When it was discovered, in November last year, that I was the source of a series of Home Office

leaks that caused considerable embarrassment to the government, the police didn’t waste any
time. They arrived at my flat at dawn, searched me, confiscated many of my possessions and
treated me in the same way as a terror suspect. Then the Home Office “advised” me in the
strongest possible terms that I should wait out the weekend and the ensuing press frenzy in an
RAF base. I did as I was told.

Supposedly, there were grave “security concerns” about me. This stemmed from the fact that I
had leaked documents detailing the Home Office’s employment of illegal immigrants, the risk of
rising racial tensions due to the credit crunch and an explanation of the inordinate amount of time
wasted on the counter terror bill.

This week, the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) chaired by Tony
Wright MP, released a report that looks at leaks and whistle-blowing in Whitehall. Its
recommendations are supposed to build a framework to provide an avenue of complaint for
people who are moved, like I was, to let people know about improper governmental behaviour.

PASC argues that whistle-blowing damages trust within government. It also suggests, quite
rightly, that investigations of whistle-blowing are often politically motivated. The Committee
reasons that civil servants need an accessible and visible means to raise concerns about the
conduct of government. The aim is to take the criminality out of whistle-blowing, to create non-
political Commissioners who will investigate fairly and only prosecute if the Official Secrets Act
is breached.

On face, these proposals are good. Right now, as a civil servant, you have little recourse to raise
issues in a safe and protected environment. This was one of my main concerns working at the
Home Office at the time. I was aware of the correct procedure to approach my line manager, but
I considered him a political appointee as he had previously worked for a well-known Labour
Think Tank. This is one of the reasons for going outside to an independent organisation. If an
independent structure had existed outside at that time that I observed malpractice at the Home
Office, the civil service commissioners would have been my first port of call.

But Wright was clear, on BBC radio, that he does not aim to protect people like me. He claims I
was politically motivated to embarrass his party and does not seem concerned that what I
brought to light was unlawful misconduct on the government’s part. This raises the concern of
whether Civil Service Commissioners can be appointed who are neutral. Unlike Wright, they
must have an independent background and motivation. After all, the inquiry he chaired was
launched in the wake of a leak inquiry involving the investigation of myself and the Shadow
Immigration Minister Damian Green MP, during which police searched Green's office without a
warrant. We were both arrested and the six-month-long inquiry culminated in the end of my civil
service career, the loss of many friends and unemployment. I believe my actions to have been a
public service and in the public interest and Wright’s desire not to protect others like me, who
might embarrass Labour, casts doubt on the independence of his “Commission.”
But even if the independence of the Civil Service Commissioners can be guaranteed this leads
onto the next problem of what power they would hold. For example, the PASC report raises the
issue of reporting ministers and Special Advisers if they mislead parliament or the public. Yet
many working in the Westminster bubble who have the chance to see such prime facie evidence
may be see little worth in reporting a minister. The current ministerial code of conduct has no
real disciplinary procedure for ‘poor’ or dishonest ministers. And the report fails to deal with the
issue of party-motivated leaks by special advisors, who often pass embargoed information on to
the press to get a headline and avoid any consequences as a result of their ministerial patronage.
Such people are not going to go through an independent Commission but they still get away with
compromising the civil service’s neutrality.

Finally, there is the issue of keeping every civil servant informed about the correct procedure for
whistle-blowing. The PASC report suggests that this should come from the Cabinet Office and
the Permanent Secretaries but I consider both to be too close to whoever holds the key to No.10.
The only organisations that can perform this on a mass scale and with the trust of civil servants
are the unions in the civil service as a semi-independent body who could be keeping potential
whistle blowers informed of the correct avenues. This is due to the fact that individual civil
servants actually pay towards the upkeep of union branches, and, unlike the centralised staff
welfare services, they have the financial incentive to protect civil servants.

Ultimately, the PASC report will benefit civil servants who have a moral conscience but there are
too few of these potential whistle-blowers because the consequences are too grave. I am lucky to
now be working at the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics, a group focused on uncovering
corruption in government, and I don't believe that PASC's reforms will help our work very
much. I still believe that the majority of leaks will come from ministers or Special Advisers
wishing to score political points against opposing parties and that, as Wright has said he desires,
independent whistle-blowers like myself, who are further down the hierarchy, won't be protected.
They will have reason to distrust the “independence” of his Commissioners. Only if leak
investigations are taken entirely out of the political realm and conducted robustly will the culture
of ministerial patronage and criminalisation of genuine whistle-blowers change.