I also remind of the situation recently written about at some length when during the early part of my course to become qualified and state recognised child care officer, I wrote to a Member of Parliament about the appalling housing circumstances of a family I had been asked to visit as part of my practical work placement. I had not identified the family or where they lived except the city in question, Birmingham and I had previously written about the poor housing conditions in the constituency area of the Member of Parliament when I worked there for three months undertaking practical with the Family Service Unit. By coincidence my letter had coincided with a debate in the House of Commons about the appalling conditions in the private rented sector which was then known as Rackmanism after a notorious housing landlord and considerable publicity was given to what I had said under the banner of Twilight zone families. I had known none of this until contacted by a local journalist where the MP had been given my name in confidence and when asked if I was prepared to acknowledge that I was the source of the information, I had agreed to do so in order to confirm its authenticity and validity, but explained that it had been gained through a practical work placement and therefore I was not in a position to divulge the name of the family without their prior consent and that the particular circumstances had been drawn to the attention of the housing authority. There would have been no problem if I had asked the journalist not to disclose my name and circumstances or the disclosure restricted to a couple of lines in the back pages of the newspaper had not been drawn to the attention of the local authority and to my course and indeed although I was required to apologise to the local authority and the family in question, the local authority offered me a job and the incident became the subject of an annual seminar on the course about the role of social work and politics, after I had become prominent publishing Parliament and Social Work, a digest about references to Social Work in Parliament and writing a monthly column about the same subject.
Indeed there would also have been no problem at all had I suggested to the family that they seek the help of their local Member of Parliament or the help of the media to help their cause for rehousing. While I may well have advised them to do the former I was always against the involvement of the media in such cases because of the potential negative affects upon the family or individual in question. In this instance I was not revealing legally forbidden information but information which could have led to legal problems for the course and for the local authority and therefore I was jeopardising my position. In mitigation I was not doing so in terms of a party political issue or purpose or for personal advance or gain. I had come across a major social problem and a family caught up in such a situation which I felt my Member of Parliament contact who had a special interest in housing matter would find helpful.
Only a couple of years before I had been invited to the House of Lords to attend a debate on Prison Conditions by the President of the Prison Reform Society following the publication of Inside Story by the Society, of 100 suggestions for improving prisons, by a group of ex CND prisoners which I had chaired. and during the debate which the President had opened I was taken for tea with two other colleagues from the Reform Council, one the sister of a peer entitled to sit in the House of Lords, the secretary of a Civil Service Association representing the experience of a former colleague who had been imprisoned for revealing classified information to her lover and a Bishop who was asked to join us. He warmly greeted the secretary of the Civil Services association and my colleague when told she was the sister of a member of the House, but when he introduced me saying I had been to prison for six months without explaining further, the look of disapproval and coldness of the greeting was evident to everyone. I subsequently told this story at a criminology seminar attending by first and second class honours post graduates at Oxford University and I mentioned the Bishop by name and afterwards one of the students came up and said her father was inclined to see things in black and white.
I tell the story in part to warn of the consequences of telling tales to strangers without first ensuring that you know who is present but mainly to remind that civil servants have gone to prison for revealing classified information. It also a two way process I have also written about the Holy Loch Demonstration in which I had disclosed precisely what was planned to the police as part of my Gandhian approach and which led to a formal warning from the Commander of the Flag Ship Scotland but had not led to me arrest whereas the others organisers were arrested and some went to prison. The consequence is that the authorities were well prepared for the seaborne attempt to board the supply vessel in the loch as the submarine had departed. However I had only advised of the use of canoes and had resigned when Pat Arrowsmith announced at the last moment that had acquired the use of a large motor launch and that a film director was willing to use his substantial yacht and that persons who had not participated in the match from London or been prepared in advance would be allowed to participate in the seaborne demonstration. I was in the launch and were given a powerful hosing every time we attempted to move to a ladder at the side of the supply ship. We were nearly sunk which was their intention and then became marooned when the engine ceased to work and drifted in the loch close to a large tethered buoy. An unnamed small launch then successfully moved the buoy which towered over us towards the film Director‘s yacht as its stopped to pick up demonstrators from our launch causing it some damage and then threatening to smash into us. However the departure of the majority of the demonstrators from our vessel had the effect of allowing the engines to restart and we were able to move away and going in for another drenching before this time the engines cut out for good. We were rescued by Dr Rachel Pinney and wealthy doctor who lived in a large fine house in Chelsea, She had one of those cars that turned into a boat on which she had painted the international red cross sign and was there to pick up people if they went into the loch for any reason and she had towed us on to the bank. We had a good chat and she gave me her address and telephone number and asked me to call in for tea, which I subsequently did, noting the finery of the furnishings and that she was attended by not one but two young men who may have been younger than myself, It was years later that she was subject of media investigation and may have involved the police given the youth of some of the of the young men and for other reasons.
“Dr Rachel Pinney, 1909- 1995 was one of the Direct Action Committee's band of tax refusers in the early '60s and participated in the DAC's walk from London to Holy Loch -- the base for Britain's soon-to-be-deployed Polaris nuclear submarines -- in 1961. Later in the '60s Rachel opened a peace café in Fulham; she was also an out lesbian; went to Greenham in the '80s; and was an active campaigner in one way or another to the end of her life. In her professional life, Rachel was an innovator in play therapy. "Creative listening", which used various means to get people to focus on what others were saying, had a major effect in both her professional work with children and her political work. There were meetings where a speaker held a conch shell until they were finished speaking; at other times, one person would speak and the others would wait until the next meeting to respond to them. From the mid-'60s onwards, Rachel kept silent on Wednesdays as a protest against nuclear weapons; this created some complications when she was summonsed to court and had to communicate by written notes.” Peace News Obituary by Pat Arrowsmith.
“Rachel Pinney was born 11th July 1909, the daughter of a Major-General. She obtained a medical degree and practiced as a GP until 1961. On leaving the medical profession, Rachel contacted Dr. Margaret Lowenfeld, the distinguished child therapist. Rachel learnt her methods but never trained formally. This period resulted in the pioneering of her 'methods for conflict understanding' which she called Creative Listening, and Children's Hours, the former incorporated as a limited company in 1967. These techniques were widely used by experts working therapeutically with children. In 1977 Rachel went to New York and treated a four year old boy suffering from autism. This resulted in her publication 'Bobby, Breakthrough of an Autistic Child' (1983). Rachel was briefly married to Luigi Coccuzzi with whom she had one daughter and two sons. She was a member of CND from 1961 and openly declared herself a lesbian in 1989. She died 19th October 1995 aged 86. “ From the archives Hub Women’s Library who hold some of her papers.
Returning Home to Wallington I recounted what had happened to a young socialist female friend who was a single parent and who in a junior clerical capacity worked at the Home Office. When describing the incident with the launch and other matters she commented that they, meaning the Home Office, had known all that I described including my walking out of the Glasgow meeting because what was to take place was to be different from what I had advised the police. The reason why I am able to disclose the disclosure is that my young friend was subsequently murdered and I believe the person responsible was never apprehended. Because I had known the young woman my mother advised that the police had been in contact and asked to contact them if I had any information which might be of assistance. I had consulted the child care course director before doing so, given the previous incident involving the Member of Parliament and she cautioned against my doing so saying that further publicity might make my position difficult. However I felt that that I had known the young woman sufficiently well and that she had said things about an adult relationship she was having that ought to be disclosed in case no one else had dome so. I therefore contacted the local police and a made a formal statement which was passed on to the investigating police and the coroner but I was not called or directly involved after to that which confirmed that if you do things in right way at the right time and your conscience is clear then you have nothing to fear from the police or the authorities.
There is therefore good and bad ways about approaching confidential matters and much depends on the approach used and the circumstances. Winston Churchill, for example had a source within the Government who disclosed highly classified information which Churchill revealed about Britain’s lack of preparedness for a war with Germany. This was important public interest information which can be said to have led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister and Britain surviving until the USA entered World War II. However the individual in question was breaking the law as well as his contract of employment and Churchill should not have given any encouragement and disclosed the disclosure to the proper authorities. What if the individual had been releasing this and similar information also to the Germans or other potential enemies?
I therefore do not share the view of those who argue that it is job of the opposition or back bench Members of Parliament to seek or accept information gained by anyone employed in the public services which is regarded as confidential or secret and in most circumstances the role of the Member of Parliament should be to report the offer of information or the disclosure of information to the appropriate authorities advising the individual concerned that they were doing so. I am particular concerned if the information is then used for party political purposes or if the individual concerned is disclosing the information for party political purposes.
There are exceptions to the general rule if example the information is genuinely in the public interest irrespective of how it might be used politically, However if the information involves illegal activity such as what happened in the USA in relation to Watergate and that political figures or senior civil servants were intentionally misleading or lying to Parliament then both the information provider and the Member of Parliament have duties also they also should be aware of the potential implications as well as official protections.
I was to be tested in a way which threatened my future and that of my family when in the mid 1980’s the Militant Tendency had gained a significant influence within a National and local branch of a Trades Union and wilfully mislead residential child care staff into a strike in what was then a closed shop situation. Staff were threatened and the welfare of children in public care was put at serious risk. My first task was to gain the support of management staff to put the interests of children first and which in turn would threaten their immediate and future livelihood. I therefore obtained approval from a cross party special committee of the local authority to invite management staff to assist me in providing care for the children in their own homes and to given them a written undertaking that in the event of their trades union taking successful action against them their position with the local authority would not be affected. I then interviewed each member of the management staff and explained the position and what the undertaking meant or did not mean. I then interviewed each of the residential officers who were on strike and offered them the same deal, although in this instance I asked them to request their union to hold an immediate further ballot for a return to work as I was already aware that a majority had been bullied or misled into strike action and wished to return to duties and the approach was the best of resolving the situation. Understandably the union prevaricated but did reballot, reported the outcome of a return to work to the union leadership and then insisted on a no victimization agreement on the part of the employers in relation to their members who had initiated and continued to support the strike action. However they refused to give a similar undertaking in relation to myself and the management staff who had enabled the children to continue with their lives as before.
Consequently they used their power as an executive committee and by publishing a newsletter to their members to justify seeking the dismissal of the officers from the trades union. I demanded and obtained the approval of the Leader of the council in the presence of a senior officer of my department to be able to use my time and resources such as council materials in order to combat the lies and misleading information of some members of the union executive who were unscrupulous and where I had evidence had threatened staff and put children in public care in harm’s way. We were successful in the sense that the majority of Members in the Trades Union Branch successfully rejected the request to dismiss the staff and also subsequently evicted those involved from their position in the Branch Union. This was possible by separating their role from my own. I used the system within the Union to bring to the attention of the National executive my concerns about the behaviour of some of its local officials and members although this was always going to be a non win situation because a majority of the Trades Union national executive were supporters or sympathetic to the Militant tendency development inside the Labour Party. I was interested to hear its main Leader, Derek Hatton of Liverpool, now an overseas Property developer, reveal on TV at the end of last week that such ha been their power at one point that he had been offered a Shadow Cabinet position by the Labour Party if he brought his troops under the control of the Party Machine. I therefore made sure that political and trade union interests as well as the media were made fully aware of what was going on. I eventually accepted expulsion from the trades union feeling as I gone as far as I could and achieved the objectives which had been set out, although my own position was difficult , and had it not been for colleagues who formed a branch of a relative new tares union representing the interests of senior managers in local government, I am sure my continued employment would have been formally challenged, once some of those involved had regained positions in the trades union and indeed my life was made difficult in other ways as time elapsed and history came to be rewritten, even though the Labour Party saw the light and support for the Militant Tendency and Membership of the Labour Party became incompatible.
The sad thing is that I was and remain a strong believer in collective action and collective bargaining and that many of those who had actively supported the aims of the militant tendency were and remain selfless in their concern for the welfare of others. I also fully supported the cause of all residential care staff for a better deal then and even more so now. However my difference was and remains over methods.
This is a regular problem encounter I agree or am sympathetic with the aims and objectives but no the methods. I an have some sympathy for reasons why the majority of the young men who participated in the Mumbia massacre felt driven into taking action. I am horrified at the loss of life not just of the troops in Iraq and Pakistan, no less than those massacred in Mumbai and all the other innocents caught in the cross fire and “collateral damage” that arises in War zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan Pakistan, Israel Palestine and India, and elsewhere. My opposition is to the methods being used and the way some, usually those in leadership and who lead very comfortable lives compared to those they claim to represent use this devotion and commitment to a cause, to further their own ends and ambitions.
This is also true for those who claim to represent the public interest in Parliament who are Members of Government, Back Benchers to the Government or in Oppositions parties.
Having said all this I must also say that I agree with those who regard the action taken in relation to the Conservative Shadow cabinet Member as deeply concerning and a threat to the role of Members of the House of Commons and the role of Parliament in generally.
I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say and found aspects of what she said to be unacceptable and raised major questions about her political future.
The government and her department in particular were right to initiate an in depth investigation into why there has been a succession of leaks of confidential departmental information and to take action against any individual, or individuals found to have systematically leaked information, especially if such information is classified, or made available for party political purposes or for personal gain and advancement. The Conservative Party would be as vigorous and I suspect far more ruthless in tackling the problem as has been the Labour Government.
I also agree that it was right to leave this matter to the police to determine what action should be taken in relation to the individual identified or any other individuals who were known to have been involved. As a Minister I would have expected to have been advised that an investigation was to take place and the form of that investigation if any Member of Parliament was involved because of the constitutional significance. I would also expect the Minister to be consulted together with the Speaker of the House of Commons regarding the form of the investigation if this was to involve a search of the offices of the Member within the Palace of Westminster, the removal of any papers, computers and such like from within the Palace and any interruption in the role of that the Member in relation to his constituents, Without the disclosure of any information which might become the subject of criminal proceedings, it should be, and is usually possible for the police to have indicated the strength of their reasons for taking the action which they did. At present it smacks they were on a fishing expedition and the use of Anti Terror police is extraordinary and appears designed to cause the maximum political embarrassment to the Opposition (and indirectly to the government).
It will be appreciate that I am separating the justification for taking action from the method of intervention and investigation. Accepting that the Minister was not made aware beforehand of the decision to intervene or the method of intervention I was shocked and surprised that she did not appear to grasp the constitutional significance and failed to express regret of the way what happened happened, or to say that there was urgent need to review the position to ensure that such a situation did not happen again in such manner. By not doing so she and the Speaker of House risk being censured privately and in public by the majority of both House of Parliament irrespective of the position taken by the Government. The first indication of this is revealed overnight when Harriet Harman deputy leader if the Labour Party and Leader of the Commons and responsible for the conduct of business in House is reported to have expressed concerns and that the situation would require urgent examination.
This morning there are reports of a threatened boycott of the state opening of Parliament Conservative of Parliament, or some form of walk out to show their disapproval of the government but not to Her Majesty and the Speaker has said he will make a statement about the decision to allow the police to enter the Palace of Westminster. This is not just welcome but only the start of a situation where he risks being censured by a majority of both Houses and where a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Brown on this issue could follow which he will lose unless he personally makes clear his concerns about the way the matter has been undertaken. At a stroke the government has lost the next General Election unless the Prime Minister takes immediate and decisive action acceptable to majority of both House of Parliament. Her Majesty the Queen should intervene and call a meeting of her Privy Council to discuss the situation.
Indeed there would also have been no problem at all had I suggested to the family that they seek the help of their local Member of Parliament or the help of the media to help their cause for rehousing. While I may well have advised them to do the former I was always against the involvement of the media in such cases because of the potential negative affects upon the family or individual in question. In this instance I was not revealing legally forbidden information but information which could have led to legal problems for the course and for the local authority and therefore I was jeopardising my position. In mitigation I was not doing so in terms of a party political issue or purpose or for personal advance or gain. I had come across a major social problem and a family caught up in such a situation which I felt my Member of Parliament contact who had a special interest in housing matter would find helpful.
Only a couple of years before I had been invited to the House of Lords to attend a debate on Prison Conditions by the President of the Prison Reform Society following the publication of Inside Story by the Society, of 100 suggestions for improving prisons, by a group of ex CND prisoners which I had chaired. and during the debate which the President had opened I was taken for tea with two other colleagues from the Reform Council, one the sister of a peer entitled to sit in the House of Lords, the secretary of a Civil Service Association representing the experience of a former colleague who had been imprisoned for revealing classified information to her lover and a Bishop who was asked to join us. He warmly greeted the secretary of the Civil Services association and my colleague when told she was the sister of a member of the House, but when he introduced me saying I had been to prison for six months without explaining further, the look of disapproval and coldness of the greeting was evident to everyone. I subsequently told this story at a criminology seminar attending by first and second class honours post graduates at Oxford University and I mentioned the Bishop by name and afterwards one of the students came up and said her father was inclined to see things in black and white.
