Newspaper of the Campaign for Freedom of Information 50p 50p NL

The,Official 5eClecrets Act 191 • . . 7S 'years as are .enough It was passed by the House of $i .•••. .. •" . u ,m E · ., · .', stage in 30 minutes. .Ihird, because it hal Commons in only half an hour. In 1972 the Report of a pressive effect on WI It has since been described as special committee set up to and other public insti "a mess" by an official committee look into Section Two under generally, reinforcing til of enquiry, been condemned by the chairmanship of Lord tion ofsecrecy,and act politicians ofall Parties, and been Franks reported 'm found block to a more open: subject to demands for its repeal Section 1Wo a mess. Its scopeis countable approach. "lock, stock, and barrel" from enormously wide. Any law All three opposition Lord Scarman and other which impinges on the are now committed to respected jurists. freedom of information in a ofSection Two. Formei The present Attorney General democracy should be much civil servants who have and the recent Home Secretary, more tightly drawn." for its repeal inclue whilst in Opposition, severely The Franks Committee was . former Heads ofthe a criticised it and called for its set up after (although not only vice, Lord Croham a replacement. because of) the case involving Douglas Wass, and a Yetover the past six years it has Jonathan Aitken, then a jour­ Permanent Secretar been used more than ever before, nalist, who obtained and Patrick Nairne. The Fir and this year it is 75 years' old. published in THE SUNDAY sion Association of Ci It is, of course, the Official TELEGRAPH a confidential vants, together. with Secrets Act, and subject of most document to do with the civil other Civil Service criticism is its Section 'Iwo, war in Nigeria. The Unions, also seek its re Th mark the anniversary, the Ralph Nader (above), the American citizenactivist, is hen activist, is honoured newspaper, its editor, Aitken, Campaign for Freedom of Infor­ for his 'international contribution to freedom ofinfonedom ofinformation' and another journalist were mation is launching a special prosecuted under Section Two campaign for repeal of Section in the 1985 Freedom ofInformation awards. ards, and acquitted. Mr Justice Accesst~ '!\vo. It includes: The awards are being presented in mid.January by tht.January by the Leader Caulfield commented in his • The introduction under the of the Opposition, the Rt Hon NeiI.Kinnock, beforWmock, before an au­ summing up that it was personal Ten Minute Rule procedure of dience of politicians, media personalities, and represent, and representatives of perhaps time the Act was a short Bill repealing Section vohintary organisations. "pensioned off'. Files fig" Two. The award for the 'individual who did most in 1985tomost in 1985to further There have been subse­ • The circulation of an Early freedom of information' goes to Robin Squire MP. Squire MP. .quently a number of other continUE Day Motion in the House of Fulldetails and otherawards - page6. controversial cases, including Commons to demonstratethe the so-called ABC trial involv­ widespread parliamentary addressed by Roy Hattersley and others. thers. ing three defendants, one of As none of the Campai support for such action. (Deputy Leader ofthe Labour Presented to the Hsented to the House of whom was the journalistDun­ Freedom of Informa •A 75th "birthday" Rally in the Party), David Steel (on behalf Commons as an emnons as an emergency can Campbell. Although they Parliamentary Supporter: Friends Meeting House in of The Alliance), Jonathan action in 1911, it achiew in 1911, it achieved all its were convicted (for discussing in the top six in the Bal London on January 14th to be Aitken (Conservative MP), readings and the COIgS and the committee intelligence monitoring of in­ Private Members Bil ternational radio communica­ November, the Acce tions by the then-secret Personal Files Bill is to troduced first in the Ho Cheltenham GCHQ) they Lords. were not punished. The main The prime mover willb The Rallyilly effect of the trial was to fur­ Hooson, but he will ha secret ther discredit Section Two. support of Lady Ewart In 1984 a secretary, Sarah (Labour) and a Conse to 'celebrate' the 75th birthday of the Official secrets ~ secrets Act Tisdall, was sent to prison for peer (Lady Hooper, wh 6 months under Section Two, hoped to work for the B' and once more there was now been appointed a C Rt Hon Roy Hattersley Des Wilson Rt Hon David Steel E10n David Steel widespread uproar about the vativewhip In the Lords). (De puty Leader of the Labour Party) Chairman ofthe Campaign for (l.Peter Preston (Genenl Secretary of Fint DivisJon Ralpb Nader Ralpb Nader In 1985 Clive Ponting was Norris MP, who willintra editor of The Guardian Associatio n of Civil Servants) sensationally cleared after under tbe Ten Minute Vincent Hanoa another Section 'Iwo prosecu­ (broadcaster and trade unionist) procedure. Duncan Campbell tion, resulting from leaks There is only an c (prosecuted und er Section lWo) about the Be1granoAffair, and possibility that this could Sarab Tisdall Ministers became increasingly in legislation, and the ! (prosecuted under Section 1Wo) isolated as the only people probability is it willarrive ClivePonling who continued to defend the next Private Members (prosecuted underSection Two) Act. with even more wide! Sarab Spencer support and a better cha (Gonera! Sec...ary nf NCCL) Its opponents condemn it being taken up. on many grounds: In the meantime, the Friends Meeting House First, for its catch-all quali­ paign is to launch a majoi Thesday February 14, 7.30pm ty, which makes no distinction to persuade both public il (doorsopen 6.3Opm) about different kinds of tions and professionalsto Tickets £3 eacbat the door but itis information. tarily allow access to pe advisable to purchase them in Second, because it subjects meso Already many ho advance (cheque or postal order to education, and social se The Secrets RaDy, CFI, 3 Endsleigh to criminal prosecutions, peo­ Street, London w e lH ODD, ple who at the worst should be authorities are doing so, al RI H OD RoyHattersley enclosings.a.envelope). subjected to internal clear that resistance to ac breaking down. disciplinary procedures. campaign for voluntantary TOp Secret! Remarkable measures to prevent national confidence. access to our files public discussion of planned cuts in Thedocument advises minist socialsecurity continue to be taken. In they could avoid "any last II The Campaign has begun a major allowing access to education, Authorities whichallowities whichallowcouncil August 1985 tbe Guardian reported campaign against the propo drive to encourage authorities to 'housing or social work records. tenants and applicants to Sid applicants to seetheir tbata DHSS memorandum whicb pro­ introducing them under the 1 voluntarily introduce policies Those with policies on access to housing records include: ecords include: Barnet, posed cuttinglump-sum payments to procedures for socialsecurity c' allowing access to personal files. socialwork records include: Avon, Birmingham, Brent, Coam, Brent, Copeland, claimants witb less tban £500 of sav­ Theseare designed for genuin More than 120 councillors, of­ Barnet, Barnsley, Berkshire, Bex­ Ealing, GLC, Haringey, lLC, Haringey, Harlow, ings had been classified "SECRET". gencies - for example, to all This classification means that urgently needed payments after ficials and members of profes­ ley, Camden, Cheshire, Cleveland, Kingston-upon-Hull, Levupon-Hull, Lewisham, unauthorised disclosure would cause disaster. Under these proc sional and voluntary bodies at­ Coventry, Croydon, Devon, South Somerset and Wrehnerset and Wrekin. "Seriousinjury to the interests of the changescan be rushed througl tended a conference on access to Dudley, Ealing, East Sussex, En­ Parents, and in manycas, and in manycases older nation". It is normally applied to such day tbey are published, with, flies organised bythe Campaignin field, Greenwich, Hackney, Har­ pupils, can see school rean see school records in matters as "vital military information" normal 4o-day advance noti London in November 1985 to hear ingey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Isle of Brent, Derbyshire, Ealing,:rbyshire, Ealing, Haver­ including aerial photographs of without going through the the experiences of speakers who Wight, Islington, Kingston-upon­ ing, Inner London Eder London Education defence establishments, and new Security Advisory Commitli have been operating such policies Thames, Lambeth, Lancashire, Authority and Leicesterslr and Leicestershire. economic proposals whose premature government's benefits wstchdo in local authorities, schools and Lewisham, Manchester, Merton, A small, though gall, though growing disclosure would prejudice inter- medical practices with positive Newham, North Tyneside, number of doctorsencouref doctorsencourage their results for many years. Oldham, Solihull, Stockport, Sur­ patients to read their .to read their medical At least50localauthorities have rey, Wakefield, Walsall, Wiltshire records. implemented or agreed policies and Wirral. seereev and Pollutior Information that is 'voluntarily' An example of infon given to pollution control given in the hope of a ben' authorities by industry should not the submissions to govei Problems may arise ;e be kept secret. This is one of the departments on consul points the Campaign has made in papers about proposed leg; evidence to a Whitehall Inter­ and similar matters. Too departmental Working Party look­ such submissions are tres on Data protection An Act ing at ways of increasing publicac­ confidential although the: cess to pollution information. strong public interest in The first stages of implemen­ "provisional opinions and assessments should be cnts should be disclos­ The Working Party is due to them 'on the record' so tl ting the Data Protection Act assessments" should be ed ifthey have formed tithave formed the basis report to ministers soon. In its arguments and informatii have now begun. When the Act withheld from access. The for decisions. But they wions. But they would be consultation paper, it proposed vancedare opento public sc is fully in force it will entitle Campaign has told the DHSS that only information which These submissions are rru released only after the donly after the decision authorities obtain by using their organisations wishing to ha­ people to see and correct com­ that it objects strongly to this had been taken - wn taken - when it puterised information about statutory powers should be con­ views and interests taken i proposal. There is a growing would be too late for e too late for the in­ sideredfor publicaccess. Informa-: count: they are unlikely to themselves. body of opinion within the dividual to question a to question assump­ tion given voluntarily, it sug­ the opportunity merely t Anyone who holds personal social work profession which tions or present an alte present an alternative gested, could not be disclosed their comments would t information about individuals believes that individuals should view. And only the assesd only the assessements becausethis would cause the flow public. on computer has until May know what opinions are being that had been acted on been acted on would of such information to dry up in Yet in February 191 1986 to register under the Act. formed and recorded about be revealed: those imled: those involving future depriving authorities of Department of the Envirc The registration must describe them. The British Association other options would ptions would not be essential data. refused to disclose to the the type of data held, its pur­ of Social Workers recommends disclosed. So the persorl. So the person would The Campaign has told the paign eventhe names of or WorkingParty that it pose, its sources, and the per­ that social workers put such have a right to see on:ight to see only data believes this tions who had submitter sons to whom it may be disclos­ viewis mistaken. Much of the in­ ments on proposals to I opinions to people - and which supported the aunpported the authority's formation industry gives 'volun­ more water pollution dat ed. From May 1986, anyone record their responses also. At vievv. . tarily' is actuallygivenin the hope Departmentappearsnowtc