Beorn
02-25-2009, 05:48 PM
Jack Straw may curb freedom of information
Jack Straw revealed that he was considering a clampdown on freedom of information laws after telling the Commons that he will veto the publication of Iraq war Cabinet minutes. New restrictions could be placed on the disclosure of the identities of civil servants, the release of Cabinet documents and the publication of advice by officials, it emerged yesterday.
Ministers and officials are considering using the Dacre review to try to introduce new restrictions on releasing information after a huge backlash in Whitehall over the material they are being forced to release by the Information Commissioner and Tribunal.
The report, conducted by Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail, and published last month, recommended that government files should be released after 15 rather than 30 years.
Ministers and civil servants argue that the relaxation of rules on historical papers should be accompanied by tighter restrictions into what should be published now.
This could prove an embarrassment for Gordon Brown, who made huge political capital by abandoning an earlier crackdown on freedom of information initiated by Tony Blair.
It also comes two weeks after Cabinet ministers leaked the details of a Cabinet discussion on bonuses for their own benefit.
Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “Today’s announcement raises the prospect of an unacceptable trade-off: greater secrecy about current information in return for more access to old government files.”
The Ministry of Justice denied that it had hijacked the process for its own ends, but confirmed that all recommendations in the Dacre report, which would include “to look again at the exemptions set out in the FOI Act”, were under consideration.
Labour MPs said that they were “ashamed and embarrassed” at Mr Straw’s intention not to publish Cabinet minutes relating to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Justice Secretary said that he was using the ministerial veto for the first time since the Act was introduced in January 2005 to prevent publication of minutes from two meetings in March 2003. The meetings discussed the Attorney-General’s legal advice on the war. Much of their contents have been leaked, including Gordon Brown’s denunciation of the French, which was revealed in Robin Cook’s biography.
Both the Information Commission and the Information Tribunal ruled that the minutes, which give a broad indication of topics of discussion but usually do not reveal the speaker, should be released. Mr Straw argued that he was using the veto because of the importance of Cabinet being a forum for confidential discussions, which would otherwise be held informally and would not be recorded.
“The decision to take military action has been examined with a fine-tooth comb; we have been held to account for it in this House and elsewhere,” he said.
“ We have done much to meet the public interest in openness and accountability. But the duty to advance that interest further cannot supplant the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our system.”
The decision was supported by the Tories but opposed by the Liberal Democrats. Andrew Mackinlay, the Labour MP for Thurrock, condemned the Justice Secretary’s veto as “breathtaking” and “appalling”.
Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, said: “Won’t the effect be simply to confirm people in the belief that there is something in that period that needs to be hidden?”
Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5798995.ece)
http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww185/BeornWulfWer/1984notinstructionmanual.jpg?t=1235587791
(http://api.ning.com/files/UbQGb2BFO*WbSMaFqOj*iu2CeYx5zCOj-rl9C6R2pEY_/1984notinstructionmanual.jpg)
Jack Straw revealed that he was considering a clampdown on freedom of information laws after telling the Commons that he will veto the publication of Iraq war Cabinet minutes. New restrictions could be placed on the disclosure of the identities of civil servants, the release of Cabinet documents and the publication of advice by officials, it emerged yesterday.
Ministers and officials are considering using the Dacre review to try to introduce new restrictions on releasing information after a huge backlash in Whitehall over the material they are being forced to release by the Information Commissioner and Tribunal.
The report, conducted by Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail, and published last month, recommended that government files should be released after 15 rather than 30 years.
Ministers and civil servants argue that the relaxation of rules on historical papers should be accompanied by tighter restrictions into what should be published now.
This could prove an embarrassment for Gordon Brown, who made huge political capital by abandoning an earlier crackdown on freedom of information initiated by Tony Blair.
It also comes two weeks after Cabinet ministers leaked the details of a Cabinet discussion on bonuses for their own benefit.
Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “Today’s announcement raises the prospect of an unacceptable trade-off: greater secrecy about current information in return for more access to old government files.”
The Ministry of Justice denied that it had hijacked the process for its own ends, but confirmed that all recommendations in the Dacre report, which would include “to look again at the exemptions set out in the FOI Act”, were under consideration.
Labour MPs said that they were “ashamed and embarrassed” at Mr Straw’s intention not to publish Cabinet minutes relating to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Justice Secretary said that he was using the ministerial veto for the first time since the Act was introduced in January 2005 to prevent publication of minutes from two meetings in March 2003. The meetings discussed the Attorney-General’s legal advice on the war. Much of their contents have been leaked, including Gordon Brown’s denunciation of the French, which was revealed in Robin Cook’s biography.
Both the Information Commission and the Information Tribunal ruled that the minutes, which give a broad indication of topics of discussion but usually do not reveal the speaker, should be released. Mr Straw argued that he was using the veto because of the importance of Cabinet being a forum for confidential discussions, which would otherwise be held informally and would not be recorded.
“The decision to take military action has been examined with a fine-tooth comb; we have been held to account for it in this House and elsewhere,” he said.
“ We have done much to meet the public interest in openness and accountability. But the duty to advance that interest further cannot supplant the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our system.”
The decision was supported by the Tories but opposed by the Liberal Democrats. Andrew Mackinlay, the Labour MP for Thurrock, condemned the Justice Secretary’s veto as “breathtaking” and “appalling”.
Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, said: “Won’t the effect be simply to confirm people in the belief that there is something in that period that needs to be hidden?”
Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5798995.ece)
http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww185/BeornWulfWer/1984notinstructionmanual.jpg?t=1235587791
(http://api.ning.com/files/UbQGb2BFO*WbSMaFqOj*iu2CeYx5zCOj-rl9C6R2pEY_/1984notinstructionmanual.jpg)