Newspaper of the Campaign for Freedom of Information Numb.er4 50p

Campaign begins 1985 with Fol Bills before Commons After a year in which freedom of Squire Bill will now open those information has maintained a committees to public scrutiny as high place on Britain's public and well. .political agenda, the Campaign "It has also been absurd that for Freedom of Information be­ people who attend meetings have gins 1985 with three FoI Bills not been able to have access to the aboutto come before the Houseof papers that would make sense of Commons . the discussions they hear . The Three Members of Parliament, Squire Billwould make the appro­ two Conservative and one Lab­ priate paperwork available ." our, have taken advantage oftheir Robin Squire has been leader of top ten places in the ballot for the majority party on a London Private Member's Bills to intro­ borough council and thus is well­ Robin Squire (above), MP for Horn­ duce their own legislation to equipped to understand the prob­ church, a local councillor for 14 yean, further accountability at local lems involved for both local including 3 years as leader of the London level. authorities and public, and to Borougb of Sutton, is currently parlia· negotiate support from local mentsry Private Secretary to tbe Minister The Conservative MP Robin of State and parliamentary Under Sec­ Squire is to introduce a Bill to authorities. retary of State at the Dept. of Transport. extend freedom of information in The driving force behind the Bill local authorities (see page 7). is the Community Rights Project, Labour's Gerry Bermingham a sister organisation of the High Court backs will introduce a Bill to force water Campaign for Freedom of Infor­ authorities to meet in public (see mation. It is able to demonstrate Fo. Campaigner pages 5-6). Charles Medawar (above), is Director of Social Audit, the support from over 700 local or­ The Conservative MP David organisation chosen as " non-governmental organisation of ganisations and 350 parish and A London councillor bas Madel introduces a Bill to force the year" in the 1984 Freedom of Information Awards. town councils, and has the support achieved a majorbreakthrougb educational authorities to publish of over 150 Members of Parlia­ for tbe principles of account­ Presentation of the awards by the Rt Hon David Steel, the ability and access to in­ more information. Liberal leader, takes place before an invited audience of more . ment. The first two Bills willface their formation in local autborities. second reading on February 1and than 200 public figures, journalists, and supporters of the David Gamper, leader of tbe the third on February 8. campaign. Over200MPs Liberals on Hackney Borougb ~1L,niOO's" .flL"hv~'ati.Q'\ .aL~ §Of;,~i' Q fme 'g~ RJIn~.. . Council, took Ibe Council to n . ·@'S....UU ' " gwerUlllcpiese ---rq,. authorities to meet in public (see mation. It is able to demonstrate Fot Campaigner pages 5-6). Charles Medawar (above), is Director of Social Audit, the support from over 700 local or­ The Conservative MP David organisation chosen as "non-governmental organisation of ganisations and 350 parish and A London councillor bas Madel introduces a Bill to force the year" in the 1984 Freedom of Information Awards. town councils, and has the support achieved a major breakthrough educational authorities to publish of over 150 Members of Parlia­ for tbe principles of account­ Presentation of the awards by the Rt Hon David Steel, the ability and access to in ­ more information. Liberal leader, takes place before an invited audience of more . ment. The first two Bills willface their formation in local autborities. second reading on February 1 and than 200 public figures, journalists, and supporters of the David Gamper, leader of tbe the third on February 8. campaign. Over 200 MPs Liberals on Hackney Borougb All pieces of legislation are SocialAuditwaschosen for a "remarkablepieceof research in support Council, took tbe Council to expected to attract considerable tbe Higb Court and acbieved a into the harmful and wasteful effects of secrecy in the' ruling that it bad acted unlaw­ all-party support and will be regulation, promotion, and prescription of drugs in the UK". backed by forceful campaigns in The number of Members of Par­ fully by denying him access to the country. Full story and other awards - page 3. liament who have declared their tbe meetings and documents of Des Wilson, Chairman of the support for the broad aims of the tbe council's direct labour or­ Campaign for Freedom of Infor­ first year of our campaign to self began the process with her Campaign for Freedom of Infor­ ganisation's sub committees. mation, welcoming these initia­ emphasise that secrecyis not just a Private Member's Bill in 1959 to mation has increased from 150 Sir Justice Lloyd said tbat tives by backbench MPs, said the Whitehall problem. It also affects force local authorities to increase since the launch to 205. wben Mr Gamper complained campaign was particularlypleased individuals in their own homes public access to full council and The campaign also has the sup­ of his lack of access tbe council that the lust legislative measures and communities. committee meetings . Un­ port of more than 50 members of " asked wbetber tbe proceed­ should be to increase social ac­ " Itis ironic that one ofthe main fortunately many local authorities tbe House of Lords. ings of tbe sub committee were countability. opponents of freedom of infor­ have simply moved the business The number of organisations in confidential, whicb no doubt "We have been at pains in the mation, the Prime Minister, her- into sub committees, and the the coalition has doubled from 25 tbey were. What tbe council to 50 and the campaign now has sbould bave asked was 532 local affiliate organisations. wbetber, not witbstanding tbe confidential nature of the sub Lords Croham and Scarman committee documents, tbe ap­ Sir Douglas plicants bad a need to know. back statutory 'right to know' Tbe council failed to take ac­ Wassfaces count of this relevant factor, Two of Britain's most re­ closure, but concluded that narrowly defined protective indeed the most relevant factor spected peers, Lord Croham, a greater openness would belp to measure and by a Freedom of ,practicalities' of all". former Head of tbe Civil Ser­ restore trust and confidence. Information Act. Gamper was a member of tbe vice, and Lord Scarman, the " It is on tbose grounds tbat, "A free, democratic society Sir Douglas Wass, former Per­ Housing Services Committee eminent jurist, bave spoken in baving always believedin great­ reqnires tbat tbe law sbould manent Secretary at the Treasury and tbe Public Services Com­ support of a statutory " rigbt to er openness tban we bave bad, I recognise and protect tbe rigbt and joint Head of the Civil Ser­ mittee, and Cbairman of tbe know". bave come to tbe view tbat we of tbe individual to tbe infor­ vice, has begun work with a panel District Housing Committee. LordCrobamin his Chancel­ sbould bave a rigbt to freedom mation necessary to make his of former senior civil servants to He requested and was refused lor'slecture at the University of of information, provided tbat own cboices and decision on look on behalf of the Campaign access to tbe committee papers Salford condemned leaks, and adequate protection is retained public and private matters, to for Freedom ofInformation at the of tbe DLO sub committees and rejected a "public interest" for vital secrets and for privacy express his own opinions and be practical problems (and possible it wasfurtber made clear tbatbe defence for unautborised dis- and tbat there is no suggestion able to correct injustice." solutions) arising from its legis­ could not attend meetings. that deliberate breacbes of con­ lative proposals. The effect of Mr Justice fidence by public employees The panel, whilst not necessar­ Lloyd's ruling thatGamperbad sbould go unpunisbed." ily supporting all of the a legitimate interest in tbe mat­ Lord Crobam was tbe autbor campaign's proposals, broadly ters discussed by tbe committee of tbe Crobam Directive wbicb support repeal of Section 2 of the and could not perform his du­ in 1978called for greatervolun­ Official Secrets Act and the in­ ties properly or effectively as a tary publication of information troduction of freedom of infor­ member oftbecouncil or of two and warned civil servants tbat mation legislation. The other ad­ of its committees witbout bav­ unless it was effective, legis­ visers to the campaign are Lord ing access to tbe agenda, min­ lation could follow. His lecture Croham, Sir Patrick Nairne (for­ utes, and other documents of can be read, tberefore, as an mer Permanent Secretary at the tbe DLO, will be to encourage acknowledgement tbat tbe vol­ DHSS), Sir Kenneth Clucas (for­ bundreds of minority council­ untarv annroacb bas failed. l11er Permanent Secretary _at the InN S1l"rn~~ Rri'gin whn Dr", The Panting Case Civil Servant to face Section 2 Charge Jan 28

The Old Bailey trial of Clive Ponting, the senior civil servant who faces charges of leaking documents ahout the sinking of the Belgrano to Tam Dalyell MP, will begin onJanuary 28. An even more controversial case than that of Sarah Tisdall, who was imprisoned under Section 2 for six months last year, it will attract widespread media attention and conld, whatever the verdict, sound the death knell for Section 2 itself. At the committal hearing at eluded: "We found Section 2 a barrassment. Bow Street Magistrates' Court, mess. Its scope is enormously It is likely to test one or two the prosecution made it clear that wide. Any law which impinges on particular clauses of the Act. the two documents Mr Ponting is the freedom of information in a And it may well reveal a cavalier alleged to. have leaked did not democracy should be much more approach to public information Clive Panting and wife affect national secunty whatso- tightly drawn." within the Ministry of Defence. ever. One was unclassified and the Since then, there have been other carried the second lowest numerous promises to reform Sec- Clive Panting Whitehall classification out of tion 2. In 1979 a government Clive Ponting was born in April Guardian Appeal four. Green Paper admitted that "the 1946 and, after achieving a first- There has been widespread criti- catch-all effect of Section 2 of the class Honours Degree, joined the By a majority of three to two, the LawLordsdismissed an appeal by The cism of the decision to employ Official Secrets Act is no longer Civil Service in 1970. In 1979-80he Guardian newspaper against the December 1983 High Court order Section 2 in this case, as the right". was a member of the Rayner compelling the newspaper to hand back to the Government a leaked Attorney General, Sir Michael It is because of this widespread Expenditure Scrutiny team and documentconcerning the plans within the MinistryofDefenceto handle public relations aspects of the arrival of cruise missiles. Havers, himself admitted to the condemnation of the legislation responsible for presentation of House of Commons. itself, and a belief that leaking of some of Its work personally to the A juuior civil servant Sarah Tisdall was imprisoned for six months It should be emphasised that documents that do not affect Prime Minister and the Cabinet in underSection2 ofthe OfficialSecretsActfor leaking the document. The Guardian sought to rely on Section 10 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Section is thatpartoftheOfficial national security should not be a October 1979. In June 1980hewas 2 Act which protects the media from court orders requiring disclosure of Secrets Act that does not deal with criminal offence, that many awarded the OBE in the Birthday the source of information unless the court is satisfied that disclosure is espionage or serious offences of people are opposed to the pros- Honours. He was responsible in necessaryin the interests of national security,justiceor the preventionof that nature. In the words of the ecution. 