amazes me is that anyone in government would expect that this was not the situation. Government of any composition and ideology will always monitor potential opponents and subversives, present what they are doing in the best possible light, acquire as much power as possible and taking decisions to maintain power alongside all it other functions, and therefore needs to be held to account and challenged where necessary through the rule of law and strong and at times bi partisan legislatures.
Two Parliamentary Researchers were successfully prosecuted by the Labour Government in 2007 with the hearing held in secret on the grounds that the leaked material would have a serious impact on international relations to outweigh the need for open justice. The sentences were for 6 months and 3 months.
Richard Tomlinson is a New Zealand born former MI6 officer. He had a brilliant academic career with a double first at Cambridge in aeronautical engineering and where he was also a front rank sportsman and became an officer in the Fleet Air arm. He won a Kennedy scholarship to work in the USA and Rotary International scholarship to work for a year studying in Argentina and becoming a fluent Spanish Speaker, then returning tot he UK joined the territorial SAS unit before joining MI6. His career in intelligence took him to Bosnia and Iran. He was then dismissed from the service from the service after 8 years in circumstances which he strongly contested but was prevented from pursuing. He tried to use an employment tribunal but the government blocked so he left the UK, continuing to attempt to gain publicity for his complaints against MI5 with the publication of articles. He returned to the UK in 1997 was arrested and realising he was likely to face a long prison sentence pleaded guilty to breaking the Official Secrets Acts and was give a twelve month prison sentence of which he served six months. After leaving the UK he continued to be pursued by the government and was arrested and held by several police forces in Germany, France, Italy, Monaco and Switzerland and was refused visa entry into the USA and Australia. This year after nearly a decade living in exile and being effectively on the run the British Government admitted that there had been no grounds to have dismissed him and released the proceeds of his book to him. He lives in France as a writer, commercial pilot and yacht broker.
I have written at some length about these cases for three reasons. The first is accuse both government and opposition being economical in what they have been saying when they claim that Ministers do not become directly involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions and provide advice to the judiciary. It could be argue that without this power democracy would become even more a meaningless concept than it is. However Ministers should always act in the national interest, on the advice of the Civil Service and within the current law. Minister have always been involved. Ministers should be involved, but their involvement should be defined and made public.
In all the case mentioned there was disclosure of matters covered by the Official Secrets Act, except in the case of Mr Tomlinson where the government never claimed that he had revealed classified information to anyone outside the service and which suggests that the fear was from what he could say rather than what he did.
Secondly given the nature of material which we know has been disclosed and the sentences it puts into context the decision to arrest the Conservative Member of Parliament and the incredulity that it would lead to a prosecution, to a finding of guilt by a jury and to imprisonment. The Home Secretary, the head of Home Office Civil Service, the Chief Secretary at the Cabinet, the Metropolitan Police and the House of Commons Speaker all have major questions to answer.
The reason is that given the nature of the information held by the prosecuted individuals it is interesting that only one served a prison sentence as long as I did for sit down in the middle of a country lane my way to sit down outside the entrance of an establishment concerned with the production of weapons of mass destruction. I accept that I was given the choice and could have left prison at any time, but it does illustrate the comparative seriousness of the three kinds of intervention bearing in mind that my prosecution was government directed and the magistrates were told by a government solicitor what to do.
This I believe is the true context in which the decision to investigate and arrest a Member of Parliament and raid his home and his Parliamentary office should be viewed,
I have also said that I have little sympathy with someone employed in the civil service who has signed a contract of employment, understood the matter of confidentiality and Code of Conduct and then systematically gives out confidential information to a Member of Parliament without approval and does this having a stated Party political allegiance, or seeking a party Political appointment. Such an individual should expect to be disciplined and if they released Classified information to be prosecuted.