who suffers damage because The Campaign has Campaign has told the of some benefit in return. Com­ that such secrecyis unjust; computerised information DHSS that such a systemat such a system would paniesmayprovidemoreinforma­ has asked all those taking about them is inaccurate will be inevitably create resentmy create resentment and tion than required in order to sup­ the presentconsultationexe able to seek compensation in suspicion and appeam and appear as a port a plea for standards to be they will agree to their con the courts and be able to have deliberate attempt to te attempt to exclude temporarily relaxed, or to explain being made public. With ' the inaccuracies corrected or the individual from tak/idual from taking any whytheyshould not be prosecuted ception of one organisatior removed. TOp Secret! for pollution incidents. They will has refused, all the comme part in decisions whicldecisions which affect continue to supply such informa­ However, the Act only comes Ministers have been forced to his or her future. er future. nowavailable for inspectioi into full force in November publisb a report on bealtby eating tion whenever they need the DoE library. whichtheycommissioned - and then The consultation paonsultation paper on hoped-for benefit - even if the Another proposal thr 1987. From that date the Data tried to censor. access to health inforo health information authorities made it publicly Campaign has questioned Protection Registrar can enforce The report, 'Eating for a Healthier says there may be ere may be "sound available. suggestion that.disclosure 01 8 data protection principles. In Heart', was commissioned as a popular medical reasons" wi reasons" why full However, the Campaignaccepts tion data should bethrough summary, these require that guide to tbe Department of Healtb's 1984 report on diet andbeart disease. disclosure should sorre should sometimes that whereinformation is genuine­ registers. The Campaign SI personal data (I) be obtained It was produced by tbeJointAdvisory not take place. But it d place. But it does not ly provided in order to help the .that this would lead t and processed fairly and lawful­ Committee for Nutrition Education accept some of the some of the other authority - for example, in sear­ disclosure only of infon ly (2) be held only for lawful (JACNE). grounds sometimes advasometimes advanced as ching for a solution to another whose releasewas adminis purposes specified in the However, whenthe Department saw a basis for withholdinfor withholding infor­ company's problems - then it ly convenient - but wo~ registration (3) be used only for tbe draft JACNE report, it refused to should not be disclosed without necessarily give the publ allow publication, demanding cbanges mation: that it is neces that it is necessary so the submitte.'s permission. details they wanted. those purposes (4) be adequate, whichwouldhaveweakened its recom­ that doctors and others tors and others can feel relevant and not excessive (5) be mendatioas about cutting down con­ free to record infor record information accurate and up to date (6) be sumption of red meat and milk. Tbe frankly, or to protect t:or to protect the rela­ kept no longer than necessary demands were prompted by the progress on Pesticidl Ministry of Agriculture's concern at tionship between doct between doctor and for the registered purpose (7) be the effectsof therecommendations on patient. Pesticide safety studies submit­ 'raw data' - are also avs available on request to the sub­ food producers. Tbe JACNE refused The DHSS is seekin)HSS is seeking views ted to the government by MAFF's proposals for ject of the data and, where ap­ to makethe changes andits chairman, on whether the resether the restriction pesticide manufacturers may in ed regulations have nov propriate, be corrected or eras­ Dr John Garrow, threatened to resign should be aimed at proe aimed at protecting future be publicly available in published. They say thai ed (8) be protected by adequate "unless wecanbe assured thatthis cen­ sorship will now cease". patients from "dists from "distress or full - but only at the discretion evaluations will be roi security measures against loss Publication of the report was only harm", of whether thof whether the more of ministers. disclosed as new pestich or unauthorised disclosure. autborised after a copy of tbe draft stringent test of preventt test of preventing "ac­ At present, all safety data is approved, raw data will From November 1987 people reacbed tbeCollege of Healtb, wbose tual harm" to the irm" to the patient kept secret under an agreement accepts, however, that will be able to see and have cor­ chairman, Lord Young of Darlington, tbreatened to circulate it to tbe press should be required. Tine required. The Cam­ with manufacturers - but this visory committee's sci rected information about with the express intention of embar­ paign's view - expresseiew - expressed in the will change when the 1985Food sub-committee (SSC) t themselves held on computers. rassing ministers. drafting of the Access of the Access to Per­ and Environment Protection tions may be chall There are a number of ex­ sonal Files Bill - is thles Bill - is that only Act is fully implemented. As the sometimes. It therefon emptions to these so-called if disclosure wouldlosure would cause Bill went through parliament poses that "Where a req 'subject access' rights. The main serious harm to the harm to the patient there was pressure in both the made to follow a line ones are where access would least 5 local authorities have could there ever be any ere ever be any case for Commons and the Lords from vestigation in this c prejudice national security, the already implemented access with-holdinginformatiodinginformation- pro­ all parties for an end to this which, in the SSC vie' prevention or detection of policies which include the right vided that an effective, iat an effective, indepen­ secrecy. As a result, the govern­ scientific justification, tI crime, the apprehension or pro­ to see social workers' dent appeals procedureieals procedure existed ment promised that in future it ceptionally Department secution of offenders, or the assessments. The DHSS pro­ whereby such decisions (such decisions could be would release its own evalua­ agree to give access to tl assessment or collection of any posals run wholly against this challenged. The DHSS sed. The DHSS says that tions of manufacturers' safety data". tax or duty. trend. They would inevitably this might involve an itht involve an indepen­ data - these have never been The decision to allow In addition, access to social lead to speculation that the dent health professionallth professional or doc­ made public before. to raw data, even in some work and health records will be 'provisional opinions' that were tor of the patient's chhe patient's choice ­ However, the Campaign has is a major breakthrou restricted - and the DHSS has being withheld included un­ .but says the patient WOI the patient would have consistently argued that, useful principle, which the Can issued consultation papers on substantiated speculation and ill to pay for such advice or such advice private­ as these evaluations will be, they has pressed for vigorous each. thought-out snap judgments ly. In practice such a ractice such a require­ are not enough - and that it is disturbed at the pr, The DHSS proposals for which were prejudicing at­ ment might effectively ight effectively prevent many questions about pesticide that this access should 1 social work records include the titudes and decisions. many patients from exatients from exercising safety cannot be answered mitted only 'exceptionall suggestion that social workers' The DHSS accepts that my right of appeal. It of appeal. unless the full studies - the at the discretion of the

., ., The Official Secrets Act 7S YE7S years on... section 2 'Shoulcl.lld be swept away entirely' sa' said Franks · "We found section 2 a mess. Its sequences, if any, of the matter, a member of er, a member of the public grounds to believe that it had • A final bizarre conseqi scope is enormously wide. Any law disclosure. who tells someone elsitells someone else about it, been given to them without section 2 is that it catel which impinges on the freedom of • It is not just civil servants who also risks prosecutiorrisks prosecution. . authorisation. Only if they are the family and friends' information in a democracyshould are covered. Anyone who is • The motive of the pennotive of the person com­ able to show that it was given to who disclose infon be much more tightly drawn': That given official information in municating the inforicating the information is them against their wishes would Under section 7 ofthe I was the verdict of the Franks Com­ confidence by a civil servant is irrelevant. It makesvant. It makes no dif­ they escape conviction. anyone who allows a mittee which in 1972 reported on prohibited from disclosing it ference if the inforice if the information is • Anyone who tries to persuade whom he knows has co: section 2 of the Official Secrets an offence under secti Act. meet on his premises, The Official Secrets Act 1911 harbours such a person deals with two quite separate sub ­ How the Act was pa9as passed in 30 mins the law. The offence is ( jects. Section I is about spying. ted even if the person Anyone who, for a purpose pre­ , It was vital for us Ito] .. . pass a more stringent rncmentringent moment; two men got up to speak, but both were for­ has reasonable ground judicial to the safety or interests of Official Secrets Act. For various reasons the cibly plans the cibly pulled down by their neighbours after they had pose that the other is a the state, obtains or communicates matter was really urgent. Moreover, it was just one of utteredrt one of uttered a few sentences, and the committee stage was make of receive an una information which could be useful those things in which discussion might do infinite passed. infinite passed. The Speakerwalked back to his chair and said: ed disclosure. This mea' to an enemy commits an offence harm. The Bill, giving extremely drastic powers to the "The q'rs to the "The question is, that I report this Bill without amend­ designed to deal with under section I and faces up to 14 executive, was duly prepared and printed. I went to the ment tent to the ment to the House" Again two or three people stood citizens who harboured Speaker on the Friday morning, when the House had years imprisonment. This section up; agause had up; again they were pulled down by their neighbours, spies (ie those who of the Act is relatively assembled, and told him that I proposed to ask per­ and theask per­ and the report stage was through. The Speaker turned mission to pass the Bill through all its stages, there and to me aiere and to me and said: "The third reading, what day" "Now, under section I of the, uncontroversial. then, in one sitting . I had, of course, seen [him] on sit.' I nhiml on sit.' I replied. My heart beat fast as the Speaker said: has been drafted in sue Section 2, however, deals with an the subject beforehand, but had not suggested this "The q;ted this "The question is that this Bill be read a third time" that it catches those w entirely different issue - the most unparliamentary proceeding. The Speaker had It wasnker had It was open to anyone ofall the members in the House bour section 2 offender! unauthorised communication of always been an extraordinarily kind friend to me, but of Can me, but of Commons to get up and say that no bill had ever Section 2 gives govei all official information. he could not stand this proposal. He said it was con­ yet beewas con­ yet been passed through all its stages in one day without a staggering power to Under section 2, a civil servant trary to every parliamentary precedent and to every a word to every a word of explanation from the minister in charge. It information. Virtual commits an offence if he discloses principle of sound government . . . I descended from was opled from was open to any of them to say that such a gross in­ communication of off official information "to any per­ the Speakers'sChair to where the Clerk of the House terferene House terference with the liberty of the subject had never been formation, on any sub