Gus O'Donnell on leaks, secrecy and why Alastair Campbell was wrong to publish his diaries

In a drab office block in Southwark yesterday civil service head Augustine Thomas O'Donnell - Sir Gus to most - took the witness stand at the Information Tribunal to argue why minutes of Cabinet discussions before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 should not be released.

For FOI watchers and civil service nerds, I've posted as full a transcript as was possible below.

Defending his decision not to release the documents in an age where confidential Cabinet discussions are "frequently" (his word) leaked in memoirs, biographies and in the media, he took aim against Alastair Campbell for his diaries The Blair Years.

I made clear to Alastair in the letter I wrote that I very much regret this book is being published at all. I was against it. I thought that it was wrong of someone in the position of Alastair to be publishing what he did. It’s one thing for ministers, another for special advisers.

Alastair said last night he always had "friendly" dealings with Sir Gus and that the Cabinet Office said he was "punctilious" in his dealings with them, this issue was still exercising the Cabinet Secretary yesterday.

He suggested that the Prime Minister had been lecturing the Cabinet recently on the importance of not leaking

"I am very aware if there have been disclosures of internal Cabinet discussions, Prime Ministers have made a point of telling whole of Cabinet that this is behaviour that should stop, and issue a warning. Asked what happened if an individual Cabinet member had been identified as the source of a leak, he said: “It’s the kind of thing where a PM would take another Cabinet ministers aside and talk to them privately, so I would not be aware of that."

Click below for the entire transcript

[Are you Augustian Thomas O’Donnell?] Yes

[Involved in Iraq discussions] In the sense that I certainly wasn’t Cab Sec. I would have been involved in some of the discussions beforehand because the Treasury is involved in discussions of that kind.

[Attending Cab meetings 2003] Absolutely not.

[Cab Sec Function of control?] it has a number of functions. One of them is certainly when you have issues that span departmental functions you are bringing everyone together to debate and come to a collective view. It’s important they have that opportunity to voice. It helps in term of ownership of that decision. To come out and discuss that issue they are bound by collective responsibility.

It’s important that in Cabinet the arguments both ways are made, not just in favour but against.

No note necessarily. Cabinet is the pinnacle of an exercise which involves Cabinet committees, so there could be very strong differences of view ironed out at committees and then discussed at Cabinet. And then Cab discussions relatively more limited. There are other times where the Cabinet discussion more expansive.

[Public interest in knowing extent to options explored] Usually what will happen is decision made and statement to Parliament and cross examination and public debate, select committees, all of those issues will be discussed.

There is a strong public interests for a space within Cabinet to for minister to make their case without fear that this will be used against them.

[Pub interest in knowing whether Cab is functioning properly] Certainly the point of Cabinet is that there’s space to conduct those discussions. The fact that Cabinet meets regularly is a good thing and that those meetings are minuted.

[Process of minuting. Isn’t it clear these are intended to be objective record] That’s correct

[And not just the decision] They are by tier nature a summary, it’s going on in real time it’s not a transcript, it’s a summary.

[They re not a verbatim] No

[Views not attributed to individuals] That’s correct, then a PM summing up. That’s not to say someone wouldn’t be able to work out who said what.

[Aim to reflect for and against] That’s right, they are there to produce an objective account of discussion.

I think it’s about good governance. Here’s an important meeting, those most important committee in the land for government making decisions, so it should be very clear minutes which are good objective summary of what’s there. That’s there for history and for people to note that when they are in Cabinet their views are to be recorded fairly.

[What would be the effect on minute keeping. It’s unlikely that the practices would change] It’s an interesting question. They are the responsibility of the Cab Sec. I don’t clear them with the PM. They re my responsibility. I would have to think very carefully what I would record in responsibility to the transparency aspects were different from what I thought it was.

PH said if publicised they would be a meagre document, the Cab Sec would amend behaviour.

At the moment Cab Secs write these minutes knowing FOI act has been passed but there is a high public interest in maintaining confidentially. Therefore the assumption I’ve operated is that it would require large amount of public interest in disclosure in order for that to be breached, so I’ve assumed it’s unlikely they would be breached.

[Any changes since 2005] I’ve taken the view that my period has been while all the time while FOI has been in power so I’ve not been able to contrast my behaviour. But I have taken a view how the FOI will be interpreted. I may or may not have been correct about that. I’ve used that view.

[Little opportunity for Cabinet members or officials to comment or clear the subject of the minute. Factual correction within 24 hours. But Cab minister cant say pls leave this point out] That’s correct. There’s only one proviso. If someone gets into an area that is part political in a discussion we would tend not to put that in the minutes.

[Talk about Cab collective responsibility, you are setting out the harm you see as potentially flow if put in public domain.] It’s one part of it. Like I said earlier it’s very important in the process of coming to a decision Cab members all hear the arguments on both sides. At the end of that, some Cab members may change their mind. Some who first oppose may decide they are in favour. But they will all understand the counter arguments. It’s a very important part of the collective decision making process. Obviously once a decision is made everyone has to defend it as a collective Cabinet decision without the exception they could resign. But it’s a stark mode, you’re either in silence mode or resignation mode.

People do need to be comfortable about that final decision, to go out and defend it.

[Isn’t it important to look in fact at differing views] I think the risk with that is people will infer that you are only prepared to publish when there is unanimity and that will put you in logical contradictions quite quickly.

[Some dissent from non disclosure] You would know there were some arguments and people will be able to put faces to arguments quite quickly, I should think

[Would you really be able to infer] There would be uncertainty. We wouldn’t know if that was the decision role or not.

[You rule out disclosure people’s roles allow public scrutiny] I think what you’ll find is that what you’ll find is it’s OK if they are all consenting, then you’ll get criticism asking why there wont more. Just because they’re all consenting doesn’t mean there wont be criticism.

[What about criticism that they’re supine. Disclosure could have beneficial qualities] I think again on these really important issues. If someone does have a very strong difference of view, they take the option to resign, and in this case someone did. So there are options if there’s a very strong difference of view.

[] The reason I care so much about the importance of keeping confidential discussions in Cabinet is to improve the quality of decision making. That’s influenced by whether people feel happy to have full and frank discussions. They put the arguments don’t necessarily agree with them but because they want to hear the arguments against. It’s very important they go through that process and not giving ammunition for those who want to come up with arguments against that.

Once you’ve gone down the track of saying Cabinet minutes can be published and everybody knows there is no blanket exemption but the presumption is a very high hurdle, people wont know where that hurdle is. I think they will change their behaviour, there is uncertainty about this and it might become public and it might well affect their behaviour.

I think that time is relevant in the sense we have a 30 year rule that’s being reviewed, the Dacre review, there are arguments that point to them being released at some point in the future. But all the evidence is that this should be some distance away from the decision, in order not to influence their behaviour adversely around the Cabinet table.

[30 year rule reconsidered. What about if shortly after minute. But what if three, four years after decision. Disclosure 3/4/5 years after meeting is going to be a different proposition from shortly after] We are talking about a situation where the troops are still in Iraq, a number are still around the Cabinet table, it’s a matter of lively public debate. This would have a strong deleterious debate on any future discussion. Not just in military activity, because people wouldn’t know (the scope).

[Good government means good decision and good decisions making process] I’d say both matter but obviously if you had a good process resulting in bad decisions there would be something wrong. The quality of the decision made is the most important. And the foundation of that is good process.

[There is a public interest in knowing process] Most certainly, when Cab makes decisions on public process issues, there is nearly always a statement to Parliament, minister puts forward reasons behind the decisions.

[Scrutiny of process not only decision] It’s important for people to know questions have been discussed at highest level, Cabinet committees.

[How we come to decision important] Cab discusses all the really important issues. Nuclear deterrent, social care. There’s a very wide range of issues, and Cabinet is a space that there is a full exchange of views.

[That approach conflicts with FOI] I could certainly imagine a situation where we were asked whether a decision went to Cabinet, and we wanted to say the FOI act superseded that line in the ministerial code.

[FOI has been in operation since 2005. Has there been a change in the way Cabinet office operates] I’ve been Cabinet secretary since it’s operated but was in Gulf war Cabinets with John Major. Cabinet Ministers are behaving in a way that suggests they think it is unlikely that Cabinet minutes would be disclosed. But a number of them have asked me about this particular tribunal and are very aware of the nature of their understandings may be changed by the outcome of this tribunal

[] Whenever you are talking about military action the legal basis is an important part of those discussions. It was in 1991. Any Cab would want to be thinking about the legal aspects.

[Question of whether intelligence pre 2003 and in 2003 was accurate. That’s been a feature of the debate.] It’s certainly a feature. There are always issues where there is an intelligence component about how reliable the intelligence is.

[Butler chapter 7. It’s about the decision making process rather than decision itself] The whole point of the Butler review is to look into those subjects.

[So the Butler review was not about whether it was right to go to war, but various aspects of decision making process] Various aspects of the use of intelligence

[Whether Cab gov worked effectively] What you are getting from the Butler review is a view of what the Cabinet structure was like.

[Butler talks about absence of papers in advance and Cabinet taking collective decisions. So a concern is being expressed as to whether Cab gov was working effectively] Certainly I think what Butler is saying is that there could have been more papers and more meetings.

