91Èȱ¬

The to use the "ministerial veto" to block the release of the minutes of key cabinet meetings in the run up to the Iraq war is a significant development for freedom of information in the UK.

The Information Tribunal had ordered the government to publish minutes of cabinet meetings of 13 and 17 March 2003 at which the [pdf link]. This followed an earlier decision by the Information Commissioner that the [pdf link].

Both the Tribunal and the Commissioner argued that this is an exceptional case where it would be in the public interest for cabinet minutes to be published, but Jack Straw argued that publication would damage cabinet government.

Straw stressed that this is the first time in the four years since the FOI law came into effect that the ministerial veto has been used, and he maintained that its use would be rare.

But there are concerns among FOI campaigners that this sets a precedent and the veto may become more common (as highlighted on this blog in January). In this context it is interesting to note that the Conservatives backed Straw's decision to use the veto.

In other countries with FOI laws, the ministerial veto has been used with some regularity once first deployed. As [pdf link] it has been used most heavily in Australia - 55 vetoes were issued in Australia between 1983 and 1987, and 14 by the Howard government between 1996 and 2007, while in New Zealand the veto was used 14 times in the first four years.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The 91Èȱ¬ yesterday at the House of Lords involving freedom of information and the 'Balen Report', an internal report about the 91Èȱ¬'s Middle East coverage which was written in 2004.

This is a which has often been written about on this blog (for example, here and here) and has not yet ended.

Some of the headlines (like and ) on this decision are misleading, so it is important to be clear about the implications of the latest ruling.

Yesterday's Law Lords decision was not about the merits of whether the report should be published. It was about the procedural legal matter of whether the Information Tribunal (which supported publication) has the jurisdiction to rule on such cases, where the Information Commissioner has previously decided that the request was outside the realm of FOI in the first place because it involved information held by the 91Èȱ¬ for the purposes of journalism. Material of this kind lies outside the Freedom of Information Act, and the 91Èȱ¬ has argued that the Balen Report falls into this category.

The Lords determined (against the views of the Court of Appeal and the High Court) that the Tribunal does have the right to consider such cases, so its ruling in favour of publication is valid. The substantive arguments on whether the report should be made public can now move on to the High Court, assuming the 91Èȱ¬ maintains its stance.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?