son, other than a person to whom of Commons . .. sits, just below the chair, and told presentand told presented to the House of Commons, even in most him what I had said to the Speaker. He was even more troublaen more troublous and revolutionary times . But to the eternal any person, which the he is authorised to communicate it, horrified; said that the proposal was revolutionary, and honounary, and honour of those members, to whom I now offer, on ment did not wish to a or a person to whom it is in the in­ that he could not be a party to it. But I had seen some behalf en some behalf of that and all succeeding governments, my could lead to criminal terest ofthe State his duty to com­ faithful friends in all parts of the House . . . as well most g:. as well most grateful thanks, not one man seriously oppos­ An accused person municate it". The offence carries as the leading critics on our own side of the House, ed, and House, ed, and in a little more time than it has taken to write plead that the public a penalty of up to two years so I thought it was well worth while to have a try. I these w a try, I these words that formidable piece of legislation was justified his or her act imprisonment. got up and proposedthat the Billbe read a secondtime, passedmdtime, passed .. . within twenty-four hours it ... was, tion 2 allows no such The scope of section 2 is vast: explaining, in two sentences only, that it wasconsidered the lawnsidered the law of the land. The only defence ava • All information a civil servant desirable in the public interest that the measure should e should that it was the accuse, be passed. Hardly a word was said and the Bill was Bill was obtains in connection with his ~ read a second time; the Speaker left the Chair. I then From ns. I then From theautobiography ofMajor-GenerallE.B. Seely, 'in the interest of the or her official duties is covered: moved the Bill in Committee. This was the first critical Under-s critical Under-Secretary of Statefor War in 1911 communicate the infor the unauthorised disclosure of Legal views on what is n any of it is an offence. The posi­ the 'interest of the St tion was summed up by the divided. But the mos Director General of the British without authorisation. Section disclosed for corrupt rsed for corrupt purposes another person to disclose in­ ruling - in February : Security Service in his evidence 2 covers government contractors - or to expose some ' to expose some injustice. formation in contravention of the judge presiding over to the Franks Committee. "It is and non-civil servants who sit Even an unauthori an unauthorised dis ­ section 2 commits an offence of Clive Ponting - is an official secret" he said "ifit on official advisory closure that wasn't imre that wasn't intended at (under section 7 of the Official interest of the State is d, is in an official file': committees. all, but occurred accidut occurred accidentally, is Secrets Act 1920, which amend­ ed exclusively by the • An offence is committed • Passing on information which an offence. ifence, ed the 1911 Act). A journalist ment in power. regardless of the subject matter, has been improperly disclosed is • Even those who mere those who merely receive who won't take no for an IiI effect, this meaus regardless of the importance ­ itself an offence, regardless of official information -lal information - and do answer when questioning of­ tually anyone who di or triviality - of the informa­ who passes it on. A journalist nothing with it - cong with it - commit an ficials might well be at risk of receives, puhlishes or tion, and regardless of the con- who publishes it or, for that offence if they had rece if they had reasonable breaking the law. Continued on

fuedom of Informatiou·plisition clear: (1) We do not seek a I.eakers' Charter. We seek the m imum possihle access to information with a natlc Campaign Commen1nent cousensus au what should remain secret. Only in ex« tional circumstances would leaking be justified and Politiciaus ofteu complaiu that they don't receive the ched secrecy instead of making iad of making it possible for ad - spell tbem out in our evidence. respect that is their due. ministration to be more open. more open. (2) Prosecutions under a discredited Act are morally There are, of course, a numher of reasons for this. No, it is not oppositiou to repealositiou to repeal that has preserved justifiable. The criticisms of the Franks Committee v Oue is their failure from time to time to respond to a Section Two, but rather that uo rather that uo Prime Minister or uuambiguously endorsed by both the present Attar case so overwhelming and so widely supported, that the cabinet has had the political will t,e political will to actually do it. General, Sir Michael Havers, and the former H I publlc, and informed observers in the fields of the law, Aud why is that? It's the old, ollf It's the old, old story. Iuformatiou Secretary, Leon Brittan, when they were in Opposii the media, and public administration, are left haffled is power. Confronted with the realited with the reality of freedom of in­ aud it is sheer bypocrisy fa them to have any part h at the inertia, angered at the obduracy, and disillusion­ formatiou, one Cabiuet after auotlbiuet after auother has put its own use now. ed about the genuine desire of those who stand for desire for secrecy before the public efore the public iuterest, and found (3) Punitive measures do not enhance the cause of c publlc office to act in the public interest rather tbau in reasons why the Official Secrets Acificial Secrets Act must remain iu its fidentiality. Secrecy has become so indiscriminate t their owu interest. present form. confidentiality has lost all serious meaning. The best Take as a case in point Section Two of the Official Aud yet it can't go au. Tbe com go au. Tbe couseusus that Section to achieve necessary confidentiality is by maxim Secrets Act. So discredited had it become by 1971, that Two should be repealed is now dauntlled is now daunting even for a Prime freedom of information with tightly-defined exempti• a Committee of high calibre, chaired by Lord Franks, .Minister as ohdurate as Mrs Thatchte as Mrs Thatcher. It iucludes ali of As the First Division of Civil Servants say: "To Sl was set up with the specific respousibility of consider­ the opposition parties and many oties and many of her own party. It extent leaks have been prompted by a belief tbat ... ing Sectiou Two aud making recommendations. Its involves 990/0 of the media. It invae media. It involves all of the civil UK is excessively secretive by comparison witb 01 recommeudation was clear; Section Two had to be service trade unions aud mauy highs aud mauy highly-respected former democracies. This belief has some justihcatien," repealed. civil servauts. It iuvolves emiueut [vofves emiueut jurists. It involves a (4) Section Two, eveu when not employed for pros. Why? Because "We found Section Two a mess. Its wide variety of uon-governmental a-governmental organisatious. And tions, bas a uegative and oppressive affect on the· scope is enormously wide. Any law which impinges on it is shared by the puhlic as a whopuhlic as a whole. our institutions work. the freedom of iuformation in a democracy should he It has also become unworkable. me unworkable. It is probable that There is so much common ground between all th much more tightly drawn:' Clive Panting wastecbnically guilty.ecbnically guilty uuder Sectiou Two who objectively seriously consider these issues thl Some 15 years since that report Sectiou Two remains. and yet an Old Bailey jury unanimiley jury unanimously cleared him . is a real tragedy that Ministers do not seek the 0PI Now 75 years old , it is seemingly immune from attack. As one newspaper leader said at tlleader said at the time: tunity to repeal Section Two aud to create a canst. Why is this? The Couservatives have a simple answer. , "The verdict doesn't mean civil sesn't mean civil servants can choose tive atmospbere of partuership with its critics to Tbey say they tried to introduce an alternative, the Pro­ which Government secrets to publisi secrets to publish. They cannot, for, benefit of our public institutious and the publlc al tection of Official Iuformation Bill, but it was so widely if they could, all Government wouiovernment would become chaotic. Seventy five years is more tban enough. It's time criticised that they dropped it. "We tried to do it hut What it should mean is that the Gain is that the Government will now oue Judge said, to peusiou the Act off. The Treas no one would cooperate," they seem to say. "So it's your scrap Section 2 of the Act, whicli the Act, which makes everything and Civil Service Committee could perform a vital fault we're stuck with Section Two:' which happens inside Whitehall a sde Whitehall a secret . .. We need a vice by adding its recommendations to tbose of . This is, of course, a nonsense. The reason that their new law - but one to protect thee to protect the security of the na­ Franks Committee and in the meantime the Camps replacement was so widely criticised was because it was tion, not the faces ofpoliticians." ofpoliticians." , for Freedom of Information will do all in its powe more oppressive than Sectiou Two - it was a uegative Our evidence to the Treasury andthe Treasury and Civil Service com­ make this the last auniversary this "blot on the Sta piece of legislation instead of a positive piece. It entren- mittee (summarised on page 6) make on page 6) makes the Campaign for Book" is able to celebrate. controversial memeasure slipped past the House, ca, condemned ever since, but sti: still in use tod~

The original Official Secrets Act was removed by the 1911 Official Secrets from the press, the B, press, the Bill was ficial information. According to the their proposed new Bill. Thej passed nearly 100years ago, in 1889. Act. abandoned. I. report, now in the Public Record Of­ mended that measure to deal Like the 1911 Act whicb succeededit, Despite the new Act, leaks con­ At around this time concend this time concern over a fice, the First Lord of Admiralty, Mr publication of official info and remains in force today, it dealt tinued. In 1900 news of the Home possible war with Germany WLr with Germany was grow­ McKenna: "drew the attention of the should be agreed with represe with two quite separate subjects. Sec­ Secretary's decision to award a pay in­ ing. In 1909 a sub-committe>9 a sub-committee of the Sub-Committee to a case that had of the press and introduced se] tion 1covered espionage; Section2, the crease to the Mettopolitan Police ap­ Committee of Imperial e of Imperial Defence recently occurred ofsecret information The amendments to the 1 unauthorisation disclosure of official peared in tbe press before the official reported to ministers that "a ministers that Han exten­ being published in a daily paperregar­ should "apply only to ac information. announcement, and in 1909 a report sivesystemofGerman espionc 0/German espionage exists ding the construction ofa battleship. pionage, and should not On a number of notable occasionsin in this country". Suspicious ntry", Suspicious cases of clauses, the tendency ofwhie the preeeedingyears governments had foreigners seenstudyingand cseen studyingand correcting be to restrict thefreedom ofthe been severely embarrassed by leaked maps, taking measuremercing measurements and As an addedsafeguard they sl information appearing in the press. photographs near naval and 015 near naval and other sen­ introduced by the Secretaryof Some of the leaks were of military or sitivesitesbad been reported. 