GM, Yes, there are probably better ways to deal with issues of redactions, including the practice adopted by the UK ISC of dealing directly with the security agencies. But come what may NSICOP reports will often require reductions to protect classified information, whether presented to Parliament directly or not. Incidentally, the PM him or herself f does not direct the redactions, that is done by a unit at DOJ and redactions can only be made for specified reasons, not at the whim of the executive branch.
I am sorry if I left any confusion. There have been no public criticisms of NSICOP by former or current Conservative party appointees to the Committee that I am aware of. The general rule is that individual members of the Committee do not comment on its workings, even after they have left the committee, although Vern White has proven an exception to the rule. It is the Conservative party leadership that has been critical of the Committee.
You note that the Conservative members of the committee were critical of its workings, but you also suggest that the organization was intended to be “non-partisan”. So what was their beef? Are you able to say whether the complaints were partisan or performative or obstructive, (as is so often seen in Legislative Committees) or were these members simply, (at least ostensibly), voicing a principled and substantive dissent? Because that happens too.
I ask because it is beginning to look like Mr. Johnson will not be replaced by an enquiry body with the true inquisitorial powers, plus the legal tools to compel full disclosure - whether or not what comes to light can be revealed to the public.
Which is to say: we are not going to get something like a US Special Prosecutor or a European-style Judicial Inquisitor, and we are not going to get a Canadian style “Public Enquiry” either. Leaving us with the existing mechanisms; which either work well, or don’t.
So it would be nice to know which one it is.
Although frequent rotation of the over-seers doesn't seem like a good strategy.
GM, Yes, there are probably better ways to deal with issues of redactions, including the practice adopted by the UK ISC of dealing directly with the security agencies. But come what may NSICOP reports will often require reductions to protect classified information, whether presented to Parliament directly or not. Incidentally, the PM him or herself f does not direct the redactions, that is done by a unit at DOJ and redactions can only be made for specified reasons, not at the whim of the executive branch.
Richard,
I am sorry if I left any confusion. There have been no public criticisms of NSICOP by former or current Conservative party appointees to the Committee that I am aware of. The general rule is that individual members of the Committee do not comment on its workings, even after they have left the committee, although Vern White has proven an exception to the rule. It is the Conservative party leadership that has been critical of the Committee.
Their classified reports are sent to the prime minister before a redacted version is made public.
That's a problem - the committee reports to the PM who can make redactions.
It should report to Parliament, not the PM.
You note that the Conservative members of the committee were critical of its workings, but you also suggest that the organization was intended to be “non-partisan”. So what was their beef? Are you able to say whether the complaints were partisan or performative or obstructive, (as is so often seen in Legislative Committees) or were these members simply, (at least ostensibly), voicing a principled and substantive dissent? Because that happens too.
I ask because it is beginning to look like Mr. Johnson will not be replaced by an enquiry body with the true inquisitorial powers, plus the legal tools to compel full disclosure - whether or not what comes to light can be revealed to the public.
Which is to say: we are not going to get something like a US Special Prosecutor or a European-style Judicial Inquisitor, and we are not going to get a Canadian style “Public Enquiry” either. Leaving us with the existing mechanisms; which either work well, or don’t.
So it would be nice to know which one it is.
Although frequent rotation of the over-seers doesn't seem like a good strategy.