AA13CR32ADD1

AS (2013) CR 32
Addendum 1

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-second sitting

Wednesday 2 October 2013 at 10 a.m.

ADDENDUM 1

National Security and Access to Information

      The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

Mr KAIKKONEN (Finland) - One of the key points that the rapporteur makes in the report is: “Access to information is of fundamental importance in a democratic society”. Many politicians, me included, strongly agree with that statement. Unfortunately this principle is not always put into practice, even in democratic societies. During the past decade we have witnessed vital information being held secret in the name of national security. What is even more worrying is that in some cases this is done in order to cover up misuses of power.

He states in his report that free access to information should not be seen as contrary to national security interests, but in fact as working in favour of it. Free access to information increases transparency and accountability of governments as well as enabling public participation in the decision-making process. When citizens and media can access information freely and easily, it works as a preventive for misuses of power. I hope that more countries will fully understand these benefits in the future and act accordingly.

It should be held as a basic principle that all information is public. Some restrictions may apply due to national security interests but these interests need to be well defined and the burden of proof lies on the public administrators.

Most Council of Europe member States already have some sort of laws on access to information. I encourage the remaining countries to take action in this direction to strengthen democracy. However, the report makes it clear that even though most countries have some sort of legal groundwork in this area, the laws and their implementation vary largely between different countries. Clarification of international standards is needed.

The report outlines the next important steps that the member States should take in order to improve national security via access to information. For example, in 2008, the Council of Europe adopted an international treaty on the right to access public documents, the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents. However, it has not entered into effect due to the lack of signing and ratifying by member States.

The convention is not perfect and it includes a long list of limitations to the access of information. It can still work as a good starting point. Unfortunately only a handful of member States have both signed and ratified it. Finland and seven other countries have signed it but not ratified it. I agree with the rapporteur’s suggestion that we, the Parliamentary Assembly, should bring this question up in our home countries to complete the ratifying process. It would act as an important demonstration of our will and commitment to promote the values of transparency and good governance.

Finally, I have to mention the important role of the so-called whistleblowers. In democratic societies the media and journalists play the role of the guard dogs – checking that the institutions are working as they should and report any wrongdoings to the people. However, when dealing with issues handling national security, some media houses are perhaps afraid to publish or even investigate certain issues if afterwards they can be held accountable for unpatriotic actions. Therefore, it is crucial that we protect public personnel if they decide to disclose information that reveals wrongdoings on a state level. As the Assembly stated a few years back, whistleblowers are needed as a “tool to increase accountability and strengthen the fight against corruption and mismanagement.” In my opinion, this is a tool we cannot afford to lose.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) - Good governance supports democracy, it does not hinder it. Public administration and trust in it are the cornerstones of a stable society. However, our system has also been tested within European Union institutions when, for example, collateral deals with banks have been classified. I can understand the protection of citizens and the importance of bank secrecy and that drawing the line might be difficult as such. But when we are dealing with taxpayers’ money it is clear that secrecy can lead to mistrust towards governance. At the same time we also weaken the trust in politicians, as is mentioned in the report. In my view the classification of collateral deals has weakened trust towards the community and as a result has weakened trust towards economic crisis management.

National laws on access to information and laws on administration differ. The European Union in itself does not have legislation for administrative procedures that would regulate access to information within good governance. We know, however, that such legislation is being prepared. It is therefore important to discuss this issue here today and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a very timely report. Governance as such may well be protective, but it cannot be secretive, as is said in the report. The citizens have the right to know about the activities of the government. This also concerns the European Union.

Even if I support the conclusions of the report, I am worried about cyberthreats that we are increasingly subjected to every day. We must take measures to ensure cybersecurity. Governments must draw up strategies concerning cybersecurity and we need to have a global discussion on this issue. Whistleblowers are here to stay and we also need legislation to handle this. This is why this report is so timely.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – It is probable that I shall find myself in a minority of one, but I shall vote against this report and recommendation. While there is much contained within it with which we can all agree, and while I appreciate that a lot of thought and hard work has gone into the preparation of the document, I do not believe that enough attention has been given to what the EPP spokesman has described as ”a contradiction”.

There is, inevitably, a tension between the demands of national security and access to information and I do not believe that this report strikes an appropriate balance between the two.

Much has been made during the debate of Mr Edward Snowden and of the related arrest of Mr David Miranda, a partner of the Guardian newspaper journalist, and he has even been described as ”a hero”. In the context of Snowden, the United Kingdom Home Secretary, Theresa May, wrote to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 12 September and said:

”Our initial analysis of the material recovered from Mr Miranda indicates that it contains at least 58,000 highly classified United Kindgom intelligence documents.The Government believes that this information, or at least some of it, is the same material that Mr Snowden stole during his employment by the NSA. The material is likely to describe techniques that have been crucial in life-saving counter-terrorism operations and other intelligence activities vital to United Kingdom national security. It’s disclosure could have put lives in danger”.

That is the cause – which, as my colleague Edward has said, could have damaged the brave people upon whom we rely for our security – that is supported by those who have offered comfort and asylum to Mr Snowden.

I have heard much criticism of the United States and of the United Kingdom. It was only my friend Mr Alexandrov who hinted with some candour at the fact that the Russian Federation and others also employ surveillance techniques. Nobody has referred, in this debate, to Syria or Iran or to Al Qaeda or to Al Shaabab. Only Edward Leigh has so far pointed at the human rights of those murdered on 9/11, or on the London Underground, or recently in a shopping mall in Nairobi, or to those slaughtered by chemical weapons deployed by the current government of Syria against its own people. Nobody has referred to the interdiction, based upon intelligence, infiltration and personal contact, that most certainly prevented an attack on the 2012 London Olympics. Why? If this debate is to serve the interests of real human rights, there must be a balance between security and freedom of information.

We have to live in the real world and the reality is that we are engaged in a war against terror. That is not an excuse for ”anything goes”. It is right that action taken in the interests of national security should be lawful, targeted and proportionate. But if terrorists and revolutionaries are to orchestrate through the Internet, through the use of mobile technology and social media then it is inevitable that the security services that seek to protect us and our interests will need to monitor those communications.

My country supports freedom of expression and of the media and has a proud track record of arguing the case that these are essential to democracy. We are committed to our obligations under human rights law, including Article 10. We also have strong safeguards – strengthened since former Labour Prime Minister Blair, to whose actions Mr Flynn referred, misled Parliament and abused the security services – to ensure that security powers are used appropriately.

But to conclude, I cannot and will not support a proposition that I believe can only give comfort to those whose every action is dedicated to the destruction of the very freedoms and liberties that I know that we are all here seeking to defend.

Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) - I would like to start by thanking you for this important debate. I agree with the recommendations of the rapporteur, Mr. Arcadio Díaz Tejera, and I am grateful for the excellent report providing us with background information.

The starting point is the “presumption that all State-held information should be accessible” and that all exemptions from this general rule need to be justified legally and morally. There are references to “Wikileaks” and Bradley Manning: “The current harsh criminal prosecution against the “Wikileaks“ source Bradley Manning, seems to be a clear violation of the above-mentioned principles. Any criminal sanctions for these alleged leaks should be proportionate to the actual harm done and should take into account the idealistic motivation of Mr Mannig, who was barely over twenty years old at the time of the alleged deeds.“ But had he been 65 years of age, what then?

I was born in 1948 and am therefore a child of the Cold War. Since early adulthood I have been a socialist. And common to my generation of western socialists during the Cold War period was being constantly reminded of an authoritarian Soviet Union with its surveillance of its citizens. We retorted that such a system was abhorrent to us. Now we have evidence that the United States Government is spying on all of us – not only United States citizens – but all of us. For this information we can thank Edward Snowden, the democratic whistleblower.

We should do all in our power to defend him and likewise Bradley Manning and “Wikileaks”. That is why I, as Minister of the Interior, refused co-operation with the FBI when they came to Iceland in August 2011 endeavouring – as I understood it – to find ways to frame Julian Assange and “Wikileaks”. I do not know how many government doors the FBI have knocked on in Europe. But such activities must be made public. We must all refuse co-operation on such premises and tell the world of this in the name of transparency and in the name of democracy. And that is in compliance with this resolution. Therefore, I support it. We must prove that 1984 was not written in vain.