I tell the story in part to warn of the consequences of telling tales to strangers without first ensuring that you know who is present but mainly to remind that civil servants have gone to prison for revealing classified information. It also a two way process I have also written about the Holy Loch Demonstration in which I had disclosed precisely what was planned to the police as part of my Gandhian approach and which led to a formal warning from the Commander of the Flag Ship Scotland but had not led to me arrest whereas the others organisers were arrested and some went to prison. The consequence is that the authorities were well prepared for the seaborne attempt to board the supply vessel in the loch as the submarine had departed. However I had only advised of the use of canoes and had resigned when Pat Arrowsmith announced at the last moment that had acquired the use of a large motor launch and that a film director was willing to use his substantial yacht and that persons who had not participated in the match from London or been prepared in advance would be allowed to participate in the seaborne demonstration. I was in the launch and were given a powerful hosing every time we attempted to move to a ladder at the side of the supply ship. We were nearly sunk which was their intention and then became marooned when the engine ceased to work and drifted in the loch close to a large tethered buoy. An unnamed small launch then successfully moved the buoy which towered over us towards the film Director‘s yacht as its stopped to pick up demonstrators from our launch causing it some damage and then threatening to smash into us. However the departure of the majority of the demonstrators from our vessel had the effect of allowing the engines to restart and we were able to move away and going in for another drenching before this time the engines cut out for good. We were rescued by Dr Rachel Pinney and wealthy doctor who lived in a large fine house in Chelsea, She had one of those cars that turned into a boat on which she had painted the international red cross sign and was there to pick up people if they went into the loch for any reason and she had towed us on to the bank. We had a good chat and she gave me her address and telephone number and asked me to call in for tea, which I subsequently did, noting the finery of the furnishings and that she was attended by not one but two young men who may have been younger than myself, It was years later that she was subject of media investigation and may have involved the police given the youth of some of the of the young men and for other reasons.
“Dr Rachel Pinney, 1909- 1995 was one of the Direct Action Committee's band of tax refusers in the early '60s and participated in the DAC's walk from London to Holy Loch -- the base for Britain's soon-to-be-deployed Polaris nuclear submarines -- in 1961. Later in the '60s Rachel opened a peace café in Fulham; she was also an out lesbian; went to Greenham in the '80s; and was an active campaigner in one way or another to the end of her life. In her professional life, Rachel was an innovator in play therapy. "Creative listening", which used various means to get people to focus on what others were saying, had a major effect in both her professional work with children and her political work. There were meetings where a speaker held a conch shell until they were finished speaking; at other times, one person would speak and the others would wait until the next meeting to respond to them. From the mid-'60s onwards, Rachel kept silent on Wednesdays as a protest against nuclear weapons; this created some complications when she was summonsed to court and had to communicate by written notes.” Peace News Obituary by Pat Arrowsmith.
“Rachel Pinney was born 11th July 1909, the daughter of a Major-General. She obtained a medical degree and practiced as a GP until 1961. On leaving the medical profession, Rachel contacted Dr. Margaret Lowenfeld, the distinguished child therapist. Rachel learnt her methods but never trained formally. This period resulted in the pioneering of her 'methods for conflict understanding' which she called Creative Listening, and Children's Hours, the former incorporated as a limited company in 1967. These techniques were widely used by experts working therapeutically with children. In 1977 Rachel went to New York and treated a four year old boy suffering from autism. This resulted in her publication 'Bobby, Breakthrough of an Autistic Child' (1983). Rachel was briefly married to Luigi Coccuzzi with whom she had one daughter and two sons. She was a member of CND from 1961 and openly declared herself a lesbian in 1989. She died 19th October 1995 aged 86. “ From the archives Hub Women’s Library who hold some of her papers.