[And whether proper scrutiny] There were a number of discussions at Cabinet, as was clear, and in those individual members felt able to contribute and actively and well. And coming to a final decision they felt they had enough information to do so.

[Public importance] That’s why there was a Butler review, to go into these sort of issues.

[Also subject for public debate] There were a list of recommendations that the government has acted on. They were about the role of Cab Sec and the JIC is separated out from the policy aspects all of which have been acted on.

[Wd you agree that the disclosure of the Cab minutes assists in informing debate in whether Cab gov was operating effectively] I think it would be very difficult to get into that without getting into substance of what’s in the minutes.

[Blunkett on Clare short ringing Andrew Rawnsley. What we have here is a case where there is a media report about something allegedly happening in Cabinet appearing within a couple of days. Is this a frequent or infrequent event that the media report what was allegedly said in Cab within a few days] It’s relatively infrequent but it’s a lot more frequent than it should be.

[Not made up] We’re getting into murky territory. I’m not in the position to vouch for the accuracy of what journalists write, nor would I want to.

[It does often happen. It was something] Lets put to one side PC taken an oath to keep these things on. They’re frequent allegations that something from a Cab ministers. The question is has it come directly, indirectly, I don’t know. There will be occasional items like this. They will be someone trying to put their view. It’s very bad fro government but it happens. I think, now I know the PM strongly backs that view.

The question is whether you can be certain a minister can say that. Often these strings are unattributed.

[Action taken?} I am very aware if there have been disclosures of internal Cabinet discussion Prime Ministers have made a point of telling whole of Cab this is behaviour that should stop, issue a warning. It’s the kind of thing where a PM would take another Cabinet ministers aside and talk to them privately, so I would not be aware of that.

[Blunkett, Mon March 17, read this section beginning TB started government] I have read this before, I read this in the clearance process. [Campbell was not a member of Cabinet, but did attend] We did not overlap but that’s correct.

[The Alistair Campbell diaries were cleared before publication. You gave clearance, or clearance to be given with this.] It’s the responsibility of the author. I made clear to Alastair in the letter I wrote to that I very much regret this book is being published at all. I was against it. I thought that it was wrong of someone in the position of Alistair to be publishing what he did. It’s one thing for ministers, another special advisers, I think it’s wrong.

[Nothing you can do] That’s correct.

[No action taken since]

[Unknown extract. Mayer?.] As with all ministerial memoirs, I’ve seen letters where my predecessor , we would have made suggestions about what should have been in or out but it doesn’t mean that authors take account or comply.

[So this is a suggestion, not a right of veto] It’s the author’s responsibility. We give very strong advice about security and intelligence. We can certainly make representations to the PM. But in the end it’s the authors responsibility. If you put this in legislation you would have the issue of what kind of penalties for non compliance which puts you into difficult terrorists.

[AC diaries, you said was regrettable. In general terms what is your view about this mat by a Cab min] When it comes to ministers, as elected politicians there are different standards from civil servants, special advisers .They have had to go before the public and justify their positions. I believe it’s right for them to do that. I think they should stick with collective cab responsibility and explain there was a debate in Cabinet and I would not recommend they attribute that debate. But if there’s a number coming out writing their views then a number would be published. But in general I would like them to attach a high weight to how would they like people to be breaking that collective responsibility rule for the future.

[There are a number of memoirs where Cabinet views revealed. In 2008] The fact there are people around the Cabinet table that are writing memoirs has had some impact on Cabinet debate.

Why was there the Radcliffe review? Because this was thought this was to be a really important breach of Cabinet responsibility. That came out with suggestions how memories remain. Cabinet gov would be better if anyone stuck to it

[Isn’t it a feature of Cab gov people are likely to write memoirs] There will be some and they may involve breaches of collective. But it’s difference to have a breach that can be repaired than to something that says the whole of the discussion would be available.

[When one’s assessing the implications from time to time, the extent to which that would have adverse effect has to be judged against background of what happens already] I would disagree. The effect would be very large because we’ be moving to a situation where individuals, ex ministers would occasionally write their memoirs and occasional references to collective cabinet decision making, so there’s that risk, versus a much bigger risk of their being an objective comprehensive account of the whole cabinet discussion which make people believe that their views, even if they are not attributed, may be attributed to them. So the whole of Cabinet will be thinking this is a very different type of debate. This is a debate where all of these discussions could become public.

[Ministers write memoirs to justify their version of events] There’s certainly an element of therapy. … Some are more objective than others.

Comments

[mevlüt şekeri]

mevlüt şekeri