Straw accused by tortured Libyan rebel
Whatever Jack straw's misgivings minister must learn to live with open government
JACK STRAW could be forced to pay a huge compensation bill over allegations that he was involved in handing over a Libyan rebel to be tortured.
The former foreign secretary is facing legal action over the alleged rendition of Abdel Hakim Belhadj to Col Gaddafi’s prisons, in a case dating back to 2004.
Mr Belhadj claims that he was arrested in Malaysia and sent back to Libya with the help of British agents.
He says the US Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for taking him back to his homeland to face torture.
But he claims that they acted on a tip- off from Britain. He says the Americans refuelled their plane on the British island of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean.
Mr Belhadj, 45, who was arrested with his pregnant wife, Fatima, blames Mr Straw for authorising the operation.
His lawyers say they have already started the early stages of legal action against Mr Straw personally as well as the Government and Sir Mark Allen, the former MI6 head of counter terrorism.
One of his lawyers, Sapna Malik, said she “would not rule out” Mr Straw having to pay damages.
However, she added: “I would be surprised if that is where things ended up.” Mr Straw could also be questioned in a police investigation into “alleged ill-treatment of detainees” in Libya.
A spokesman for Mr Straw said he was unable to comment on the case because of the police investigation.
However, Mr Straw has strongly denied being complicit in rendition or torture.
Although the case happened under the Labour administration, the Foreign Office is under increasing pressure to publish details of the events.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister yesterday said they were “taking the allegations very seriously”.
Asmartly suited Jack Straw, Labour’s former foreign secretary and former home secretary, sat before MPS in the Thatcher room of Westminster’s Portcullis House this week and allowed himself to preen – just a little.
A Tory member of the Justice Select Committee had just asked what he would have done if he had become Labour leader, an idea that was “not impossible”.
“Thank you,” said Mr Straw, in gratified tones.
“There may still be a vacancy,” continued the Tory silkily before getting to the main business. Had Mr Straw been in charge, would he have killed the Freedom of Information Bill at birth? Mr Straw replied: “I don’t know.”
The answer was perhaps the most revealing of all those given by Mr Straw, as he sat there explaining how he had grave doubts about Freedom of Information from the outset and was now convinced that it needed recasting. He is not the only one. There is no shortage of powerful people – politicians and civil servants – who would be only too pleased to see the public’s right to know watered down.
There is now a concerted push to strengthen the exemptions from FOI – notably those relating to policy discussions between officials and their political masters. Some ministers and mandarins want to keep their secrets secret for several decades. They want to erase “grey areas” where they cannot be sure that their private debates will not be subject to, for example, a public interest test under FOI. But here is the danger: what looks like a little tightening up of the law could end by turning back the clock, to the days when near blanket confidentiality made life so much easier for those in government.
Mr Straw’s comments on FOI were lent added piquancy by the news that he is going to be sued by the Libyan rebel Abdel Hakim Belhadj. Allegedly, Mr Straw signed off Belhadj’s rendition. Much may hinge on who knew – or said – what when. At home, ministers are not normally sued by members of the public for what they do in the course of their ministerial duties. Yet government sources make it clear that ministers do not have immunity from such actions.
But let us return to the issue of Freedom of Information. Mr Straw’s pleas for greater curbs on FOI centre on claims that ministers and officials will feel inhibited if they think that what they say may be published. Civil servants will pull their punches when it comes to giving advice, ministers may start bypassing civil servants altogether and everyone will avoid writing anything down.
These are all points made by Tony Blair in his book A Journey where he says: “Freedom of Information… there is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate… I quake at the imbecility of it.”
When this quote was put to Mr Straw, he said testily that FOI had been Mr Blair’s idea. Yet last year Mr Straw took a rather different attitude. He told the Commons then that he was proud he was the home secretary who introduced FOI, adding that he did not agree with Mr Blair that FOI was one of the worst things the Labour government ever did. “It did not change how I operated as a minister,” he said. “It did not mean that I ceased to record my decisions or comments on submissions.”
If he managed then, it is hard to see why it should be so much more difficult for ministers now. Admittedly, they thought their exemptions from FOI were more watertight than they proved, yet as Mr Straw pointed out, he and Tony Blair had insisted that the government must have an absolute veto over FOI. Without it they would have dropped the Bill.
Significantly, the government veto has been used only three times – over Cabinet discussions on Iraq and on devolution. Can we really believe that good government is being seriously hampered by FOI, when the veto has only been used three times?
Mr Straw and Sir Gus, now Lord, O’donnell, the former cabinet secretary, have both cited worries about the possible publication under FOI of risk registers, drawn up by officials to warn ministers of what could go wrong on policy. Lord O’donnell admitted that the Treasury had not foreseen the financial crisis. As a result he had told all civil servants that they should be “very strong” on risk registers, that they should “think the unthinkable” and put things down in vivid language. He feared that if risk registers were now to be subject to FOI requests then officials would tone them down.
It is of course true that the media will seize on any potential risks, as will Opposition MPS and lobby groups. Often they will be more than willing to exaggerate the dangers, and governments will find it harder to take difficult or unpopular decisions.
Yet it is noteworthy that many of those wanting to weaken FOI are people who have retired from the political fray and who were young in the days when, as Mr Straw pointed out, even the internal telephone directories of Whitehall departments were marked “restricted”. The internet, the blogosphere, the growth of judicial review and the greater assertiveness of MPS have all helped to open up government.
The genie is not going to go back in the bottle now. Perhaps what is needed is a more concerted effort to change the culture so that ministers and officials can admit to policy risks without being damned for it. They need to find ways of living with the new openness rather than trying to curb it.