Leading Article: Please redraft your daft bill, Mr Straw
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.IN A democracy, it is essential that ministers receive candid advice in private. And a government trying to tackle poverty and rebuild communities should not have valuable resources diverted into answering footling inquiries from middle-class journalists and conspiracy theorists.
No - it couldn't work. It is always a useful intellectual exercise to try to argue a case against the conventional liberal wisdom. But when it comes to official secrecy, the Government's hypocritical U-turn is so indefensible that no reasonable person could make a credible case for it.
Jack Straw's feeble defence of his draft Freedom of Information Bill, which excludes all policy advice to ministers, is that to make civil servants' advice public would "undermine accountability". It would drive policy advice underground into "oral communications and Post-it notes", he said. Now, policy advice is not, in fact, a high priority; it is much more important that people gain access to decisions made about them by social workers, health authorities and the police. But once the Home Secretary starts going on about Post-it notes, the case for openness suddenly seems overwhelming.
It is the same with the Official Secrets Act. Yesterday the writer Tony Geraghty appeared in court, charged with damaging disclosure of information in a book about the security services in Northern Ireland. The charges have been brought by John Morris, the Attorney General, who, in opposition, objected to the 1989 Act because it did not allow a public interest defence - precisely the defence that Mr Geraghty intends to make, in the hope that the jury will defend liberty regardless of the fact that the law is an illiberal ass (as a further twist, it should be noted that Mr Geraghty's case is one of those from which Mr Straw wants to remove the automatic right to opt for jury trial).
In opposition, Labour leaders from Tony Blair downwards savaged the Conservative government for unnecessary secrecy over arms to Iraq and mad cow disease. "If government had been more open," Mr Blair said in March 1996, "it would have been far better actually for the proper conduct of government." Then accountability required openness. Now accountability requires secrecy. They were right the first time. The draft Bill should be drafted again.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments