Iraq Inquiry: my (for starters) 21 Freedom of Information Requests

 

The Prime Minister

10 Downing Street

London

 

 

Dear Prime Minister,

 

Inquiry into the Iraq War – Freedom of Information Act Requests

 

Your announcement a few days ago of an independent inquiry into the Iraq War, described on the 10 Downing Street website as an investigation into “the eight year period including the run-up to the conflict and the full period of conflict and reconstruction”, will please many people in our country who care about justice, truth, and good government.

 

Your decision, however, that this inquiry will be held entirely in private must cause equally strong dismay.

 

To hold some sessions fully or partially in private when secret material is referred to would be understandable.  But to determine that none of the evidence whatsoever shall be heard in open denies the public any opportunity to know the truth, even about information not classified as secret.

 

The government’s position, as I understand it, is that witnesses will be more candid if their evidence is in private.  This is impossible to understand.  On that basis, every sitting of Parliament or of our courts or any occasion when candour is important would be cloaked in secrecy.  It is often the case that people are more likely to give full and truthful answers to questions when they know that people may be watching who may be able to expose any deceit either immediately or in the future.

 

The best way to ensure full disclosure, surely, is to require witnesses to be sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  We can, presumably, proceed on the basis that officers of the state, whether Ministers, members of the armed forces, the intelligence services, or in other parts of the government will answer truthfully if questioned under oath.

 

My first specific question for you, and I would like you to treat this question and all questions in this letter as requests for disclosure under Freedom of Information Act 2000 is:

 

1. What are all policy considerations are behind that government’s opinion that an open inquiry would not receive candid evidence and, specifically, is it the view of the government that witnesses would not answer truthfully if questioned on oath?

 

2. Secondly, who are the witnesses that you believe are unlikely to answer truthfully if examined under oath in public testimony?

 

You told the House of Commons that a public inquiry would become a festival for lawyers.  That may not be so bad.  The English Bar is amongst the best in the world and you may find that professional cross-examination reveals more truth than will otherwise emerge. 

 

You are a self-proclaimed student of the lives of the Kennedy’s.  You will remember that Robert Kennedy was a lawyer and it was his forensic cross-examination skills that made the Senate’s Rackets Committee effective in exposing vast corruption in the American Trade Union movement.  You will remember also that Attlee was a lawyer.  So were Asquith, Lloyd George, Baroness Thatcher, and your immediate predecessor.  So was Mahatma Ghandi.   It may be that their skills as lawyers made them more effective political leaders and that lawyers would provide valuable assistance to this inquiry.  In any event, please do not use the despatch box in Parliament to spit out the word “lawyer” like it is a dirty word.  Your doing so is offensive me to and thousands of people in this country.

 

I further ask you:

 

3. Has the government properly considered the advantages and disadvantages of the inquiry having legal assistance?

 

4. If so, on what basis have you reached an opinion that legal assistance would be more disadvantageous and advantageous to the inquiry?

 

5. Will the chair of the inquiry or its members be able to take a different view and receive legal assistance despite what you have said?

 

In relation to witnesses:

6. Does it follow that witnesses who wish to be accompanied by a lawyer will be denied that opportunity?

 

7. If witnesses will be denied legal assistance, have the human rights implications of such a denial been considered?

 

8. Is it envisaged that any witnesses may be offered immunity from prosecution?  If so, under what legal power?

 

9. In the event of incriminating evidence being revealed, will that evidence be provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police, or other law officer and if not, why will it not be so provided?

 

10. Will the inquiry seek to compel any witness who refuses to give evidence?

 

11. Will you dismiss or any Minister or discipline any MP or peer receiving the Labour whip who does not fully co-operate with the inquiry?

 

12. If so, how will we know whether they have full co-operated given the private nature of the inquiry that you have ordered?

 

13. In the light of public statements by, among others, General Sir Michael Jackson that he is prepared to give evidence in public and that his evidence would be unaffected by being given publicly, will his evidence (and that of anyone else who takes a similar stance) be heard in public?  What possible reason would there be for not hearing it in public?

 

14. Will the inquiry not even receive any legal assistance from the Treasury Solicitor’s Office?

 

I also, with great respect, struggle to see how your decision to maintain secrecy over this inquiry could be compatible with the Freedom of Information Act.  You will know that the Act creates a presumption in favour of disclosure unless one or more of certain exemptions apply.  Evidence touching on secret classified material will plainly be exempt but it will be surprising if every other piece of evidence is exempt ab initio.

