Ministry of Justice

Jack Straw issues 'veto' certificate under the Freedom of Information Act

24 February 2009

Jack Straw

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has issued a 'veto' certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000), overruling the Information Tribunal's decision of 27 January upholding the Information Commissioner's decision of 19 February 2008.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has issued a 'veto' certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000), overruling the Information Tribunal's decision of 27 January upholding the Information Commissioner's decision of 19 February 2008.

In a statement in the House of Commons, on Tuesday 24 February, The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said:

'Following the Information Tribunal's decision upholding the Information Commissioner's decision that a redacted version of the Cabinet minutes of 13 and 17 March 2003 should be disclosed, and having taken the view of Cabinet, I have today given a certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Information Commissioner. The effect of my certificate is that the disputed information - these Cabinet Minutes relating to Iraq - will not be disclosed.

'The conclusion I have reached has rested on the assessment of the public interest in disclosure and in non-disclosure of these Cabinet minutes. I have placed a copy of that certificate, and a detailed statement of the reasons for my decision in the Libraries of both Houses. I have also published today the criteria against which I decided to exercise the veto in this case.

'To permit the Tribunal's view of the public interest to prevail would risk serious damage to Cabinet government; an essential principle of British Parliamentary democracy. That eventuality is not in the public interest.'

The certificate; a Statement of Reasons for this decision which has been sent to the requester; Jack Straw's oral statement to the House of Commons on this issue; and the criteria against which he decided to exercise the veto in this case are available here: