Challenging the Secrets Act

Labour Briefing no. 55, 26 January 1988, p. 10

Transcribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.

By-line as printed: Phil Hearse (Islington North CLP).

In one of the more sensational spin-offs from the Spycatcher affair, up to 100 Tory MPs on January 15th defied a three line whip to either vote for or abstain on a Private Members Bill to reform the notorious Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. This makes it illegal to reveal virtually anything in any government service. Even the menu at the local DHSS canteen is protected by the Official Secrets Act! The Private Members Bill (moved by Tory MP Richard Shepherd) would have allowed disclosure of information if it were shown to be in the public interest — for example if it revealed crime, fraud, abuse of authority, etc. The government, of course, opposed it.

The Tory revolt over the Bill shows the growing dissatisfaction with the authoritarian style of the Thatcher regime, and indeed the militant posture on security matters by some Tory "wets" rather exposes the timidity of the Labour front bench.

The issue put before the Commons was simple: if government agencies, like MI5 and MI6, abuse their authority and act in a criminal way, should this be revealed? Or should all matters of government service be forever secret?

Thatcher and the 270 Tory MPs who supported her answered in the negative: it is for the state itself, especially in matters of "defence" and security, to determine what shall be revealed.

The Official Secrets Act is one of the most notoriously repressive pieces of secrets legislation anywhere in the world. Even in the United States there are extensive public rights to obtain information about action by government agencies, past and present.

There the courts can and do enforce the right of citizens to see restricted government information. But successive governments in Britain, both Labour and Tory, have resisted changes to Britain's uniquely secretive approach.

The debate has of course been intensified by the Spycatcher affair. Its author, Peter Wright, in between ramblings about everyone being Soviet agents, revealed something quite devastating — the attempts of MI5 officers to destabilise the Wilson Labour government during the 1970s.

Intensified

Here we have an example of a government agency doing something quite obviously illegal, criminal and against the public interest, even defined in the narrowest ruling class fashion! But the response of the Labour leadership to this whole affair has been curiously down-beat.

For example, former Home Secretary and Northern Ireland Minister Merlyn Rees has been at pains throughout the Spycatcher affair to attack Peter Wright as a deranged reactionary, and to defend the government's right to keep its security services secret.

The same approach has been true of a bevy of Labour ex-ministers, including Peter Shore and Harold Wilson himself. None of these Labour former ministers have shown any interest in whether or not MI5 did actually try to bring down the government of which they were a part.

Needless to say, Kinnock and his front bench have hardly leapt to the breach. But it would be a great mistake for socialists to see reform of the Official Secrets Act, and control of the security services, as a secondary matter. On the contrary, even when raised by Tory "wets" it touches a central political concern: a question of the ability of the state to organise secretly against what it regards as its main enemy — the labour movement.

One of the main platforms of the Thatcherite credo is "rolling back the frontiers of the state", particularly the "welfare state". But Thatcher has also dramatically strengthened the repressive apparatus and functions of the state. Traditional bourgeois democatic freedoms — the rights of assembly, publication, and free speech — are under more strenuous pressure here than in any other advanced capitalist country.

Crucial

The security services, MI5 and MI6, are crucial arms of the state. Peter Wright reveals in his book the decision in the 1970s to switch the focus of MI5 from counter-espionage to keeping tabs on political "subversives". More and more MI5 is a political secret police, but with a lot more resources, a lot more expertise, and a lot more secrecy than their counterparts in the Special Branch. Peter Wright, as an obsessive anti-Soviet type of the old school, thought this change of emphasis was far-fetched and unnecessary.

An interesting feature of the armoury of the security services has come to light during the post-Spycatcher furore. It appears that MI5 agents who have questioned orders to carry out illegal acts have been reminded of their right to do anything illegal because of "Royal prerogative".

Arcane

This arcane conception is something which would be quite unacceptable in any other bourgeois democracy. It amounts to the fact that the sovereign, the Queen, has the right to override any law. In practice, this right is exercised by the government, on behalf of the Crown.

In other words, the unique character of the British constitution gives the "Crown" — i.e. the government — de facto exemption from any legal constraint whatsoever.

Of course, outside of real emergencies, powers like the "Royal prerogative" are hardly ever used — except by the security services. But the notion of the Royal Prerogative highlights the fact that in Britain the division of powers, between Parliament, the judiciary, and the monarchy, with the Crown formally dominant among the three, puts the executive arm of the state, especially the security services, defence agencies and other repressive groups well out of the control of parliament, or any other kind of democratic control.

To put it in practical terms, if the Special Branch tap your phone and don't get permission from the Home Secretary, they are acting improperly. If MI5 does the same thing, they simply cite the Royal Prerogative — and walk away without a scratch.

Since the 1970s it has become clear that the amount of surveillance by the state on the labour movement in general and the left in particular is enormous. Such information is vital to monitoring, destabilising, and eventually crushing enemies of the existing state — and in Britain the labour movement is far and away the main perceived enemy.

Obsessed

For the left to become obsessed by this surveillance would be self-defeating. But we should be aware of it, and know what it is used for.

It is used today especially in employment, to block the promotion of progressive and left wing people in important national institutions like the BBC, to inform on trade union militants, especially but not exclusively in the nationalised industries, and in various other ways to destabilise and discredit far left organisations, and other progressive movements like black and women's organisations.

MI5 and the other organisations of the secret state are watchdogs of bourgeois rule. They are there above all to prepare for the future — for future "states of emergency" which the British ruling class fully expects will develop as the economic and social crisis worsens. It is in the interests of everyone on the left that these secret activities are revealed and brought into the open. Even the mildest reform of the Official Secrets Act should be supported.

Look at it this way. If you ever wondered just how you would spend the last couple of days before the outbreak of nuclear war, don't worry about it too much! If you are reading Briefing and are at all active in left wing politics, you will be interned by the government, who will make all the arrangements for you.

You will be interned if you are on the "Emergency Arrest List", which has tens of thousands of key "subversives" on it. Never heard of it? That's because it's an official secret. Want to know if you are on it? That's a secret too.

transcribed from the page image, 2 Nov 2026; spelling as printed (democatic; "Private Members Bill" without apostrophe); the paper opens "rolling back the frontiers of the state" with a single and closes with a double quote mark, given here as straight double quotes. Feature under the page head "Features: Thatcher's Secret State". The by-line (By Phil Hearse, Islington North CLP) is set between rules in the first column, below the bold opening paragraphs, which are given as one bold standfirst. Bold passages inside the text kept as printed. No jumps. Left out: the Graeme Cookson photo of Margaret Thatcher at the 1978 Tory conference and its caption; "Is the third force still with us?" by Davy Jones below it, and the Cath Tate photomontage.