By Julie-ann Davies, 4 October 2006

Former British cabinet minister and memoirist Tony Benn discusses the protection of whistleblowers and why the public has a right to know 

On 25 July 2006 the Public Administration Select Committee published a new report Whitehall Confidential? The Publication of Political Memoirs. The document marked the first review of the issues surrounding the publication of memoirs for 30 years. The report recommends new guidelines and procedures and was prompted by a spate of recent controversial cases including those of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Sir Christopher Meyer and Lance Price. Tony Benn, who gave evidence to the committee, believes that a radical overhaul of the system could have a profound impact on British secrecy laws. 

He says: “Firstly, I have been interested in freedom of information for a very, very long time and as a Minister I tried to get the Government to do something about it. My argument was that it is in the public interest that everything should come out. Secondly I have always been interested in the security services and, without being paranoid, I know perfectly well my phone was bugged and my black sacks were collected every day in a car. Now, Kensington Borough Council is very efficient but they don’t normally send a Rover car to collect my rubbish. 

“Anybody should be able to publish their memoirs. If ministers can write memoirs, if advisers can write memoirs, why shouldn’t civil servants be allowed to write memoirs? Because quite a number have been stopped. If this principle can be established then the whole Official Secrets Act will be broken down.” 

Another area of great concern to Benn is the protection of whistleblowers. Unlike those in commercial sector, disclosures made by workers in the security and intelligence services are not covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Additionally, civil servants wishing to expose wrong-doing or illegality within Government departments or agencies may soon find themselves facing even greater hardship. It is believed the Government intends to restrict, yet further, the extremely limited legal protections available to whistleblowers and increase prison sentences for some offences under the Official Secrets Act.

However, Benn believes there is a frequently overlooked course of action that could offer some protection to all whistleblowers. He says: “If someone submits a petition with evidence to the House of Commons and asks them to look at it then they are protected by Parliamentary Privilege. The Commons is a court so it is an offence for anyone to tamper with witnesses. 

“I went through this carefully, and I did once get the Birmingham City Council condemned for breach of privilege. An employee of the council had objected to the Birmingham Road Race and they sacked him—so he petitioned the House. I was on the Privilege Committee at the time and said this dismissal was tampering with a witness and the council was found guilty of breach of privilege.

“So, when anyone asks me about whistleblowing I always tell them to put their evidence in a document and get a Member of Parliament to introduce a petition that their evidence is looked at and recorded in the Proceedings of the House. Then the whistleblower is covered and the media can report on it because their coverage is also privileged. But, as yet, this has never been tested on a security case.

“If they ever tried to reverse this protection they would be going back hundreds of years. People think Parliamentary Privilege is just there to protect Members of Parliament, but it isn’t. It is there to protect people who give evidence to MPs. It is a cloak of protection that extends to anyone who comes to an MP and petitions the House.”

Seeking the legal protection offered by petitioning the House of Commons may seem a somewhat convuluted way for whistleblowers to get information into the public domain. However, if the Government does succeed in passing a strengthened version of the Official Secrets Act, Parliamentary Privilege may offer the possibility of some legal protection to all civil servants including those denied a public interest defence.