WITH the British public reeling from tainted food scandals and rail crashes,
there is a mounting feeling that legislation granting greater access to safety
information can鈥檛 come a moment too soon. Now, 233 years after the Swedish
and 33 years after the Americans, the moment is nearly upon us. The Queen鈥檚
speech to Parliament should announce plans for a British Freedom of Information
Act.
Campaigners had hoped that by replacing the set of non-statutory guidelines
known as the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information with a new
law, Britain would catch up with North America, Australia and the rest of the
Western world that has such legislation.
Unfortunately, the draft bill has already been derided by politicians,
scientists and pressure groups.
Advertisement
Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign For Freedom of Information: 鈥淚n its
original form, [the draft bill] was utterly appalling. Now it鈥檚 merely very
bad.鈥� Charles Medawar, director of Social Audit, which campaigns for greater
information about safety of medicines, describes it as 鈥渁n abomination and a
诲颈蝉驳谤补肠别鈥�.
Some fear the bill might make it even more difficult to gain access to
evidence on BSE, drug tests, nuclear safety or railway technology that it is
now. Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, a former research scientist and
chair of the Parliament Office for Science and Technology, explains: 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛
address many of the problems where scientific information is brought together
through advisory committees or other sources and then opened up into the public
诲辞尘补颈苍.鈥�
As the law stands at the moment, a Parliamentary Ombudsman has the power to
recommend disclosure of information held by a number of public bodies, but
cannot legally order them to do so. The new bill will provide people with the
legal right to information. Unfortunately, the draft version also contains a
number of extremely vague and all-encompassing headings which will allow
government to hold back crucial information. For example, ministers would be
able to withhold any scientific or technological information used to 鈥渇ormulate
government policy鈥�.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration heavily
criticised this exemption when it reviewed the bill. It argued that absolutely
no factual or scientific information should be kept secret unless it, say,
threatened national security.
But as the draft currently stands, says Frankel, 鈥渢he full background to BSE
would be exempt. What they have said is that they are not prepared to learn
anything from the BSE crisis.鈥� A spokesperson for the Consumers Association
adds: 鈥淭he public could not see what was going on, and the [BSE} crisis grew out
of control. With more information available, problems could have been identified
别补谤濒颈别谤.鈥�
More exemptions mean that authorities may not have to release details of
investigations into nuclear, chemical or transport accidents. To the outrage of
freedom of information campaigners, the first draft of the bill stated that
these exemptions applied to investigations into accidents, and employment issues
relating to health and safety.
Following an outcry over this aspect of the draft, a 鈥減rejudice鈥� test has
been included. Information would be withheld only if it prejudiced law
enforcement, though this has happened already. An inquiry into the fatal 1997
Southall rail crash was delayed for two years to allow criminal proceedings
against the involved parties to be completed. Last month, just weeks after it
finally began, another train crashed鈥攁pparently in similar
circumstance鈥攁t Paddington.
Under the proposed act, however, a health and safety investigation report
into such disasters could be withheld indefinitely. If the police or authorities
believe an offence may have been committed, any prospect of a future prosecution
would prevent the public and interest groups accessing the report. Even worse,
information can be retained even if a decision has been made not to prosecute or
if a trial has been completed.
It seems likely that if an accident similar to that at Japan鈥檚 nuclear plant
in Tokaimura happened at a nuclear establishment, people would never find out
why or how it happened.
As for the medical arena, information given to the British government by
pharmaceuticals firms seeking a licence for a new drug is currently restricted
by the 1968 Medicines Act. Under the proposed bill, patients or doctors are
still expected to be denied the right to see the scientific papers submitted to
the Medicines Control Agency by the drugs companies.
The draft extends the definition of commercial confidentiality鈥攁lso
cited by Section 118 of the Medicines Act as a reason for witholding drug safety
data. 鈥淚n the drugs field, absolutely everything relating to the safety or
efficacy of a product is commercially sensitive,鈥� says Medawar. 鈥淭his is such a
secretive country that there has never been a public inquiry into the withdrawal
of any drug, including thalidomide.鈥�
Why are the British authorities obsessed with secrecy? 鈥淭here is still the
philosophy that we mustn鈥檛 worry the public or panic them,鈥� says Gibson. Another
argument says that by concealing information from consumers, the government
avoids conflicts or even litigation between, say, its Medicines Control Agency
and angry patients鈥攂y disenfranchising the latter.
How the bill will affect requests for environmental data is also causing
concern. Directives from the European Union and the Aarhus Convention signed by
39 European countries, including Britain in June 1998, oblige the government to
guarantee access to such information and allow public participation in decision
making.
Peter Roderick, a lawyer at Friends of the Earth, says that the European
legislation has been 鈥渙f great value鈥�, allowing access to data about GM crops,
river and air pollution, chemical spills and landfill sites. Exemptions in the
proposed act could prevent such disclosures. For instance, the nuclear industry
could refuse to release research papers if they are earmarked for publication at
some unspecified future date. But all too often, in getting access to this
information, speed is of the essence.
Observers think it likely that the British government may allow a greater
degree of openness on environmental information, in order to toe the European
line鈥攂ut maintain a tougher line with requests for other sorts of
information.
But even if European law wins out over the UK鈥檚 greater tendency towards
secrecy, the patterns of information release will continue to evolve, says
Steven Aftergood, director of the Washington DC-based Federation of American
快猫短视频s鈥� Project on Government Secrecy. He says experience has taught
campaigners 鈥渢hese kinds of battles can never be resolved instantly鈥�. He says
that 33 years after the introduction of the act in the US, people are still
fighting over how it should be implemented. The Food and Drug Administration,
for instance, is not required to release information about deaths in clinical
trials
(see p 15).
Nevertheless, US citizens have used the law to access, among other things,
government documents on tobacco research, food and drugs, nuclear power, and
power plants. 鈥淛ust the existence of the act has indirectly led to greater
openness by agencies,鈥� says Aftergood.
Meanwhile, in Britain, the Bill has a long way to go before it becomes law
and further drafting changes are inevitable. At the moment the Home Office is
keeping quiet. 鈥淎s the draft bill hasn鈥檛 been revised yet, it wouldn鈥檛 be
appropriate to discuss it in any detail,鈥� a spokesman says.
But whether the British public can expect the same benefits as US citizens is
far from certain. The government has also included in the draft a clause that
raises the possiblity of future ad hoc exemptions. In other words, if it doesn鈥檛
like your question it could just ban it鈥攁 doomed manoeuvre, according to
Gibson. 鈥淎ny legislation, any country that ignores the facts does so at its
peril. All it does is incite people to whistleblow, exaggerate information, and
give a field day to pressure groups who may not always have national, public and
individual interests at heart.鈥