Attorney General blocks release of devolution papers
Attorney General Dominic Grieve. Picture: AFP/Getty Images
Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has blocked the release of Cabinet committee papers relating to devolution under the Freedom of Information Act.
Grieve confirmed today his belief that their release would not be in the public interest.
Instead, Grieve said he believed it would undermine the operation of government.
A request had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998.
Such a veto has only been used twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq.
Mr Grieve’s veto related to two specific requests for documents.
The first, received by the Cabinet Office on May 24 2010, asked for the “minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meeting on devolution”.
The request was rejected on June 18 2010, and the applicant requested an internal review of the decision on July 14 2010. Refusal was upheld the following month, on August 11 2010.
A request for further appeal was then made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and on September 12 2011, having reviewed the decision, the Information Commissioners ordered the material be released.
A second request, made on June 7 2010, asked for “the minutes of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Devolution for Scotland, Wales and the Regions”.
The Cabinet Office rejected the request on July 5 2010, and an appeal was made on July 21 2010. An internal review upheld the refusal on November 24 2010.
The request was referred to the ICO on November 29 2010 for further investigation. The Information Commissioner ruled on September 13 2011 that the information should be released.
In his statement, Mr Grieve said: “This is only the third time the power... has been exercised since the (Freedom of Information) Act came into force in 2005.
“In that time, central Government has released an enormous amount of information in response to FoI requests - including in October 2010 the minutes of the Cabinet discussion of the Westland affair.
“My decision to exercise the veto in this case was not taken lightly but in accordance with the Statement on Government Policy on the use of the executive override.
“In line with the policy, I have both assessed the balance of the public interest in disclosure and non-disclosure of these minutes and considered whether this case meets the criteria set out in the Statement of Government Policy for use of the veto.
“I consider the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that disclosure would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.
“I have concluded, in light of the criteria set out in the Government’s policy, this constitutes an exceptional case and the exercise of the veto is warranted.”
A spokesman for the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “The Information Commissioner is aware that the Attorney-General has exercised the veto and regrets that the tribunal has, for the second time, been denied an opportunity to consider the issues as provided for in the Freedom of Information Act.
“The commissioner will study the Attorney-General’s statement of reasons to understand what ‘exceptional circumstances’ there might be to justify the use of the veto in this case.
“The commissioner will then make a special report to Parliament.
“The House of Commons Justice Committee is conducting a post-legislative review of the Act, which has been in operation for seven years.”
Former justice secretary Jack Straw exercised the veto on both previous occasions it has been used.
Most recently, in December 2010, Mr Straw blocked the release of Cabinet minutes on talks about devolution dating back to 1997.
He said at the time that collective Cabinet responsibility meant it was in the public interest for the papers to remain unreleased.
In February 2009, Mr Straw vetoed the release of Cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq War.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 24 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
CharlesPatrickO'Brien
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 07:39 PMThe phrase "not in the public interest,"actually means IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. This is our government that we pay for and vote for,supposedly,to do what is best for us. I see no reason why they should refuse us their bosses what we want to know.
Soixante-neuf
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 10:17 AMWell, Dr Wilkie, if one day you were to provide evidence for your claims of having influenced the UN andor the CofE, then we might be able to judge this sensibly. However, simply repeating the claim on newspaper comments sites, and pointing to a group of documents you yourself lodged with the National Library (the library will of course accept anything submitted to it - I could lodge the minutes of my knitting club if I wanted to), is proof of nothing. I note the documents you refer to contain precisely zero evidence that the representations you made had any effect at all. Holidays snaps, details of your itinerary and copies of background documentation mean nothing without proof of influence.
Dr. James Wilkie
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:02 AMI was involved in the diplomatic negotiations over devolution right from the beginning in 1979. #4 and #20 are correct. The issue was forced by the Scotland-UN Committee at the United Nations and the Council of Europe, and ended with the UK Government having to implement devolution in Scotland and Wales as well as other constitutional changes under threat of international sanctions. John Major's Conservative Government dragged its feet to the last, and was no doubt thankful that this hot potato landed on Tony Blair's lap after the 1997 election. Labour, even in the years before attaining government office, had used the foulest methods to try to kill the Strasbourg action, but without success. For broader diplomatic reasons related to the situation in Eastern Europe the international authorities could not condone the flagrant breach of the international rules on pluralist democracy that the previous system of governing Scotland and Wales represented. For obvious reasons, London has very good grounds for suppressing the story in the midst of the present referendum discussion, but it can be read in outline in the Scotland-UN Committee papers at www.realmofscotland.com . I may add that the diplomatic expertise of the Scotland-UN group is now vested in the Scottish Democratic Alliance (SDA), as yesterday's publication of its action in the OSCE and Council of Europe demonstrates.
