John Kampfner :: author, broadcaster & commentator

John Kampfner wants to know a secret (or two)
Monday 17th January 2005

What was the Attorney General's advice on Iraq? How does Blair get all those free holidays? Now is our chance to ask - and your chance to join in. By John Kampfner.

The relationship between state and individual supposedly changed at the start of the year, but we are still waiting to see the evidence. The first working day of the Freedom of Information Act was 4 January. In the first week of its operation, some 900 applications were received. Of those, roughly 120 came from the Conservative front bench, in a co-ordinated probe of the system. Journalists accounted for about half the remaining figure, and members of the public the rest. Public bodies have a maximum of 20 working days to reply to each request. Expect the first fireworks at the end of the month.

One issue produced by far the most inquiries. According to government officials, within hours of the FOI Act coming into force the first request was lodged to see the Attorney General's legal advice to the Prime Minister on 7 March 2003. As the NS revealed in November, that advice, and the partial, tendentious account of it presented to MPs on 17 March, came at the end of a sustained period of pressure on Lord Goldsmith from Tony Blair to reverse his previous doubts about the lawfulness of the Iraq war. The Attorney General's office, which has steadfastly refused to publish the advice and even pulled out of an official secrets prosecution to keep it out of the public domain, is expected to deploy any number of reasons to reject the applications. These will be put to the independent information commissioner for arbitration. It will be the first crunch point for the new system. Will ministers invoke veto powers designed only for extreme cases? If they do, then at the first time of asking they will expose promises of greater openness as a sham.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information [http://www.cfoi.org.uk] has been conducting training sessions around the country for journalists and other interested parties on how best to frame questions. The campaign's head, Maurice Frankel, for whom this is the culmination of a decade-long mission, says one of his main concerns is whether institutions will cope with the new workload. Potentially, the act could make a huge difference. About 100,000 public bodies (excluding the royal family and the security services) are within its remit. An application can be refused if it falls under 23 specific exemptions, such as if it is deemed too prejudicial to national security, defence, international relations, health and safety or commercial interests, or if it costs more than £600 to provide. That still leaves considerable room to dig.

Questioners' motives will vary, with some seeking information to deal with a perceived injustice and others asserting their rights against authority. For media organisations, the changes provide new openings for investigative reporting.

The NS has lodged more than 20 applications to several government bodies. These are some of the subjects we are interested in: the Attorney General's legal advice and the events surrounding it; Blair's various summits with George W Bush; Jack Straw's reservations about the war; the dealings between Blair and Gordon Brown over the euro; last year's U-turn over a referendum on the EU constitution; and, naturally, John Prescott's attempts to broker peace between Blair and Brown. We are also looking at government assistance to British arms exporters; the detention of terrorist suspects at Belmarsh; Blair's holidays courtesy of the rich and famous; and any links between present or former ministers and the coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea. Disagreements over foundation hospitals, contracts awarded to establish city academies and some environmental policy decisions also figure on the list. Decisions by earlier governments also fall under the act. Will we be able to find out more about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands war? What did Margaret Thatcher say to Ronald Reagan during the US invasion of Grenada and the bombing of Libya in the 1980s? What about all that sleaze under John Major?

If you have ideas, please e-mail us at [info@newstatesman.co.uk] putting "FOI" in the subject box.

There are mixed signals about Whitehall's readiness for the change. The Treasury has refused to grant extra money, so departments that are already facing a cash crunch have had to dig into their existing resources to fund trained FOI officers to deal with what could be a flood. But some departments do seem to be taking it seriously. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is co-ordinating the process, and has established a "clearing house" to sift requests that cut across departments and public bodies. The most sanguine prediction is that the legislation will produce a change in mentality in Whitehall, with more information being released as a matter of course, prior to any specific request. British political history may suggest otherwise, but in truth nobody yet knows. The US has had a freedom of information system for 30 years. Canada and Australia have had one for 20, Ireland five. Their governments survived, and democracy was enhanced.

This article first appeared in the New Statesman and may not be reproduced without permission.