1980-81 for the Defence Budget, 1972 Report of a Committee of It was for these reasons that all negotiations with the Treasury crime or disorder. Enquiry under Lord Franks, Sec- three major opposition leaders, and major responsibility for the The case went from the High Court to the Court of Appeal which tion 2 "catches all official docu- Neil Kinnock, David Steel, and 1981 Defence Review. He was ruled that Section 10 did not protect The Guardian as national security ments and information. It makes David Owen, sponsored a Clive promoted to Assistant Secretary was involved. The Law Lords concurred with the view that a disloyal distinctionofkind,andnodistinc- Ponting Defence Fund, also sup - in September 1981. From 1981 to servant represented a potential threat to national secnrity. LordsFraser tion of degree . All information ported by the Campaign of Free- 1984 he was Head of Defence and Scarman dissented, arguing that the Government failed to provide which a crownservantlearns inthe domofInformation, the National Secretary IS, and did major work evidence that national security was involved. course ofhis duty is "official" for Council for Civil Liberties, and on the reorganisation of training. The Law Lords, however, agreed that Section 10 should have a wide the purposes of Section 2, what- the First Division Association of He was responsible for the legal and general application, and future jndicial interpretation may ever its nature, whatever its im- Civil Servants. aspects of the Falklands op- provide a measure of protection. Indeed, the Lords held: portance, whatever its original The Ponting Case is likely to eration. (1) thatSection 10applies notonly to the revelation ofactnal names, but source. A blanket is thrown over expose once more the absurdity of Inl984,hewasappointedHead to the disclosnre of docnments indicating the identity of the source, everything; nothing escapes". major show trials forleaks that, at of DS5, responsible for naval (2) Courts could only order disclosure if such was proved to be The Franks Committee con- worst, cause only political em- operations. necessary - and not merely desirable. (3) A publisher ouly had to show that disclosure was likely - and not definite - to identify the source. Lord Scarman in his Granada Guildhall Lectnre was snbsequently to IC!~~dEs~m~~i2~~~iVK~~!~tP~h~bftatG'§rlJ arttWMUlllt'!mllder.nJlIlY:SJl;l:Qlo:J:tW.l\ !!(p~\vjPllP~rs is completely at the purposes of Section 2, what- the First Division Association of He was responsible for the legal and general application, and future jndicial interpretation may ever its nature, whatever its im- Civil Servants. aspects of the Falklands op- provide a measnre of protection. Indeed, the Lords held: portance, whatever its original The Ponting Case is likely to eration, (1) thatSection10 applies notouly to the revelation of actnal names, but source. A blanket is thrown over expose once more the absurdity of In 1984, he was appointed Head to the disclosure of documents indicating the identity of the source. everything; nothing escapes" . major show trials for leaks that, at of DS5, responsible for naval (2) Courts could only order disclosure if snch was proved to be The Franks Committee con- worst, cause only political em- operations. necessary - and not merely desirable. (3) A publisher ouly had to show that disclosure was likely - and not definite - to identify the source. Lord Scarman in his Granada Guildhall Lectnre was subsequently to 'The Campaign's view on the case argne that the "modern law's protection of newspapers is completely at odds with Section 2 ofthe Official Secrets Act. In truth Section 2 should Many supporters of FoI legislation, including our proceedings, with the ultimate sanction of dis­ go so that the modern law may develop nnembarrassed by its distinguished adviser Lord Croham (see page 1), missal. restrictions. Section 10 is consistent with the right to know; Section 2 is have no sympathy for those who disclose infor­ The Attorney General has said he would only not" . mation without authority. We understand and employ Section 2 when it was in the public interest. respect their views. The Campaign for Fol also In ourview thereis no compelling public interest for believes that breaches of trust are undesirable. the Ponting prosecution. The motivation behind Many of its members, however, believe that some this prosecution, as was the case for the Tisdall Contempt of Court? leaks are more understandable than others and that prosecution, is to put fear into the hearts of civil Tim Crook, Legal Correspondent at the Old Bailey for London there can be rare occasions in the present climate of servants in order to end leaks. The effect of this Broadcasting, supported by the National Union of Journalists, con­ execessive secrecy when they are excusable. policy, however, has been more leaks than ever cerned at the increasing degree of secrecy surrounding British justice, Itis hecause we believe there can sometimes be an before. took their campaign against Sections 4(2) and 11 of the 1981 Contempt exceptional defence in law for leaks that we believe What then is the answer to the breach-of-trust of Court Act to the Divisional Court, ouly to sink in a legal quagmire. thattheresbould be a defence tbata leaker" acted in question? We believe the constructive approach is The Divisional Conrt strongly deplored a reporting ban imposed by the the public interest", assuming, of course, that the to create a statutory right to know with the Old Bailey Court, bnt could not quash it as technically they had no case could be effectively made. maximum publication ofmaximum information.If power to do so. This serves to highlight the 1981's Act's omission of a In the meantime, we believe the case for the repeal this is done there can be a national consensus over right for journalists to contest court orders banuing reports. of Section 2 is so overwhelming, and has such what should be kept secret and what should not. The conflict between press freedom and conrtroom secrecy arises substantial support, that it is an act of considerable How much easier it would he to respect the law if from Sections 4(2) and 11 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act. Section cynicism to employ it to punish civil servants who the law is worthy of respect. When even Lord 4(2) permits a court, where necessary to prevent a risk to the leak information which does not affect national Scarman calls for the Official Secrets Act to be administration of justice, to temporarily ban reporting. Section 11 security, or is not motivated by corruption. Sucb repealed "lock, stock and barrel" we clearly have empowers a court to prohibit the publication of a name or other matter cases should be dealt with by internal disciplinary not achieved that happy state. in connection with the proceedings, without applying an "in the interests of justice" test. Tim Crook, the N.U.J. and the N.C.C.L. were prompted to legal action by the use of Section 11 to give total anonymity to a chief The FDA's position on Ponting prosecution witness in a kidnapping trial, even though her (politically prominent) name was nsed freely in open court and had indeed been The First Division Association of leaks" are measures designed to widely reported. However the legal challenge failed. Civil Servants has taken theunpre­ remove excessive secrecy. As the The Divisional Court had first to interpret the scope of Section 29 of cedented step of supporting the government's reaction to volun­ the 1981 SnpremeCourtAct, by which all (even quasi-judicial) decisions Clive Ponting Defence Fund. In tary measures and recent calls for are subject to judicial review. It held that a Crown Court order banning an article in the NCCL magazine, Fol "have been so negative and publication of a witnesses identity is a matter "relating to a trial on its secretary, John Ward, says that complacent, the FDA now be­ indictment" and so an appeal against such should be decided by the the FDA believes leaks are "un­ lieves that legislation is required. Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court. The sting in the tail of this professional and cannot be con­ We therefore favour a Freedom of jndgement is that only the parties to the original criminal charge can doned". He stresses however that Information Act on the lines pro­ apply to the Court of Appeal. Journalists thus have no avenue of legal Ministers have double standards posed by the 1984 Campaign for redress against gagging orders. Nevertheless the Divisional Court was about leaks. "A further pressure Freedom of Information. This fervent in it's criticism of the ban, and judicial notice may be taken of on civil servants is that the present would exempt from disclosure this. government seems to demand that certain categories of information Unease at snch secrecy is also deepened by the increasing number of its civil servants identify more ... but would give the public the judges who retire to their chambers to consider privately imposing a closely with its political pro­ right to know what decisions had reporting ban under Section 4(2) of the 1981 Act. The total of Section gramme than did any of its -,)r~ - 4(2) bans now amountsto around 100. Tim Crooklost the technical legal been taken, the reasons behind .unn....a"'<1 hilt th,. nividnngl rnllrt'lii: nntlii:nnlum comments in his The 1984 Freedom of Information Awards

