THREE cheers for the British government鈥檚 bold proposals for a freedom of
information act (p 4).
But before you make plans to dig out the real dirt on the
beef-on-the-bone ban, or find out if there really is nuclear waste in your back
garden, remember鈥攊t鈥檚 a long and bumpy road from White Paper to
law.
The government rightly presumes that pretty much all information should be
made available鈥攗nless releasing it causes 鈥渟ubstantial harm鈥�. National
security, international relations, safety of the individual and personal
privacy, not to mention commercial confidentiality, should all be shielded from
this substantial harm, suggests the White Paper.
But just what constitutes 鈥渟ubstantial harm鈥� is likely to be the subject of a
good deal of haggling. Definitions for words such as 鈥渉arm鈥� and
鈥渃onfidentiality鈥� have kept the American courts busy for years. What if a more
open Medicines Control Agency releases an analysis of a drug that could knock a
hole in its maker鈥檚 share prices? (Is there really any information that couldn鈥檛
alter share prices?) Is that substantial harm?
Advertisement
And what about that old catch-all 鈥渘ational security鈥�? When hasn鈥檛 it been
abused? And why is there no mention of a test of overwhelming public interest?
Should substantial harm always win out over that?
Clearly, whoever is appointed Britain鈥檚 鈥淚nformation Commissioner鈥� will
determine to some extent how tough a law it really is. Even though she or he
will be charged with investigating any complaints of non-compliance鈥攁nd
will be given powers to force public bodies to release information鈥攖he
first commissioner will play a huge role both in enforcing the act and also in
interpreting what it actually means.
As the bill begins to take shape over the next few months, campaigners will
have to be vigilant and vocal if they want to make sure that the champagne keeps
a few of its bubbles . . .