 

15. Has the government obtained legal opinion either from the Treasury Solicitor’s Office or from any other source as to whether blanket secrecy over the inquiry as envisaged is lawful?

 

16. Which specific statutory exemptions, if any, from the Freedom of Information Act or other source of law do you aver are applicable to disclosure in this case?

 

17. Do you accept that a simple witness list must be disclosable?

 

18. Do you accept that a list of exhibits produced to the inquiry (save for redaction of secret documents) must be disclosable?

 

19. Do you accept that a list of dates on which the inquiry sits and the venues at which it sits must be disclosable?

 

20. Will you confirm the HM Government will, at the very least, not attend to prevent disclosure of the items I mention in 17-19 above?

 

Finally, for completeness, I formally request full disclosure to me of all evidence received by the inquiry and please undertake to furnish me with a copy of that evidence or full reasons for non-disclosure.  I envisage you will refuse but an early statement of your reasons will no doubt be useful when the matter comes before the Information Commissioner or the court. 

 

The truth about the Iraq War concerns far more than any domestic party political advantage.  It goes to the heart of any claim our country may have to the moral leadership of this planet.

 

I look forward to all the questions in this letter being answered promptly, although you will forgive me for anticipating that your answers will raise more questions than they truly resolve.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

ANTONY HOOK

 

cc.       The Cabinet Secretary

            The Chair of the Inquiry

Parliament’s address censored

Perusing the MPs’ expense claims that have been published today, I see that the censor appears to have blacked out every name and every address.

Even the address of the House of Commons’ catering department has been cut out.

Is this a secret?

I am told, however,  that there is a restaurant in Malibu called The House of Commons.  There was a time when I would have been surprised.

Lib Dem should support AV (and Tories should stop lying)

Alternative Vote has weaknesses.  It is not proportional representation.  It does not guarantee that the composition of Parliament will perfectly reflect the range of public opinion.

But in the absence of a better system being achievable until we win a General Election, I strongly believe that we should support AV now.

It is more democratic than the current system.  It prevents the vote of similar candidates being “split”.  It prevents the need for voters to vote tactically- people can always vote in the first round for the candidate of their first choice.  It will probably improve the balance of the House of Commons compared to the share of vote even if it will not absolutely correct it.

Also, we need the consider the political psychology of electoral reform.  At present most people think that elections always work on the current system or, rather, hardly ever think that there could be a different system.  In most voters’ minds, FTPT is to elections what brown is to soil.  Change to AV will awaken people to the idea that the system can change to something else.

It is like the early Reformation, the premise of which was the them revolutionary idea that there is an alternative to Roman Catholicism, which was the historically necessary pre-condition to the reality of later Reformation idea that there are many alternative to Roman Catholicism.

In 1688, the Tories were the pro-monarchy party of the Catholic Stuarts and the Whigs were the pro-parliamentary party of Protestantism.  Deep under currents do not change as much as appears on the surface. 

It will be difficults for Conservatives to oppose AV.  Their most common complaint about proportional representation is that it loses “the constituency link”.  Of course, thats a lie people still have constituencies under PR.  But the current constituency system remains under AV just as it exists now.  

They also complain that under PR you can’t vote a candidate.   That’s also dishonest as it ignores the  fact that you can do so under STV and plenty of other systems.  In fact you could adapt the d’Hondt system for the European elections so that as well as voting for your preferred party you also put that party’s candidates in and order of your own preference.  But, the immediate point is that this objection cannot apply to AV.

Ultimately, the Conservative must surely struggle to resist AV / Instant Run Off because their leadership election uses a form of it (the last place candidate is eliminated and another round run) and I think their PPC selections might be done on that basis too. 

It looks like change is coming.  I imagine the public will welcome it and the Conservsatives look set to confine themselves to the corner at an historically pivotal moment.

Conservatives “think they would lose”

The Prime Minister appears to be coming behind electoral reform but has not been specific about what system might be proposed.

The Conservative Party say “the Prime Minister is trying to change the rules because he thinks he will lose.”

Perhaps he does, but that doesn’t mean that democratic reform is a bad thing.  Right action for the wrong reason is still right action.

Why are the Conservsatives afraid of change?  Why are they not willing to fight a referendum?

Is it that the Conservatives know that the centre-right will never win majoirty support in Britain and ”think they would lose” under anything other than the current system?

We will have to see what reform is proposed and consider it on its merits.  Noam Chomsky (certainly not someone with whom I always agree) once wrote, “…everyone is in favour of peace.  Even Hitler said he wanted peace.  The point is what kind of peace.” 

But while Single Transferable Vote would be my preference I would support Alternative Vote (which I think Americans call Instant Run Off- a much better name) as better than the present system.

My last night as a 2009 Euro Candidate

The evening started with a long journey (I regret by car rather than public transport because of the time of my return journey) from Deal to Southampton.

The collation of the South East region’s results and allocation of seats took place at The Saints’ stadium.  Each party had a private box in which we could hide out but none of the Lib Dems used it.  We all stayed in a the announcement room, talking to regional journalists and some of our opponents from other parties.

The technology failed and a colour-coded computerised map of the region had to be binned by the organisers.

The results started to come through from about 10pm.  At which point, Chris Huhne MP, Michael Wilson, Miranda Roberts, and I were huddled round Micheal’s laptop and between us worked out the right formulae for a spreadsheet to interpret how they results would turn into seats. 

I did a couple of interviews for the BBC, including for a new politics program aimed at 13-16 year olds.  They asked me, among other things, to explain the electoral system.  You think I understand the fine points of d’Hondt?

There was an ante room where results were received and the allocation process was to take place.  Our regional agent, Mike Simpson, pretty much permanently stationed himself there and I wondered in periodically having been warned I might need to switch into lawyer mode.  Luckily, it all passed off peacefully.

About 1am it was confirmed that we had held out two seats.   Sharon and Catherine were in.  All the parties stayed the same in the South East.

Daniel Hannan made an awful- and far too long –  speech on behalf of the Conservatives.  He talked only about Gordon Brown and nothing about Europe or what Conservative MEPs might do for the public.  He was roundly heckled and even Conservatives looked embarrassed.  

Nigel Farage made a speech for UKIP and said he “reserved the right to have a recall election in East Sussex”.  Not quite sure what he meant.

Sharon Bowles spoke for us and thanked everyone for their hard work.

Caroline Lucas said that the Greens are on the verge of final victory.

Finally, Peter Skinner, for Labour, said how glad he was to retain he seat and then we all went home.

I got back to Deal about 4am.  The sun was coming up as I drove along the beach.  A new day, which I started by getting a few hours of sleep.

I’m glad we got Catherine elected but I am disappointed that our vote share was so much lower than in the in the local elections.  Liberal Democrats need to seriously consider our approach to Europe.  We need to do more to put the case for Europe.  But that is a discussion for another day.

I really enjoyed this election and while it will be hard for us to win more than the two seats we already have, I definitely want to stand again in 2014.

Pictures: International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) Brighton 2009

I was lucky enough to have the chance to speak at this event at local Liberal Democrat candidate for the European Parliament.  I am pictures here with Julie Williams, parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavillion, and Councillors Paul Elgood and David Watkins.  In the bottom photo look for me at the front holding the mega-phone.

 

MEPs protect British homeowners in Spain

British people are Europeans.  This is an economic fact, quite apart from also sharing a European culture.

2.3 million British people own property abroad equating to billions of pounds.  A lot of it is in Spain where British (and proerty owners from other EU countries) have suffered from odd planning laws and insecure property rights.

It is quite right that the European Union should intervene so that property rights are upheld wherever people choose to locate in Europe.

Is this federalism?  Possibly.  But there are times when upholding individual rights should come before upholding any right of member states to interfere with individuals.

The BBC reports that MEPs are taking action.  No doubt British people resident in Spain will use their rights as European citizens to vote in Spain on 4 June.

Liberal Democrats should take a stance to win votes from the millions on Britons living in other EU states.

Freedom and funerals

Last week, the High Court ruled against a Hindu man who challenged a ban on him being cremated on an open air pyre.

The full judgment is now available here.

The ruling shows the care and deliberation that senior judges excercise.  Probably more than the legislature or government.  It also shows that decisions within a European human rights framework can still reflect local and national sentiments.

But I think the result is really disappointing.

