3 December 2000 – In the end it resembled nothing so much as the knighting of Danny Kaye in The Court Jester: the Freedom of Information Bill rushed through its final stages under the government’s guillotine. 118 proposed amendments disposed of in four and a half hours – that’s 2.28 minutes per amendment; a lot less if you deduct the time for voting. You could hear the stamping of feet through the lobbies as MPs obeyed the incessant drum beat of the government whips.

Home Secretary Jack Straw has hailed this as “a radical measure.” It could have been, and if New Labour had stuck to its pre-election promises, or even to its first White Paper on the subject, it would have been. But it is not. In the end Mr Straw surrendered to the secretive instincts of the Civil Service and, possibly, the voices of his cabinet colleagues who feared even more embarrassment than they currently receive via the leaky sieve of 10 Downing Street. Things might have been better if the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords had stuck to their principles, but for reasons best known to them, they abandoned them.

What we have is an Act riddled with “class exemptions” which allow all information in crucial categories to be withheld, even if disclosure would not cause harm. These include the findings of the Health and Safety Executive, the Railway Inspectorate, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and Environmental Health Officers. Thus, to cite the most obvious example, the culture of secrecy which pervaded the BSE crisis and led to unknown numbers of deaths can continue unabated under the Act. Or take the case of the railways: if inspectors find but fail to act on evidence of safety hazards, that evidence can remain hidden in their files.

The new Commissioner will, it is true, have the power to order the release of information if he or she considers it of over-riding public interest. But since Ministers will have the power to veto any such order the Commissioner will be wielding a paper sword.

As a final turning of the screw on transparency, there is a blanket class exemption for any information which “in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.” Such information would even be protected from review by the Commissioner “unless it is irrational.” And who decides whether it is irrational or not? Take a guess.

We could have had a Freedom of Information Act which would have heralded the rebirth of meaningful investigative journalism in this country. But as things stand it matters not whether the hapless journalist chooses the chalice from the palace or the flagon with the dragon. Mr Straw has dropped the poison pellet in both of them.

Bill Norris
Associate Director

(Bulletin No 33)