We must curb freedom of information law, says Sir Cover-Up: Jeremy Heywood argues for new restrictions that will stop government incompetence being exposed


  • Sir Jeremy was nicknamed 'Sir Cover-Up' for his role in blocking the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War
    Sir Jeremy was nicknamed ‘Sir Cover-Up’ for his role in blocking the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War


  • Sir Jeremy Heywood claimed FoI Act makes officials ‘less candid’ with MPs
  • The act helped expose MPs’ expenses scandals and other state revelations
  • Sir Jeremy, the Cabinet Secretary, was nicknamed ‘Sir Cover-Up’
  • He blocked the Chilcot Inquiry from seeing Bush and Blair correspondence




The most senior civil servant has argued for new restrictions on a law used to expose government waste and incompetence.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood claimed the Freedom of Information Act was making officials ‘less candid’ with ministers in their advice – for fear it would be made public.

Sir Jeremy was nicknamed ‘Sir Cover-Up’ for his role in blocking the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War from seeing letters and records of phone calls between Tony Blair and George Bush.

Yesterday he argued there were ‘one or two issues’ with the FoI law, which helped expose the MPs’ expenses scandals and dozens of other revelations about the activities of the state.

Sir Jeremy also told MPs he had concerns about whether the veto power of ministers to block the publication of information worked.

A panel including former ministers and civil servants is to review the Act. Sir Jeremy said those on the panel were ‘independent’.

But Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: ‘Independent normally means open minded. They have come to people who have served in government whose interests are very clearly those of the government.’

The review’s terms of reference include the question of whether the Act is a burden on public authorities, raising fears that ministers will make it easier for councils, quangos and government departments to reject requests.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3170215/We-curb-freedom-information-law-says-Sir-Cover-Jeremy-Heywood-argues-new-restrictions-stop-government-incompetence-exposed.html#ixzz3gctMlaXb



11 Responses to “We must curb freedom of information law, says Sir Cover-Up: Jeremy Heywood argues for new restrictions that will stop government incompetence being exposed”

  1. Ian says:

    And there are still people who think these criminals work for us.

  2. sovereigntea says:

    What might motivate this fine upstanding servant of ours to urgently press for greater secrecy ? Prior to the belated release of the Chilcot report. Surely he has nothing to hide, after all as a fine upstanding member of the civil service he would have stuck to the The 7 principles of public life at all times.

    What role if any (LOL) did Hayward play in the criminal decision to wage aggressive war against Iraq and Afghanistan on false pretences ? A breach of the Nuremberg principles and previously punished by a well deserved death sentence. Once the unabridged Chilcot report is out the hangman awaits those responsible. What’s the delay Jeremy surely your not worried about that upholding those fine principles of public life as you no doubt have done at all times. Tick Tock.

  3. sovereigntea says:

    Your rules not mine Jeremy ( LOL ) tick tock.

    1. Selflessness

    Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
    2. Integrity

    Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
    3. Objectivity

    Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
    4. Accountability

    Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
    5. Openness

    Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
    6. Honesty

    Holders of public office should be truthful.
    7. Leadership

    Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

  4. Ian says:

    Well frickin Duh!

  5. sovereigntea says:


    Britain was quickly informed that one of the “Saddam nukes” had exploded in North Korea. American satellites or ground teams can detect the origin of nuclear material and the specifics of bomb design. Pelandaba for North Korea and Hanford for 9/11, two of nearly 50 unexplained post World War 2 nuclear explosions according to sources at the IAEA.

    This is when liability under the UK’s Nuclear Explosion Act of 1998 which was carried over into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 become a reality. The following provision within the expanded 2001 act applies:

    The Act explicitly declares that to knowingly cause the detonation of a nuclear weapon, for a test or any other reason, will be an offence, and punishable by life imprisonment and confiscation of anything relating to the offence. The only exception is where the explosion is deemed to have been carried out in the course of an armed conflict – if a question arises over this then the Secretary of State for Defence decides and issues a certificate of his determination. The Act will apply to any weapon used within the United Kingdom, or used elsewhere by British nationals or corporations.

    Two British prime ministers are in danger from this act, Tony Blair who received nearly $5 million in political payoffs. later returned, laundered through a source tied to Formula One racing. Blair’s cash came from Bradencamp and is assumed to have been his cut for keeping quiet about the source of what he was told were Saddam’s nukes. The Chilcott Inquiry was tasked specifically with tracking down those involved in “misplacing” these nuclear weapons.

  6. ferryt says:

    Let’s see what William Hague has to say about the subject:


    • sovereigntea says:

      Good catch — “If you have nothing to hide” … Hague also dropped a clanger on that one LOL, He admitted that the British Intelligence Services “listened to the content” of your telephone calls which I believe is unlawful without a warrant.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.