Letter: Government clamp on information
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.Sir: Liz Forgan ('A law to silence whistle-blowers', 6 August) argues that some iniquities can be exposed only if journalists can guarantee their informants' anonymity. The Government rejects these arguments, yet never fails to offer anonymity for those supplying information to public authorities.
The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 allows councils to exclude the public from meetings where 'the identity of a protected informant' could be revealed. Those reporting criminal offences, breaches of planning controls or even nuisance are to be anonymous - so that such reporting will not be discouraged. The need for social services departments to protect the identity of informants reporting suspected child abuse was recognised by the House of Lords in 1977. The Data Protection Act 1984 allows individuals to see computerised records about themselves - but exempts information about informants, as does the legislation on access to medical, housing and school records.
In 1989 the Secretary of State for Scotland successfully argued in court that the Scottish Blood Transfusion Service should not be required to identify a donor alleged to have knowingly given HIV-contaminated blood, although a patient believed he had been infected as a result. The public interest in guaranteeing anonymity, so as to safeguard the supply of blood, was held to override all other concerns.
Ministers have sometimes refused to identify organisations commenting on public consultation documents, on the grounds that to do so may discourage these shy bodies from responding in future. New regulations on access to environmental information are imminent: the Government is proposing to exempt information that polluters supply voluntarily, for fear that openness might make them less forthcoming.
The Government is acutely, sometimes absurdly, conscious of the case for protecting the flow of information to officialdom. How remarkable that it finds no merit in the same arguments when advanced by journalists seeking to protect the flow of information to the public.
Yours sincerely,
MAURICE FRANKEL
Director
The Campaign for Freedom of Information
London, EC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments