A proper debate is needed – on the real issues

The Damian Green affair obviously dominates today’s opening of Parliament – and so it should. For once, Parliament’s grand gaudy show coincides with a chance for it to really show what it can do: hold government to account, express the opinion of the public and make political misdeed have political consequences. The Speaker will make his much-awaited statement, but that’s not nearly enough: there must be a debate on Greengate/Galleygate as a matter of urgency. If Parliament works properly, that debate will be today. If that’s “not possible” because of hidebound tradition relating to the Queen’s speech, then it should be as soon as possible after that. Any delay to next week would be an attempt to muffle the debate. I think today we will see whether the Speaker is big enough for his historic office, or is the placeman his critics have accused him of being.

But I worry, too, that politicians themselves are trying to divert this affair into its less important aspects. The debate should not be confined to Parliamentary privilege or the position of Damian Green – that would bemuse the public who will see politicians debating their own privileges as against the law. The debate must cover secrecy generally in government, and whether the law should be changed. Not should the debate be diverted into a partisan spat about Christopher Galley’s alleged political motives. Yes, if as Lord Mandelson has said, Tory complaints are

a smokescreen to hide their own party’s role in, allegedly, colluding with a home office official and breaking the law

I’m no more impressed than he is – although incidentally I’d like to know which law he says has been broken, and why he feels able to make such allegations freely. But his approach is to take the narrowest, pettily partisan approach simply in order to serve ministers’ own interests and shut the legitimate debate down. The issues are bigger than Christopher Galley’s motivations.

Finally we must know about ministers involvement. What did they know – exactly – and when? They should not be allowed to give literalist answers that fall through the cracks of questions without telling the whole truth. And if as they say they weren’t told of the arrest in advance – we need to know why not. Did they make it clear to the police that they wanted to be protected from knowledge of it?