Returning Home to Wallington I recounted what had happened to a young socialist female friend who was a single parent and who in a junior clerical capacity worked at the Home Office. When describing the incident with the launch and other matters she commented that they, meaning the Home Office, had known all that I described including my walking out of the Glasgow meeting because what was to take place was to be different from what I had advised the police. The reason why I am able to disclose the disclosure is that my young friend was subsequently murdered and I believe the person responsible was never apprehended. Because I had known the young woman my mother advised that the police had been in contact and asked to contact them if I had any information which might be of assistance. I had consulted the child care course director before doing so, given the previous incident involving the Member of Parliament and she cautioned against my doing so saying that further publicity might make my position difficult. However I felt that that I had known the young woman sufficiently well and that she had said things about an adult relationship she was having that ought to be disclosed in case no one else had dome so. I therefore contacted the local police and a made a formal statement which was passed on to the investigating police and the coroner but I was not called or directly involved after to that which confirmed that if you do things in right way at the right time and your conscience is clear then you have nothing to fear from the police or the authorities.
There is therefore good and bad ways about approaching confidential matters and much depends on the approach used and the circumstances. Winston Churchill, for example had a source within the Government who disclosed highly classified information which Churchill revealed about Britain’s lack of preparedness for a war with Germany. This was important public interest information which can be said to have led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister and Britain surviving until the USA entered World War II. However the individual in question was breaking the law as well as his contract of employment and Churchill should not have given any encouragement and disclosed the disclosure to the proper authorities. What if the individual had been releasing this and similar information also to the Germans or other potential enemies?
I therefore do not share the view of those who argue that it is job of the opposition or back bench Members of Parliament to seek or accept information gained by anyone employed in the public services which is regarded as confidential or secret and in most circumstances the role of the Member of Parliament should be to report the offer of information or the disclosure of information to the appropriate authorities advising the individual concerned that they were doing so. I am particular concerned if the information is then used for party political purposes or if the individual concerned is disclosing the information for party political purposes.
There are exceptions to the general rule if example the information is genuinely in the public interest irrespective of how it might be used politically, However if the information involves illegal activity such as what happened in the USA in relation to Watergate and that political figures or senior civil servants were intentionally misleading or lying to Parliament then both the information provider and the Member of Parliament have duties also they also should be aware of the potential implications as well as official protections.
I was to be tested in a way which threatened my future and that of my family when in the mid 1980’s the Militant Tendency had gained a significant influence within a National and local branch of a Trades Union and wilfully mislead residential child care staff into a strike in what was then a closed shop situation. Staff were threatened and the welfare of children in public care was put at serious risk. My first task was to gain the support of management staff to put the interests of children first and which in turn would threaten their immediate and future livelihood. I therefore obtained approval from a cross party special committee of the local authority to invite management staff to assist me in providing care for the children in their own homes and to given them a written undertaking that in the event of their trades union taking successful action against them their position with the local authority would not be affected. I then interviewed each member of the management staff and explained the position and what the undertaking meant or did not mean. I then interviewed each of the residential officers who were on strike and offered them the same deal, although in this instance I asked them to request their union to hold an immediate further ballot for a return to work as I was already aware that a majority had been bullied or misled into strike action and wished to return to duties and the approach was the best of resolving the situation. Understandably the union prevaricated but did reballot, reported the outcome of a return to work to the union leadership and then insisted on a no victimization agreement on the part of the employers in relation to their members who had initiated and continued to support the strike action. However they refused to give a similar undertaking in relation to myself and the management staff who had enabled the children to continue with their lives as before.
Consequently they used their power as an executive committee and by publishing a newsletter to their members to justify seeking the dismissal of the officers from the trades union. I demanded and obtained the approval of the Leader of the council in the presence of a senior officer of my department to be able to use my time and resources such as council materials in order to combat the lies and misleading information of some members of the union executive who were unscrupulous and where I had evidence had threatened staff and put children in public care in harm’s way. We were successful in the sense that the majority of Members in the Trades Union Branch successfully rejected the request to dismiss the staff and also subsequently evicted those involved from their position in the Branch Union. This was possible by separating their role from my own. I used the system within the Union to bring to the attention of the National executive my concerns about the behaviour of some of its local officials and members although this was always going to be a non win situation because a majority of the Trades Union national executive were supporters or sympathetic to the Militant tendency development inside the Labour Party. I was interested to hear its main Leader, Derek Hatton of Liverpool, now an overseas Property developer, reveal on TV at the end of last week that such ha been their power at one point that he had been offered a Shadow Cabinet position by the Labour Party if he brought his troops under the control of the Party Machine. I therefore made sure that political and trade union interests as well as the media were made fully aware of what was going on. I eventually accepted expulsion from the trades union feeling as I gone as far as I could and achieved the objectives which had been set out, although my own position was difficult , and had it not been for colleagues who formed a branch of a relative new tares union representing the interests of senior managers in local government, I am sure my continued employment would have been formally challenged, once some of those involved had regained positions in the trades union and indeed my life was made difficult in other ways as time elapsed and history came to be rewritten, even though the Labour Party saw the light and support for the Militant Tendency and Membership of the Labour Party became incompatible.
