Leaks and tip-offs are the oil that grease the wheels of democracy

Ten years ago, this newspaper received what would turn out to be perhaps the most important telephone call in political journalism since Watergate.

I should know – it was me who answered the phone. The tip-off which led to the MPS’ expenses scandal resulted in the exposure of misconduct on an industrial scale, leading to criminal convictions, resignations, the repayment of thousands of pounds of taxpayer funds and significant (though far from sufficient) reforms. Indeed, the recall petition which the voters of Peterborough used this week to remove their MP following her conviction for lying over a speeding offence came as a direct result of measures introduced in the wake of the expenses scandal.

A telephone call reportedly received by another Telegraph journalist has been in the news this week. But from some of the commentary, it would seem as if journalists and the sources they rely on should be in the dock rather than those whose misdeeds they expose. Amid the uproar over personality – the brutal manner in which Theresa May sacked her former ally Gavin Williamson and his vociferous denials that he was the source of the leak – we seem to have entirely lost sight of the content of the scandal it exposed.

This is a case that encapsulates the very definition of public interest: the awarding of a contract to a foreign country bordering on the status of a hostile nation, potentially giving an enemy government access to our most sensitive public infrastructure. And not just that, the decision to allow an unreconstructed Communist state to infiltrate our national communications system was apparently taken by the Prime Minister in the face of serious concern from some of her most senior Cabinet ministers. If that wasn’t worth leaking, then what is?

Tipsters, whistleblowers, leakers, secret sources, they are the oil which keeps the wheels of democracy turning. They allow journalists to perform their duty of shining a light on the darkest corners, holding those who seek to govern us to the high standards the public expects. What some commentators pompously refer to as “indiscretions” are what prevent governments from controlling the news via press release or carefully orchestrated speeches. Imagine if all we knew about Brexit was what Mrs May chose to tell us.

The absence of such “indiscretions” in countries such as Russia, Iran, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, where individuals are understandably reluctant to risk their lives exposing government secrets, is one of the clearest signs that an “emerging democracy” is in fact a totalitarian state.

If you don’t believe me, why not visit the land of Huawei and ask a Chinese whistleblower or a secretexposing political journalist for their thoughts? Only you can’t, because there aren’t any.