'lad been reported. The sub­ Warnot by the Home Office , diplomatic matters - others, sucb as committee, however, noted t~ however. noted that not a this might be done on the pi the premature disclosure of a possible single case bad been reporte bad been reported by the being a measure ofprecaution pay increase for postmen, were more police and that "Civilians are chat "Civilians are curiously importance to national d mundane. The governmentfound that apathetic in the matter", Inlz the matter", In one in­ And so, accordingto the pia it was unable to punish those whobad stance a foreign man accompreign man accompanied by Official SecretsBillwasintrod leaked the information in the courts. a German woman who co woman who could"not the House of Lords in July 19/ On two occasions those responsible speak English, appearediglish, appeared to be Secretary of State for W~ were prosecuted for theft of the taking a great .interest in ~reat .interest in the Lin­ Haldane; and a few weekslat grounds that they bad stolen the colnsbire coast. Although toast. Although the man taken into the House of Corm documents. Neither prosecution was claimed, somewhat implausibmewhat implausibly, that the Under Secretary of State f successful.One defendant was acquit­ his name was "Colonel Oibvas "Colonel Gibson" he Coloney Seely. ted because there was no evidence he was known locally as "the n locally as "the German The government presented tl had attempted to permanently deprive spy", an urgent - but remark the government ofany article; charges Altogether, the sub -coher, the sub-committee tightening up of the anti-es against the otherweredismissedwben found some 70 cases of alhe 70 cases of alleged es­ provisions of the old 1889 A it was realised that the civilservant­ pionage in the previous 15mothe previous 15months and, oney Seely promised that "tl. a temporary clerkin the ForeignOffice "A Government wbicb pursues seriously alarmed, report alarmed, reported that change in the law is slight" 8 - had merelymemorised the text ofa secret aims, or wbicb operates in stronger powers to deal with sjwers to deal with spies were "none ofHis Majesty's loyal confidential document and written it essential. It recommended fit recommended the anti­ " I would like to see tbe Official run the least risk whatever Q greater secrecy than the effective Secrets Act repealed 'lock, stock out later. condnct of its proper functions re­ espionage section of the 1889section of the 1889Official their libertiesinfringed in any c The 1889 Official Secrets Act was Secrets Act should be strengtt sbould be strengthened: a and barrel' and replaced by a mucb particular whatever", designedto preventsucb leaks. Indeed, qnires, orwbicb turns information wider range of militarily sense of militarily sensitive sites more narrowly defined protective The Bill was introduced ( in its rust draft it was know as the services into propoganda agencies, should be covered; new pc covered; new powers of measure and by a Freedom of In­ constitutional crisis, and at "BreacbofOfficialTrust Bill". It was will lose the trust of the people." search and arrest introduced arrest introduced; and a formation Act" LordScarman. when war was feared to be im only in later drafts that anti-spying LordFranks. change made in the stan.ade in the standard of Four daysbefore the Billwas1 measures were of given greater evidence required for a conviequired for a conviction , The in the Lords LloydGeorgehad prominence. about undelivered old age pension prosecution should no longem should no longer have to In thepresentstate ofthe law we were warnedGermanythat it risked Under Section 2 ofthe 1889Act, a books was described in the papers prove that a person found nesaperson found near a 'pro­ unable to prosecute the editor ofthis ing war. In this tense atrnosphe civil servantor government contractor before it was given to Parliament. Such hibited' military sitewas engailitary sitewas engagedin an paper for publishing this information; allowed the Bill to be rushed committed an offence if be com­ incidents convinced the government act of espionage; instead nionage; instead the onus and, even ifwe weretofind out theper­ the Commons in 30 minutes municated official information "cor­ that to control leakstheyneededpower should be placed on the ao placed on the accused to son who gave the information to the debate. Section 2 of the new urptlyor contrary to his officialduty" to take action against those wbo show that he was not there fhe was not there for some paper. it would be undesirable to in­ never once mentioned - and ~ to a person to whom Hit ought not, in published information as wellas those wrongful purpose, mrpose. stitute proceedings against him, since made no attempt to explain the interest ofthe State or otherwise in wbodisclosedit. In 1908 a newOfficial The sub-committee believ-committee believed there in doing so we should be compelled to powers it introduced, Minister! the public interest, to be com­ Secrets Billwasintroduced. This would would be widespreadsupport ridespreadsupport in Parlia­ vouch for the truth ofthe information explain - and no-one else ap' municatedat thattime". This , inciden­ have made it an offenceto publish cer­ ment for such new ant such new anti-SPYing published. Mr McKenna therefore con­ noticed - that the new sectu tally, allowed a person charged with tain kinds of official information if measures. The Admiralty, t The Admiralty, however, sidered it desirable that "The Official catch the press. The mere recei wrongfuldisclosureto justify his acton publication was not in the interests of wanted to go further and go further and sought Secrets Act, 1889" should be amended ficial information disclosed public interest grounds, a defence tbe Srate. Followingstrong opposition powersto control thepublicatinntrol thepublication of of- in such Q manner as to enable the authorisation became an Government to prosecutepersons who anyone who communicated SUI knowingly published secret informo­ mation - for example by pu tion:" it in a newspaper - was also iJ continuecl•• continUed 'The sub-committee however con­ of the law; and the opportur -Ion TwO'S 'WI-de scope' frOm- ...previous PI previous page cluded that such measures would be existed under the 1889 Act I sect politically unacceptable. The Official that the communication was Secrets Bill introduced in 1908 had in the public interest was official information wbicb tbe protecting secret information. would provide crimprovide criminal fallen because it attempted to introduce removed, government wisbes to suppress Those whose jobs may bring penalties only for unauthoonly for unauthorised such controls: the sub-committee were risks imprisonment. them into contact with highly disclosure of informatior of information of not prepared to similarly jeopardise The Franks Committee came sensitive information are vetted real importance. The reortance. The recom­ to the conclusion that change before appointment. The infor­ mended protected categprotected categories was essential. It considered mation itself is classified accor­ were: whether section 2 could ding to the potential damage (a) classified informaified information What section TwO S~ somehow be amended to make that would be caused by its about defence, secu defence, security, it more acceptable, and decid­ disclosure. The classifications foreign relations or then relations or the cur­ (1) If any person baving in his possession or control any. ed it could not. "The only run from 'Restricted' to 'Con­ rency or reserves " or reserves where information •.. wbicb bas been . •. obtained in contravi satisfactory treatmentfor a law fidential', 'Secret' and 'Top unauthorised disclothorised disclosure tion of tbis Act, or wbicb bas been entrusted in confide. sufferingfrom so many defects" Secret' with correspondingly would cause serious iri cause serious injury to bim by any person bolding office under ber Majesty it concluded " is to sweep it strict security measures (eg to the interests ofie interests of the wbicb be bad obtained or to wbicb be bas bad access owi away entirely". locking documents in safes) as nation. n. to bis position as a person wbo bolds or bas beld offl Franks pointed out that sec­ the classification rises. (b) information likely to mation likely to assist under Her Majesty, or as a person wbo bolds or has hel' tion 2 was far from beiug the Third, those whose handliug criminal activities ornal activities or im­ contract made on bebalf ofHerMajesty oras a person w only control over official infor­ ofinformation is unreliable are pede law enforcementlaw enforcement is or bas been employed under a person wbo bolds or ~ mation. Other significant unlikely to enjoy a fruitful (c) Cabinet documents let documents held sucb an office or contract ..• restrictions exist, often playing career. They may fail to obtain (a)communicates tbe ... information to any person, ott (d) information obtained nation obtained from a much greater part. promotion or find themselves in tban a person to wbom be is autborised to communicr First there are a large number unimportant jobs with little a private individuaivate individual or it, or a person to wbom it is in tbe interest of tbe State I of specific statutory restrictions responsibility. concern .rn duty to communicate it; or: on the disclosure of informa­ The natural incentive to good (e) official information o.al information of any (b)retains the ... documention bis possession or conn tion. Much of the information behaviour is supplemented by kind if it was ( if it was com­ wben be bas no rigbt to retain it or wben it is contrary obtained by government from the risk of internal disciplinary municated or used.cated or used for bis duty to retain it, or fails to comply witb all directio individuals or businesses must, proceedings for anyone leaking private gain. te gain. issued by lawful autbority witb regard to tbe return by law, be kept secret. In 1980 information. Penalties may disposal tbereof •. • there were 89 separate statutes range from a reprimand to Unauthorised disclosuhorised disclosure of tbat person shall be gnilty of a misdemeanor ... imposing restrictions on the dismissal. other, less important infcs important informa­ (2) If any person receives any , •• information, knowing or I disclosure of specified The Franks Committee recom­ tion, though they migbugh they might be ing reasonable llround to believe, at tbe time wben be rece information. mended that section 2 should be punished by discipld by disciplinary it, tbat tbe •• • mformation is communicated to bim in c Second, the government has repealed and replaced by a new measures, would no longe, would no longer be a travention of tbis Act, be shall be gnilt of a misdemeai its own formal procedures for criminal offence. offence. unless be proves tbat tbe communication to bim of Official Information Act which ... information was contrary to his desire." The section TwO routoute to the Old Bailey All civil servants are made aware of •The organiser of a 1978 confe rence Disease' recommended de' recommended that adults section 2 from the day they begin their on waste recycling was threatened - but not young chit not young children ­ employment. Virtually the first thing with prosecution under sectio n 2 should cut their dietary cut their dietary intake of they are required to do is "sign the Of­ for proposing to distribute to con­ fats . The report stated thhe report stated that the ex­ ficial Secrets Ace' The declaration they ference participants the text of a ception for young chilo for young child ren was sign has no legal force (everyone who talk they had just heard a civil ser­ based on the advice of thon the advice of the Depart­ has access to official information is vant deliver. The civil servant's ment's Panel on Child r Panel on Child Nutrition. subject to the Official Secrets Act paper, entitled 'The Importance of No evidence to sup port tdence to support this advice Duncan Campbell.. whethe r they sign a declaration or not) Recycling' was, according to the was given. When a memben. When a member of the but serves to emphasizethe importance conference organiser Dr John Panel was asked to explaiwas asked to explain why the Jonathan Aitken Convicted - but attached to secrecy: Durant 11 rather bland, typical civil children had been excen had been excepted she UMyattentionhas beendrawnto the service paper making the right replied: 'I've signed the: 'I've signed the Official Cleared ditionally discharg provisions ofthe Official Secrets Acts kinds ofnoises about how good it Secrets Act; J cannot co; Act; J cannot comment: set out on the back oj this document was to conserve materials. From Such obsessive secrecy is nsessive secrecy is reinforced • and I am fully aware of the serious what I can remember of his talk by the regular appearance arular appearance at the Old consequences which may follow any there was no suggestion that any Bailey of officials who haveofficials who have overstep­ breach oftheseprovisions . . . significant information wasinvolv ­ ped the mark in the disclosiark in the disclosures they "I am aware that I sho uld not ed. There was nothing specific have made. e. divulgeany in/ormation gainedby me enough to be of any commercial Some of the prosecutionsf the prosecutions brought as a result ofmy appointment to any value to anyone": Like other under section 2 have rectio n 2 have related to unauthorised person, either orally or speakers, the civil servant had pro- disclosures that were obvious that were obvio usly made in writing, withoutthepreviousofficial for criminal, corrupt or otheal, corrupt or otherwise im- sanction in writingofthe Department proper purposes. irposes. appointing me, to which written ap­ Uis the section (two) necessary From the very first, prosie very first , prosecutions, p lication should be made and two anyway?. •• Tbe Kingdom en­ have been brought againn brought against those copies ofthe proposedpublication be dured for bundreds of years disclosing information to thrinformation to the press ­ forwarded. I understand also that I am without it. I could add many an d against the journalists ist the journalists who used liable to be prosecuted if I publish it. A 1930 Home Office memHome Office memorandum otber worries I bave over this without official sanctionany informa­ (now in the Public Recordhe P ublic Record Office) tion I may acquire in the course ofmy section bu t perbaps It Is suffi­ cient to say tbat I tblnk the sec­ made it clear that the Offici.ear that the Official Secrets tenu re ofan official appointment . .. Act was seen as an essentiaeen as an essential defence and that these provisions apply not tion In Its present fonn could be .against cheque-book jotcheque-book journalism. viciously or capriciously used by Sarah Tisdall Clive Ponting only during the period ofmy appoint­ an embarrassed Executive." Newspapers, it noted, were :rs, it noted, were prepared ment but also after my appointment Th. Han. Mr Justie« Caulfield "to p ay enormous sums fomo rmous sums for a sensa­ has ceased"; tional item. The amounts th... The amounts they payfor 6 months in prison Cleared When the then-Cabinet Secretary, (th. judge In a 1971 Seaton 2 trail involving the Sunday p ure rubbish afford some 'ish afford some guide to they were consistently critical of the condemned with him for the Sir Burke Trend, appeared before the 1t1.graph). what they wou ld pay folY wou ld pay for official department's inefficiency and excessive was innocent. The court was 1 Franks Committee in 1971 he referred secrets. When a lady doctl/hen a lady doctor falsely spending. a Home Office circular had e to the psychological effect of the alleged she had swum the Che hadswum the Channel, her One article, submitted in evidence, ordered that statements made Official Secrets Act on civil servants. vided a written copy of his talk to boatman got £300 for a shcgot £300 for a sho rt verbal mocked officials for deciding to con­ demned prisoners were to be Asked if it affected eventhe most senior distr ibute to any of the participants yarn . . . The Press oftodayThe Press oftoday, and still tinue re-issuing, in separate volumes, ed to no-one but the Under S officials he replied: "On civilservants as who wanted it. Shortly afterwards, more the Press oftomorrow,Press oftomorrow, must not already-published parliamentary of State. Governors were in a whole certainly yes, I would say tbat. he rang up and urgently demand­ be lef t free to tempt Offi..e to tempt Officials and debates about the War Office. "War or that, even if in the course of ar Do not misunderstand me, I am not ed its return - presumably because others to make disclosures, make disclosures, the Press no war; economy or no economy, the on an executed criminal, the ' saying that you say to yourself 'IfI say he had forgotten to obtain the itself remainingfree from aainingfree from any liabili­ issue of these precious volumes of shoul d ask whether the con something to X will I be breaching the necessary au thorisation. John ty .. . copious extracts from long-winded man had made a confessie Official Secrets Act?' Butyou are con­ Durant recalls: "He left me in no The first section 2 case invetsection 2 case involving the parliamentary debates is to continue as answer was to be: (OJ have no scious that at the back of everything doubt that not only he but I would press occurred in 1916, when trredin 1916, when a War Of­ ofyore. I hope they will not be pigean­ ity to say whether the prisoner you say anddo a// day long there is this technically be liable to prosecution fice clerk was prosecuted fo was prosecuted for passing holed on receipt or thoughtlessly fessed or not': Major Blake ' tremendous sanction." under the Official Secrets Act were information to the Militot: to the Military Mail mislaid . .." wrote "Mars", victed, fined £250 and ordere What in fact happens is that civil I not to send him back the paper': newspaper. The revelaticr. The revelations were Other revelations included the eno r­ the prosecution's costs . servants are conditioned to regard pro­ The paper was duly returned. In the featured in a regular column a regular column entitled mous sums being spent on setti ng-up viding any information to the public event, not a single participant at the 'Heard in Whitehall' ann Whitehall' and signed canteens overseas; the precise number The Lansbury Casl as a potentially criminal act. The result conference asked for it. 'Mars'. Although the clerk wahough the clerk was paid for of women employed in various sections In 1934 the son of the Lead is an obsession with secrecy which at • The Department of Health's 1984 his informati on, it was the nation, it was the nature of of the War Office ("Mars" believed Labour Party, George Lansb times borders on the ludicrous: report 'Diet and Cardiovascular the arti cles that must have sns that must have stung - for they were responsible for the red-tape); prosecuted as a result of a boo the over-issue of proficiency pay to cer­ written about his fathe r. The I tain army gymnastics instructors; the ed info rmation obtained fr sums written off as trading losses at an army depot; the outfit allowance Cabinet memoranda on the ur received by a certain official; and, in ment situation. The pror an article entitled "War Office Staff argued that he could only hav Wasting Their Time", an ironic ac­ ed these in contravention of count of the wayan unnamed but ficial Secrets Act, although the highly-paid senior offieer idled away maintained that the informa his time at public expense. previously become pub lic. Both the clerk who disclosed the in­ Lansbury was convicted and fi formation , and his contact at the His father, who it was recogni Military Mail were convicted under have given him the memo rat section 2. Each was sentenced to two months imprisonment. not, however, prosecuted . In 1926,the former governor of Pen­ tonville Prison, Major FWHBlake was The Sandys Affair prosecuted under section 2 for an ar­ In 1939 a case occurred ticle containing his remin iscences though it did not involve the p which he had written in the London of great significance. A Con Evening News. The article described a Member of Parliament, Mr conversation between the governor and Sandys, was warned that he ri: "We will h ono ur our pledge of "Section Tho bas become Indefen­ "We need a full FOI Aced a full FOI Act .. • and a condemned murderer on the morn­ secution for failing to name FOI (and repeal of Section Tho) as sible, • • we plan a Freedom of to repeal tbe totally unad tbe totally unacceptable ing of his execution. The article said the condemned man had expressed son who provided him with I a priority." Information and Expression Act!' Official Se crets Act." SecretsAct." tion which he had used in as Rt Hon Neil Kinnock, Leader of Rt Hon David Owen, Leader of R t Hon David Steel, LeaIDavid Steel, Leader of the remorse, and had insisted that the Continued on the Labou r Party. tbe SDP. Liberal Party. Party. murdered man's wife, who had been , t . C

"I am a convert to a realistic FOI "Section Tho of tbe Official "I now believe tbe case is~elieve the case is made fo r Act to replace the Official Secrets Secrets Act is now almost totally repeal of Section Tho • ,f Section Tho •• !' Act." "I would like to see the n discredited!' Sir Douglas Wass KC1Jlglas Wass KCB, former Sir Patrick Nairne KCB, CB Section Two ..." Rt Hon Lord Elwyn Jones, Pc, Joint Head of tbe Home ead of tbe Home Civil Ser­ former Permanent Secretary at the Sir RobertMark former ( CN, KC, former Attorney General. vice. DHSS. sloner of the Metropolital what senior civilivil campaign's evidence • to select Committee III servants want A sub-committee of tbe Treasury and Civil Service Committe enquiring into the dnties and responsibilities of Civil Servants There are three reaso ns why the by John Ward Ministers, taking as its starting point the Memorandum on tI FDA wants Section 2 of the Of­ General Secretary of tbe First Division Associationn Association of issues circulated by tbe Head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Rol ficial Secrets Act repealed. It is a Civil Servants. Armstrong in February 1985. Below is an extract from the C bad law, it is ineffective and it is paign's evidence to that sub-committee: a major cause of the excessive An FoI Act would spell out what Secrets Act it is an offset it is an offence to secrecy which afflicts government information is available by law, to disclose to an unauthoriseo an unauthorised person You will not be surprised that we elected representatives of the in Britain. whom and how they can obtain it. any information they hrmation they have ac­ believe the bestform of government pie, but once elected, they bec The Official Secrets Act should In the meantime leaking should be quired through their officizough their official duties (the most accountable, efficient, their governors and thus subje be concerned with treachery treated as an internal disciplinary unless they have received :y have received official fair and honest, error-proof and conflicting pressures, two outs towards the State. Instead Section matter and normal civil service permission. Indeed on enten. Indeed on entering the participatory) is ope n government. ding ones being the desire to m 2 was used against FDA member procedures followed. service they have to sign a ey have to sign a declara­ We believe Section Two of the tain power, and the desire to e Clive Ponting because he passed So long as Section 2 remains on tion that they understani they understand "that OfficialSecrets Act, 1911, should be cise it with the minimum two internal Ministry of Defence the statute book, and despite the serious consequences maymsequences may follow reviewed, and we confidently obstruction. Thus, while a believethat an objective review can representative of the people documents not to the agent of a Ponting verdict, Ministers might any breach" of Section 2.h" of Section 2. lead to only one conclusion: that Minis ter may acknowledge the foreign power but to a Member of still be tempted to bring a criminal Ultimately it is Ministeely it is Ministers who the Official Secrets Act should be portance of their access to infoi Parliament. The documents con­ prosecution against a civil servant authorise disclosure. In disclosure. In reality repealed, and that it, together with tion, as a governo r of the peopl tained information which ministers who causes them political embar­ there is a large amount , large amount of self­ all other relevant rules and regula­ or she may have a vested intere wanted to withhold from Parlia­ rassment. Not only is this wrong authorisation. Or rather seion. Or rather self-non­ tions , should be replaced by a more secrecy. ment and their release caused but it has proved ineffective. This authorisation. With their aiion. With their attention creative and positive meas ure, a Ofcourse it is said that Minis political embarrassment. It was is hardly surprising when most drawn to Section 2 and a Section 2 and a govern­ Freedom of Info rmation Act, in­ who are responsible for t never alleged that they endangered leaks occur when people are pro­ ment disposed to use it Dosed to use it in cases corporating no n-disclosure clauses departmental affairs, are aco the security of the State. foundly tro ubled by their cons­ where national security isional security is not at and penalties, and creating cir­ table directly to the Houseof C The FDA does not approve of cumstances in which civil servants mons, to whom they have to an cience. As Sir Douglas Wass has stake, civil servants inevitaj servan ts inevitably play havethe authority, indeedthe duty, leaking. Whatever the mot ives of said, such breaches of trust can safe. If in do ubt they inert do ubt they increase the questions, and that this is the to make information available tidote to excessive secrecy. As the leaker and the circumstances of best be avoided "when govern­ classification of a documeiion of a document. If in except where it falls with in specific Fulton Committee on the Civil the particular case, leaking is a ments behave honourably, openly doub t they do not disclosy do not disclose. exempted areas. vice said "this assumption i~ form of disloyalty to the employer. and without deviousness and Thus the attitude engende attitude engendered by At the same time, and in no way longer tenable. The Minister ani Of course that is not the end of the deceit". The best way to stop leaks Section 2 pervades Whitehpervades Whitehall . All in contradiction, we accept the ju nior Ministers cannot knov story: there must be procedures for would be to liberalise the flow of official inform ation is regaformation is regarded as principle of the 1985 memorandum that is going on ... nor can civil servants to follow if they are official information. private to the government the government, unless that confidence needs to be main­ nowadays be present at every fo under pressure from ministers to If Section 2 fails to deter leakers, someone has authoris has authorised its tained betwee n ministers and civil where legitimate questions are withhold information which their it does have a damaging effect on disclosure, instead of being instead of being public servants. ed about departme We stress this critical point: that consciences tell them should be the conduct of government in unles s there is good reaere is good reason for activities .... " to advocate a mo re open ap proach What is the case for action n published . The FDA is working on Britain. It conditions the official making it confidential. Se confidential. Section 2 is not to reject the importance of First, simply because Britain a code of ethics which would in­ attitude to the disclosure of infor­ is at the heart of the e: heart of the excessive confidentiality where it is clearly become excessively secretive te corporate such procedures mation in Whitehall. Civil servants secrecy that afflicts the prcat afflicts the process of necessary, and is not to reject the point where it is (a) difficu lt fo although this problem will not be are reminded in the Civil Service government tod ay. There nt today. There can be need for trust between any group public to appreciate where p' satisfactorily resolved until we have Pay and Conditions of Service little real progress to pro progress to proper ac­ of individuals, including between and influence lies, (b) possibh a Freedom of Information Act. Code that under the Official coun tability witho ut its nity without its repeal. Ministers and civil servants. public servants not to be prot We have always argued that a accountable,(c) impossible fo more open approach has a double public to participate effectivef benefit:the first, the availability of possible for justice not to be the maximum possible informa­ to be done, and (e) possible section TwO route to the Old-Baild Bailey tion, is obvious; the second, im­ erro r and inefficiency to incr proved protection of necessarily an d remain undetected. Continued/rom previous page whichthe Attorney General had decid­ by the Defence Secretary lefence Secretary Michael confidential information, may be Second, the quality of pI for a Parliamentary Question. The ed who to prosecute and demanding Heseltine and sent them to 1and sent them to the Guar­ less so. making would be improved if c question dealt with the anti-aircraft that he be prosecuted as well. In his dian newspaper. Both concspaper, Both concerned the The fact is, however, that in­ the information developed foi defences around London and revealed summingup to the jury, the judge,Mr arrival of cruise missiles at (cruise missiles at Greenham discriminate secrecy reduces respect formulation of policy were ope Common. One dealt with th One dealt with the precau­ for secrecy; within an open ap ­ wider analysis, correction, that Sandys had precise knowledgeof Justice Caulfield warned about the proach, a consensus on what inadequacies in the arrangements. The dangers of muzzling the press and sug­ tionsto betaken at the RAP btaken at the RAPbasewhen criticism. should remain secret becomes Third, the more it can be p War Office reacted with outrage to the gested that the government might con­ they arrived, the other withed, the ot her with how the easier to achieve. ble for the public to unders fact that Sandys should havehad ac­ sider whether it was time for section Government might handle tent might handle the public Accepting the need for confiden­ what is being done and whYI cess to such information. He was in­ 2 to be 'pensioned off' and replaced relations aspect of the arrhaspect of the arrival. tial exchanges between Ministers more likely it will be that a nati terviewed by the Attorney Generaland by a new measure under which people SarahTisdallwas chargedrisdallwascharged undersec­ and civil servants, we have always consensus can be developed warned that he risked two years im­ would havea clear idea of where they tion 2, with the p ro with the prosecution argued that an exemption from a major issues. Hence the corm prisonment under section 6 of the 1920 stood in handlingofficialinformation. acknowledging that no dging that no harm to statutory right to know would be of Sir John Hoskyns that "( Official Secrets Act if he refused to All four defendants were acquitted. national security had beencaecurity had beencaused. She information "breaching the con­ government is not fashionable fidentiality of advice, opinion or tion but a pre-condition for identify his source. (Sectio n 6 required pleaded guil ty and in a senteuilty and in a sente nce whose recommendation inte nded for the a perso n to disclose all info rmation in severit y cause widespread shuse widespread shock, was serious attempt to solve Brit purposes of policy making". un derlying problems". his possess ion about any suspected of­ The ABC case given 6 month s imprisonmeont hs imprisonment. The support for the Campaign fence under the 1911 Act.) Themilitary In 1977, two journalists and an ex­ Later in 1984Clive Pouting 1984 Clive Ponting,a senior for Freedom of Informa tion from Section Two of the Offici, chiefseven attempted to have the MP soldier from a signals mo nitoring unit civil servantin the Ministry ontin the Ministry of Defence all of the Civil Service Trade Secrets Act - who was an officer in the Territorial in Cyprus, whom they had just inter­ was charge d un der section ~ed under section 2 for sen­ Unions, including the First Division Army - brought before a military viewed, were arrested and charged ding two documents about tHocuments about the sinking Association, does not reflect a desire on their par t to create for Youask the question "In the court of inquiry. An outcry at this In­ under both sections I and 2 of the Of­ of the Argenti nian cruiser thjentin ian cruiser the General of the Ponting trial is Section terference with parliamentary privilege ficial Secrets Act, in what became Belgrano during the Falklanduring the Falklands war to civil servants the opportunity for political act ivity, or to allow in­ of the Official Secrets Act stil Labour MP Tam Dalyel!. C1P Tam Dalyell, One was a ensued; a select committee investigated knownas the ABC case. Although the discriminate leaking, but rather forceable?" the affair; and the ou tcome was the information involved was not in itself draft reply that he hadily that he had himself reflects thei r desire to operate with The satisfactory answer is ' Official Secrets Act 1939, which classified, the section 1 charges were prepared for ministers to usdor ministers to use in reply­ confidence within a system which knows? ". amended section 6 of the 1920 Act. brought on the grounds that, when ing to Questions about the ~stions abo ut the Belgrano's contains three ingredients: The jury in the Ponting The effect was to limit the powers of drawn together it might be useful to an pos ition and course at the tmd course at the time it was demonstrated that confronted • Firs t, clarity, so that they know an unsatisfactory piece of law detected. The other was at The other was an internal interrogation under section 6 to enemy. These charges were dropped where they stand; a judge's all-but instruction to suspected espionage offences. during the trial when it became clear minute outlining the goveutlining the government's • Second,one that isdefensible to viet, it would not do so. that much of the supposedly secret in­ strategy for withholding infor withholding information the public and likely to increase confidence and goodwill Is it really necessary to quoi Aitken Cha rged formation was in fact freely available from an enquiry into the mamquiry into the matter by the tensively from the report 01 In 1971, theSunday Telegraph publish­ from published sources. House of Co mo ns Select C Comons Select Committee towards the Civil Service . •Third, a system that they Franks Committee? This was, ed extracts from a confidential report Duncan Campbell and Crispin on Foreign Affairs. Neither al Affairs. Neither document themselves can respect. all, set up specifically to stud: con tain ed classified informa classified informa tio n, and question of Section Tho an produced in the British HighCommis­ Aubrey, the two journalists, were They want to be seen to be open. sion in Lagos describing the extent of charged with the section 2 offence of during the trial the pnhe trial the prosecution conclusion was a devastating At thesametime, theywant to work que of legislation it described , British military aid to the federal 'receiving' imp roperly disclosed infor­ acknowledged that the disclclged that the disclosures had ­ within a consensus on what should not jeopardised national secrdised national security. The mess". It is really necessary to c Nigerian government during Biafran mation, despite the fact that the be secret, a consensus not just bet­ the many distinguished ju war. The publication seemed to con­ government had recently announced defence argued tht althcargued tht although the ween the mselves and Ministers, but poli ticians, former senior tradi ct sta tements made in the House that it proposed to amend the law, as disclosures were not authoriss were not authorised, no of­ between themselves and the public. servants, and others who belie of Commons by Ministers about the Franks had recommended, so that the fence had been committed I been committed since the There is no reason why we should should be repealed? amount of arms being supplied to mere receipt of information would no com mu nication was in the ication was in the inte rest of not achieve such a cons ensus. You ask whether we need a ' Nigeria. The report had passed longer be an offence. All three defen­ the State - showing, as it die- showing, as it did, that the definiti on" of secrecy. through may hands before being dants were convicted on the section 2 government was deceiving Prnt was deceiving Parliament. Yes, a new definition is nee published and charges were eventual­ charges. The former soldier received a The judg e, Mr Justice Mge, Mr Justice McCowan, The Case for Freedom of based on one simple principle: ly brought aga inst four of the links in 6-months suspended sentence. The two ruled that this argument wa this argument was not ac­ Information no information should be th e chain including Jonathan Aitken, ceptable and directed the junnd directed the jury that the Essential to democracy is the cor­ secret unless it fits within a cat. journalists were co nditionally rectbalance