![Google](http://www.google.com/images/poweredby_transparent/poweredby_FFFFFF.gif)
What do they have to hide? Fury as Straw blocks release of minutes of key Cabinet meeting held before Iraq War
James Chapman
(Feb. 2008)
Jack Straw faced a storm of protest last night after vetoing the release of Cabinet papers on the decision to invade Iraq.
He used a clause in freedom of information law to prevent publication of minutes of two key Cabinet meetings in 2003.
The unprecedented move by the Justice Secretary prompted angry scenes in the Commons and accusations of a cover-up.
![JACK STRAW](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/24/article-1154413-03A6FD6E000005DC-473_233x423.jpg)
Ban: Jack Straw faces a storm of protest
The release of the documents was ordered by the Information Tribunal. But ministers argued that it threatened the confidentiality essential for the proper functioning of government.
Critics suspect the Government also wants to avoid potential embarrassment for Gordon Brown over the role he played as ministers agreed to go to war.
The Cabinet meetings considered the hugely controversial issue of whether the invasion was legal under international law.
The late Robin Cook, who was Leader of the Commons, wrote in his diary that several ministers raised serious concerns.
He said Mr Brown delivered a 'long and passionate' statement of support for Premier Tony Blair's strategy - even though he had previously been sceptical about the war.
Mr Straw's own role, as Mr Blair's Foreign Secretary, also led MPs to question whether he should have stepped aside from the decision about a veto.
Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay told the Justice Secretary his colleagues were 'ashamed and embarrassed' at the decision.
He condemned the move as breathtaking and appalling and said he would 'take to the grave' his regrets over listening to 'porky pies' from Mr Straw and others over the case for war.
He said: 'It really is breathtaking that you, who clearly were one of the people who piloted this policy and persuaded us, should decide that these documents should not be available.'
Tory MP Edward Leigh said: 'Surely the people have the right to know the legal basis of a war in which up to 600,000 people died? This whole thing stinks.'
Mr Straw said releasing the papers would do 'serious damage' to Cabinet government and outweighed any public interest.
He said: 'Cabinet is the pinnacle of the decision-making machinery. Confidentiality serves to promote thorough decision-making'.
He said that if he had withdrawn from the veto decision he would have been accused of dodging his responsibilities.
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve backed the move. He said: 'I'm forced to disagree with the Information Commissioner when he said that requests like these will have little impact because they will be rare.
'It's quite the opposite. Because ministers will not know in advance if it will be deemed in the public interest to release their discussions, all discussions will be treated as though they could be released.'
Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell called the veto 'profoundly disappointing but not unexpected'.
He said: 'This is a government which, when introducing measures to limit personal freedom, says that those who have nothing to hide should have nothing to fear.
![Mahood](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/24/article-1154413-03A87F6A000005DC-452_233x462.jpg)
'If the process of reaching the decision to embark upon an illegal war against Iraq is still supported by the Government, why haven't they the courage to let us see the minutes of the Cabinet?'
There is no appeal against the veto, the first since the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2005, although Information Commissioner Richard Thomas could submit a report to Parliament and campaigners may seek a judicial review.
Mr Straw tried to defuse the row by hinting that the papers could be made available to an inquiry into the Iraq war, expected to be held after the last British troops leave.
The veto follows a two-year battle which began in December 2006 when Dr Christopher Lamb submitted an FOI request to the Cabinet Office.
After two refusals he complained to Mr Thomas, who was allowed to read the documents. In February last year he ordered officials to release them. An appeal by the Cabinet Office was dismissed by the Information Tribunal last month.
Mr Thomas said last night he had ordered disclosure of the documents 'on public interest grounds'.
He said: 'The Government has chosen not to appeal the tribunal's decision to the High Court, but instead has exercised its right of veto.'
The commissioner warned that the veto should be limited to 'exceptional' cases or much of the progress made towards greater openness and transparency in government could be undermined.
Britain is not the only country where ministers can veto freedom of information disclosures. Australia, Ireland and New Zealand also have a veto.
It has been used a dozen times in New Zealand, although not for 20 years, and only twice in Ireland.
In the U.S., where there have been freedom of information laws for more than half a century, all Government departments have to release documents unless they are covered by nine exemptions - including national security, trade secrets and information which would prevent a fair trial.
The Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said no comparable decision had been made in the U.S., adding: 'We would sue them until they released the information.'