Six organisations are recipients of the first Freedom of Information awards. The awards are to be made annually by the Council for Freedom of Information. The first awards areto those organisations which contributed most in 1984 to further the cause of freedom of information, and they were due to be presented at a reception in London on January 9 by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Rt. Hon. David Steel, before an audience of media and political personalities, representatives of supporting organisations and others with a !pecial Interest in furthering pubJif accountability. The 1984awards have been sponsored by Mr. Godfrey Bradman and Citizen Action Ltd. Details of the award winners are published below. Bradford City The Welsh Water Authority Council Under the 1983 Water Act, the ten major water authorities have the optionofmeeting in secret or allowing the press to attend theirmeetings. Bradford City Council did not wait for the in­ the meeting takes place, members of the public can All nine English waterauthoritiesimmediatelydecided to meet behind troduction of the Local Government (Access to inspect and copy at their own expense any internal closed doors, where they now make major decisions about water rates, Information) Bill this year. Instead it decided in 1984 document about any matter to be discussed in public pollution control, sewerage, and construction projects. Their public to introduce all the proposals incorporated in the Bill except for a few necessary exemptions. accountability has been reduced to almost zero. on a voluntary basis. The oneexception, however, is the Welsh WaterAuthority. From the Unlike most councils, Bradford now opens sub­ Bradford City Council has therefore demonstrated start it decided to continue to act openly, and allows full press coverage committee meetings to tbe public. Minutes of all that greater accountability is possible. Ithas not only of its meetings and activities. council, committee, special sub-committee and sub­ introduced these procedures but supported the The Welsh Water Authority has now been acting openly with full committee meetings are available for inspection at all Campaign for Freedom ofInformationby making its public accountability for over a year, and recently reaffirmed its policy. officials available to travel the country and explain It has shown that it is possible to combine efficient executive decision­ reasonable times. Agendas and background reports, how they work. " except in exceptional circumstances, are available in making with an open approach and thus discredited the defence of the advance of meetings. Councillors have been given Forthese reasons, Bradford City Council has been English water authorities for their ~crecy. wider access to internal information. After the chosen as the "Local authority to do most for Forthese reasons it has been chosen by the Campaign for Freedom of agenda has been published for meetings, and before freedom of information in 1984". Information as the "Statutory body that did most in 1984 to further freedom of information". The Yorkshire Evening Press Br.ent_Boro_uah The Campai2n for Freedom of Information has been fortunate to have advance of meetings. Councillors have been given Forthese reasons, Bradford City Council has been English water authorities for their secrecy. wider access to internal information. After the chosen as the "Local authority to do most for Forthese reasons it has been chosen by the Campaign for Freedom of agenda has been published for meetings, and before freedom of information in 1984". Information as the "Statutory body that did most in 1984 to further freedom of information". The Yorkshire Evening Press Brent Borough The Campaign for Freedom of Information has been fortunate to have the full support of most major newspapers, and also the backing of the National Union of Journalists and the British Guild of Newspaper Editors, all recognising the importance offreedomofinformationto the Council role of the media in a democracy. One regional newspaper, however, has done more than support the Campaign with news coverage or sympathetic leaders; it has Brent Borough Council, like Bradford, are imple­ importance.) campaigned with remarkable perseverance to embarrass the Yorkshire menting the proposals of the Local Government In addition, it has given a lead in allowing its own Water Authority into holding its meetings in public. (Freedom of Information) Bill voluntarily. How­ employees to have access to their personnel files. The Yorkshire EveningPress has done this with full page articles, and ever, Brent has also given a lead to the rest of the In 1984 the council went further, taking a policy by mobilising the support of other organisations, local authorities, and country by encouraging the right of access by decision to allow parents access to their children's Members of Parliament, and thus demonstrating the remarkable weight individuals to their own files. school files and social services' clients access to their of opinion on the issue. In 1984 all applicants on the housing waiting list, mesoThe practical details are currently being worked Its campaign was crucial in persuading a Member of Parliament who and all housing tenants, have had the opportunity to out . came high in the Private Members Ballot to introduce his own Bill in inspect and if necessary correct theirown files. (There It is one of the aims of the Campaign for Freedom 1985. is evidence from many local authorities of consider­ of Information to create greater access to personal Its reporter, Terry Murden, even confronted the Prime Minister able injustices caused by inaccuracies in such files; files, and becauase it is in advance of most others in directly with a question about the water authorities. when a local authority has over 600 homeless families this respect Brent Borough Council has been chosen It has acted in the best traditions of campaigning journalism and has in bed and breakfastin the area, the need for accurate as "The local authority to have done most to further been chosen by the Campaign for Freedom of Information as the information on applicants' files is of particular access to personal mes in 1984". "Media Organisation to have done most for freedom ofinformation in 1984". Social Audit The award to Social Audit recognises its outstanding work in dem­ The Inner London onstrating how poor information, lack of understanding and pervasive secrecy directly contribute to the vast overuse of unproven, ineffective or positively dangerous drugs . In 'The Wrong Kind of Medicine?' published in 1984 Social Audit's Education Authority director Charles Medawar shows how essential it is for people who take medicines to have properinformation aboutthem. But this unique book does much more, going a considerable way towards providing and The Campaign for Freedom of Information's drive Parents and pupils will have the right to correct explaining that information itself. for greater access to personal files was given a errors in files. Social Audit's analysis shows how poor drugs get onto the market ­ substantial boost in 1984 by a discussion paper why they flourish. The reasons are complex, but suppression of circulated by the National Union of Teachers ad­ Itis hoped thatthe result of openingschool records information repeatedly features. Information about hazards, the to parents and pupils will be more accurate and reasons for licensing decisions, prescribing rates and NHS pricing policy vocating that parents and older pupils should be able sensitive files, and less likelihood of prejudicial to inspect their school records. remarks remaining in files to the disadvantage of is never published. And although its own code of practice promises It was given an even greater boost, however, by the pupils in the years after they have left a particnlar 'complete candour' the pharmaceutical industry's trade body felt decision of the InnerLondonEdncationAnthorityto perfectly free to advise members not to reply to questions from Social allow parents and older secondary school pupils to school. Audit. have access to their personal files from the end of this For this innovative decision and the encourage­ Only months after its publication, the government announced plans year. !Dent ~t gives to_other Education Anthorities," the to imJlleme!'t

Government should encourage·debat e " I now believe the case is made for repeal of Section 2 of the When four recently retired Perm anent sufficient? Has the time come to go Conservative philosophy and it Can the wishes ofthe proponents of Official Secrets Act and legisla­ Secretarieschoose to offertheir advice furth er and to pro vide a statutory should be recognised that it was Con­ a Freedom of Information BiB be tion to give greater public ac­ to a ' political' campaign , when an right to know? As the 1979 Green servative admini strati ons which intro­ achieved without the fears of its cess to official information." eminent and highly respected Law Paper said " Administration is still duced freedom of information legisla­ opponents of excess bureaucracy and Sir Douglas Wass KCB, For­ Lord chooses to deliver a public conductedin an atmosphereofsecrecy tion in such major Commonwealth of a collapse of confidentiality? mer PermanentSecretary to the lecture on the same subject, it is surely which cannot always be justified." countries as Australia, Canada and All of these issues are debatable, time that politicians of all Parties As a Conservative one approaches New Zealand . Treasury and Join t Head ofthe and it is my wish to propose that tbe Home Civil Service should sit up and take notice. changes with caution. As Edward These countries claim to have dem­ debate be a more balanced one. Weare Such is the momentum which has Lear once said".. . always keep a­ onstrated that it is possible to in­ surely sufficiently secure to be able to been achieved by those involved in the hold of Nurse, for fear of finding troduce such legislation without cope with such a debate. campaign for a Freedom of Infor­ so mething worse." Certainly we endangering those areas where secrecy mation Act. Inevitably the opposition should not approach the proposals for remains necessary . Furthermore, they The Campaign for Freedom of Parties move quickly to its side. Inany a Freedom ofInformation Act uncriti ­ share almost all ofthe features of our Informa tion has demonstrated in its event, freedom of information is more cally. There are areas, particularly of Westminster constitution. The propo­ first year that it is a genuine coalition attractive to opposition than to those policy making in Government, where nents of such legislation claim that the of many organisations representa tive who hold the reins of power. But it is confidentiality must be preserved if earlyAustralian and Canadian experi­ of publicconcerns.TheCampaignhas not sufficient for the Government of Cabinet Government is to survive. But ence indicates tha t fears that such produced draft legislation to dem­ the day merely to dismiss the issue