1:55pm Thursday 2nd October 2008
By Tomasz Johnson
In 2004 the then Prime Minister Tony Blair - remember him? - had this to say of national security: “There is no statutory definition of national security. The courts accept that the interpretation of what is national security is, within a wide margin of appreciation, a matter for the Secretary of State to determine on a case-by case basis.”
The Government can withold information "in the interests of national security." And so, in a wonderful twist on the notion of checks and balances, the Secretary of State, exclusive of Parliament, judiciary and the public, decides what can and cannot be “free information.”
In Barnet we suffer from the same malaise, as do journalists and members of the public dealing with local authorities throughout the country. It’s not national security, but “commercial sensitivity.”
This elusive expression can be used, and often is, by statutory bodies as a reason for witholding information.
How much tax-payers cash do Catalyst want to cover their budget deficits? Who knows?! It’s commercially sensitive. How much are the council paying Pricewaterhouse Coopers in consultancy fees? Again, commercially sensitive.
The Freedom of Information Act that came into force in 2005 enshrines the right of the public to access information held by statutory bodies, but it also enshrines the right of those bodies to withold information if it is “commercially senstive.”
Section 43 of the Act dictates that we’re not allowed access to information if “release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity.)”
Unfortunately this caveat can probably hide a multitude of sins.
“Follow the money,” was the sage advice of Deep Throat in All The Presidents Men, Bernstein and Woodwards’ account of the Watergate Scandal their fearless and peerless journalism exposed.
The reason was that the money trail followed from the Cubans who broke into the offices of the Democratic National Committee up to the office of the incumbent president.
The movement of money exposes relationships and imputes motive. On a much more basic level, conspiracies aside, following it tells us where the numbers chipped off our monthly pay-slips and demanded in our council tax bills end up.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, even in the era of the Freedom of Information Act, it remains a bastion of government secrecy.
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.times-series.co.uk/trade_directory/