The West Awake
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 11:49 PMHo Ho, more bad news for the unionists over in the Herald too. Have a check at this; "Now the Electoral Reform Society has put its weight behind the legitimacy of the Scottish Government deciding on key issues relating to the referendum, which is proposed for autumn 2014. The society's Juliet Swann said: "At the Electoral Reform Society Scotland we've spent time poring over legislation, talking to experts, taking on board opinions and mulling over the options that would best respect democracy. "To that end, we are recommending the Scottish Parliament be provided with a no-strings-attached legal mandate to call a referendum at a time and with a question or questions of their choosing. "We also believe that the Scottish Electoral Commission is best placed to monitor the referendum, but they should be accountable not to the Westminster Government but to all members of the Scottish Parliament." Ms Swann, campaigns and research officer at ERS Scotland, added: "The Society supports votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and, given the importance of this vote, we see no reason why this opportunity shouldn't be taken to extend the franchise. "That said, this should be as a beginning not as a one-off." However, she dismissed calls for those elsewhere in the UK to be allowed a vote."
ElaineBryan
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 11:35 PMHere's why: How devolution really came about, i.e. not by Labour grace: http:realmofscotland.comscolandpage.aspx?Cat=17&menu=Scotland-UN%20-%20The%20Story%20in%20Brief Fact is that the restoration of the Scottish Parliament and was a diplomatic and not a political decision. It was a foreign policy obligation that had to be carried out under threat of international sanctions. (read the link)
brianclark
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 11:11 PMThe Scottish boundaries in the North Sea contain more Oil Reserves than have been extracted so far, in fact Scotland has more Oil than Kuwait !! .........the Scots must not find out !!
Anagach
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 10:27 PMIt would undermine the operation of government. The cabinet was deciding upon the biggest change in Government structure of the UK for hundreds of years and they are coy about their views on such a momentous event being made public. Hum.
BillDunblane
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 10:12 PMCan anyone point me to where this important event is listed on the BBC Scotland site? I seem to be unable to find it.... Maybe Blob is studying his Thesaurus again in preparation for tomorrow's FM questions when he will no doubt attempt to discombobulate us with yet more fustian niaiserie!. Bet Jimmy Krankie gets top billing (again) whatever she says...
Sneeky
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 10:00 PMI suppose the question here is by refusing to release the documents and citing the Public Interest, which public was having its interests served??? Was it the 54million people in England or the 9 million in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Kinghob
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 09:56 PMThere is no conspiracy when a Government actively seeks to deny FOI requests, and out of THREE refusals apparently TWO of them are about what these trusty unionists said about Scotland............very telling that Labour and Tory westminster governments want to hide this from the public at large.
Sneeky
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 09:56 PMSuch a veto has only been used twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq... WELL IF THAT DOESNT SET ALARM BELLS RINGING I DONT KNOW WHAT WILL!!!
Il Penseroso
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 09:32 PMSo this is the UNION DIVIDEND? If it could damage Westminster veto it. If anything or anybody can inflict damage on the Independence agenda, TELL THE WORLD! How is that for democracy? The Mother of Parliaments? More like a prude spinster with syphilis!
douglas-home rule
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 08:02 PMWhat the British State needs to be kept secret? The background for the war in Iraq -----and discussions about Scotland.
SiônJones
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 07:13 PMWhatever it is the unionists are hiding, it can't be as harmful to their already forlorn and sordid cause as suppressing it will be!
Jo'Burg Jock
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 06:51 PM#6 Blantyre Bill -------- A Champion of Secretive, Non disclosure, Deceitful Government --- And A Unionist! --- Says it all really!
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.