An abuse of power and the hounding of an official
Published 11 October 2007
Charging Derek Pasquill under the Official Secrets Act is an abuse of state power, designed merely to spare the embarrassment of ministers, particularly Jack Straw
On 24 September, Gordon Brown declared to the Labour conference: "I have no doubt that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to renew our democracy. And that means more change . . . change to strengthen our liberties to uphold the freedom of speech, freedom of information and the freedom to protest." Three days later, Derek Pasquill, 48, an official at the Foreign Office, was charged on six counts of breaching the Official Secrets Act.
The case is said to follow the publication in the New Statesman, the Observer and a pamphlet by the Policy Exchange think tank of a series of revelations highlighting damaging and dangerous government policy. Written by the NS political editor, Martin Bright, the articles included an exposé of British acquiescence in the secret and illegal "rendition" by the US of terrorist suspects, and a number of disclosures about government policy towards radical Islam.
The articles won plaudits for the NS, including Exclusive of the Year for Bright at the Magazine Journalism Awards of 2006. But far more importantly, the pieces gave rise to a number of questions in parliament, leading to cross-party support and significant shifts in government policy.
"Extraordinary rendition" (better described as state-sanctioned kidnapping) had become a matter of deep shame for the British government. After the NS reported that ministers knew such actions would be illegal, this indefensible policy of tacit support for the US was quietly dropped.
As for the government's original approach to radical Islam, much of it was formulated under Jack Straw, first as home secretary and then as foreign secretary. He put the Muslim Council of Britain at the heart of consultation, almost to the exclusion of other, more moderate groups. This caused disquiet across Whitehall, as did Britain's policy of covert engagement with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
As the NS disclosed, ministers, civil servants and diplomats were becoming worried that the Foreign Office was developing a policy of appeasement of radical Islam. The revelations caused a rethink even before Brown took over as Prime Minister in June. In recent months, this has gathered pace. Ministers have ended their reliance on the MCB. Senior government members have acknowledged the role of the NS in highlighting the problems; several of them have privately requested briefings about the issues raised by the disclosures.
In an on-the-record interview in this magazine, the present Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, made it clear that policy had changed. Ruth Kelly, who as communities secretary began the process of opening up dialogue, was informed in her decision by reading Bright's Policy Exchange paper. Her successor, Hazel Blears, has also embraced the new approach. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, the Tories' security spokeswoman, also quoted in detail from Bright's work in helping to formulate her party's policy.
So why the hounding of Mr Pasquill? He was suspended from his job early in 2006. It took the authorities more than 18 months to charge him. The tactics appear designed to intimidate anyone in the civil service who has reservations about dangerous policy, and who might be minded to expose it in the public interest.
The NS accepts there are some circumstances where official secrecy is necessary to protect national security. But this cannot possibly apply in this case.
Charging Mr Pasquill under the OSA is an abuse of state power, designed merely to spare the embarrassment of ministers, particularly Straw, whose pivotal, but often negative, role in government is highlighted by Bright on page 10.
Mr Pasquill was due for his first court appearance on 11 October. One suspects the road after that will be long. We hope that, at the very least, this process exposes the malice and hypocrisy at the heart of Whitehall's approach to whistleblowers. The public interest is best served by promoting this kind of debate rather than by seeking to criminalise individuals who have acted to expose dangerous policy. We, and others, will pursue this with vigour.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