Obviously there is also concern if a Member of Parliament solicits Classified information rather than make use of such information when it is provided and is in the national interests to make public. However only where there is appropriate evidence that a criminal offence appears to have been committed should a Member of Parliament be treated in the manner of the recent instance. There is also an internal mechanism to the House of Commons the conduct of any Member of Parliament if there is good cause without the involvement the Police
We do face a problem in the UK because if a Government is elected with a large majority, its power is far greater than for example the Executive in the United States, Party members not in Government are expected to give their loyalty unconditionally to the Government rather than participate in a bipartisan critical assessment of government policy, legislation and decision taking. In effect such Members can have less power and influence, less public exposure that members of opposition Parties, especially those oppositions from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who now have their devolved Assemblies with varying powers and control over the allocation of local resources. In this respect the Speaker of the House Commons has significant personal power in that he can decided who speaks in debates and who does not. The government can hold the prospects of a Ministerial Post or support post or some special allocation of resources to the individual constituency as a carrot for conformity, there is also membership o committee and there are delegations to visit other countries on behalf of the government, the Committees and the House itself. The USA system appears to be a more democratic system where the Executive changes according to the Presidential vote, separately from the composition and role of Congress and the Senate and which are wholly elected.
As emerged at Prime Minister’s Question Time last week, and the Debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Statement of Speaker, and during the two debates yesterday Members of Governments and Members of Parliament have always leaked information for political reasons. Government’s and individual Ministers will brief not just journalists but their own back bench members in order to bring information in the public and political arena, often for very mixed motives. Usually it is to ensure that their viewpoint and position is established before media and political criticism and opposition gets underway, Every Senior Ministers knows if they do not perform as well as show absolute loyalty they can be replaced and Junior Ministers know that if they do not support their Minister they will also be replaced. However sometimes the leak is to have the opposite effect. The Minister is not happy with the political commitment made in the manifesto or with some aspect of the policy or legislation so leaking will focus the attention of the media and the Opposition and their own Party backbenchers on issues where the Minister would like to see some change. The accusation was levelled several times that Gordon Brown made a name for himself as a backbencher by being given information confidential information and Frank Field referred to information he has obtained which demonstrated that the Government were misleading Parliament and the Public and which led to changes. A conservative Member of Parliament involved with him at the time said he always thought the leaks had come from the Minister Barbara Castle.
Moreover there is now legislation to ensure that a Civil Servant is protected from criminal prosecution if there is disclosure of confidential information although this does not prevent internal disciplinary proceedings from breach of confidentiality, the employment contract and the civil service code of behaviour. So why did the Home Secretary agree to the proposal to bring in the Cabinet office which meant referral to the Police and why having done so did she ask not to be kept informed. Other former Home Secretary on the Labour backbenchers said this would have been the situation. Ever since the issue became as public matter the Homer Secretary has looked distinctly uncomfortable. I was interested by one public comment to the Daily Mail story today that behind recent developments including the apparent enthusiasm of the Metropolitan Police to conduct the raid was the forced departure of Sir Iain Blair by the new Conservative Administration in London under Boris Johnson
The Leader of the House Harriet Harman in setting out the rights of Members of Parliament to do their job and no interference in the conducting of Police inquiries may have unwittingly created more questions than answers about the conduct of her colleagues in the Home Office and of the police in their conduct, and on the role of the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and the Cabinet Secretary. Were they being neutral or trying to win favour with Ministers and the Government now that it looked as if could win a fourth term?
The suggestion of tit for tat came not from the government but from loyal supporters of the government on the back benchers who angrily attacked the Conservatives, exposing themselves in the process as nasty political party war mongers and out of tune with the tenor of everyone else in the debate when they accused the those speaking on the conservative benchers of hypocrisy given what happened to Clive Pointing and other civil servants and Cash for Honours claims.
It is to he hoped that senior member of the House of Commons will finds ways to ensure that the position is kept under continuous review. Far from recent action having a deterrent effect, if this was its intention, it will make the Police and Ministers cautious about embarking on action in relation.
There were two post World War Two situations involved subsequent Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his son in Law Duncan Sandys.
Duncan Sandy’s, the son in law of Winston Churchill, a Member of Parliament and a serving officer in the British Army asked several Questions in the House of Commons regarding matters which were alleged to be of national Security. He was approached by two secret service officers who warned him that he was placing himself at risk of prosecution and he then reported the matter to the Committee of Privileges which upheld the position of Members in relation to the Official Secrets Act, but which could discipline a Member over a breach if it wished.
