Secure in the knowledge...
at 2:29pm on Friday, 15th December 2006
Not so much a friday rant, as conspiratorial speculation. Much talk today about the end of a fraud investigation into the Saudi / BAE arms deal.
I wonder about the reasons given for the cessation of the investigation; it's significant that 'national security' and international relations were cited. That these reasons were given makes it a little more unlikely that we'll find out exactly why the decision was made - because those are exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that are pretty hard to get around. Information withheld on the grounds of national security, for example, can be kept secret through a ministerial veto that can't be over-turned by thr Information Commissioner.
The point isn't to ask about the details of the investigation - exempt anyway - but the decision to stop it. I wonder whether the cited reasons relate in some way to the exemptions - seen in part 2.
Combined with the exemptions over commercial confidentiality, defence, legal procedings, and so on, it was unlikely we would ever see the specific information used by the fraud office in its investigation. Which would be reasonable, if the Attorney General hadn't, seemingly on the advice of ministers, called a halt to it.
Doing that has raised serious questions about political interference. It disrupts the deferral of authority that happens when we let criminal investigations take place. It's particularly unfortunate when the 'public interest' cited involves such contested policy as that of the UKs involvement in the Middle East. And when it covers deals worth a great deal of money to an industry with an open history of heavy political lobbying.
The Freedom of Information Act could really help make clear the reasons why this decision was taken. Maybe that's why we'll find that what we're looking for stays secret.
I wonder about the reasons given for the cessation of the investigation; it's significant that 'national security' and international relations were cited. That these reasons were given makes it a little more unlikely that we'll find out exactly why the decision was made - because those are exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that are pretty hard to get around. Information withheld on the grounds of national security, for example, can be kept secret through a ministerial veto that can't be over-turned by thr Information Commissioner.
The point isn't to ask about the details of the investigation - exempt anyway - but the decision to stop it. I wonder whether the cited reasons relate in some way to the exemptions - seen in part 2.
Combined with the exemptions over commercial confidentiality, defence, legal procedings, and so on, it was unlikely we would ever see the specific information used by the fraud office in its investigation. Which would be reasonable, if the Attorney General hadn't, seemingly on the advice of ministers, called a halt to it.
Doing that has raised serious questions about political interference. It disrupts the deferral of authority that happens when we let criminal investigations take place. It's particularly unfortunate when the 'public interest' cited involves such contested policy as that of the UKs involvement in the Middle East. And when it covers deals worth a great deal of money to an industry with an open history of heavy political lobbying.
The Freedom of Information Act could really help make clear the reasons why this decision was taken. Maybe that's why we'll find that what we're looking for stays secret.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments