FoI review - a lack of information shalt make you free? Hancock abuses the concept of cross-party

The announcement by Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock, of a review in to the way Freedom of Information policy currently works is just another sign that the Conservatives would much prefer to be left alone in peace to run the country.

But, what would be almost amusing if it wasn't so important is the cynicism of his approach. It would not have surprised me to see a review panel stuffed with Conservative sympathisers - after all, it is highly unlikely that they will have launched this unless they have a pretty good idea as to their preferred outcome. That would at least make it obvious where the thinking is coming from, and the resultant report could be judged in the context of Party policy.

No, it's a cross-party panel, whereby Matthew has picked members of other parties whose views are, how might I put it, somewhat controversial amongst their own ranks.

Jack Straw has never really believed that the public deserve an insight into the workings of government. An authoritarian to his fingertips, he has never had any qualms about throwing our human rights, and those of people from other countries, 'under the bus' if it suits his political priorities.

Alex Carlile has what I can only describe as a blind spot when it comes to issues of security. In the past, I have defended him as, for the most part, pretty liberal. However, given that his past activities as the independent security advisor to the Government have generated much outrage amongst Liberal Democrats, his appointment is likely to welcomed with all the enthusiasm of a flying cowpat in a crowded room.

On the other hand, Michael Howard will perform entirely as the Government will wish him to. He is to civil liberties what Herod was to childminding.

There is, somewhat radically, a woman on the panel, Dame Patricia Hodgson, the current chair of Ofcom, and someone likely to play a role in the future supervision of the BBC, another Conservative target. It isn't clear to me what her background is that qualifies her to do this, but if this is intended to be a hatchet job, that probably doesn't matter. She may turn out to be more cover for young Hancock.

And finally, in the chair, that old reliable himself, Terry Burns. If in doubt, he is the establishment's go-to man. He does have some form on Freedom of Information, as in 2007 he indicated in an article in the Financial Times that some information, particularly analysis, supplied to ministers might be better made public. But, you sense, he will do as he is asked, rather than rock the boat.

So, I have some questions for the noble Lord Carlile. Firstly, how do you end up being appointed to the panel, and was there any consultation with the Party leadership before you accepted the invitation? Second, do you believe that it is a genuine cross-party review if your position is likely to be unrepresentative of Liberal Democrat thinking? Thirdly, does the fact that someone like me feels the need to ask such questions not make you wonder whether or not you've done the right thing?

Go on, Alex, prove me wrong...

House of Lords reform (part 37 of 94)

Just too late to make any difference, Jack Straw finally lets slip that he has a plan for reform of the Second Chamber. Because, let's be honest, thirteen years is barely long enough to even scratch the surface of getting rid of an unelected legislature and replace it with one that is fit for the third millennium.

Best of all, it is all being done by leak. There will be just 300 seats in the new House, provisionally called a Senate. Salaries will be less than that for those in the Commons (will that be renamed too?). It will be elected on a proportional basis, in thirds. Existing members will be bribed given an incentive to retire.

So far, so good(ish). If only there weren't less than two months before a General Election, and nowhere near enough time to ram the legislation through a reasonably pliant House of Commons. Even if there were, one can assume that the Lords would want a good, hard look at any legislation before signing its own death warrant.

One must therefore assume that this is a cynical attempt to peel off a few voters who consider constitutional reform to be important. The catch is that we've all been here before. The Jenkins Commission which led to precisely zip, nada, nothing, was the point where it became clear that the only power that Labour were willing to 'give away' was going to go to people who they could trust, i.e. other Labour politicians in Scotland, Wales and London.

And, like Gordon Brown's Damascene conversion to the cause of electoral reform, talk of enhancing our democracy is just so much window dressing. For let's be truthful here, even the Conservatives are more truthful on the subject than Labour are.

So, if you really want fairer votes, localism and a Bill of Rights that you can rely upon, one that doesn't rely on a Government that graciously allows you to have it, you know where to go. And with that, 'Liberal Bureaucracy' endorses the Liberal Democrats (alright, no great surprise, but I thought that I ought to do it anyway...).

Jack Straw and the veil

The emerging controversy over comments by the leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, indicating his discomfort interacting with veiled women is, to say the least, unfortunate. As has become sadly too frequent in recent times, candour on the part of a prominent individual has been used to whip up the underlying tensions that exist in a key minority community.

For my part, I have to admit to seeing his point. I was brought up to believe that, when you are talking to someone, eye contact is a matter of courtesy, indicating that you are actually listening to them. If the person you are talking to is veiled, establishing that link is difficult (if it is any consolation, I have the same issue with mirrored sunglasses...).

The most important point though is the lack of compulsion implied by Jack Straw. He would prefer it if Muslim women didn't wear full veils, but he isn't saying that he won't see them or work for them if they prefer to be fully veiled, and I see no problem with him holding that view.

In a society where freedom of speech and opinion is highly valued, mutual respect is a basic requirement. Jack Straw has had the decency to express himself in an honest and quite liberal manner. Now, perhaps, is a good time for those misrepresenting his views to think again...