Duncan Sandys fought and was wounded in the Expeditionary Force to Norway and while still a serving officer was given Ministerial appointments involving defence and the conduct of the war by his father in law, until the General Election in which he lost his seat. He then returned to Parliament as a Member of the House of Lords, serving in the Macmillan Government as Secretary of State for the Colonies and then in relation to the newly formed Commonwealth. He had determined what was in National Interest to raise matters of Security in Parliament
More attention has been given to the fact that Winston Churchill at first with the approval of a government Minister within the Conservative Party received classified information on the lack of readiness of the armed services to fight a war if the country was attacked. In defence of the Government’s position, the overwhelming majority of the British people, were still affected by the horror and magnitude of the losses of the Great War, the first World War, and were against rearmament and war. The problem was the knowledge and assessment of the future intentions of Germany under Hitler and that there were many in the UK, at the highest levels within society who then favoured the approach of Hitler and the fascists against the potential thereat of the Communists. Had the Communists gained control of the Labour Party it is not inconceivable that we would have had a military led counter coup in the UK as there was in Spain.
Churchill continued to receive information which he used to press that Britain was better prepared and which can be said to have led to his gaining first a Ministerial appointment and then to be asked to form a Government a National Government which included Ministers from all the main Political Parties.
I have dwelt on what happened at that time because in some respects we are in no different a situation with the unpopularity of British military action anywhere, including Afghanistan and with considerable opposition to the measures which have been taken to combat the Muslim fundamentalist or extremist led war against the USA and UK in particular, also against Russia and elsewhere. The government is better placed than that of the 1930’s to assess the continuing threat and make judgements about the action required while achieving a balance between action required instant global communication and maintaining the basic standards and freedoms which British society is still based and which was the basis on which two world wars were fought.
In 1984 Clive Pointing a Civil Servant at the Ministry of defence sent two documents to Tom Dalyell a Labour critic of the Falkland’s campaign which revealed that contrary to what the Conservative Government had told Parliament, the Belgrano had been sighted a day earlier than admitted, was outside the exclusion zone and was sailing away from the British Task force when it was attacked and sunk with heavy loss of life. Thus it was an act of revenge for British losses in much the same way Britain launched major bombings of German cities in revenge for previous indiscriminate bombings. In this instance Mr Ponting had disclosed official Secrets in war time under the Official Secrets Act and expected to be prosecuted and to go to prison. He pleaded not guilty claiming that the matter was in the Public Interest and that disclosure to a Member of Parliament was Privileged. The Judge supporting the executive attempted to gain a conviction by telling the jury that the public interest had to be determined by the government of the day and not individual civil servants. A point which Labour Members of the Commons have made several times over the past days. In this instance the jury rejected the direction the judge and acquitted Mr Pointing. The Conservative government reacted with fury and brought in a new Official Secret’s Act which removed the Public Interest defence, but only in relation to National Security matters. Following his resignation from the civil service after the case he was appointed a Reader in the Department of Politics and International Affairs at the University of Wales until his retirement in 2004. His published works include The Right to Know, Whitehall Tragedy or Farce, A green History of the World, 1940 Myth and Reality, Churchill, Armageddon The reality behind distortions, Myths, Lies Illusions of World War II, Thirteen Days Diplomacy and Disaster the Count down to the Great War, The Crimea War, the story behind the Myth, Gunpowder, the story his last published work in 2005. Now only 60 further work can be expected.
David Shayler has been described as a born rebel who applied to an unusual public advertisement for a job in 1989 for someone who was not expecting Godot to arrive, who was interested in current affairs, had common sense and an ability to write, thinking it was for a creative job in the media. Instead he was recruited to the M15, first monitoring left wing groups and other political activists, then moving a section which was concerned with Irish terrorism and then the Libyan desk which he headed and where he learned of an MI6 plot to kill Colonel Gadify. He left after 5 years unhappy with the administration of the home service. The plot was carried out but the bomb placed under the wrong car. After he left service he sent a dossier to the new Home Secretary and the Parliament and Security Committee and the police on the matter because he claimed the assassination attempt was carried out without the authority the appropriate Minister as required in Law, and that the intelligence services were planting false stories in the media one of which was later confirmed when the Sunday Telegraph published a false story. Shayler made other claims that the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London could have been prevented if the intelligence service had acted on prior knowledge and that the 1993 Bishopsgate Bombings could have been prevented. He was arrested at the request of British Government while in France and held in a French prison for four months before it was decided not to agree to extradition because the government request was politically motivated. He returned to Britain and was arrested, and charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act and the judged rules at the pre trial hearing that he had to disclose all information and argument beforehand. He tried to argue public interest and that he had no other means to pursue concerns. The judge directed the jury to find him guilty. He was sentenced to six months and released from an Open prison after seven weeks. He had planned to stand against Tony Blair in the 2005 General Election.