It should have been possible for this man, and other Hindus, to be cremated in the open air without people who say they would be disturbed by it being able to see.  All you need is a place of sufficent seclusion.

In any case, it is dangerous to decide that one person’s religious freedom (or freedom of any kind) should be quashed because it may cause “offence” to others.  If it interferes with them that is one thing but merely because they find it in bad taste opens the way to oppression of anyone who deviates from the norm.

I disagree with the judge that “elected representatives” are best placed to decide.  The constitution should protect certain basic rights in all circumstances- even when a majority of legislators want to curtail it. 

Some years ago I supported a Dover man who wished to fulfill his wife’s dying wish to be buried in their garden.  The irrational view of Dover District Council was that you can bury your pet in your garden, you could bury an elephant or a whale if you wanted, but not a person.  It did not do anyone else any harm and he should have been allowed to do what he, and his wife, wanted.  The Council’s interference caused really hurt and distree to the family.

Pig Flu?

I don’t know what to make of stories about Pig Flu.  There is no way to know.

It is suggested that this is the genesis of a global plague.  More Revelations than Genesis really- although someone called me “an elitist” when I used a Biblical quote in a recent speech on civil liberties.

On the other hand, Pig Flu could be over by tomorrow and the 100 or so people who have died in Mexico will be the extent of it. 

Most depressing is that there is no way to know.  Governments lie to us and the media are unreliable, for the following reasons (among others):

1. News outlets have very few people with scientific expertise to properly understand and analyse stories like this.

2. News outlets have few people of any kind.  All the media groups have slashed the number of journalists they employ.  Journalism gives way to churnalism.  “Facts” are never checked, especially when you have to be quicker than the other 24 hour news channel.  Stories from a small number of sources are repeatedly recycled.

3. Politicians surpress information they consider in their interest to surpress because our countries lack real checks and balances to make sure politicians are our servants.

4. Corporations surpress information if it’s in their interests to do so.  They can do this by imposing financial pressure on politicians or funding misinformation campaigns that no-one is in a position to check.

5. Reporting of this story is slanted because it is in American’s so-called backyard (how would Washington feel if Latin America starting referring that way to the north?).  Understaffed news outlets use American content to fill the news.  If this ‘outbreak’ happened in central Africa we would not have heard about it nearly as much. 

 I’m really sick of this nonsense.   Someone needs to take a stand and do the following:

1. Defend publicly-funded news broadcasting as a safeguard to ensure quality journalism that doesn’t bend to a narrow range of corporate interests.  Give them the resouces to employ enough journalists and people who know what they are talking about.

2. Speak out against the near-monopoly of a handful of conglomerates owning almost all media outlets.  The free press will be free when it is not owned by a few.  “Not a few” does not equal “the state”: it means by by lots and lots of private citizens.  Actually, don’t just speak out.  Legislate.

3. Establish proper checks against financial influence in politics.  Create a system when candidates can have a realistic chance to put their arguments before the people without having to raise vast sums of money from the very few voters who can be vast donors.

4. Build a system where politics can only ever be a brief period of public service and can never become a career; so people won’t be so desperate to hang onto power at all moral costs.

5. Recognise that the control of information is the political issue of our times.  It is politics.  Hard real politics, comparable to history changing questions like how wealth is distributed or whether religion and law should be connected.  We need people who will sort out hard politics not people who think politics is the same as public relations and facile propaganda.

BNP’s deliberate leak strategy

In the last month or so numerous documents have been “leaked” from the racist British National Party.

There is a recurring pattern that a document is leaked, news outles report it, and Nick Griffin is given an chance to advocate racism through the mass media. 

The latest example being the BNP manual that says Black and Asian Britons “do not exist”: a suggestion offensive to the vast majority of people who have black and ethnic minority relatives, friends, neighbours, or colleagues.

I have heard racists deny murder in the past at Nazi concentration camps.  Now they are denying people exist in the present.  Is my mixed race cousin a figment of my imagination?

Since Winston Churchill rejoiced in claiming he was part American Indian on his mother’s side, the BNP presumably think he would then only partially have existed as a Briton?

The leak then interview about the leak strategy is so convenient for the BNP that it would be incredible if it is not deliberate on the BNP’s part.  I wish the media would wise-up and concentrate on issues that really matter like the economy, the environment, and crime.

The only good thing is that the media generally give Hope Note Hate groups like Searchlight a chance to comment too.