It's not really the Rule of Law though. Between Parliamentary supremacy and Parliament supposedly acting as a safeguard for fundamental liberties, you have the Diceyan, British view of the Rule of Law more or less finished. Everyone is subject to the law, but this law has safeguards allowing certain things not to be disclosed.
Now, Parliament may be acting as the best safeguard for our ancient and traditional liberties in a general sense, but in the case of the Freedom of Information Act, it's hard to argue that the veto is undermining the rule of law.
On a simple level, we don't have a fundamental right to see Cabinet discussions (until the relevant time limits have passed, etc.). If that is a fundamental right, we've been denied it for ever.
If the argument is that the FoIA is being applied unequally (so not everyone is being subjected to it in the same way), that's built into the Act anyway. It only applies to the public sector in the first place - but the Rule of Law is not being subverted by the private sector being left out, surely? Lots of acts do this, creating obligations and offences that only apply to certain people in certain circumstances. See also the Human Rights Act 1998, which only has direct vertical effect i.e. against the State/emanations of the state (although because the courts are covered, it's potentially creating indirect horizontal effect).
If the argument is that the Executive get their discussions treated differently than other people, then first we have to remember that it's the Cabinet, not the Executive. (The Cabinet is a tiny portion of the Executive.) Then we can look at the fact that, for example, the Bill of Rights 1689 exempts Parliamentary discussions from being questioned by the court (and Pepper v Hart 1993 creates a tiny exemption to examine, not question), and the legislature generally enjoys certain privileges not accessible to the common man. (The most obvious problem this creates is that your MP can't libel you on the floor of the House.) Yet having these discussions privileged in this way doesn't undermine the Rule of Law.
Then we already allow that certain things can be secret - e.g. under the Official Secrets Act - because of public policy concerns.
And if we really are concerned about the Rule of Law, s.35(1)(b) specifically excludes "Ministerial communications" which, in particular, includes "proceedings of the Cabinet or of any committee of the Cabinet" (s.35(5)). So Parliament already said that this information shouldn't be published. So wouldn't we be undermining Parliament?
Hmm. Undermining Parliamentary statute - erm, isn't that a breach of the Rule of Law?
no subject
Now, Parliament may be acting as the best safeguard for our ancient and traditional liberties in a general sense, but in the case of the Freedom of Information Act, it's hard to argue that the veto is undermining the rule of law.
On a simple level, we don't have a fundamental right to see Cabinet discussions (until the relevant time limits have passed, etc.). If that is a fundamental right, we've been denied it for ever.
If the argument is that the FoIA is being applied unequally (so not everyone is being subjected to it in the same way), that's built into the Act anyway. It only applies to the public sector in the first place - but the Rule of Law is not being subverted by the private sector being left out, surely? Lots of acts do this, creating obligations and offences that only apply to certain people in certain circumstances. See also the Human Rights Act 1998, which only has direct vertical effect i.e. against the State/emanations of the state (although because the courts are covered, it's potentially creating indirect horizontal effect).
If the argument is that the Executive get their discussions treated differently than other people, then first we have to remember that it's the Cabinet, not the Executive. (The Cabinet is a tiny portion of the Executive.) Then we can look at the fact that, for example, the Bill of Rights 1689 exempts Parliamentary discussions from being questioned by the court (and Pepper v Hart 1993 creates a tiny exemption to examine, not question), and the legislature generally enjoys certain privileges not accessible to the common man. (The most obvious problem this creates is that your MP can't libel you on the floor of the House.) Yet having these discussions privileged in this way doesn't undermine the Rule of Law.
Then we already allow that certain things can be secret - e.g. under the Official Secrets Act - because of public policy concerns.
And if we really are concerned about the Rule of Law, s.35(1)(b) specifically excludes "Ministerial communications" which, in particular, includes "proceedings of the Cabinet or of any committee of the Cabinet" (s.35(5)). So Parliament already said that this information shouldn't be published. So wouldn't we be undermining Parliament?
Hmm. Undermining Parliamentary statute - erm, isn't that a breach of the Rule of Law?