Dominic Grieve

The Scotsman carries news of my Freedom of Information requests.

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.

The phrase 'public interest' is used by journalists to justify exposure of fraud, corruption, hypocrisy, institutional incompetence, wrong-doing, etc., but Westminster politicians use the phase in a different way, for them 'public interest' often means 'national interest' - the national interest of the United Kingdom. The public have a right to know but only if that knowledge does not damage the United Kingdom.

When Dominic Grieve was in opposition Jack Straw explained that he had vetoed publication of the Cabinet's Iraq War minutes after weighing up the public interest in transparency against the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our system of Cabinet government.

We have done much to meet the public interest in openness and accountability. But the duty to advance that interest further cannot supplant the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our system of government. The decision to exercise the veto has been subject to much thought, and it will doubtless—and rightly so—be the object of much scrutiny. I have not taken it lightly, but it is a necessary decision to protect the public interest in effective Cabinet government.

The public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosure. According to Straw disclosure of the Iraq war minutes would have prevented future Cabinets from being able to discuss sensitive matters of national importance (such as the legality of invading Iraq) in an atmosphere of complete confidentiality, thereby undermining the British system of collective responsibility and consent.

The principle of collective responsibility, save where it is explicitly set aside, requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial committees, including in correspondence, should be maintained. - Ministerial Code

Grieve countered Straw with a complaint that Straw himself was biased and that decisions regarding the protection of public interest were subject to considerations of political interests:

Does the Secretary of State appreciate how it will appear to the public for someone so closely involved in the key decisions to be now personally blocking the release of that information?

Is it not also the case that the Government's self-righteous tone of protecting the public interest is fatally undermined by their past behaviour in releasing information—such as the Conservative Cabinet documents on the exchange rate mechanism—when it suited them, for reasons of the most blatant political advantage?

We are talking about Cabinet minutes and issues of the utmost national interest.

On the subject of devolution Dominic Grieve is biased, having declared himself against an English parliament. And there is little doubt that his (and the Conservative Party's) political interests lie in preventing the English, Scottish and Welsh publics from knowing what objections were raised to the 1997 devolution settlement.

Given that England was not offered devolution, but has been negatively affected by devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I think I have a right to know whether any members of the Cabinet raised any objections or made representations on England's behalf. The fact that both Jack Straw and Dominic Grieve have blocked this information leads me to believe that the minutes contain information that would further the nationalist cause and undermine the Union.

The UK Government is extremely sensitive about releasing anything that sheds light on the rationale behind its illogical and unjust devolution settlement. In July last year I submitted a further FoI request asking for the minutes of the 2nd Joint Ministerial Committee meeting during which the Government’s White Paper on English Regional governance was discussed. Rather reasonably, I think, I made the point that there was no one English at this meeting on how to balkanise England. The request was refused on the grounds that:

Information you have requested is exempt under section 35(1) (b) of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects Ministerial communications. Section .'35 is a qualified exemption and I have considered whether the balance ot the public interest favours our release of this material. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and I recognise that openness in government may increase public trust in and engagement with the government. I recognise that the discussions Ministers have may have a significant impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in their deliberations being transparent. These public interests have to be weighed against a stronger public interest in Ministers being able to discuss issues freely and frankly, exchange views on available options and understand their possible implications. The candour of all involved could be affected by their assessment of whether the content of the discussions will be disclosed prematurely. if discussions were routinely made public there is a risk that Ministers may feel inhibited from being frank and candid with one another and in seeking the advice of officials or other experts. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, l have concluded that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this information.

In other words, although the people of England may have legitimate reason to question whether the UK Government and the representatives of the devolved administrations have English interests at heart, it is not in the British public interest to disclose this information.

So England has no representation at a meeting about England, and any semblance of accountability is denied us because the British public interest is more important than the English public interest.

The rationale behind the veto of these devolution minutes relies on the assertion that disclosure would undermine the operation of UK government. The fact that 59% of the English public believe that UK Government is already undermined and untenable demonstrates the difference between what is in the public interest and what cretins like Straw and Grieve state to be the case. Why on earth should partisan and biased individuals like them be the arbiters of public interest?

Having initially been content to continue to be governed themselves by an unreformed set of UK institutions at Westminster, support for the status quo has now fallen to just one in four of the English electorate. 59 per cent say that they do not trust the UK government to work in the best long-term inter ests of England. - IPPR

Surely there is a case for arguing that release of these devolution papers is in the English public interest, as far as the English are concerned these minutes are (to paraphase Grieve) 'issues of the utmost English national interest'.

Dominic Grieve's decision notices can be downloaded from the Information Commissioner's website.

In a letter to me, received yesterday, Dominic Grieve told me this:

I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.

Today, in an article on Conservative Home, Daniel Kawczynski tells us this:

I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.