as th e conc ept of freedo m of in­ legislation would lead to substantial onstrate how that information which irrelevant or of little account. Con­ formation is not inconsistent with bureaucracy and heavy costs are ill­ should still remain secret can be kept servatives themselves must also res­ founded. so, and it would be possible to have an pond positively to the prop osals. Should, therefore, the Mother of appeals procedure within freedom of There is widespread agreement that Parliaments tread in an area where its information legislation that does not Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act is children are giving a lead? hand over decision-making to the largely unworkable in its present There are other reasons why Con­ courts. form. Its very breadth makes its servatives may find proposals for It has made the compromise that enforce ment difficult. Ever since the freedom of information attractive. has been denied by its predecessors of publication of the Franks Report in One is that closer surveillance of the accepting that the personal advice 1972all political Parties have paid lip practical workings of national and given by Civil Servants to Ministers service to the need for its reform. In local authorities could reduce inef­ should remain confidential, and thus the Civil Service cann ot become poli­ "Open govemment •.. is not practice the temptation to main tain ficiency and error. a fashionable option but a the stat usquo when in power and to do As the Party of the individual, we ticised. nothing about it has proved irresist­ should surelycreate an opportunity to It bas surely earned the rigbt to be precondition for any serious ible. But so long as Section 2 remains check and if necessary correct inac­ taken seriously, and it bas placed the attempt to solve Britain ' s th~.~t~tu te-,~~<:~_~ _i~n i_~E~~en~ ~o~m: curacies in personal files. The recently issue sufficiently prominently on the underlying problems." on ~_...... : ~ ..lI_ ~ _ _ : .. 1.. _____ ..l ,.... _ .. _ n __ __ .. _ 11_•••_ .. 1.. _ __.... 1 4_ : _,,_1 __ ,fU, Jnh n J.ln .r. klJn~ . Former Published by the 1984 Campaign for Freedom of Information, 2 Northdown Street, london N1 9BG. 01-2789686 and the Community Rights Project, 157 Waterloo Road, london SE1. 01-9280080 'On Water :Aut horit ies The £2,774 million water decisions taken in secret

OnFebruary 1theMPfor St. Helens, GerryBermingham, will begin hisHouseofCommonscampaign to introduce aPrivate . Member'sBillto openup waterauthorities. In thesetwopages Welsh authority show the way we demonstrate itssignificance. Unlike the 9 English authorities, worked through the papers in 'Any gap in information will the Welsh Water Authority con­ search of usable items in a pro­ be filled - most probably by In October 1983the nine English water authorities closed their tinues to meet in public, exclud­ cess whicb inevitably imparts to speculation bred from suspicion meetings to the public. Until that time the water authorities ing the press and public only him a great deal of knowledge and ignorance.... It has to be hadbeen subjectto the PublicBodies (Admission to Meetings) when items that specifically re­ which he could not come by in admitted that there have been Act 1960 which required them to meet in public, though it quire confidentiality are under any other way. It is tl1!s process many examples of irresponsible discussion . which has led, over the yea~ to reporting which cause irritation allowed confidential items to be discussed in closed session, an increasingly well-informed and time-consuming, un­ butthis fundamental right ofpublic accesswas removed when The case for continuing to meet in public was put to the .Press and a perceptible improve­ necessary expenditure of man the Water Act 1983 came into force. ment in its understanding and, hours in lIealing with them. By authority by its public in ­ and large, however, weare fortu­ The new Act did notrequirethe authoritiesto meet in secret, formation officer, Mr Dafydd therefore, its treatment of the but it allowed them to if they chose. Only the Welsh Water Evans in October 1983. He ar­ Authority and its functions. It is nate in having responsible media fair to say that any stemming of and it should be recognised thata Authority decided to allow continued public access. gued that open meetings would this flow of knowledge can only majority of the above examples .There was a particnlar irony to the closing of the water benefit the authlirity itself, by producing better informed dis­ result in an ill-informed, sus­ derive from speculative pieces authority meetings, for the 1960 Act, which had previously cussion of its proposals in the picious and therefore critical which mustincreasein frequency required them to meet in public, had been introduced as a press. news coverage of all aspects of in the absence of the information PrivateMember'sBillby MargaretThatcherin her first year as the Authority's work.' source whicb is threatened witb 'Currently, all Authority 'The suggestion that their ex­ an MP. Inher maiden speech to Parliament she explained that papers are circulated to the Press clusion from meetings can be "T:~~~~er 1983 the authority the measure was necessary because 'Publicity is the greatest in advance' he wrote. 'Even compensated for by post-meet­ decided to accept tbis rec­ and most effective check against any arbitrary action.' when agenda items are not re­ ing press conferences has been . ommendation and continue The 1983Water Act which freed water authorities from this ported on they will have been met with total cynicism if not meeting in public. In October check was designed to 'reduce bureaucracy' by eliminating the read. The conscientious journal­ outright derision by all branches ,1984it once more reaffirmed this large numbers of local authority representatives who formerly ist or news editor will have of tbe media, • • .' policy. made up a majority of water authority board members. The '",-. _- 1 ". = . __ ,1. J priv~te M~mber,;'Bill by Marga"retThatcher i~ h~r fi~tyearas ~ . the Authority's work.' source which is threatened with 'Currently, all Authority 'The suggestion that their ex- "rying up.' an MP. Inher maiden speech to Parliament she explained that papers are circulated to the Press c1usion from meetings can be In October 1983 the authority the measure was necessary because 'Publicity is the greatest in advance' he wrote. 'Even compensated for by post-meet- decided to accept this rec­ and most effective check against any arbitrary action.' when agenda items are not re- ing press conferences has been · ommendation and continue The 1983Water Act which freed water authorities from this ported on they will have been met with total cynicism if not meeting in public. In October check was designed to 'reduce bureaucracy' by eliminating the read. The conscientious journal- outright derision by all branches ' 1984 it once more reaffirmed this large numbers of local authority representatives who formerly ist or news editor will have of the media, • • .' policy. made up a majority of water authority board members. The new boards are slimmer - and made up entirely of govern­ ment appointees. Royal Commisson says 'be openJ Why is public access to these meetings so important? The Royal Commission on En­ of consumers pay for water in praised tbe Welsh Water First, because the water authorities spend great sums of vironmental Pollution has called different ways - industry tends Autbority for its decision ­ public money. In1983/84the ten water authorities' combined on water authorities to be more to pay for what is uses, while initially for a 12-month period, capital and revenue expenditure amounted to £2,774 million. open in their dealings with the householders usually are though subsequently confirmed public. cbarged on the basis of rateable - to meet in public, The Com­ During the decade since they were set up in 1974, their total In a report published in Febr­ value - the interests of these mission said: 'We feel this dem­ expenditure has been vast - £19,568 million. uary 1984, the Royal Commis­ groups will also be different. onstrates encouraging continued Second, because much of their income Isralsed by a form of sion stressed the importance of The Royal Commission com­ concern for involving the public what is virtually local taxation. Most householders pay water openness when water authorities mented: 'in orderto retain public in the authority's activities, and rates, based not on their actual consumption of water but on were faced with 'competing confidence in the light of these if experience proves thatit can be claims for action'. Authorities competing and possibly con­ successfully combined witb the the rateable value of their homes. The general rates are set by may have to decide between flicting claims it is importantthat advantages of streamlined board local authorities in public; but the water rates are decided in pressures to keep water charges water authorities should be as membership, we hope the ex­ closed meetings to which no ratepayer has access. low, and the need for investment open as possible when setting the periment will become permanent Third, because the water authorities have enormous local on measures thatwill bring about priorities in their own pro­ and that other water authorities impact on the local environment. So too do discharges from environmental improvements. grammes'. will be inspired to follow suit.' the sewerage works operated by the water authorities. The Also, because different groups The Royal Commission also water authorities are major regulatory agencies, with essential public health and enviroumental protection functions. It is from the chemical industry on their boards. ICI for example, their job to ensure that beaches, bathing water and drinking have executives on the boards ofthree water authorities and a water are uncontaminated and that effluent discharges to former executive on a fourth. Unilever directors sit on two rivers are properly controlled. water authority boards. Other major companies such as Rio uncontaminated and that effluent discharges to rivers are Tinto Zinc, English China Clays and Associated Lead also The properly controlled. have had staff appointed to authorities. They must produce plans both to cope with drought and to In itself, this is nothing new. The old water authorities also prevent flooding; they see that fisheries are protected and had such members - they not only represented the views of rivers restocked with fish, and issue licences to anglers; and major corporate consumers in the area but may have Bill they are responsible for the sporting and recreational use of contributed specialised technical expertise. However there are waters. now two major differences. The Water Authorities A fourth area of concern relates to a possible conflict of One is that on the old boards industrialists and farmers (Meetings) Bill 1985 will interest over pollution control matters. Water authorities are never made up more than a tiny minority out of a large board: mean tbat: (a) The Public Bodies (Ad­ responsible for ensuring that rivers are not polluted: they set prior to 1983, for example, one authority board consisted of mission to Meetings) Act standards for effluent discharges and prosecute offenders. over60members. The new boards, however, are limited bylaw 1960 shall apply to meetings However, the authorities - because they operate sewage to between 9 and 15 members. The handfnl of industrialists of Water Authorities. works - may themselves be major polluters. and one or two farmers may now represent a significant (b) Lines 1 to 3 of Part 1 of Relationships are further complicated by the fact that all numerical proportion, with considerable direct influence. Scbedule 5 of the Water Act 1983 (which excludes water water authorities have on their boards members drawn from The other is that the old boards held their discussions in authorities from the pro- InP QI ;ndndrv Qnd o:IBril"111tnrp )?arnu;: {h~QI1li:.1P nf an11'11al n ..hli,u n n Ul fhAQA rlolihiPl'OlItinnCl IIlII'Do Dnti"Dhr nriv"lIto. WhQ' '_' ~ .... __ 'I'1I __ 'L .~_ TII_..JI! __ Secrets File on Water Authorities chairman or deputy chairman of each consumer committee. Only the con­ sumer committees set up under the Welsh Water Authority .have no authority representative amongst Where the case for secrecy their numbers. A reflection on the spirit in which at least some of these consumer com­ mittees work was provided by the decisions reached by two such com­ falls down water authorities are now more akin to was nothing more than the proposal mittees - one representing the North private companies than public that water authorities should hold and East Division of the Yorkshire authorities. This extraordinary view regular press conferences after their Water Authority, the other rep ­ was expressed in the Lords by another meetings. This was presented as a resenting Devon consumers to the government spokesman, Lord major innovation that would, in Lord South West Water Authority. Both Skelmersdale, in April 1984. Water BeUwin's words, 'give the press a committees decided to reject a motion by Maurice Frankel authority members, he said, were chance to question as well as to record calling on their water authorities to responsible 'for a company which is, information'. 'In terms of informing open meetings to the public (although although in the public sector, to all the public' he added, 'this will go another of Yorkshire's consumer The government justifies the exclu­ idea that water authorities do not intents and purposes a Companies Act much further than a right to attend committees strongly backed such a sion of the press from water authority decide policy. Its editorial column company'. Because ofthis, he added, meetings'. resolution). According to a press meetings by claiming that the boards asked: 'Ifthe board is merely carrying 'there is no reason why their board Press conferences may certainly report some members of the Devon have now become 'executive' bodies out executive decisions does it need to meetings should be any different from help the water authority to explain its consumer committee said that the of a totally different nature to their be so large and high-powered in its those in the private sector'. decisions and put its views across. But committee's purpose would be re­ predecessors. In February 1983 Lord membership? Would not a group of This is an astonishing argument to few journalists would accept Lord duced if press and public could attend Bellwin, a government spokesman in paid officers function as well, or apply to bodies which, between them Skelmersdale's view that 'thereis now the authority's board meetings. the House of Lords, explained that better?' spend something approaching three a perfect mechanism for the press to The spirit in which some of the while it had been 'reasonable and For whilethe make-up ofthe boards billion pounds of public money every get any information they require out representatives ofhousehold consum­ proper' for the press to attend meet­ may have changed, their functions year . of the water authorities' . ers have been appointed may also be ings of the old authorities - because have not. They continue to take exact­ But the government also refers to A journalist who regularly attends significant. In June 1983 the Sunday most of the members were from local 1y the same kinds of decisions that the waterauthorities - with no appar­ press conferences of one authority Extra, a Leicestershire newspaper, authorities. 'The new small executive were previously taken by the old ent sense of inconsistency - as commented: 'The water authority is discovered that consumers might have boards of the water authorities willbe boards and committees in public; and nationalised industries. In 1983 the quite good. They appear to do their problems in making contact with their totally different in character ... It is they continue to decide how large a Under-Secretary of State for the En­ best to answer questions, butof course representatives on one of Severn Trent impossible to function effectively as a rate to levy and how to spend the vast vironment, Mr Waldegrave told the not having been at the meetings we Water Authority's consumer bodies. member of such a board if at every sums of the public's money so raised. ' House of Commons that water don't know what questions to ask. Of the eight householders that had stage one is concerned that the odd Moreover, the suggestion that the authority meetings 'are to be held in We're very much dependent on their been appointed to the committee, word here, the odd outspoken com­ new boards could not function effecti­ secret because they will be like the good will.' three had ex-directorytelephone num­ ment there, will hit the headlines the vely has been convincingly disproved 'board meetings of nationalised in­ The perspective gained by attending bers . None had been ,interviewed by next day' . by the Welsh Water Authority. Like dustries' . Another minister at the the meeting itself is entirely different. the authority before their appoint­ Mrs Thatcher herself has justified the English water authorities its board Department of the Environment, Neil It shows what arguments were raised ment, and one of the ex-directory the exclusion of the press by saying membership has been completely Macfarlane, has explained that 'The against a proposal; whether any objec­ representatives said "It was not made that board meetings now 'are really overhauled. But unlike them it con­ water authorities are, in effect, tions were adequately answered; clear that we would have to be in executive meetings and not policy tinues to meet in public . nationalised industries' . whether alternatives were properly contact with the public." She added meetings'. The Yorkshire Evening The government, however, has an The 'nationalising' of the water considered; whetherparticular factors that if her address and telephone Press - to whose reporter this corn­ even more unlikely justification for authorities has involved a feature not were taken into account, and so on. number were made public she would mentwas made - pouredscorn on the the new secrecy. It claims that the normally associated with this process . None of this may be revealed at a press have to resign. Nationalisation usually involves a conference after the event. transfer from the private sector into However, it is now being claimed public ownership, with a resulting that when the press and public had the increase in public accountability. The right to attend water authority meet­ Conservative Editors complain of change in the status of water authori­ ings very few of them bothered to turn ties has had precisely the opposite up; so the loss of access could not be backing for effect. regarded as a serious problem. 'broken promise' Moreover, the water authorities are But what is important is that the not merely the supplier of a basic right should exist, to be used when it is Campaign commodity in the way that the gas and needed. Water authorities have shown 'a Water Authority - which meets in electricity industries are. The water The decision by the English water blatant disregard of parliamentary public, but goes into private ses­ The government has argued thatthe authorities have responsibility for a loss of direct access has been more authorities to close their meetings promises' in the arrangements they sion where it feels confidentiality is variety of public health, environmen­ to the public has been widely have made for providing infor- necessary-includea full list ofthe than compensated for by the creation tal protection and local amenity func ­ of new consumer consultative com­ condemned, but nowhere has criti­ mation to the press, according to items discussed after the press and tions that have no parallels in the cism been greaterthanin Yorkshire the Guild of British Newspaper public have been excluded from the mittees in each water authority area. nationalised industries. These respon­ These committees represent in ­ where representatives of all pol­ Editors. meetmg. itical parties have supported a liaiI'Ha! 'nall h~f~Etrej§ti cd IJl;plmi~ \\'P~'~bo tn"!:"[JS~ 'or "il\!,€S1>"1;llli'fu'a0' 111: ...... ::1 ...... effect. regarded as a serious problem. 