WHEN the Scottish Parliament passed its freedom of information (FoI) legislation in the early days of devolution, it did so with a degree of self-satisfied preening that the law north of the Border would be more radical than down south.
Indeed, the test of whether documents should be held from public gaze was indeed significantly more stringent in the legislation passed at Holyrood. This reflected an honourable desire that the style of government in the new Edinburgh legislature should be more transparent and accountable than at Westminster, where the ways of government were obscured by centuries of outdated precedent.
Now, however, it seems that Scotland’s record on FoI is nothing to be self-satisfied about. Indeed, the latest report from Scotland’s Information Commissioner warns that, if anything, the difficulty in crowbarring information out of officialdom is greater than it was a decade ago.
FoI is intended to open up areas of public life where taxpayers’ money is spent – and yet many public-private partnerships on big-spending building programmes are exempt by virtue of confidentiality clauses. With public services being cut, the public wants to know the reasons behind individual decisions, and some officials are reluctant to oblige. Furthermore, some public services (for example, leisure and culture facilities in some our biggest cities) are now run by arms’-length companies where the FoI writ does not currently run.
On top of all this comes a perception that the current SNP administration is less well disposed towards open government than its predecessors. The latest manifestation of this is Alex Salmond’s refusal to even say if the Scottish Government has received legal advice about an independent Scotland’s right to join the European Union. The commissioner, Rosemary Agnew, has told the First Minister that he must say whether he has, in the public interest. Mr Salmond has refused, and appealed the decision. The row will shortly come before a court, with the taxpayer footing the legal bills.
Ms Agnew, who replaced Kevin Dunion this year, has made an admirable start to a difficult job. In a post where “fearlessness” is top of the list of required attributes, she began her tenure by saying that not even the Royal Family should be above public scrutiny of how its money is spent.
There is a sense, however, that she is fighting with one hand tied behind her back. Twelve years on, FoI legislation needs to be updated to take changing circumstances into account. And politicians must begin to view FoI requests less as a political inconvenience, and more as a duty they owe the people who elected them to office.
Scottish public life needs to rededicate itself to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability that were the watchwords of the early days of devolution, but which now appear to be secondary considerations.
Nato must focus on long-term goal
The Nato decision to restrict joint operations in Afghanistan between its troops and local police and army personnel is a sensible one in the light of recent distressing examples of what are known as “green on blue” killings by rogue members of the local security forces. For the time being, joint patrols will be cut back to the minimum, and judged “on a case-by-case basis”.
This seems only prudent, and International Security Assistance Force commanders say it is just a “temporary measure to reduce our profile and vulnerability”. But it is hard to see what circumstances would allow these operations to be restarted with the same degree of interaction between Nato troops and Afghan forces. Can Nato really bring in sufficient safeguards to ensure there is no repeat of these recent killings? How watertight can the screening of army and police recruits really be to ensure no Taleban fighters slip through the net?
Given these difficulties, it will become more and more difficult for western leaders to justify a Nato presence in Afghanistan. The plan was for gradual troop withdrawal, gradually handing over control to local security, with Nato presence limited to training Afghan police and troops. If the physical involvement of Nato troops is to be curtailed, what is the continuing justification for the presence of men and women from the UK, the US and other nations that have sent military personnel to Afghanistan?
The Taleban has correctly identified this strategy as one that does maximum damage. It saps the morale of Nato forces and increases disquiet back home. And yet it must not deflect Nato from its task – to make Afghanistan a functioning state, for the long-term security of the West.