Robin Wilton's esoterica

Back in December I blogged about the extraordinary sequence of headlines concerning the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) enquiry into arms deals with Saudi Arabia. At the time, you may remember, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, said that based on a careful examination of the evidence, he was of the view that a prosecution 'could not be brought'.

According to today's Guardian, though, it appears that that judgement may have been based less on the evidence initially presented to him by the SFO, and more on directions from the Prime Minister's office. They suggest that conversations with Number 10 led the Attorney General to reverse his view that BAE (the company in question) had at least some case to answer, even if only as part of a face-saving plea-bargain.

It all seems a very long way from the "ethical dimension to foreign policy" we heard so much about in 1997.

'During his first Mansion House speech as Prime Minister in 1997 Tony Blair said: "Human Rights may sometimes seem an abstraction in the comfort of the west, but when they are ignored, human misery and political instability follow. The same is true if we ignore the ethical dimension of the trade in arms."' - The Observer, 11th May 2003

Several sources recently ("Open Secrets" blog, Guardian newspaper, and the excellent Privacy Laws & Business newsletter) have noted that Conservative MP David Maclean has submitted a Private Member's Bill proposing an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Here's a detailed explanation of what a Private Member's Bill is; in summary, it's a Bill introduced by any member of either House who is not a government minister.

Mr Maclean's amendment is a very simple one: it removes a couple of line items from the original FOI Act and adds one paragraph. Nothing to it. However, the implications are all but insignificant.

The two line items it deletes are from the list of public authorities to whom the FOI Act applies. Here's the original list:

1. Any Government Department

2. The House of Commons.

3. The House of Lords.

4. The Northern Ireland Assembly.

5. The National Assembly for Wales.

6. The armed forces of the Crown, except-

(a) the special forces, and

(b) any unit or part of a unit which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in the exercise of its functions.

And here's the same list after his amendment has been applied:

1. Any Government Department

2. The Northern Ireland Assembly.

3. The National Assembly for Wales.

4. The armed forces of the Crown, except-

(a) the special forces, and

(b) any unit or part of a unit which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in the exercise of its functions.

Spot the minor difference?

Elsewhere, the inserted paragraph would make an exemption for any correspondence between an MP and the remaining public authorities in the list above, and would also exempt those parties from having to confirm or deny the existence of information being requested under the Act.

In other words, this bill, the 'working parts' of which amount to less than a hundred words, would suffice to completely remove both houses of parliament and all correspondence between MPs and public authorities from the provisions of the FOI Act (but not the elected chambers sitting in Wales or Northern Ireland). So, hypothetically, if my MP were to write to the local NHS Trust asking them to explain why they are closing all the local hospitals before they have made any provision for a replacement healthcare structure, this amendment would exempt them both from having to release either his letter or the Trust's reply to an enquiring constituent. That seems to me to reduce democratic accountability in a way which the FOI cannot have been intended to do.

This very useful page shows whereabouts Mr Maclean's amendment is in its progress through the parliamentary process. As you can see, the Commons appear to think it's a splendid idea; it has passed through its first two readings with no dissent.

The phrase "to drive a coach and horses through", much beloved of judges, is increasingly anachronistic. Let me suggest, then, that this amendment drives a nitrox monster truck through the principles of the FOI Act. I sincerely hope it doesn't get much further through the legislative machine.