Shayler subsequently joined the 9/11 Truth movement which claims that all or part of the US government view is intentionally inaccurate but he was ejected from the movement for proposing crackpot explanation and is regarded by them as an agent provocateur working to discredit legitimate questions. His subsequent claims have become more and more extreme claiming he is the reincarnation of various important people of past times.
However the significance for me is his uncontested claim that the MI5 monitored Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw the present Minister for Justice and Harriet Harman. What amazes me is that anyone in government would expect that this was not the situation. Government of any composition and ideology will always monitor potential opponents and subversives, present what they are doing in the best possible light, acquire as much power as possible and taking decisions to maintain power alongside all it other functions, and therefore needs to be held to account and challenged where necessary through the rule of law and strong and at times bi partisan legislatures.
Two Parliamentary Researchers were successfully prosecuted by the Labour Government in 2007 with the hearing held in secret on the grounds that the leaked material would have a serious impact on international relations to outweigh the need for open justice. The sentences were for 6 months and 3 months.
Richard Tomlinson is a New Zealand born former MI6 officer. He had a brilliant academic career with a double first at Cambridge in aeronautical engineering and where he was also a front rank sportsman and became an officer in the Fleet Air arm. He won a Kennedy scholarship to work in the USA and Rotary International scholarship to work for a year studying in Argentina and becoming a fluent Spanish Speaker, then returning tot he UK joined the territorial SAS unit before joining MI6. His career in intelligence took him to Bosnia and Iran. He was then dismissed from the service from the service after 8 years in circumstances which he strongly contested but was prevented from pursuing. He tried to use an employment tribunal but the government blocked so he left the UK, continuing to attempt to gain publicity for his complaints against MI5 with the publication of articles. He returned to the UK in 1997 was arrested and realising he was likely to face a long prison sentence pleaded guilty to breaking the Official Secrets Acts and was give a twelve month prison sentence of which he served six months. After leaving the UK he continued to be pursued by the government and was arrested and held by several police forces in Germany, France, Italy, Monaco and Switzerland and was refused visa entry into the USA and Australia. This year after nearly a decade living in exile and being effectively on the run the British Government admitted that there had been no grounds to have dismissed him and released the proceeds of his book to him. He lives in France as a writer, commercial pilot and yacht broker.
I have written at some length about these cases for three reasons. The first is accuse both government and opposition being economical in what they have been saying when they claim that Ministers do not become directly involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions and provide advice to the judiciary. It could be argue that without this power democracy would become even more a meaningless concept than it is. However Ministers should always act in the national interest, on the advice of the Civil Service and within the current law. Minister have always been involved. Ministers should be involved, but their involvement should be defined and made public.
In all the case mentioned there was disclosure of matters covered by the Official Secrets Act, except in the case of Mr Tomlinson where the government never claimed that he had revealed classified information to anyone outside the service and which suggests that the fear was from what he could say rather than what he did.
Secondly given the nature of material which we know has been disclosed and the sentences it puts into context the decision to arrest the Conservative Member of Parliament and the incredulity that it would lead to a prosecution, to a finding of guilt by a jury and to imprisonment. The Home Secretary, the head of Home Office Civil Service, the Chief Secretary at the Cabinet, the Metropolitan Police and the House of Commons Speaker all have major questions to answer.
The reason is that given the nature of the information held by the prosecuted individuals it is interesting that only one served a prison sentence as long as I did for sit down in the middle of a country lane my way to sit down outside the entrance of an establishment concerned with the production of weapons of mass destruction. I accept that I was given the choice and could have left prison at any time, but it does illustrate the comparative seriousness of the three kinds of intervention bearing in mind that my prosecution was government directed and the magistrates were told by a government solicitor what to do.
This I believe is the true context in which the decision to investigate and arrest a Member of Parliament and raid his home and his Parliamentary office should be viewed,
I have also said that I have little sympathy with someone employed in the civil service who has signed a contract of employment, understood the matter of confidentiality and Code of Conduct and then systematically gives out confidential information to a Member of Parliament without approval and does this having a stated Party political allegiance, or seeking a party Political appointment. Such an individual should expect to be disciplined and if they released Classified information to be prosecuted.