between the ability and on which there is a broad a freelance journalist (now a Conser­ discharged but ordered to pay £2,500 words in section 2 'in the isection 2 'in the interest of freedom to govern of those elected established consensus that vative MP), and against the editor of towards costs. The effect of the trial State' meant the policies ofant the policies of the State, andlor appointed to do so, and the public is better served by sec the Sunday Telegraph. and sente nces was to further discredit which were those of the gore those of the government ability and freedom of citizens to than openness. Some of those who had passed the section 2. then in power. The ju ry, hoower, The jury, however, ap­ maintain surveillance over, and in­ A document shou ld not be ~ repor t on witho ut authorisation in­ pear to have disregarded thieve disregarded this direction fluence the policies and practice of ju st because it is an official c cluded senior figures who were not Tisdall and Po nting - which amounted to virtu amounted to virtually an in­ their elected and appointe d ment. It sho uld be secret bee charged. One of these, the Conser­ In 1984, SarahTisdall, a clerk in the str uction to convict - ar to convict - and in an servants. it fits within an official defin vative MP Hugh Fraser wrote to the private office of the Foreign Secretary unanimous verdict Clive Pros verdict Clive Ponting was Ministers are, of course, the of what sho uld be secret. Times denou ncing th ar bitrary way in photocopied two memoranda written acq uitted. The Campaign for Freedom Ralph Nader honouroured of Information for"20-years campaig]aign 3 Endsleigh Street, London WCIH ODDTel: 01-278 9686 Supporting Organisations The renowned American citizen psychiatric wing. Planning applications ling applications are adver­ NationalCouncil for Campaign for Pressand National Union 01 Voluntary Broadcasting Freedom Employees acitivist, Ralph Nader, whose She did it in order to draw atten­ tised in a weekly list. Thea weekly list. The planning Organisations British Safety Co uncil Civil and Public S famous book on the American tion to the fact that women in the sub-committee, like all tlumittee, like all the author­ Town and Country Fire Brigades Union Association motor car industry entitled "Not psychiatric wing were being sub ­ ity's sub-committees, is oj-committees, is open to the Planning Association NCCL Society ofCivil an safe at any speed" was published jected to a highly punitive regime, public and meets in the end meets in the early even­ Advisory Centre for National Association of Servants Education Community Health Institution of Prol 20 years ago, is honoured in the while being denied urgently needed ing when many people "n many people who are at The Patients' Assn Councils for England & Civil Servants 1985 Freedom of Information medical and therapeutic help. work during the day earring the day can attend. The National Union of Wales LibraryAssociatic Awards. Cases of attempted suicide and When people arrive the ceople arrive the committee Journalists National Graphical National and Leer The Awards are being presented self-mutilation have resulted clerk makes a list ofthosakes a list ofthose planning Community Rights Project Association Government OJ Legal Action Group Iron and SteelTrades Association by the Leader of the Opposition, amongst inmates who were in applications which concdons which concern them. Friends of the Earth Confederation Association of the Rt HOJi Neil Kinnock, before despair at their conditions. The application which plication which concerns MIND Campaign for People Cinematograph more than;200:politicians, media Less than 10"70 of the women in the largest number ogest number of people SOGAT '82 withMentalHandicaps Television & All personalities and supporters ofthe the psychiatric wing had been attending is then dealt \Ig is then dealt with first; Transport 2000 National Union of Technicians Shelter Students London Food COl Campaign, in London early in sentenced to terms of imprison­ that with the 2nd largesh the 2nd largest number BUAV Writers' Guild ofGreat World Developme January. ment. Most were on remand, and of interested people preested people present, next CLEAR Britain Movement Ralph Nader, who has been a many had not been convicted of - and so on. After the so on. After the planning Social Audit Cancer Prevention Society consistent advocate of the any offence. officer has presented hhas presented his assess­ Observer Organisations American Freedom of Informa­ ment and recommendmd recommendation on National Consumer Council Entertainment Tea tion legislature, and who inspired each application he is qplication he is questioned Council Friends ofthe Earth Alliance the launch of the British cam­ Consumers' Association (Scotland) British Youth Cou in public by the sub-como by the sub-committee. A The National Gas USOAW First Division Ass( paign, receives a special Award for representative of any uative of any objectors ConsumersCouncil National Peace Council ofCivil Servant his contribution to freedom of present is then invited to 5S then invited to speak and The Childrens Legal National Council for the National Federatk information internationally. may be questioned by questioned by the sub­ Centre Welfare ofPrisoners Women's Instill Child Po verty Action Abroad Workers Educatio The judges (Jonathan Aitken MP, committee. Finally, the apee, Finally, the applicant is Group Guild ofBritish Association Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd, James allowed to speak and agaito speak and again may be Gingerbread Newspaper Editors General Municipal Bishop (editor of lllustrated Lon­ questioned. The sub-coed. The sub-committee National Federation of Church ofEngland Board Boilermakers & .don News), James Cornford and then debates the apjebates the application Self-Employed and of Social Responsibility Trades Union Small Businesses Prison Refonn Trust London Regional 'Des Wilson) made two media publicly, and reaches its d and reaches its decision in Earth Resources Research National Energy Passenger COItU 'awards, open session. ssion, Scottish Consumer Efficiency Forum One goes to Granada 'Iele­ At a time when rna time when many local David Baldock vision's programme 'World in authorities still exclude ties still exclude the public Council for Freedom of Information James Michael Action' for a series of programmes (The Policy-making forum for thecampaign) Patricia Hewitt from planning sub-coilanning sub-committees James Comford (Chair) Andy Whyte Martin Smith on freedom of information or on altogether, Calderdaleier, Calderdale MBC's Des Wilson Tom Berney Ron Bailey excessivesecrecy, including 'Taken arrangements provide a ments provide a model of Lord Morris Arthur Ormond Vincent Hanna on Trust', a film on official infor­ open practice which the Cictice which the Campaign Lord Avebury Mary McAnally Peter Gibson mation withheld on agricultural hopes will be widely fol-ill be widely followed. Lord Donoughue Suzanne Palfreyman Jenny Kuper chemicals and drugs, and 'The Robin Squire MP, above, Harold Evans George Cunningham WHPWhatley receives tbe Award for the A new standard for pull standard for public access Christopher Price Valerie Ellis Ron Baird Great Food Scandal', on the food - which goes considerabr goes considerably beyond DameElizabeth Ackroyd John Ward Alistair Beaton individual to have donethemost Peter Jay Margaret Jeffrey industry's with-holding of infor­ to further freedom of infor­ that required under the :uired under the new 1986 DaphneGross mation relating to dangerous diets. David Hall Faith Lawson Tom Berney mation in 1985. Act - has now been set las now been set by Leeds Godfrey Bradman Sarah Cowthra Paul Hassan The second Award goes to David Mr Squire came third in the City Council, Council, another Neil McIntosh Christine Horton Sally Hughes Leigh of The Observer, who with Private Members Ballotin 1984 award-winner. vinner. William Bingley Nancy Tait John Jennings his colleague, Paul Lashmer, has and last year piloted the Local The Act gives membesct gives members of the The Bishop of Charles Medawar Tim Lang fought a tenacious campaign for Government (Access to Infor­ public the right to see bane right to see background Birmingham Geraldine Van Bueren Sheila McKecknic mation) Bill past both Houses Ronald Lacey Esther Rantzen UnaPadel the publication of the names of papers relating to any relating to any item dis­ Alex Henney LizDavies Russell Price magistrates in court proceedings of Parllament SO that it becomes law in April of this year. cussed in public at a mecn public at a meeting of a Julie Kaufman John Winward Sarah Spencer and against abuses of the con­ local authority or one ofthority or one of its com­ JamesTye JoRoll George Jerome As a resultof his efforts,local Dave Higgs Ralph Jackson Kim Stallwood tempt of Court Act, and who administrations throughout Bri­ mittees or sub-committ or sub-committees. The broke the BBC vetting story. Leigh tain will be more open and peo­ right applies to documerplies to documents which Tbe Committee for Freedom of Information was the one reporter with the ple wUl have greater rights of have been relied on by ren relied on by an officer (The Campaign management committee) Neil McIntosh courage to report the extraordinary access. DesWilson (Chair) Charles Medawar Tony Smythe in preparing a report aring a report for the James Cornford David Hall Christopher Price exchange between the judge and fl createsa right in lawto at­ meeting. . James Michael Richard Glutch Martin Smith prosecution in the Ponting Case in tend Council Sub-committee Though this is a majorgh this is a major step for­ Ron Bailey Ron Lacey Jacob Ecclestone which the prosecution pleaded meetings, and an entitlement to ward, it involves a nu involves a number of All-Party Parliamentary Advisory Committee with the judge not to instruct the see the minutes of all Council, Committees and Sub-committee significant restrictions whnt restrictions which Leeds Jonathan Aitken (Con) Jeff Rooker (Lab) Cymru) jury to convict; Leigh correctly meetings and all reports being City council have now dencil have now decided are Sir Bernard Braine (Con) Robert Kilroy-Silk (Lab) Donald Stewart (~ deduced that the judge had not discussed at these meetings, in­ not necessary. The Coiessary, The Council has Robin Squire(Con) Michael Meadowcroft Allan Roberts (Lal legally banned reporting of these Charles Irving (Con) (Lib) Chris Smirh (Lab) cluding background papers. introduced a new standied a new standing order Robert Maclennan (SOP) Clement Freud (Lib) Steve Norris (Con) exchanges. allowing members of the : members of the public to IanWrigglesworth (SOP) Oafydd Wigley (plaid The judges took into account inspect and copy any and copy any internal Panel of former Civil Servants advising tbe Campaign Leigh's distinguished record over a Prue Stevenson resigned ' after document, provided it nt, provided it does not Sir Douglas Wass (Chair) Sir Kenneth Clucas Michael Power number of years of campaigning coming to feel that the atmosphere contain specifically specifically exempt Lord Croham Sir Patrick Nairne on secrecy including the publi­ of secrecy surrounding conditions information. tion. Intemational Advisers cation of a book on the subject. at the prison had allowed an Documents will be avments will be available in Ralph Nader (USA) Senator Alan Missen Zealand) An award to Prue Stevenson intolerable siutation to fester, Leeds even if they do noten if they do not relate to Harold Relyea (USA) (Australla) Spencer Zifcak (Al recognises that freedom of infor­ which could not be remedied with­ matters which have beenwhich have been formally Lars Brach (Netherlands) Sir Guy Powles (New mation sometimes depends as out proper public knowledge of discussed by the authod by the authority, and Scottisb Advisory Panel much on the personal acts of indi­ what actually was taking place. even if they have not beehey have not been used in Peter Gibson David Gold berg Donald MacPhiUa viduals as on administrative or An award to Calderdale Metro­ the preparation of an paration of an officer's legal changes. politan Borough Council recog­ report. The Campaign's I'he Campaign's award to Local affiliate organisations Prue Stevenson resigned from nises a splendid all-round record Leeds City Council recogity Council recognises the The Campaign has a list of SS4 local affiliate organisatio her job at Holloway prison, where for f.o.i, but in particular the significant contributionnt contribution it has she had worked as an art teacher, exemplary arrangements for public made in pioneering a newpioneering a new standard in order to be free to speak out access to planning sub-committee House of Lords in local authority fred authority freedom of The Campaign has a list of 55 supporters in the House of about conditions in the prison's meetings the authority has made. information. tion...... ofParlla...... Derek Fatchett MP Stuart Ho' Stuart Holland MP Oonagh McDonald MP George Park MP Clare Short MP ThefoUowing Members of Parliamenthavestatedthat they"broadly AndrewFauldsMP Geraint H" Geraint Howells MP Michael McGuire MP Bob Parry MP Renee Short MP support the campaign for measures to secure for allcitizensaccessto Frank Field MP Doug Hoy Doua Hoyle MP AJlen McKay MP Terry Patchett MP Chris Smith MP informationthat theyhavea rightand needto know,and measnres to Terry Fields MP Peter Hub Peter Hubbard-Miles MP Wiliam McKelveyMP Laurie Pavitt MP Cyril Smith MP Mark Fisher MP Roy Hugh Roy Hughes MP Robert Maclennan MP Tom Pendry MP John Smith MP encourage greater disclosureof such information": Martin Flannery MP Sean HugIP Sean Hughes MP Kevin McNamara MP David Penhaligon MP Peter Snape MP Leo Absc MP Dr Jeremy Bray MP JeremyCorbyn MP Janet FookesMP SimonHu Simon Hughes MP Bob McTaggart MP Peter Pike MP Clive Soley MP Jonathan Aitken MP Gordon BrownMP Harry Cowans MP Michael Foot MP Charles Ir­ Charles Irving MP John D. McWilliam MP Ray Powell MP Robin Squire MP DavidAlton MP Hugh BrownMP Tom CoxMP Derek Foster MP Grevtlle Js Greville Janner MP Max Madden MP John Prescott MP David Steel MP Peter Archer MP Robert C, BrownMP Jim CraigenMP George Foulkes MP Roy Jenkii» Roy Jenkins MP Dr. John Marek MP Giles Radice MP Donald Stewart MP Paddy AshdownMP Ron BrownMP Stan Crowther MP John Frase r MP Russell 10: Russell Johnston MP David Marshall MP Stuart Randall MP Roger Stott MP Jack AshleyMP Malcolm BruceMP LawrenceCunliffe MP Clement Freud MP Barry Jonl Barry JonesMP Roy Mason MP Martin Redmond MP Gavin Strang MP Joe Ashton MP Norman Buchan MP Dr. John Cunnngham MP William E. Garrett MP Charles KIMP Charles Kennedy MP John Maxton MP J0 Richardso n MP Jack Straw MP Norman Atkinson MP Richard eaborn MP Tam Dalyell MP Bruce George MP Robert Xii Robert Kilroy-Silk MP Joan Maynard MP Allan Roberts MP Dr. Roger Thomas P Gordon Daaier MP James Callaghan MP Ron Davies MP Dr . John GilbertMP NeilKinndP NeilKinnock MP Michael Meacher MP Ernie Roberts MP Jack Thompson MP Tony Banks MP Dale Campbell-Savours MP Terry Davis MP Dr. Norman Godman MP Archy Kirtan MP Archy Kirkwood MP Michael Meadowcroft MP George Robertson MP Stan Thome MP Guy Barnett MP Dennis Canavan MP Eric Deakins MP John Gould MP DavidKnc David Knox MP BillMichie MP John Home Robertson MP Tom Torney MP Margaret Beckett MP AJexCarlile MP Don Dixon MP Bryan Gould MP David Lall David Lambie MP Ian Mikardo MP Geoffrey Robinson MP Richard Wainwrighl AJan Beith MP LewisCarter-Jones MP Frank Dobson MP James Hamilton MP Jame sLanP James Lamond MP Dr. Maurice Miller MP Allan Rogers MP Jim WallaceMP Tony Benn MP John Cartwright MP Jack Donnand MP Peter Hardy MP Ted Leadb Ted Leadbitter MP Austin Mitchell MP JeffRooker MP Gareth WardellMP Andrew Bennett MP Dr David Clark MP Dick Dou&lasMP Harriet Harman MP Ron LeighP Ron Leighton MP Alfred Morris MP Emie Ross MP Robert Wareing MP Gerry Bermingham MP Bob Clay MP AJf Dubs MP Dame Judith Hart MP RonLewi~P Ron Lewis MP Dave Nellist MP Stephen Ross MP Kenneth Warren MI Sydney Bidwell MP Ann Clywd MP Gwyneth Dunwoody MP Robert Harvey MP Terry Lew Terry Lewis MP Steve Norris MP Peter Rest MP Ken Weetch MP Ton y Blair MP Harry Cohen MP Alexander Eadie MP Roy Hattersley MP Robert ue Robert Litherland MP Gordon Qakes MP Brian Sedgemore MP Dafydd Wigley MP Betty Boothroyd MP John Concannon MP Ken Eastham MP Frank Haynes MP Ton yLloy Ton y Lloyd MP Martin O'Neill MP Barry Sheerman MP Alan Williams MP Andrew Bowden MP Frank Cook MP Bob Edwards MP Denis Healey MP Geoffrey [ Geoffrey Lofthouse MP Stan Orme MP Raben Sheldon MP David Winnic.kMr Roland Boyes MP Robin Cook MP Raymond Ellis MP Eric Heffer-MP Eddie Loy Eddie Loyden MP Dr . David Owen MP Richard Shepherd MP Ian Wrigglesworth Sir Bernard Braine MP Robin Corbett MP John Evans MP Norman Hogg MP HughMC< Huah McCartney MP Rev. Ian Paisley MP Peter Shore MP David YoungMP seereevin the soul ofI of the·system We have made it our business two more comical cases. First, of superiority and paterority and paternalism plot by the .power elite. Un­ Political Realities to repeatedly publicise the fact there was a letter from the that seemsto overcomers to overcome those doubtedly, there are those that all nine water authorities Health and Safety Executive who are given power ingiven power in public _who seek to control informa­ The next General EIE in England have decided to to the Campaign for Freedom life; so that they feel tlilat they feel they are tion because information is may well take place in meet secretly, rather than hold of Information asking if they not only entrusted wi' entrusted with the power, but they jend to be the Inevitably, the issue of SI their meetings in public as could have copies of our work, but with all of tit with all of the in- politicians more than the civil and freedom of inform they are entitled to do under publications and reports. Of formation, and that botn, and that both then servants. We recognise that is about to develop a the 1983 Water Act. course, they said, they would become their exclusintheir exclusive pro- the real problem is the extent party-political edge. We have repeatedly stated understand if any of these perty. When asked to (hen asked to defend that secrecy is "just the way Our desire is to be our view that these water were "restricted"! their secrecy, membeerecy, members of things are done". It will not be party-political. The re authorities, responsible for Then there was the senior water authorities proathorines produce a overcome, therefore, by for this are obvious. We case over £2,700,()()(lof "taxation" ~nister who delivered a that is so weak ot is so weak orcon- legislation alone. Secrecy believethis should be a I a year, and for the provision speech at an event set up by tradictory that it wory that it would be needs to be attacked where it political issue, and we of water to everyman, woman a trade publication. The actually happens. That is why believe we can achievl and child in the country, speech was made publicly, we believe our drive to per­ support of one party, if i1 should be properly and copies of this were suade education, housing, that the campaign is real accountable. available for the journalists social services authorities and ing promoted in the eau Imagine our disbelief, then, present, yet on each page the professionals, to act openly another party. when we attended a reception voluntarily, is of equal impor­ words ''Private and Confiden­ That is why we have on the fringe of one of the tial" appeared. tance to any legislative party political conferences in achievement. extraordinarily hard to the autumn to hear the water Now, no one could serious­ That is why we believe that an all-party base. authorities complain about ly consider that a Campaign individuals concerned about Obviously our aim i! the threat of privatisation. for Freedom of Information secrecy can do much more everyparty commitsitsel The water authorities would "restrict" its publica­ than just write to their MP or Manifesto to repeal of Sl should remain public institu­ tions, and no one · would to their local newspaper. They lWo, and to freedom of tions, they said (qnite rightly), seriously consider that a can demand information mation legislation. If becanse they should be public­ speech made in public and b~ent much more determinedly party does this, we will ly accountable. released to journalists was comment by from their doctors, from their no dilemma, and our rei The audacity of this was "private and confidential". Des Wilson IVilson local authorities, and from sibility will begin afte breath-taking. These were mistakes, but the other institutious they deal Election, namely to e On one hand, they want to point I wish to make is that laughable, if it were nee, if it were not that with, so that those who have that the promises are • meet in secret. On the other the mistakes arose from at the end of it all thad of it all they still become addicted to secrecy But what if one part) hand, their case for being deeply-entrenched ways of meet in secret and w secret and we still are forced to think about it, at the moment only the allowed to continue as they working, from habit, from don't have the infomve the information and forced to answer why servatives hold back, n are is that they should be education and training that collected by our serva by our servants at they refuse the information, to commit itself to act? I publicly accountable! starts on the first day of life our expense, and suppmse, and supposedly and what harm its release as a campaign dedieat It wastheir misfortune that -in the civil service and con­ on our behalf. 'ehalf. would do. freedom of inform: we were present to point out tinues to the end. The result I make these points bethese points because The more you think about overlook this fact? the inconsistency. Clearly they is that secrecy becomes im­ I want to emphasise thatemphasise that those secrecy, the more unnecessary were embarrassed, but even So bedded in the very soul of the who call for freedom offor freedom of infor­ most of it is. This we have to These matters we will they still refused to concede 'system'. mation do not live in a 10 not live in a world underline and fight on a day to discuss within the the point. In the case of the water of paranoia and suspoia and suspicion by day basis wherever we live paign shortly. But wh: Before drawing a conclu­ authorities, it extends beyond believing that secrecy that secrecy is all and in whatever Conservatives think? sion from this, let's look at that to the extraordinary sense part of some extraonsome extraordinary circumstances. would like to know.

Become a campaitlaign supporter ' No matter how small your organisation, we would be Ify If you are an individual supporter you can subscribe to pleased if you would affiliate. our pi our publications and thus become well-informed on the issue Affiliate membership (for organisations) is £7.50 per annum and Sum and share the facts with others. The publication/supporter and enables you to financially assist our campaign, and in subscn subscription is £7 .50 per annum. tum to receive regular news of our work. If your organisation, To: l ion, To: The Campaign for Freedom of Information branch, committee. or whatever, is not already an affiliate, le, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WCIH ODD Tel: 01-278 9686 we hope you will persuade it to become one, and use the IIWe: IIWe [individual or organisation) form on the right. of_ of _

The definitive book on ______(address) Secrecy in the U.K. The Secrets File is the de­ Enclose a cheque for £ for the Campaign for finitive book on secrecy in Freedom of Information Britain in 1986. D D It is edited and half its Would like to be an affiliate organisation and enclose a chapters written by Des D D cheque for £7 .50 Wilson, chairman of the Would like to be a subscriber/supporter and enclose a Campaign for Freedom of cheque for £7.50 to cover this . Information, and has con­ D D tributions from Maurice or Frankel, James Michael D D have added £7.50 to my donation to cover this and Ron Bailey. You can order this D Would also like a copy ofThe Secrets File and enclose £4.95 powerful paperback di­ D plus 40 p&p rect from the Campaign (Tick appropriate box) by using the coupon on nn non_' Price £4.95 post-free. All cheques should be made payable to: The Campaign for Freedom of Information.

1' 1It'lIi ~h ".1 i., 11)<" < _'m l';Il !o! n f"r Fr eedom "r lnf"rm:u i"n I'rom,-" r» H"urn,- <}fb-:t 1.1 .1. Bud,in!