SOMETHING TO HIDE ?
I suppose that with the Olympics in full swing in London and Parliament once more `in recess,` someone in high places thought it would be a good time to attempt to bury `awkward` news. So, with a stroke of his pen, yesterday the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, in a last minute ruling blocked the release of minutes of crucial ministerial meetings leading up to the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. This is, in fact, a repeat of the decision made in 2009 over the release of the same papers.
The now familiar `reasons` were again trotted out to try to support this decision - "Holding back the papers is necessary to protect the privacy of Cabinet discussions; releasing the minutes could undermine the frankness of decisions made in the future; Ministers must not feel inhibited from advancing opinions that may be unpopular or controversial......." We`ve heard all this trite nonsense before, of course.
Now it`s true that Cabinet minutes are not normally released for 30 years but a spokesman for the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said that his view "is that the significant public interest in this matter justified an exception to the general rule. The Commissioner is disappointed that the Ministerial veto has been used to override his recent decision notice concerning the minutes of two Cabinet meetings held immediately prior to the commencement of military action in Iraq in 2003."
So there we are. The Commissioner, whose job it is to protect the rights of the public regarding matters of governmental data and privacy, has come out clearly and critically against this latest refusal by the Attorney General. It seems that, as a result, the Chilcot Inquiry, who have seen the papers, will not be able to release them and one is left to wonder what effect this may have if and when their long awaited report is finally published. I think I know the answer, especially as Dominic Grieve`s decision yesterday was only taken after consulting `relevant former ministers` (no guesses who they were) as well as coalition partners and the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband. I doubt it takes a genius to work out what they all said when they were consulted.
Now, I know all about innocence until proven guilty, but if the players in that game are confident that they acted properly and with due consideration, then surely the release of the minutes will vindicate them. Trouble is, Grieve`s decision appears `convenient` and almost confirms that there might be something to hide after all.
The now familiar `reasons` were again trotted out to try to support this decision - "Holding back the papers is necessary to protect the privacy of Cabinet discussions; releasing the minutes could undermine the frankness of decisions made in the future; Ministers must not feel inhibited from advancing opinions that may be unpopular or controversial......." We`ve heard all this trite nonsense before, of course.
Now it`s true that Cabinet minutes are not normally released for 30 years but a spokesman for the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said that his view "is that the significant public interest in this matter justified an exception to the general rule. The Commissioner is disappointed that the Ministerial veto has been used to override his recent decision notice concerning the minutes of two Cabinet meetings held immediately prior to the commencement of military action in Iraq in 2003."
So there we are. The Commissioner, whose job it is to protect the rights of the public regarding matters of governmental data and privacy, has come out clearly and critically against this latest refusal by the Attorney General. It seems that, as a result, the Chilcot Inquiry, who have seen the papers, will not be able to release them and one is left to wonder what effect this may have if and when their long awaited report is finally published. I think I know the answer, especially as Dominic Grieve`s decision yesterday was only taken after consulting `relevant former ministers` (no guesses who they were) as well as coalition partners and the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband. I doubt it takes a genius to work out what they all said when they were consulted.
Now, I know all about innocence until proven guilty, but if the players in that game are confident that they acted properly and with due consideration, then surely the release of the minutes will vindicate them. Trouble is, Grieve`s decision appears `convenient` and almost confirms that there might be something to hide after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment