http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7907991.stmStraw vetoes Iraq minutes release
Justice Secretary Jack Straw has vetoed the publication of minutes of key cabinet meetings held in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003.
He said he would use a clause in the Freedom of Information Act to block the release of details of meetings in which the war's legality was discussed.
Releasing the papers would do "serious damage" to cabinet government, he said, and outweighed public interest needs.
The Information Tribunal ruled last month that they should be published.
They had rejected a government appeal against the Information Commissioner's ruling that the papers be published because decisions taken in the run-up to 2003 invasion of Iraq were "momentous" and controversial.
The government could have appealed against the Information Tribunal's decision in the High Court, but has decided instead to use the ministerial veto for the first time since the Freedom of Information laws came into force.
Mr Straw told MPs he had not taken the decision - which had to be approved by Cabinet - to block the minutes "lightly".
But he said it was "necessary" in the interest of protecting the confidentiality of ministerial discussions which underpinned cabinet government and collective responsibility.
"There is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government," he said.
"The damage that disclosure of the minutes in this instance would do far outweighs any corresponding public interest in their disclosure."
He was supported by former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that ministers had to be able to be "free and frank" in a "private space": "The critical point is, do you want cabinet government and collective responsibility to continue? We have a well-functioning system."
The Conservatives said the decision was "right" since the release of the minutes would make ministers more reluctant to discuss controversial subjects in future, impeding good government.
However, shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said the way the government had handled the issue betrayed its contempt for the FOI legislation it itself introduced.
He also repeated his call for a full-scale public inquiry into the Iraq war, saying the need for this was now "overwhelming".
For the Lib Dems, justice spokesman David Howarth said the decision was "more to do with preventing embarrassment than protecting the system of government".
He said it was in the public's interest to know that the cabinet, as a decision-making body, had "collapsed" in the run-up to war and been supplanted by a handful of key individuals around the then prime minister Tony Blair.
Labour MP Tony Wright said it was a cause of "great regret" that the veto had been used for the first time and would reinforce the impression among the public that there was something that ministers wanted to hide.
The SNP described the move as a "cover-up" and said an inquiry was needed so that lessons could be learnt from the "worst UK foreign policy decision in living memory".
"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an inquiry," said its defence spokesman Angus Robertson.
The release of the cabinet minutes would have reopened controversy over then attorney general Lord Goldsmith's legal advice on the war.
On the eve of war, 17 March, Lord Goldsmith's opinion unequivocally saying military action was legal was presented to cabinet, MPs and the military and published.
But after long-running reports that he had changed his mind as the planned invasion approached, his initial lengthy advice given to Mr Blair on 7 March was leaked and then published in 2005.
This advice raised a number of questions and concerns about the possible legality of military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution and was never shown to the cabinet.
Mr Blair defended his decision not to show the cabinet the full advice, saying Lord Goldsmith had attended the cabinet in person and was able to answer any legal questions and explain his view.
There's no balance as far as I'm concerned, its in the past, if Blair fudged the legality and misled the cabinet about the legal advice then the country has a right to know.
The people in the cabinet have a right to know precisely what information was really available when they voted to go to war.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-26 04:03:14)
Fuck Israel
