6 minute read
Secrecy and The Law Society
Council Meeting 04 July 2023
Secrecy and The Law Society
The author has written this article in his own capacity and his views do not necessarily reflect those of Westminster & Holborn Law Society or The Law Society of England and Wales.
On behalf of Central London members, I moved a motion at the The Law Society’s (TLS) most important decision making body, the Council. It was about its own openness and transparency. I wanted Council members to know why ordinary members should not know what was discussed during parts of Council meetings.
I have been saying that TLS Council should not debate important issues in secret. Some agenda items, too many, are designated Part 2B, are confidential. The TLS' Freedom of Information Code of Practice defines what should be confidential.
On 04 July 2023, Council members heard my speech that explained the motion. With Mark Evans, from Wales and TLS Deputy-Vice President candidate, seconding, I wanted to give a tour de force as to why TLS should live up to its aims. This is what I told the meeting.
Lifting the veil of secrecy from Council meetings will be a process this is the first stage of that process.
The Motion, the public part of the agenda
‘The Council of The Law Society of England and Wales (Council) reaffirms its commitment 'to maximum openness, and aims to conduct as much of its business as possible in public'.
It is acknowledged that on occasions confidential discussion will be unavoidable and Part 2A and Part 2B papers will be justified.
The Council instructs those that compile papers for Council, Board and committee meetings to add a written explanation for each item that appears on Part 2B of the agenda explaining why and how that item has engaged any of the limitation/s of the Freedom of Information – Code of Practice as adopted by Council in March 2017.’
Paul Sharma’s speech to move the motion
“Too much time spent on Part 2 the secret part of the agenda and too little time on Part 1 – the open part of the agenda. This motion is designed to encourage those that compile the agenda to be transparent and list items for Council on Part 1 of the agenda unless there are compelling and valid reasons for the item to appear on Part 2.
Of the last three Council meetings of around 66% of the time was spent discussing items on Part 2 secret part of the agenda. Not one person is here in their own right – we’re all elected. We represent geographic constituencies, personal characteristic or work groups.
When we debate items on Part 2B – we cannot tell
• our constituents, those who elected us,
• cannot tell our local law society, and
• cannot tell our electors, the:
• subject matter of our discussion
• contents of the debate that took place
• cannot tell our electors the decisions we make in their name.
We can tell those that vote for us didley squat.
It’s all TOP SECRET!
Democracy is more than an election once every four years and then secrecy for four years – trust me but I can’t tell you why! That’s the democracy of Vladimir Putin.
The Law Society (TLS) – presently we can rightly be dubbed the secret society.
It’s TLS culture. We have slipped into a freemasonic style culture of secrecy over the years. It’s not just Council meetings, the culture of secrecy covers the whole shebang.
I got elected to PRAC (Policy and Regulatory Affairs Committee) and received this letter telling me about it.
I quote:
‘Matters dealt with by our committees are treated as private and confidential and we are sure that you will bear this in mind when dealing with business coming before the Committee.’
By the way those voted for me thanks – your tenner’s in the post –
that’s a joke. Is TLS unique?
Does TLS deal with special issues other organisations do not deal with?
Local authorities let contracts, trade unions deal complex issues, charities deal with sensitive matters – yet, they all manage without copying the freemasons and hiding behind the cloak of secrecy. We are not that special, that different or unique why we must hide from our own members what we do in their name.
How we conduct our proceedings is in breach of the Governance Manual.
Para 5.16 of the Governance Manual 5 December 2018 reads: ‘The Council is committed to maximum openness, and aims to conduct as much of its business as possible in public.’
We have not just put a coach and horses through the Governance Manual - we have put an express train through it.
OK, next bit is the science bit – stay with me.
Part 2 is the secret bit of the agenda. Part 2 is divided into: Part 2a and Part 2b.
Part 2a – items labelled 2a- you can tell our members. You can tell our members – 200,000 members but don’t tell anyone else - shush. Tell 200,000 members – you might as well send a press release to Reuters, Press Association and the BBC.
That’s how many people were at Glastonbury. You may as well get Elton John to sing Part 2a on stage - that’s how secret it is.
Part 2b is where the top secret matters are discussed.
But still the focus of this motion is Part 2b. Part 2a. can stay. Inevitably, here comes Hamlet - 2b or not 2b? That really is the question.
For a matter to qualify for Part 2b and be rendered top secret it must fulfil the requirements of one of the paragraphs of the Freedom of Information Code 2017. There are 12 paragraphs to choose from. What this motion seeks are particulars from those that compile the agenda to justify why any Part 2b item has engaged any of the paragraphs of Freedom of Information Code 2017.
The particulars may well reveal justifiable reasons why the paragraph of the Freedom of Information Code that has been chosen, renders an item top secret and therefore legitimately on Part 2b.
Or on the other hand, the obligation to justify the deployment of any of the paragraphs in the Freedom of Information Code may just lead to reconsideration and reflection on whether the items should be really be rendered top secret.
Therefore, can the items be put on Part 1 of the agenda so we can all discuss them with our electors, our local law society and members. So, in essence all I am looking for is justification. What I am seeking is a cultural change from secrecy to openness and transparency. There really is no need for such intense secrecy – after all, we’re not the US military hiding aliens from the public!
This is a modest proposal – not of the Jonathon Swift kind – but a modest change to steer the agenda of council meetings to fulfil the requirements of the Governance Manual.
A modest proposal to enable far reaching changes on how we do business. The first step in our cultural change.”
(End of speech)
The vote:
• For - 64 for the motion,
• 9 abstentions and
• 5 against.