'broken premise" Moreover, the water authorities are But what is important is that the not merely the supplier of a basic right should exist, to be used when it is Campaign commodity in the way that the gas and needed. Water authorities have shown 'a Water Authority - which meets in The decision by the English water blatant disregard of parliamentary electricity industries are. The water The government has argued thatthe public, but goes into private ses­ authorities have responsibility for a authorities to close their meetings promises' in the arrangements they sion where it feels confidentiality is loss of direct access has been more variety of public health, environmen­ than compensated for by the creation to the public has been widely have made for providing infor­ necessary - include a full list of the condemned, but nowhere has criti­ mation to the press, according to tal protection and local amenity func­ of new consumer consultative com­ items discussed after the press and tions that have no parallels in the cism been greaterthanin Yorkshire the Guild of British Newspaper public have been excluded from the mittees in each water authority area. nationalised industries. These respon­ These committees represent in ­ where representatives of all pol­ Editors. meeting. itical parties have supported a Third, the minister told Parlia­ sibilities are characteristic ofthe types dustrial, agricultural, commercial and The editors' organisation has of functions carried out by local domestic consumers as well as local campaign to have meetings of the sharply criticised the water ment that there would be 'regular Yorkshire Water Authority reo­ press conferences after all board or authorities: indeed, many of them authorities in the area and can make authorities for failing to abide by were inherited from the local authori­ representations to the authority on pened. three basic undertakings given by main committeemeetings' ofwater The issue has been given particu­ authorities. However, the existing ties when the water authorities were any issue affecting consumer ministers in Parliament during the created in 1974. interests . lar prominence by the Yorkshire passage of the Water Act. code of practicesays only that press Evening Post which has A final difference is the method of It is WIdely acknowledged that these First, the Water Authorities As­ conferences will 'generally' be campaigned vigorously against the held. This, the Guild says, 'opens charging. Gas and electricity consum­ bodies could playa very valuable role . sociation was charged with the task ers.Iike users of the railways or postal closed meetings. the possibility of water authorities But while the meetings of the con­ By April 1984, 37 of tbe 51 of agreeing with the Guild acode of service pay only for what they use. But sumer committees and their papers practice on press relations. The deciding for themselves if press Yorkshire and North Humberside conferences are convenient or de­ most domestic householders pay will be open to the public, it is by no Minister at the time, Giles Shaw, water rates which are not affected by MPs, and 13 local authorities had sirable'. means certain that they will be able to declared their support for the told the Commons: 'The code of their actual level of consumption. The obtain all the information they need practice will be drawn up between The editors have written to the campaign. When the Water Bill present minister at the Department government does notaccept that this is from the water authorities. Similar the chairmen of the regional water a significant difference. One of its passed through its final stages in of the Environment asking him to committees already exist in the the House of Commons in 1983, authorities and the Guild of British spokesmen in the Lords, Lord Bell­ nationalised industries. A review of Newspaper Editors. I hope that the intervene to ensure that the under­ only two Conservative MPs voted takings given by his predecessorare win, said in February 1983: 'It is their work published by the London Guild will recognise this as an sometimes said that because water against the removal of the public implemented. Electricity Consultative Council in right ofaccess. Now there are eight opportunity to determine, with the authorities levy a tax they must be 1983 found that the industries have chairmen, the rules under which But the minister's astonishing Conservtive MPs in the Yorkshire reply isthatwhat the waterauthori­ open to public scrutiny. We do not shown 'repeated resistance to inde­ the press wishes to have access to accept that they levy a tax. They levy and N Humberside area alone who ties do on such matters is none of pendent monitoring and greater pub­ oppose the closed doors policy. water authority information.' charges for the services theyperform'. lic scrutiny ... [they] have in some But the Guild points out that his business . In October 1984, Neil Conservative councils feature Macfarlane, Under-Secretary of Without acknowledging thatthey at instances been reluctant (or refused) prominently amongst local instead of attempting to produce present raise taxes, the water authori­ to provide Ministers and Parliament an agreed code of practice the State at the Department of the authorities who support the Environment told the Guild: 'the ties themselves now argue that they with information, to say nothing of campaign. Selby District Council water authorities have unilaterally water authorities are independent would do so under the government's withholding it from mere consultative issued their own. has called the water authority's statutory bodies and it is for them present financial targets, which would councils' . decision 'a sad mistake' . The Con­ Second, on three occasions to decide on matters of day-to-day put water rates up by more than the The government promised that the servative leader of Harrogate Bo­ government spokesmen promised management. The handling of rate of inflation. The chairman ofthe water authority consumer consulta­ Parliament that before every water rough Council referred to his coun­ their relations with the press falls Water Authorities Association stated tive committees (CCCs) would be cil's 'widespread concern' at the authority meeting the press would ' into that category' . that in November 1984 that 'custom­ 'totally independent'. Lord be sent a list of all the items to be closed meetings. 'The feeling Mr Macfarlane added that he ers could be contributing directly to a Skelmersdale repeatedly emphasised againstit meeting in privateis fairly discussed. Giles Shaw was absol­ could see 'no material difference' form of water tax'. The Thames Water this point in the Lords: 'they will be utely explicit on this, stressing that unanimous' he added. The Con­ between what Giles Shaw had Authority pointed out that it was genuinely independent, with an in­ servative leader of E. Yorkshire 'a list ofthe items under discussion promised Parliament and the con­ 'already more profitable than many dependent and independently ap­ should be available to the press in Borough Council described the tents of the water authorities' code leading companies, including ICI and pointed membership ... the effective 'closed meetings as 'dictatorial in advance'. Pressed for clari­ of practice. In his view, he con­ Marks & Spencer'. The Thames chair­ andindependent working of the CCCs fication, he added: 'It will be the the worst possible way' . Equally cluded. the water authorites' code man announced: 'to some extent we is assured'. forthright support for the list of items that the Water 'provides for a frank and open are becoming tax gatherers' . The reality is something less. Al­ Authority will be discussing. That campaign has come from Labour relationship between them and the The government has never accepted though outside bodies nominate com­ and Alliance MPs and councillors. is what I said and that is what I media' . that the loss of public access to water mittee members, all appointments are mean.' In February 1984 the Yorkshire The Guild, which represents authority meetings would deprive made by the water authorities, who Evening Post asked each of the 13 But this too, the Guild says, has nearly all the editors of the 1,100 or anyone of information they really also control the budget and supply the members of the water authority not been done. Instead of a list of so provincial and local newspap­ needed. On the contrary, they argue secretariat. board for their own views: three of the items that the water authority ers, has responded with disbelief that the new arrangements actually All of the South West Water them said they believed the meet­ itself will discuss, the press merely the suggestion that a 'frank and provide more information. As the Authority's consumer committees are ings should be open. Significantly, receive a list of the topics that will open' relationship is possible. Water Bill went through Parliament chaired by a member ofthe authority. tbe three were all local authority be discussed at the press conference 'There cannot be an editor in the the then Environment minister Giles So are those of Wessex Water councillors, accustomed to partici­ afterwards. Thus, not only are the land who would testify to any such Shaw told the Commons: 'we are Authority. An authority member sits pating in open discussions . Others discussions held in private, but relationship', it has told the min- ta_king most seriously the drawing up as deputy chairman on all Anglian, refused even to disclose how thev Why I am introducing The Campaign for Freedom a local Council Bill of Informalion 2 Northdown Street, London N19BG Tel: 01-2789686 by Robin Squire MP Supporting Organisations National Council of CLEAR National Union of Voluntary SocialAudit Students Organisations . Writers' Guild of Great Having come high in the Private Town and Country Campaignf?r Press and Britain bria and Oxfordshire. Additionally Some matters must, of course, be Planning Association ~~oadcasting Free~om Members' Ballot I have decided, for a minutes of their meetings must be Cancer Prevention discussed in private and the papers AdvisoryCentre for British Safety Council Society number of reasons, to introduce the publicly available, and already nearly relating to them must remain con­ Education Fire Brigades Union National Union of Local Government (Access to Infor­ 100 local authorities permit this . Re­ fidential . Schedule I of the Bill lists Public Employees mation) Bill. The Patients' Assn. NCCL ports being discussed in public must these exemptions to freedom of in­ The National Union of National Associationof Civiland PublicServices Firstly, I believe that access to also be available to electors. Finally formation, and are based on current Journalists Community Health Association information will enable electors to internal research data and back­ practices of a number of councils, Community Rights Councils Societyof Civiland make a more critical assessment of ground documents to those reports such as Hi11ingdon, York and North Public Servants Project National Graphical Institution of councillors' performances if they must be avaiiable. Although this isthe Warwick. LegalAction Group Association know why (and why not) decisions Professional Civil most far-reaching clause the five There are other other important ,Friendsof the Earth Iron and Stee! Trades Servants have been taken. councils named above have agreed to provisions in the Bill relating to in­ MIND Confederation Library Association Secondly, it willenable the public to implementit voluntarilyand a number creased rights ofaccess to information SOGAT '82 One-to-One National and Local comment on matters before meetings of others have expressed an interest. for Councillors themselves; this is Transport 2000 Campaign for the GovernmentOfficers take place and this can only lead to I am convinced that this can work in clearly important in view ofthe recent Shelter Mentally Association better decisions being reached. practice and at no extra cost to the High Court case regarding denial of BUAV Handicapped Thirdly, I have been impressed by