Ocean
The Living Force
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23596872-details/Never+has+it+been+more+important+to+stand+up+for+the+whistleblowers/article.do
(image at the above link also)
Never has it been more important to stand up for the whistle-blowers
Andrew Gilligan
04.12.08
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.
(image at the above link also)
Never has it been more important to stand up for the whistle-blowers
Andrew Gilligan
04.12.08
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.
