Should Freedom of Information include Cabinet minutes? (Updated)

Here's a prediction: despite today's ruling by the Information Commissioner, the minutes of the Cabinet meetings on March 13 and 17 2003, in which Tony Blair and colleagues discussed the legal basis for the Iraq War, will not be released.

Downing Street will certainly be appealing to the Information Tribunal and ministers will, if necessary, use their veto. Richard Thomas, the commissioner, is straying in tricky territory and today's move will fuel some opponents of the Freedom of Information Act.

This may not be a view shared by all, but most in Westminster recognise that Cabinet ministers need somewhere that they can discuss, debate and disagree about policy in private. This is surely sensible (if they did not have a chance to raise concerns, how can they exercise collective responsibility?) and this is why Cabinet discussions and the minutes are secret.

The 30-year rule allowed the release of some Cabinet notes long after those involved had left government. Now Thomas is proposing that some minutes should be released after just five, when some of the same figures are still around the Cabinet table (notably G Brown). Cabinet members past and present thought they had worded the FOI Act in such a way as to prevent this ever happening.

Thomas argues that the disclosure of events relating to the Iraq War is unusually important and in the public interest. There have long been reports that Lord Goldsmith's initial legal judgments questioned the legal basis for war. Thomas believes that the formal confirmation or denial of this fact is worthy of breaching the privacy of Cabinet discussions.

The commisioner also asserts that such disclosure would not set a precedent. But what if Thomas happened to think that the Cabinet discussions into the BAE Systems investigation by the Serious Fraud Office was also sufficiently worth breaching Cabinet's privacy for. Even if precendents are not formally set, they are created in practice. Just look at the speed with which information about a handful of MPs' travel expenses was applied to all.

All of this will undoubtedly feed the anti-FOI frenzy among some MPs. It only just survived an attempt by allies of Blair to introduce restrictions. Could Richard Thomas have precipitated another attempt?

Update: The BBC's Martin Rosenbaum, an FOI expert, points out that a verbatim extract of these Cabinet minutes appeared in the Alistair Campbell diaries, the notes themselves may be "spartan" (the full record of arguments is handwritten, taken by the Cabinet Secretary) and the Information Commissioner has four other cases involving Cabinet minutes under consideration. Read here.

Comments

[Peter H]

This is just another example of the erosion of democracy in the UK by the Labour Government. They do not want the truth to be heard.
They also do not want to hear the British people's opinion on the European "constitution" by going back on their promise of a refurrendum. We now have the rediculous position of a Liberal ammendment calling for a refurrendum, not being allowed by a Labour Speaker of the House. The same Speaker who is being investigated for bogus expenses.
Are there any other examples needed to demonstrate Labours total disregard for Democracy?

[Brian Lewis]

I quite take the argument that ministers must be allowed to give their views confidentially in a cabinet meeting without knowing that they will be published soon after. It is very like the question "have you stopped beating your wife - answer yes or no!"  However in the case of going to war, we can be very sure that publication of ministers' views on going to war in Iraq would reveal some very dodgy logic indeed, and consequently will be supressed for as long as possible. But perhaps the files will eventually go missing, signed out to AB and never returned. I already know, so do not need to see the files!

[martin brighton]

Scrap the 30-year rule

[Wilf]

What a load of hippy-libertarian rubbish. Of course the Cabinet minutes should not be published! Is nothing sacred? One guy (probably bloody Henry Porter) complains to the Information Commissioner, and centuries of tradition come tumbling down. What about MY complaint? I don't want British government to be compromised in this way. But who listens to me? This is a national disgrace.