The sad thing is that I was and remain a strong believer in collective action and collective bargaining and that many of those who had actively supported the aims of the militant tendency were and remain selfless in their concern for the welfare of others. I also fully supported the cause of all residential care staff for a better deal then and even more so now. However my difference was and remains over methods.
This is a regular problem encounter I agree or am sympathetic with the aims and objectives but no the methods. I an have some sympathy for reasons why the majority of the young men who participated in the Mumbia massacre felt driven into taking action. I am horrified at the loss of life not just of the troops in Iraq and Pakistan, no less than those massacred in Mumbai and all the other innocents caught in the cross fire and “collateral damage” that arises in War zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan Pakistan, Israel Palestine and India, and elsewhere. My opposition is to the methods being used and the way some, usually those in leadership and who lead very comfortable lives compared to those they claim to represent use this devotion and commitment to a cause, to further their own ends and ambitions.
This is also true for those who claim to represent the public interest in Parliament who are Members of Government, Back Benchers to the Government or in Oppositions parties.
Having said all this I must also say that I agree with those who regard the action taken in relation to the Conservative Shadow cabinet Member as deeply concerning and a threat to the role of Members of the House of Commons and the role of Parliament in generally.
I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say and found aspects of what she said to be unacceptable and raised major questions about her political future.
The government and her department in particular were right to initiate an in depth investigation into why there has been a succession of leaks of confidential departmental information and to take action against any individual, or individuals found to have systematically leaked information, especially if such information is classified, or made available for party political purposes or for personal gain and advancement. The Conservative Party would be as vigorous and I suspect far more ruthless in tackling the problem as has been the Labour Government.
I also agree that it was right to leave this matter to the police to determine what action should be taken in relation to the individual identified or any other individuals who were known to have been involved. As a Minister I would have expected to have been advised that an investigation was to take place and the form of that investigation if any Member of Parliament was involved because of the constitutional significance. I would also expect the Minister to be consulted together with the Speaker of the House of Commons regarding the form of the investigation if this was to involve a search of the offices of the Member within the Palace of Westminster, the removal of any papers, computers and such like from within the Palace and any interruption in the role of that the Member in relation to his constituents, Without the disclosure of any information which might become the subject of criminal proceedings, it should be, and is usually possible for the police to have indicated the strength of their reasons for taking the action which they did. At present it smacks they were on a fishing expedition and the use of Anti Terror police is extraordinary and appears designed to cause the maximum political embarrassment to the Opposition (and indirectly to the government).
It will be appreciate that I am separating the justification for taking action from the method of intervention and investigation. Accepting that the Minister was not made aware beforehand of the decision to intervene or the method of intervention I was shocked and surprised that she did not appear to grasp the constitutional significance and failed to express regret of the way what happened happened, or to say that there was urgent need to review the position to ensure that such a situation did not happen again in such manner. By not doing so she and the Speaker of House risk being censured privately and in public by the majority of both House of Parliament irrespective of the position taken by the Government. The first indication of this is revealed overnight when Harriet Harman deputy leader if the Labour Party and Leader of the Commons and responsible for the conduct of business in House is reported to have expressed concerns and that the situation would require urgent examination.
This morning there are reports of a threatened boycott of the state opening of Parliament Conservative of Parliament, or some form of walk out to show their disapproval of the government but not to Her Majesty and the Speaker has said he will make a statement about the decision to allow the police to enter the Palace of Westminster. This is not just welcome but only the start of a situation where he risks being censured by a majority of both Houses and where a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Brown on this issue could follow which he will lose unless he personally makes clear his concerns about the way the matter has been undertaken. At a stroke the government has lost the next General Election unless the Prime Minister takes immediate and decisive action acceptable to majority of both House of Parliament. Her Majesty the Queen should intervene and call a meeting of her Privy Council to discuss the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment