|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
GOVERNMENT WON’T REVEAL ADVICE ON REPATRIATING
POWERS |
||||
NO COVER UP – THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!
David Cameron would like us to believe that he
wants the most open and transparent government.
He can have no complaint if his talk of
repatriating powers from within the EU is examined as to whether it is spin or
substance. In producing our research paper “The Competence Con”, we tried to find any indication that
a meaningful return of powers was possible within the EU. We concluded that it
was not, and that Britain needs to leave the EU to restore its sovereignty.
NOTHING
TO HIDE?
In March 2013, a Freedom of Information (FOI)
request was lodged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on what legal
advice it had received. The FCO replied that the
government had no advice from EU institutions, but some from legal authorities.
However it refused to reveal that advice on the grounds that
the information was “legal professional
privilege” (LPP) that could be maintained in legal proceedings.
In short, this
privilege of secrecy is justified for the government feeling confident that it
can disclose “all relevant facts” for a legal adviser to provide “sound
advice”, without fearing that they will be disclosed to the public.
Apparently the legal advice enables the government
to make decisions “in the correct legal context”.
SOMETHING
TO HIDE?
If the
context is compliance with British and EU law in considering a process for repatriation
of powers, rather than private personal circumstances, then surely this is
drawing on law texts such as EU Treaties and Case Law, which are very much
“public information”?
Given the
current debate on EU membership, and the Prime Minister’s openly-announced
intentions for using such a process before giving the people a vote, shouldn’t
a disclosure be in the public interest?
After all, if it were to be
straightforward to take powers back, the government should have nothing to hide
on outlining the steps to take?
We are
talking about what would be a straightforward government act of negotiation,
rather than something relating to a criminal case or national security. There
is no way that this information is going to be used in legal proceedings
(leaving aside the special case of a judicial review, which is only a faint
possibility. This could be independently granted on general acts of public
administration, and could incidentally openly examine the legal advice given.)
We responded
to the refusal by encouraging the FCO to release its limited information on
‘the process’, but with the names of officials, legal advisers and their
organisations taken out, so that nothing could be attributed to any individual.
(This rendering is done on other FOI requests to remove the names of civil
servants who don’t meet with the public, for instance.)
If the FCO sees sense, the response will be
objectively reviewed. However, continuing failure to explain how repatriation
of powers might be possible must be construed as something to hide?
Footnote
In July
2012, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham accused
the Prime Minister and others of undermining the Freedom of Information Act,
and effectively encouraging civil servants to obscure the government from
proper scrutiny.
|
|Mission impossible?: |
This page compiled: 11 April 2013