Some are arguing that Cameron is being naive by being so supportive of leaks from civil servants to oppositions because if he were to become Prime Minister he will have trouble denouncing leaks as he embraced them so wholeheartedly when in opposition.
Nick Robinson made this point in his blog saying: Would David Cameron, as Prime Minister, "feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
In the debate that followed the Queen's speech, Labour MPs also tried to make this an issue.
Dr. Tony Wright, the chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, said: "The right hon. Gentleman would like to become Prime Minister one day. Is he really telling the House that as Prime Minister he would be perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?"
Then Dr. John Reid, the former Home Secretary, stood up and asked Cameron: "This follows on from the point just made, which is one of fundamental principle. Whatever happened during this specific case—all of us have concerns about that, and they will be addressed—what the Leader of the Opposition is saying from the Dispatch Box is tantamount to the creation of a new principle if he were Prime Minister... He is announcing in advance that, as Prime Minister, he would be perfectly happy for any civil servant, on their own judgment, to release any information other than that classified for national security purposes and that he would support its publication for the public. Is that what he is saying?"
So, is Cameron being naive?
Cameron's position is basically:
1. "Of course no Government—I have worked for a Government—want to see information leaked."
2. But... it is not "right for the police to arrest a Member of Parliament for doing his duty."
3. Cameron distinguishes between information which is released that is merely embarrassing to ministers who would prefer it remain hidden but is in the public interest and information that compromises national security.
This to me seems quite a pragmatic, reasonable approach to leaks and not in the least bit naive. Cameron is well aware that government's use leaks to further their own ends. He understands that as Prime Minister he is not going to like leaks. He worked as a special adviser in the last Conservative government who suffered miserably from leaks - many of which fell into the hands of Gordon Brown. Cameron, however, is pragmatic enough to distinguish between leaks that there is a legitimate public interest to have the information in the public domain and information which threatens national security. He might not like it as Prime Minister; he doesn't have to. He just has to accept it happens and is a fundamental part of our democracy. MPs should only be arrested for compromising national security.
As for any additional the points raised by Robinson, Wright and Reid, let's address them in turn:
Will Cameron "feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years." No, of course not. He would instigate a leak inquiry to find the 'mole' like any Prime Minister would. Oppositions try and spring leaks. Governments try and plug them. Would this be consistent with Cameron's current position on leaks? Yes, so long as he did not instigate a police inquiry into leaks that did not compromise national security. Remember, from 1996 onwards, leaks to Labour from 10 and 11 Downing Street became so bad that a full-scale internal investigation was launched by John Major's government into the issue but at no point were members of the Opposition arrested by the terror squad and rightly so!
Would Cameron feel "perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?" No, of course not. He would feel very uncomfortable but the answer to the point above also holds true for this one as well.
Is Cameron's position some kind of new 'Cameron Doctrine' as Reid seems to imply when he says Cameron is creating "a new principle" on the acceptability of leaks? No. All oppositions have a very different view on leaks to when they enter government. Just ask Gordon Brown. If there is anything "new" it is just that the question of leaks has come to fore like never before with the arrest of Damian Green and Cameron has been forced to explicitly state the de facto position held by all oppositions throughout the ages as he has had to come to the defence of his shadow immigration minister.
In addition, Reid went on to say: "He is announcing in advance that, as Prime Minister, he would be perfectly happy for any civil servant, on their own judgment, to release any information other than that classified for national security purposes and that he would support its publication for the public. Is that what he is saying?" Again, no, Cameron would not be happy. But like i argued above, he doesn't have to like it or accept it. His response just has to be proportionate and not involve the police investigating and arresting an opposition MP for "doing his duty." Reid cracked me up when he said "for any civil servant, on their own judgment." I'm not sure if Reid understands how leaks work. Any whistle blowing civil servant is hardly going to ask his superiors for their judgement on whether they should leak or not are they?! Of course they are going to have to use their "own judgement" and then take the consequences. That is what makes whistle blowers so brave because they have to act alone knowing full well that the organisation they work for will seek to persecute them. Also, as we're on the subject of John Reid, Cameron rightly noted that the leaks came from Reid's old department which the then Home Secretary had labelled as "not fit for purpose." Thus there was a clear public interest in exposing its failings.
There are two more points that need to be addressed. The first is the question about the difference between receiving leaks and inducing leaks. This to me seems like very grey territory. Those who normally pose the question do so in a very black and white way. By "receiving leaks" they are implying the MP has adopted merely a passive role and by "inducing leaks" they mean the MP has built a relationship with the 'mole' and persuaded them to release the information. But if you are a MP and have been sent information more than once from a single source there would have to be some type of limited relationship. Moreover, if you got sent some really juicy information would you not also want to say to your source "if you've got anything else like that, I'd be grateful if you could send it my way again." Are all these Labour MPs who are adopting a 'holier than thou' approach to these leaks really saying that their Dear Leader, Gordon Brown, who received multiple leaks when he was shadow Trade Secretary and then shadow Chancellor, was purely a passive player who found these leaks were continuing to drop on his lap without any encouragement whatsoever from him? Is it really conceivable that every time Gordon Brown received a new leak it was from a different source every time, completely out of the blue? Come off it! As for the more pernicious form of inducements, such as offering payment, the lawyer of civil servant leaker Christopher Galley, made clear that no inducement of this kind was made to his client from Damian Green or any other Conservative.
The second, and final question, that needs to be addressed is the independence of the civil service. It has been suggested that using a single source for multiple leaks somehow undermines the independence of the civil service which is supposed to be impartial and impervious to political interference. I appreciate the seriousness of this charge. Ministers also must feel that they can trust their civil servants. However, i would argue that one civil servant leaking to the opposition is not enough to compromise the entire civil service's independence and impartiality. The civil service has not become Tory as a result of some kind of covert insurgency. Whistle blowers are found in all organisations and institutions, whether governmental or NGOs. Moreover, specifically on the issue of trust, i understand its importance. However, i would suggest one's answer will depend on which side one stands on the dividing line between trust overriding public interest considerations or public interest considerations overriding trust (and with it, possibly operational effectiveness). And this is unlikely to be a simple black and white answer. The problem is, we have a very secretive form of government despite the Freedom of Information Act - which was dramatically scaled back from Labour's promises when they were in opposition unsurpringly. Oppositions are always in favour of more openess. They soon change their tune when in government. Ministers are not open about mistakes and failures because they know that the opposition and media will vilify them. Consequently, they very rarely own up to anything. In this environment, i would suggest, the only way for the people to know what their representatives are doing in their name, let us not forget Ministers work for us, is for whistle blowers occasionally deciding unilaterally (yes, John Reid, "using their own judgement") that the information they have before them ought to be in the public domain and not hidden, even if this does undermine the trust ministers have in their civil servants. Call it a necessary evil, if you will.
No comments:
Post a Comment