A key element of democracy is people being aware of the facts. In order to make a reasonable decision at a polling station, to be aware of the current political situation, the policies of individual parties and the wider global scene is helpful. Of course, this is not the case, people voting for parties for numerous reasons. Much information is not revealed during an election campaign, some either concealed or just not given attention, irrelevant to issues affecting people’s lives. The whole point is people are able to arrive at reasonable conclusions without knowing everything.
It appears this isn’t the case for our MPs. As their vote on whether to accept Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement looms every closer, they seem to want to know every single element of information that led to the divorce deal. The whole event has become an election campaign, politicians eager to declare on which side of the division they will fall. Part of their election campaign is wishing to know the legal advice in relations to the withdrawal agreement. Using a humble address, Parliament agreed (without a vote) for this advice to be released. When only a summary was then given, the House of Commons historically found the government to be in contempt of Parliament. The advice was then released. While I believe, given it was the will of the legislature, that the government were right to release this advice in full (eventually), this does set a concerning precedent for future governments. Think about it: who constructs the legal advice? It would be a mixture of the Attorney General and civil servants. While the attorney general has the vital aim ensuring the government’s actions comply with the current laws, civil servants are not directly accountable to the people. They are present to advise ministers, warts and all, of the potential implications of their actions. But it is for the role of ministers to construct the final blueprint, in this case the Withdrawal Agreement, and then take responsibility for it. To demand that all legal advice is released could mean that, well, legal advice just isn’t asked for in the first person. That would reduce accountability and the effectiveness of government legislation, less aware of the potential implications of policies. Of course, governments can receive legal advice and continue to make disastrous decisions, but at least the civil servants cannot deny it has been given. What is implied for the endless demands for opening regarding every piece of legislation is a lack of faith in our civil servants. It is their job, for whoever government comes in, to implement the policies of the day. Watching Inside the Foreign Office on BBC Two, looking at diplomats around the world, it is clear their ability is astute, their dedication to Britain strong and their commitment endless. Despite a recent blog stating nobody had a clue what was going on, it doesn’t mean the knowledge civil servants have is wholly irrelevant. Yet just imagine what would happen if all information was provided. Politically, governments would be so fearful about the effects of the potential revelation that advice is never written down. Casual conversations take place, but for fear of repercussions from the legislature, the executive become even more obscure and ambiguous as a body. It is because I am generally for openness and transparency against privacy, favouring the principles of Freedom of Information that the demand for universal legal advice to be released, often for party political aims, worries me so. This is all about accountability and working out which branch of our political system has which job. It is for the legislature - Parliament – to vote on and scrutinise the decisions made by the executive. But it is for the executive to propose those decisions. Parliament is scrutinising what the executive has come up with, not every private or public aspect that led to the decision to pursue a certain policy. It is bills and proposed government legislation, determined by ministers, not legal advice, often determined by civil servants, that is to be held to account. Of course, in an ideal world, every government would release information, not fearful about the political consequences for their party. But politics is anything but altruistic. We do not live in a utopian society. If the legislature sets a precedent for demanding the full release of legal information, the decisions made by the executive when deciding on future bills will only get poorer. For concern about retaining power, potentially damaging legal advice (which, if kept private, could allow the government to change course) won’t be consulted upon. Even if it is, minutes are unlikely to be kept, only weakening parliamentary and historical scrutiny in the years to come.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|