It's great to live in a country where politicians act on their conscience, speak freely their mind, unconstrained by party whips and the totalitarianism of party politics. I'd hate to think that I was simply being told what David Cameron wanted me to be told.

As I said, "waste of a stamp".

I sent an email to Dominic Grieve recently, to find out where he stood on the English Question.

Dear Mr Grieve,

Congratulations on your appointment to the position of Shadow Justice Secretary. I'm sure that you will do a great job in holding Mr Straw to account.

I have a lengthy (but quick to answer) question.

Do you favour a technical solution to the West Lothian Question, such as those advocated by Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind, or; do you see the case for England to be consulted on the form of government best suited to its needs, to answer both the WLQ and the wider 'England Question' which
relates to the governance of England rather than just the voting privileges of Scottish MPs?

Best regards,

I received an email back from his secretary telling me that he did not reply to emails and asking whether I would send him a letter if I wanted an answer to my question. So I sent him a letter.

Today I received the reply.

Thank you for your letter dated 26th February about the West Lothian Question.

I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke's proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.

An English Parliament would move us towards a federal state and would lead to the creation of a new tier of politicians. The federal arrangement it would create would be lop-sided and unstable as England would dominate by virtue of its size - in terms of population and wealth. And it would be both expensive and unnecessary at a time when we should be looking at cutting the costs of politics.

Regional assemblies are also not the answer. They represent artificial areas to which people have no local or emotional ties, and they too would be expensive layers of additional bureaucracy that people in England do not want.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me.

He hasn't explicitly answered my question, as you can see. But I think we can deduce that he doesn't favour allowing the English electorate the chance to determine how they should be governed, or the opportunity to vote on it in a referendum.

The likes of Dominic Grieve and Malcolm Rifkind had better hope that they are correct about what the English electorate want. If they are incorrect then they are going to end up with egg on their faces. And what if the Convention on Modern Liberty became a Peoples' Constitutional Convention which takes things upon itself and makes a claim of right on behalf of the people, what then; would they oppose it on the same principle?

UPDATE

I am reminded of Dominic Grieve's maiden speech to Parliament:

Let us forget for a moment about the West Lothian question; the real question centres round the fact that a new United Kingdom is being created, yet there has been no consultation with the people of England….Instead we are offered vague ideas about constitutional reform in England, no test of whose acceptability has ever been seriously put forward or even canvassed.

David Cameron's reshuffle has moved Dominic Grieve from Shadow Home Secretary to shadow Jack Straw at Justice, replacing Nick Herbert. For English nationalists it's an interesting appointment because, unlike Herbert, Grieve has form on the English Question, it was the subject of his maiden speech in May 1997.

And in January 1998 it sounded for all the world as if he lamented the negation of England:

Let us forget for a moment about the West Lothian question; the real question centres round the fact that a new United Kingdom is being created, yet there has been no consultation with the people of England....Instead we are offered vague ideas about constitutional reform in England, no test of whose acceptability has ever been seriously put forward or even canvassed.

I wonder whether Grieve will advocate a consultation of the English people, a national conversation that not only addresses the West Lothian Question but also the wider English Question relating to the governance of England. Or will he advocate a technical solution to the WLQ along the lines advocated by Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind, addressing only the voting privileges of Scottish MPs?

The English, according to Grieve, have lost out on political governance, and damage to English national identity must be addressed...restoring a sense of purposeful nationhood in England. It would seem incredible to me if he were to suggest that this national rebirth can be achieved, solely, by preventing Scottish MPs voting at Report Stage.

The English have also lost out on political governance. The British state in its old constitutional form was the English state adapted to encompass the diversity of new participants. But that is a different thing to what we now have after devolution. There is a widespread perception that England is now disadvantaged and disempowered by new national institutions that give special privileges to all except the English. It is this as much as the narrower West Lothian question that produces problems. Lord Irvine argued that these would go away if we stopped thinking about them. But you can’t stop people thinking...

Suppression of and damage to English national identity must be addressed. It is a question of restoring balance to the Union, not encouraging a English separatist agenda. Given Devolution we must deal speedily with the West Lothian question and provide England with better control of its affairs restoring a sense of purposeful nationhood in England.

Grieve has also stated that it is an untenable argument to say that England does not need separate representation:

During the debate on Scottish devolution, we have spoken much about the Scottish sense of identity. We have also spoken about the Welsh sense of identity, but, as I have listened to the debates and to the justified sentiments, which I have appreciated and understood, about a Scottish sense of nationhood, it has become apparent that we in England have been reduced to a sort of blob. I am no longer apparently to be the Member of Parliament representing an English constituency and a constituent part of the United Kingdom; I am to represent a left-over area that lacks its own identity and does not need any sort of separate representation for itself. That is a totally untenable argument.

Grieve's thoughts on the notion of popular sovereignty will be of interest to at least one reader of this blog. I'm guessing that popular solutions to constitutional questions are not his thing.