ratepayers. After detailed considera­ information to elected members by Observer Organisations the level of support for the Bill: 150 tion ofthe implications of this, Brad­ Hackney London Borough Council. National Consumer ScottishConsumer Prison Reform Trust Members, 350 Parish Councils, 700 ford's Public Information Group of There is evidence that many local . Council Council locally based organisations and 30 National Energy Officers have worked out a detailed authorities restrict access to in ­ Consumers' Association Friends of the Earth Efficiency Forum local authorities from conservative CodeofPractice explaining how open formation by minority councillors. The National Gas (Scotland) Tonbridge and Malling to socialist Consumers' Council USDAW Entertainment Trades local government can work without Thus making it difficult for them to Alliance Lewisham. Five local authorities, financial or administrative difficul­ properly represent their constituents. The Children's Legal National PeaceCouncil Bradford, Brent, Calderdale, Derby­ ties . A new report (costing £2 entitled Finally the Bill gives councils a duty Centre NationalCouncilfor the BritishYouth Council shire and Preston, have alreadyagreed 'Bradford City Council Behind Open to publish a summary of the public's Child Poverty Action Welfareof Prisoners. First Division to write the Bill into their Standing Doors - How Open Local Govern­ rights ofaccess to information: rights Group Abroad Associationof Civil Gingerbread G ild f B .. h Servants Orders. ment Can Work in Practice') has just are of little use unless people know National Federation of Ul 0 ntis . The Bill will require sub-commit­ been published by the Community they exist. Self-Employed and Newspaper Editors National Federation of tees to be open to the public, as Right Project and this explains in For all these reasons I believe the Small Businesses Church of England Women's Institutes recommended by the D.O.E. in Cir­ detail how local government practices Bill is worthwhile, workable and I Earth Resources Board of Social Workers Educational cular 45/75 and practised by a number can easily be adjusted to enable open hope that Members from all parties Research Responsibility Association ofcouncils such as Meirionydd, Cum- government to work. will support it enthusiastically. Council for Freedom of Information (The Policy-making forum for the campaign) NancyTait James Cornford (Chair) Alex Henney CharlesMedawar DesWilson Julie Kaufman John Wright Lord Morris James Tye GeraldineVan Bueren Lord Avebury DaveHiggs Esther Rantzen Bernard Donoughue Andy Whyte Liz Davies Conservative MpJs Bill to Harold Evans Tom Berney John Winward Christopher Price Arthur Ormond J0 Roll Dame ElizabethAckroyd Mary McAnally Ralph Jackson Peter Jay SuzannePalfreyman DavidBaldock help in defence of schools David Hall GeorgeCunningham James Michael Godfrey Bradman Valerie Ellis Patricia Hewitt NeilMcIntosh Alan Healey Martin Smith William Bingley Margaret Jeffrey Ron Bailey The Private Member's Bill being in- could not properly challenge the coun­ It arises from protests by parents The Bishopof Birmingham Simon Higman Vincent Hanna troduced by David Mad~, Conserva- cil's statements because they had all and others associated with a variety of Leslie Chapman Faith Lawson Peter Gibson tive MP for Bedfordshire South- the information locked away; the schools that they have suffered similar Ronald Lacey Sarah Cowthra Jenny Kuper West, is another boost for the public consultation was ineffective problems to that in Buckinghamshire. KimStallwood ChristineHorton W H P Whatley Campaign for Freedom of In- because we did not have the earlier It is hoped that the Bill will give formation. reports and later amendments. Our parents proper access to the income Tbe Committee for Freedom of Information In our last newspaper the Rev. Paul rights to use the District Auditor were and expenditure details ofstate sector (The Campaignmanagementcommittee) Neil McIntosh Des Wilson(Chair) Charles Medawar Tony Smythe Nicholson, a vicar in Buck- obstructed by the secrecy. We never schools and thus enable them to argue James Cornford David Hall Christopher Price iE.g~mshir~ .e~ribe~ ~e ~sense ~f .....!-aw_ H~ tv.!.aj!.stt!. I!!2Eect0-u'" r~ m~ effecliYeh', and tl!!!iLwill....also bmp-,_ Mi,..h~pl ~rJUlrpj Hvrlp" M~rtin ~m;th Godfrey Bradman Valerie Ellis Patricia Hewitt NeilMcIntosh Alan Healey Martin Smith The Private Member's Bill being in­ William Bingley Margaret Jeffrey Ron Bailey could not properly challenge the coun­ It arises from protests by parents The Bishopof Birmingham Simon Higman Vincent Hanna troduced by David Mad~, Conserva­ cil's statements because they had all and others associated with a variety of Leslie Chapman Faith Lawson Peter Gibson tive MP for Bedfordshire South­ the information locked away; the schools that they have suffered similar Ronald Lacey Sarah Cowthra Jenny Kuper West, is another boost for the public consultation was ineffective problems to that in Buckinghamshire. KimStallwood ChristineHorton W H P Whatley Campaign for Freedom of In­ because we did not have the earlier It is hoped that the Bill will give formation. reports and later amendments. Our parents proper access to the income Tbe Committee for Freedom of Information In our last newspaper the Rev. Paul rights to use the District Auditor were and expenditure details ofstate sector (The Campaignmanagementcommittee) Neil McIntosh Nicholson, a vicar in Buck­ Des Wilson(Chair) Charles Medawar Tony Smythe obstructed by the secrecy. We never schools and thus enable them to argue James Cornford David Hall Christopher Price inghamshire, described the "sense of saw Her Majesty's Inspector's re­ more effectively, and that it will also James Michael Margaret Hyde Martin Smith grievance and injustice" caused by the port." induce local education authorities to Ron Bailey Ron Lacey Jacob Ecclestone inability of parents of children at a Mr. Madel's Bill would require consider more carefully, or be pre­ church school to obtain information local education authorities to publish pared to argue more persuasively any AII~Party Parliamentary Advisory Committee behind the school's closure. annually certain financial in­ plans they have for closures. Jonathan Aitken (Con) Ian Wrigglesworth ClementFreud (Lib) "All along the line we were formation relating to maintained, Mr. Madel's Billwill have its second Sir Bernard Braine (SDP) Dafydd Wigley (Plaid thwarted by secrecy" he wrote. "We aided, and special agreement schools. reading on February 8. (Con) Jeff Rooker (Lab) Cymru) Robin Squire(Con) RobertKilroy-Silk (Lab) Donald Steward (SNP) Charles Irving(Con) Michael Meadowcroft Allan Roberts (Lab) Robert Maclennan(SDP) (Lib) Chris Smith (Lab) Panel of former Civil Servants advising tbe Campaign Sir DouglasWass (Chair) Sir Kenneth Clucas Michael Power Good news from Australia Lord Croham Sir Patrick Nairne Barbara Sloman International Advisers The deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Whitelaw, was one of ' Ralph Nader (USA) Senator Alan Missen Sir Guy Powles(New those lectured by a leading Australian judge on the need for freedom of information. Mr. Harold Relyea(USA) (Australia) Zealand) Justice Michael Kirby, President of the Court of Appeal, NewSouth Wales, wasdeliveringone Lars Broach (Netherlands) Scottish Advisory Panel of the 1984 Grenada Guildhall lectures. Peter Gibson DavidGoldberg Donald McPhillimy He said of freedom of information that "it is an idea whose time has come". Australian experience had demolished the myths about freedom of information being expensive, or increasing bureaucracy. This had not happened. Local affiliate organisations The Campaign bas a list of 532 local affiliate organisations (see Freedom of information, he said, "renewsaccountable democracy. Itstimulates responsible Secrets No 3) freedom in the media. It obviates the plague of leaks that spring up in a world of too many secrets. It encourages a questioning and self-confident citizenry. It deserves your belated House of Lords The Campaign bas a list of 55 supporters in the House of Lords attention". (see Secrets No 3)

Members of Parliament Stan Orme MP Peter Shore MP The following Members of Parliament have stated that they "broadly Bob Edwards MP Denis Healey MP Geoffrey Lofthouse MP Dr David Owen MP Clare Short MP Raymond Ellis MP Eric Heffer MP Eddie Loyden MP Rev. Ian Paisley, MP Renee Short MP support the campaign for measures to secure for all citizens access to John Evans MP Norman Hogg MP Hugh McCartney MP George Park MP Chris Smith MP information that they have a right and need to know, and measures to Derek Patchett MP Stuart Holland MP Oonagh McDonald MP Bob Parry MP Cyril Smith MP ,encourage greater disclosure of such information": Andrew Faulds MP Geraint Howells MP Michael McGuire MP Terry Patchett MP John Smith MP Frank Field MP Doug Hoyle MP Allen McKay MP Laurie Pavitt MP Peter Snape MP Terry Fields MP Peter Hubbard-Miles MP William McKelvey MP Tom Pendry MP Clive Soley MP Leo Abse MP Sir Bernard Draine MP Robin Cook MP Mark Fisher MP Roy Hughes MP Robert Maclennan MP David Penhaligon MP Robin Squire MP Jonathan Aitken MP Jeremy Bray MP Robin Corbett MP Martin Flannery MP Sean Hughes MP Kevin McNamara MP Peter Pike MP David Steel MP Norman Atkinson MP Gordon Brown MP Jeremy Corbyn MP Janet Fookes MP Simon Hughes MP Bob McTaggart MP Ray Powell MP Donald Stewart MP David Alton MP Hugh D. Brown MP Harry Cowens MP Michael Foot MP Charles Irving MP John D. McWilliam MP John Prescott MP Roger Stott MP Peter Archer MP Robert C. Brown MP Tom Cox MP George Foulkes MP Greville Janner MP Max Madden MP Giles Radice MP Gavin Strang MP Paddy Ashdown MP Ron Brown MP Jim Craigen MP Derek Foster MP Roy Jenkins MP Dr. John Marek MP Stuart Randall MP Jack Straw MP Jack Ashley MP Malcolm Bruce MP Stan Crowther MP John Fraser MP Russell Johnston MP David Marshall MP Martin Redmond MP Dr. Roger Thomas MP Joe Ashton MP Norman Buchan MP Lawrence Cunliffe MP Clement Freud MP Barry Jones MP Roy Mason MP Jo Richardson MP Jack Thompson MP Gordon Bagier MP Richard Cabom MP Dr. John Cunningham MP William Garnett MP Charles Kennedy MP John Maxton MP Allan Roberts MP Stan Thorne MP Tony Banks MP James Callaghan MP Tam Dalyell MP Bruce George MP Robert Kilroy -Silk MP Joan Maynard MP Ernie Roberts MP Tom Torney MP Guy Barnett MP Dale Campbell-Savours MP Ron Davies MP Dr. John Gilbert MP Neil Kinnock MP Michael Meacher MP George Robertson MP Richard Wainwright MP Margaret Beckett MP Dennis Canavan MP Terry Davis MP Dr. Norman Godman MP Archy Kirkwood MP Michael Meadowcroft MP John Home Robertson MP Jim Wallace MP Alan Seith MP Alex Carlisle MP Eric Deakins MP John Golding MP David Knox MP Bill Michie MP Geoffrey Robinson MP Gareth Wardell MP Tony Benn MP Lewis Carter-Jones