Obviously there is also concern if a Member of Parliament solicits Classified information rather than make use of such information when it is provided and is in the national interests to make public. However only where there is appropriate evidence that a criminal offence appears to have been committed should a Member of Parliament be treated in the manner of the recent instance. There is also an internal mechanism to the House of Commons the conduct of any Member of Parliament if there is good cause without the involvement the Police
We do face a problem in the UK because if a Government is elected with a large majority, its power is far greater than for example the Executive in the United States, Party members not in Government are expected to give their loyalty unconditionally to the Government rather than participate in a bipartisan critical assessment of government policy, legislation and decision taking. In effect such Members can have less power and influence, less public exposure that members of opposition Parties, especially those oppositions from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who now have their devolved Assemblies with varying powers and control over the allocation of local resources. In this respect the Speaker of the House Commons has significant personal power in that he can decided who speaks in debates and who does not. The government can hold the prospects of a Ministerial Post or support post or some special allocation of resources to the individual constituency as a carrot for conformity, there is also membership o committee and there are delegations to visit other countries on behalf of the government, the Committees and the House itself. The USA system appears to be a more democratic system where the Executive changes according to the Presidential vote, separately from the composition and role of Congress and the Senate and which are wholly elected.
As emerged at Prime Minister’s Question Time last week, and the Debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Statement of Speaker, and during the two debates yesterday Members of Governments and Members of Parliament have always leaked information for political reasons. Government’s and individual Ministers will brief not just journalists but their own back bench members in order to bring information in the public and political arena, often for very mixed motives. Usually it is to ensure that their viewpoint and position is established before media and political criticism and opposition gets underway, Every Senior Ministers knows if they do not perform as well as show absolute loyalty they can be replaced and Junior Ministers know that if they do not support their Minister they will also be replaced. However sometimes the leak is to have the opposite effect. The Minister is not happy with the political commitment made in the manifesto or with some aspect of the policy or legislation so leaking will focus the attention of the media and the Opposition and their own Party backbenchers on issues where the Minister would like to see some change. The accusation was levelled several times that Gordon Brown made a name for himself as a backbencher by being given information confidential information and Frank Field referred to information he has obtained which demonstrated that the Government were misleading Parliament and the Public and which led to changes. A conservative Member of Parliament involved with him at the time said he always thought the leaks had come from the Minister Barbara Castle.
Moreover there is now legislation to ensure that a Civil Servant is protected from criminal prosecution if there is disclosure of confidential information although this does not prevent internal disciplinary proceedings from breach of confidentiality, the employment contract and the civil service code of behaviour. So why did the Home Secretary agree to the proposal to bring in the Cabinet office which meant referral to the Police and why having done so did she ask not to be kept informed. Other former Home Secretary on the Labour backbenchers said this would have been the situation. Ever since the issue became as public matter the Homer Secretary has looked distinctly uncomfortable. I was interested by one public comment to the Daily Mail story today that behind recent developments including the apparent enthusiasm of the Metropolitan Police to conduct the raid was the forced departure of Sir Iain Blair by the new Conservative Administration in London under Boris Johnson
The Leader of the House Harriet Harman in setting out the rights of Members of Parliament to do their job and no interference in the conducting of Police inquiries may have unwittingly created more questions than answers about the conduct of her colleagues in the Home Office and of the police in their conduct, and on the role of the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and the Cabinet Secretary. Were they being neutral or trying to win favour with Ministers and the Government now that it looked as if could win a fourth term?
The suggestion of tit for tat came not from the government but from loyal supporters of the government on the back benchers who angrily attacked the Conservatives, exposing themselves in the process as nasty political party war mongers and out of tune with the tenor of everyone else in the debate when they accused the those speaking on the conservative benchers of hypocrisy given what happened to Clive Pointing and other civil servants and Cash for Honours claims.
It is to he hoped that senior member of the House of Commons will finds ways to ensure that the position is kept under continuous review. Far from recent action having a deterrent effect, if this was its intention, it will make the Police and Ministers cautious about embarking on action in relation.
No comments:
Post a Comment