Secrecy suggests a political fix
by Chris Lamb
Having had close quarter dealings with the Cabinet Office during my various appeals over disclosure of disputed Cabinet meeting minutes for 13 and 17 March 2003, I was not a little concerned in reading during July of the scale of Cabinet Office officials’ roles in the Secretariat servicing and administering the Iraq Inquiry.
In early August, I sent a Freedom of Information request to the Iraq Inquiry Secretariat- via its communications chief (and Cabinet Office secondee) Rae Stewart seeking disclosures about the criteria and procedures used for personnel selection to the Secretariat and the drafting of the actual official roles to be undertaken. Upon learning that, as part of the Inquiry, the Secretariat was not classed as a public body for purposes of section 1 of the FoI Act, I sent the same request to the Cabinet Office, directed this time from its perspective.
The FoI request asked for “all information held (by the Cabinet Office) relating to the selection procedure adopted for the choice of Margaret Aldred CB as Secretary and Rae Stewart as Communications chief of the Iraq Inquiry Secretariat”. It sought, in particular, documentation in paper and electronic form appertaining to the drafting of the two above roles showing who was responsible for the drafting, the setting of the roles’ specifications and whether the posts were ever put to any form of public competition.
The request also acknowledged the potential conflict of interest in having a key official of the Cabinet Foreign and Defence Secretariat holding a central role in administering the Iraq Inquiry’s investigations involving the controversial Cabinet minutes of meetings for 13 and 17 March 2003, asking for any documentation showing whether this conflict of interest had been addressed or discussed.
The following is a verbatim account from the reply received on 3 September from the Cabinet Office, turning down my request for disclosure:-
“I can confirm that this Department- [the Cabinet Office] – may hold information relevant to your request. You will be aware that the Cabinet Office for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act includes the Prime Minister’s Office. Some of this [information] is already in the public domain. [What is being referred to here is the Prime Minister’s answer to a Parliamentary Question of 21 June 2009 and the Cabinet Office Press Release of 6 July]. Aside from the information published, I regret to inform you that the Cabinet Office is unable to meet your request because additional information we hold is exempt under Section 35.
“Section 35 (1) (a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects the formulation of policy and communications between Ministers. Disclosure would weaken Ministers ability to discuss controversial and sensitive topics free from premature public scrutiny and thus would have a damaging effect on the quality of their discussions.
“Section 35 is a qualified exemption and I have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours our release of this material. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and I recognize that openness in government may increase public trust and engagement with the government. These public interests have to be weighed against a strong public interest that policy making and its implementation are of the highest quality, fully informed by consideration of all the options. Ministers must be able to discuss policy freely and frankly, exchange views on all available options and understand their possible implications. There is a risk that Ministers may feel inhibited from being frank and candid with one another in discussion. As a result, the quality of debate underlying collective decision making (ie. in Cabinet) would decline, leading to poorly informed decision making.
“Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this information”.
Now, there is an element of this being a stock-in-trade answer for use of Section 35. It is a very similar version to that given by the Cabinet Office in response to my request for the disputed Cabinet minutes.
However, in this case, where the Inquiry is meant to be an “independent” investigation – particularly from government and ministers- the implications of applying Section 35 are hugely important and somewhat sinister. How can the Inquiry be independent, when information relating to its administration is subject to policy discussion and formulation by Ministers? Precisely what are the “sensitive and controversial topics” that Ministers should wish to discuss in camera, away from public scrutiny?
In addition, how does a policy making role for ministers impinge upon this information? Are we to take that matters concerning the Secretariat and administration of the Inquiry are actually to be referred, confidentially, to the “collective decision making” of Cabinet?
My response to this Cabinet Office refusal was to challenge it by seeking internal review, refining this by asking whether application of Section 35 effectively meant that the Inquiry was not independent of Ministers, as purported.
To date, I have received no internal review. I have made a complaint about the Cabinet Office’s delay to the Information Commissioner.
2 Responses to “Secrecy suggests a political fix”
Comment from andrewsimon
Time November 19, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I can see that there might be an element of a double-edged sword swing here. On one hand those chosen for these positions might be in a position to prevent important information from being properly passed to the Inquiry committee. On the other hand they may have the knowledge to know precisely where very important bodies of evidence have been buried.
Comment from Brian Jones
Time November 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm
This is important information that inevitably disappoints, and seems to demonstrate that the protocols of/for the inquiry are likely to be a real concern. It flies in the face of Sir John Chilcot’s declared determination that the inquiry should be as open and transparent as possible. I wonder if inquiry members were consulted. Indeed how much will get through to them, and how much will be weeded out by the Secretariat?
As far as I know a number of parliamentary questions on the inquiry raised some months ago by Andrew Mackinlay remain unanswered.
All very worrying.