MP Don Dixon MP Bryan Gould MP David Lambie MP Ian Mikardo MP Allan Rogers MP "Robert Wareing MP Andrew Bennett MP John Cartwright MP Frank Dobson MP James Hamilton MP James Lamond MP Dr Maurice Miller MP Jeff Rooker MP .Kenneth Warren MP Gerry Bermingham MP Dr David Clark MP Dick Douglas-MP Peter Hardy MP Ted Leadbitter MP Austin Mitchell MP ~tephc:.n Ro.s~_MP "Y~~~.h .M~ T ...... "lJ!l.. ;r ~"p n~h {",,1~ .. ~"D T~~J.,. n~~~~~,l ~"D U~"";a' U~r~~" ~"D A l r~...,l ~" ....r~;~ ~Kl:) Ken ._ And so •• • on into 1985 When the Campaign for Freedom of Information was while in power, FoI legislation will be inevitable in the support of all opposition parties, many members of the launched in the first week of 1984we made it clear that we longer term. Conservative party,local authorities, the majorityof civil expected a lengthy battle. Information is power, and the Of equal significance has been the remarkable support servants, the trade union movement, and an overw­ powerful do not readily surrender their sources of provided by civil servants, both past and present. The helming majority of non-governmental and voluntary strength. Ifwehad entertainedany hopes of early success, decision by a series of former Permanent Secretaries, two organisations. It is also supported by a substantial the Prime Minister would have dashed them within an of them, Sir Douglas Wass and Lord Croham, former majority of newspapers, and this in tum reflects wide­ hourof our Januarypress conference when she published Heads ofthe CivilService, to make public their belief that spread public support. a letter to the campaign which made abundantly clear her Section 2 should be repealed and that a statutory right to All of this we claim as our achievement in 1984. lack of enthusiasm for freedom ofinformation and which know was now necessary, has shattered the illusion that Now on to 1985 • .• repeated all the myths about FoI which have been the only advocates of freedom of information are The year begins with the arrival of three FoI measures exploded by the practical experience of other Com­ unrealistic radicals who wish to undermine the civil in the House of Commons. We are fortunate that three monwealth countries. service. Even more noticeable has been the support of Members of Parliamentwho have come high in the Ballot In all the circumstances, we believewehave achieved in present civil servants. Every civil service trade union now for Private Members' Bills have chosen to introduce 1984 as much as was possible. openly supports the campaign, including the First Div­ legislati.onto open up local authorities and water authori­ The coalition of major organisations behind the ision Association, representatives of the most senior ties. We hope they will have all-party support and that all Campaign for Freedom of Information has doubled to Whitehall employees. They have made abundantly clear supporters of the campaign will do what they can to back over 50. We have affiliated over 500 local organisations that the main defenders of secrecy are the politicians in these Bills. At the very least, the debates will focus and hope to double that number in 1985. The campaign power, and that they would prefer a much more positive attention on lack of accountability at local level; at best, reached its income objectives for 1984and is hopeful that and open approach, believing that the result would be they could lead to legislation that willbe widelywelcomed with your support it will do so this year too. And so our more trust between governors and governed and a better throughout the country as a worthy further step towards first objective, to set up a substantial organisation that system of security for that information which must the achievement of the principles behind the 1960Private will out-last our opponents, has been achieved. remain confidential even after an FoI Act has been Member's Bill introduced by the Prime Minister herself There has also been a major advance on the political passed. when a back bencher. front. Our supporters in the House of Commons have A majorplus in 1984has been the constructive response from many local authorities to our campaign. A number Coincidentally with the arrival of the first of these Bills increased by a third to over 200. All opposition parties, in the Commons, Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act will Labour, Liberal, Social Democrat, (and the Welsh and have voluntarily introduced the measures containedin the be on trial once more at the Old Bailey, as Mr Clive Scottish national parties) have committed themselves to draft Local Government FoI Bill and many more local Ponting fights to avoid a prison sentence for leaking act when they come to power. These promises deserve, of authorities have taken their own initiatives to improve information to a Member of Parliament. Our views on course, to be treated with some cynicism, for politicians their accountability. Some have voluntarily opened their this case are outlined on page 2 of this newspaper; suffice have always been more enthusiastic about freedom of housing, social services, or educational files to indi­ to say that criminal prosecutions for leaks of material information in opposition than in power. It has been viduals. Others now allow public and press attendance at which the prosecution admits does not affect national because of this that we have pressed their leaders hard. sub committee meetings. In this respect, the campaign has security are simply no longer acceptable to majority They have responded positively. The Liberal leader David in some parts of the country already achieved one of its opinion in Britain and this case is likely to represent a Steel introduced his own Ten Minute Rule Bill, an objectives. substantial nail in the coffin of that'legislation. unprecedented step for a party leader. Neil Kinnock In 1984 many other highly respected authorities have addressed the question directly in an article specially come down on the side of freedom of information. Irrespective of the outcome of these activities early in written for our second Secrets newspaper: "Iregret that Professor Sir Richard Southwood, Chairman of the the New Year, we will continue to expose unnecessary the last Labour Government succumbed to the temp­ Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, ident­ secrecy, to demonstrate the advantages of freedom Of tation, left the Official Secrets Act unreformed, a ified secrecy as a major obstacle to environmental information, and to rally support. Freedom of Information Act unlegislated •. • I make protection. Lord Scarman in a much-praised Granada As Mr Justice Kirby told his audience at the Granada plain my own commitment, and that ofthe LabourParty, Guildhall lecture called for removal of the Official Secrets Gnildhall Lectures, freedom of information is "an idea. to the introduction ofaFoIAct. Itisacommitmentwhich Act "lock stock and barrel" and for its replacement with whose time has come". In the minds of all objective will be honoured, as a priority, by the next Labour freedom of information legislation. Sir John Hoskins, people, we have won the argument, and although it is one Government. " Head of the Instituteof Directors, has stated thatfreedom of the weaknesses of Thatcher's Britain that this is not Both the Labour and Liberal parties debated freedom of information is essential if we are to create greater enough, success is inevitable. There is, however, one of information at their 1984 conferences and passed public understanding of the nation's problems. proviso - that is that our supporters do not as 1984 resolutions to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act Our campaign is entitled to claim and does claim that becomes a memory lose either enthusiasm or faith. We and introduce freedom of information legislation. there is now a national consensus that we need to repeal have achieved enough in our first year to be entitled to be We will continue to commit and re-commit the Section 2 and introduce freedom of information legis­ very hopeful, and "hope ever urges on, and tells us opposition parties so that, whatever the Conservatives do lation. We have shown that such a measure has the tomorrow will be better". DES WILSON

~------~~ ...... &.l "'''' '" _ -.. •• .. _ _ ..o. e· • 6 ' "' "' '" , , of information at their 1984 conferences and passed public understanding of the nation's problems. proviso - that is that our supporters do not as 1984 resolutions to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act Our campaign is entitled to claim and does claim that becomes a memory lose either enthusiasm or faith. We and introduce freedom of information legislation. there is now a national consensus that we need to repeal have achieved enough in our first year to be entitled to be We will continue to commit and re-commit the Section 2 and introduce freedom of information legis- very hopeful, and "hope ever urges on, and tells us opposition parties so that, whatever the Conservatives do lation. We have shown that such a measure has the tomorrow will be better". DES WILSON r ------., I Become a campaign supporter I No matter how small your organisation, we would be If you are an individual supporter you can subscribe to 1 pleased if you would affiliate. our publications and thus become well-informed on the issue 1 We would also welcome individual supporters/subscribers and share the facts with others. The publication/supporter to our print material. subscription is £7.50 per annum. I Affiliate membership (for organisations) is £7.50 per annum I and enables you to financially assist our campaign, and in To : The Campaign for Freedom of Information turn to receive regular news of our work . If your organisation, 2 Northdown Street, London N1 9BG Tel : 01 278 9686 ( I branch, committee, or whatever, is not already an affiliate, I/We (individual or organisation) I we hope you will persuade it to become one, and use the of _ I form on the right. I The definitive book on ______(address) I Secrecy in the U.K. I The Secrets File is the de­ Enclose a cheque for £ for the Campaign for finitive book on secrecy in D Freedom of Information 1 Britain in 1985. Would like to be an affiliate organisation and enclose a 1 It is edited and half its chapters written by Des D cheque for £7.50 Wilson, chairman of the Would like to be a subscriber/supporter and enclose a I Campaign for Freedom of D cheque for £7.50 to cover this I Information, and has con­ or tributions from Maurice I Frankel, James Michael D have added £7.50 to my donation to cover this 1 and Ron Bailey. You can order this Would also like a copy ofThe Secrets File and enclose £4.95 I' powerful paperback di­ D 1 rect from the Campaign (Tick appropriate box) by using the coupon on • ...L_ ~ _L ...... ---! __ 1''' n~ .L ~ _ •