A private investigation into the Iraq war will only backfire on Gordon Brown, writes Chris Ames
(more…)
Gordon Brown’s promise today to extend freedom of information is welcome, but how much difference will it make? FOI needs to be deepened, not widened, if it is truly to hold power to account.
In Parliament today, Gordon Brown paid tribute to the “vital role transparency has played in sweeping aside the discredited system of allowances, and holding power to account”. Consequently, he argued, “we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information.”
What is clear from the expenses scandal is that FOI is pretty well untouchable just now, even if it was a leak that did the real damage. After the House of Commons authorities failed in their bid to keep MPs’ claims under wraps and a group of MPs had to drop a plan to exempt themselves, any attempt to restrict the public’s right to know will not get very far.
But neither are things moving very far in the other direction. Brown’s promise that Justice Secretary Jack Straw will look at broadening the application of FOI to include new bodies that spend public money is not new and is an easy pledge to make at virtually no cost to to central government.
What would be more impressive would be a commitment from ministers that they will release more information themselves. But in vetoing the release of the pre-Iraq war cabinet minutes, despite rulings from the Information Commissioner and information tribunal, Straw has shown that holding power to account has its limits.
Instead of undermining the enforcement process, Brown and Straw should be strengthening it, for example by increasing the powers and resources available to the Information Commissioner to crack down on abuses.
As a recent study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism showed, the response of ministers and civil servants to FOI is a perpetual game of cat and mouse to prevent — or delay — embarrassing disclosures. There are so many exemptions that finding reasons not to be transparent is child’s play. While Brown and Straw talk up FOI, government officials are strangling the life out of it.
Four years since FOI came into force, I recently experienced the most blatantly obstructive tactics I have seen yet. I asked for a copy of a letter that Colin Matthews, chief executive of airport owner BAA sent Geoff Hoon, then transport secretary, lobbying for the expansion of Heathrow. The Department for Transport refused to disclose the document, on the grounds that BAA had issued a press release that included “the substance of the letter”.
It should go without saying that if we have to be satisfied with the version of events put out by spin doctors, instead of finding out what really happened, freedom of information is meaningless.
Similarly, while Brown’s pledge to get Tim Berners-Lee to help government “drive the opening up of access to government data in the web” is welcome, it will be of little use if government only opens up the data that it wants people to have. Direct access to the information that we want would be truly revolutionary, but without a complete change in the culture of government, the tendency to bury bad news will prevail.
And on the third part of Brown’s pledge the story is the same. The 30-year rule will become a 20-year rule (not 15 as Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre recommended) but, of course, “there will be protection of Royal Family and Cabinet papers”. Brown may say that the exemptions will be strictly limited, but it’s the exemptions that undermine the rule. Once again, freedom of information on the government’s terms, when it suits them, looks like the order of the day.
US “shock jock” Michael Savage has appealed to prime minister Gordon Brown to remove his name from a blacklist of people barred from entering the UK. Read more here
This is a guest post by Chris Ames
Gordon Brown is pushing ahead with plans for a new parliamentary committee on national security, sparking criticism that he is trying to avoid genuine democratic accountability. As existing backbench committees struggle to get to the bottom of UK complicity in extraordinary rendition and torture, MPs are raising concerns that Brown’s new committee will also find itself misled and censored.
The prime minister confirmed in a written parliamentary answer that he is setting up a joint committee of MPs and lords to monitor the government’s national security strategy. The disclosure has received no media coverage but raises important constitutional issues around accountability and freedom of speech.
Brown told Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay that the government has ‘already had productive consultations with the opposition parties and relevant Select Committee chairs’ and that membership discussions are under way. But MacKinlay, a long-standing member of the commons foreign affairs committee, has questioned the plans, as has Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the all-party committee on extraordinary rendition.
Tyrie fears that a combined committee of MPs and lords will prove unwieldy and lack investigative bite. He says: ‘This looks depressingly like a Gordon Brown smokescreen for avoiding democratic accountability in this area, like so many of the measures he announced when he became prime minister.
‘The last thing we need is more committees, particularly joint committees. What we need is for the intelligence and security committee’s important work to be developed into a full select committee in a way that does not prejudice national security.’
The government has considered giving seats on the new body to the chairs of relevant select committees, although Brown is said to want some genuine backbench representation. But a proposal to reserve a seat for a member of the intelligence and security committee (ISC), which is directly appointed by the prime minister, has raised complaints that the new committee will not be wholly independent of government.
Recent revelations about UK involvement in torture and extraordinary rendition have led to criticism that the ISC was too ready to accept government assurances on these issues.
Last week the committee was criticised for allowing its annual report to be heavily censored by Brown before publication. This censorship is possible because the ISC is not itself a parliamentary committee, but the episode has raised concerns about the freedom that a new body will have to report its findings.
One question that Brown will need to address is whether members will be required to sign the Official Secrets Act. Such a move would run up against Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which is the basis for parliamentary privilege and prohibits any external court questioning the freedom of speech of MPs and lords within parliament.
MacKinlay is worried that Brown’s plan also risks a ‘turf war’ with existing select committees. ‘My concern is about how it will impinge upon the work of existing select committees, including my own,’ he says.
The new committee was mooted in Brown’s first national security strategy, published last March. Brown told MacKinlay that it will be set up ‘in time for it to consider the next iteration of the national security strategy, which will be published before the summer recess’. This confirms that his annual update to the strategy is already behind schedule.
The Cabinet Office has confirmed that the government plans to bring proposals for the new body before both houses of parliament but declined to comment further. It looks as if discussions are at a delicate stage. Brown may want the new committee to give him an easy ride but getting there certainly won’t be plain sailing.