Western Europe

The Editor

The Guardian

Dear Sir

I am unable to get English newspapers where I am living at the moment so I am having trouble keeping up with developments in the UK at the moment. However, it has been brought to my attention that Stephen Lander has tried to charm Peter Mandelson and Jack Straw into believing that MI5 did not intercept Mr Mandelson's phone in the 1970s.

I would like to state for the record that I read and summarised both volumes of Mr Mandelson's personal file and included in that summary a record of the product on Mr Mandelson's phone. As I have said before, there was no indication that Mr Mandelson was involved in anything other than legitimate political protest. I mention this now for the same reason that I mentioned it then - it is not morally, or indeed financially justifiable, for MI5 to invade the privacy of political activists, if their activities do not threaten democracy or the state.

If MI5 did not tap Mr Mandelson's phone, I am puzzled why it has taken Mr Lander so long to make this 'assurance' to the two cabinet ministers, some four weeks after the original article. This raises a number of questions which need to be answered: if what I said is not true, why didn't Mr Lander brief ministers as soon as the original article came out? And, if MI5 can only dispute this allegation , are we then to take it that MI5 accepts the truth of my other revelations?

We also need to ask why Mr Lander has chosen only to reject my claim to two cabinet ministers in private. Why isn't he shouting it from the rooftops? If someone doubted my honesty, I know I would (but this act of free speech would be illegal at present as MI5's injunction forbids me from talking to anyone about my article. I am aware that the Guardian is taking a risk in publishing this letter).

We might also ask why Mr Lander has chosen to concentrate on this particular allegation rather than seek to explain why the phone of Victoria Brittain was tapped? It may be because Mr Lander is a shrewd tactician, especially in the ways of the Men in Grey in Whitehall and their relationship with government.

MI5 cares little about media and public opinion when it comes to its image and its work and has managed to convince previous ministers that this should be the case. Remember in the nanny state, nanny knows best.

Both Labour and Conservative ministers have swallowed this line on public opinion for fear of being accused of being soft on national security and crime.

So, as director general, Mr Lander knows that he only has to have the confidence of government ministers - rather than be more widely accountable. He is also aware that MI5's position would be considerably weakened if Mr Mandelson started to whisper in the ear of the prime minister, a man who listens to Mr Mandelson's advice and is ultimately responsible for the conduct of MI5. For this reason, I believe, Mr Lander has decided to deny the revelations concerning Mr Mandelson.

It is, however, possible that out of misguided loyalty some career bureaucrat in MI5 has already doctored the files. When I was in MI5, one officer told me a story of how he came across a Loose Minute written by Stella Rimington many years before she became DG instructing an underling to leak to the press a story undermining a trade union leader. The officer showed this to his boss who apparently ripped it out of the file. Despite this, I think it is an unlikely scenario as the career bureaucrats would not have the initiative to do this and the new intake would have too much integrity, although we cannot rule it out completely.

There is of course one way to settle this dispute. Show the file in its entirety to Mr Straw, Mr Mandelson and the entire parliamentary security and intelligence committee. And even parliament. After all, nearly all the information will be over 17 years old and it is difficult to see how its release could compromise national security now, especially as by MI5's own admission there is no threat from the Communist Party. But that may be too much for an organisation which has never willingly released a document to the public since its inception in 1909.

I would also like to take this opportunity to describe how appalled I am by the arrest of my girlfriend, Annie Machon for raising legitimate criticism of MI5 management, and my friends. One of my closest friends is no longer allowed to make contact with me as part of his bail conditions even though there is so little actual evidence they cannot charge him. Only in totalitarian regimes are individuals held to be guilty for criticising the state or associating with those the state seeks to condemn.

If MI5 and its executive arm, Special Branch, are trying to flush me out, I can tell them that this has only stiffened my resolve against the Establishment.

I am, however, deeply sorry to those whose lives have been adversely affected by my actions but I hope they will realise that I continue to value their loyalty in choosing to remain silent when questioned by the police and that the Establishment is only doing this to turn them against me. I implore them not to play into MI5's hands.

I chose a career in MI5 because I believed in serving my country and protecting the freedom of the British people from those who genuinely aimed to undermine the democratic process. It is then ironic that I have been gagged by people who no longer seem interested in resurrecting Britain's tradition as the most liberal country in western Europe until the 1970s.

Section one of the OSA is one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in the Western world. The public interest defence was abolished in 1989 and prosecutors do not have to establish whether a whistleblower's revelations are damaging to national security. You could be imprisoned for up to two years for revealing that your manager wore a suit.

When I wrote the original pieces, I made sure that what I said did not compromise the identities of officers or agents nor hamper the legitimate work of MI5 (unless, of course you accept their spurious doublespeak which claims that any adverse criticism of MI5 undermines its work because it lowers the esteem of the organisation in the eyes of any potential agents).

When Cathy Massiter made her allegations against MI5 in the 1980s, she revealed details of ongoing operations and even the name of an agent. The authorities took no action against her. So why take action against me and my friends? Is MI5 becoming more draconian at the very time it is supposed to be increasingly open and accountable?

Talking of openness, Mr Lander is paid over £80,000 a year of taxpayers' money and is, in theory, a publicly accountable official. Why has he not been defending the activities of his organisation to the British public in person? What he is afraid of? Having to answer awkward questions from enquiring journalists?

In this day and age, it should no longer be acceptable that Britain alone is consistently found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights many times more often than other European countries. The Labour Government should incorporate it into British law and introduce a Freedom of Information Act. It is time that we adopted the protection of citizens that is enshrined in the constitutions of most modern liberal democracies.

I would also like to point out that I have been unable to address the off-the-record allegations made against me. We know that the Home Office on behalf of MI5 briefed a selected group of tame journalists in the week after I made my statement to the press. The off-the-record briefing sought to imply that I was not up to scratch.

In fact, the truth is very different. On joining, I was recruited to a higher grade than is usual for someone of my age, and in my last year there I received a performance-related bonus for working consistently above standard . I was, however, maligned for looking after my staff when senior management sought to pick on them and for complaining about the bureaucracy which made the protection of national security that much more difficult.

I would like to thank those who have helped me through what has been a difficult time, including those in the media who have supported what I have done; Liberty for giving me and my friends the benefit of its experience and continuing to defend us; and other friends who have remained loyal.

I re-iterate what I told MI5 through the media a month ago. Sort out your problems. Do not shoot the messenger.

Yours faithfully

David Shayler