Return of the Redact

The report on the Whitehall leak inquiry that led to the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green is due to be released shortly. However, just what will it reveal? Apparently according to sources objections from senior civil servants and police officers involved mean it is so heavily redacted it 'makes MP's expenses look like a model of transparency'.

The senior policeman who led the enquiry former Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick objected to publication of any part of the report. Sir David Normington, Permanent Secretary to the Home Office first raised concerns that leaks of sensitive material could damage national security, is another who asked for large passages to be blacked out.

The police have concerns that the review misrepresents their investigation. Hello! Isn't that the point of this review. The police have taken one line on this, it appears to have been the wrong one, now we want to find out what actually happened. Of course they are going to say that it misrepresents them if hit is highlighting errors in their methodology.

The fact is that the report was written by Ian Johnston last December when he was Chief Constable of British Transport Police. It is not written by some PhD student like a certain dossier on weapons of mass destruction, but someone who understands police operations and procedures.

However, some are objecting to the fact that the material seized from Mr Green's office in the Palace of Westminster has not been considered. This was allowed to be examined until March of this year after a dispute over whether it was subject to Parliamentary privilege. But in April the judge rules out criminal proceedings against Mr Green and Christopher Galley the Home Office civil servant who admitted passing the documents to the MP.

But if this is review in the public interest why are we not going to see so many important swathes of it. The cover all excuse of national security is being used too much, to either hinder civil liberties or public scrutiny. This Labour government has opened the flood gates to allow an almost secret state exist to protect too many of its own interests rather than those of the individual.

Are We a Democracy in Disguise

The worrying news of the arrest and questioning of Damien Green, the Conservatives' Shadow Immigration Minister, over Home Office leaks yesterday raises serious questions about the execution of the anti-terror laws that Labour have brought forwards in recent years.

All through the process there has been concern raised that such draconian measures in the wrong hands could lead to major concerns over the democratic process. But who would ever have thought that those wrong hands would actually be those of the Labour party. A party that themselves were often under investigation for communist leanings, as any reader of Tony Benn's diaries will be aware. As Chris Huhne the Liberal Democrat Shadow for Home Affairs said:

"Receiving information from government departments in the public interest and
publicising it is a key part of any MP’s role. This is the most worrying
development for many years, with the potential to shift power even more
conclusively from Parliament to the Government. It is also extraordinary
considering Gordon Brown himself as Shadow Chancellor received and publicised
many leaked official documents."

When the civil rights of an opposition Member of Parliament to carry out his role of scrutinising are threatened because of information he may or may not have become privy to how can we effectively have a parliamentary democracy? Are we any better than that Zimbabwe? As David Davis put it on the Today programme:

"None of this put in any way national intelligence, national security, or international relations at risk - yet we end up with a situation that is in some way reminiscent of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, with an Opposition spokesman being arrested for nine hours. It is extraordinary, frankly."

Where is the government moving the line to? Are they deliberately trying to hinder scrutiny? If so, what do they have to hide?

There are a lot of questions about such legislation being used against a legislator and this latest incident means it is definitely time for the powers invested in these areas are properly addressed. This is just another step along the wrong path where too much alleged need to protect is impinging on civil liberties to go about as normally as possible.