The more you reflect on Greengate/Galleygate, the more serious it seems. The charge laid by Damian Green is that ministers have acted in an authoritarian manner; understandably from his point of view he sees that as illustrating this government’s instincts.
The way I’d put it is this: Jacqui Smith is under suspicion of having used the police as a political tool; of having allowed her own anger and frustration at the embarrassment the leaks caused her to cloud her judgment, so that she authorised the involvement of police for a wholly wrong purpose – to stop that embarrassment. I can’t imagine a more serious charge against a Home Secretary. I don’t like suggestions we live in a “police state”: I think that kind of claim is always over the top. But vigilance must be eternal, and, if it means anything, it means making sure ministers do not use the police for their own political interests.
So Jacqui Smith is now on the rack. The onus is on her to acquit herself of these suspicions – which I don’t think it will be easy for her to do. The questions she needs to answer are these:
—Who first suggested bringing the police in to investigate these leaks? When was she (and when were other ministers – Cabinet Office ministers and even the Prime Minister) told of the proposal?
—What advice were ministers given about police involvement? What was their reaction to the proposed referral? She told the Home Affairs Committee she agreed with the referral – was it put to her for her authorisation, and did she authorise it? If not, why not?
—Were ministers aware they were dealing with a pattern of leaks to Damian Green? Surely they did, since four out of five of the leaked stories in newspapers before the police were alerted mentioned him, and Sir David Normington told the Home Affairs Committee he feared someone was leaking for political purposes. If so, why did they not act with special caution?
—Did ministers see in draft the Cabinet Office letter inviting the police to get involved? If not, why not? If so, why did they allow the letter to say
We are in no doubt that there has been considerable damage to national security already as a result of some of these leaks
when, according to the evidence Sir David Normington gave to the Home Affairs Committee, only one of the twenty-something leaks he was aware of – and none of the six leaks on which the police investigation focused – touched on national security?
Thank you for posting such an incisive analysis. Very good.
if someone is leaking to destabilise the government for party political reasons, does that make the action any different? just askin.
funny how all the stories coming out right now are bad for labour… the dirty digger and his empire have finally abandonned new labour then? we should be able to smell when we are being played; but we never do.
I don’t see why, simply. I see it like FOI: it doesn’t matter why the person wants it. What matters is whether the thing can be released.
I’m not saying I agree with the leaks, BTW – I don’t. I’m unimpressed by Chris Galley’s behaviour, too. But I don’t think he should be prosecuted. Being sacked is enough.
malice negativing a public interest defence…
i’m just jamming here.
Well, okay… but is it actually malicious to be a Tory? I don’t see why a Conservative who’s concerned about something from the point of view of the public interests shouldn’t leak to a Tory MP. Same goes the other way round of course. I’m not sure you can distinguish that from low political motives such as “I’ll help my mate get scoops”.
The “national security” card is extremely overplayed. It is in the mindset of those who get into government in Britain. No party political point here since they are all as bad – remember Ponting? Remember Spycatcher?
Worth noting that we have to defend not just against the police being used by ministers in pursuit of their political interests but by government departments in pursuit of theirs. Whitehall has become much more powerful and self-possessed under the present administration, and the departments involved in this case, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, most of all.
‘but is it actually malicious to be a Tory?’
ahahahahahahaahaaa!
but if he couldn’t give a toss about the public interest and just wants to stitch up the government because he wants them out and a tory government in?