Newspaper of the Campaign for Freedom of Information Number 12 Number 12 50p April :

Robin Squire MP

There are substantialferences in the waylocal authorities are immenting the Local G(Access to InformatiAct.

The differences OCCIIthe waythe rights of acto information are publed, in charges made forinformation, and indetermination (or otwise)of local authoritilact in the spirit oflegislation.

This has been establed by a special surveilocal authorities carriedby the CampaignFreedom of Informatiomark the first 12 monththe Act, which wastroduced as a PrbMembers Bill by RlSquire MP with the SUPIof the Campaign forand the Community RilProject, and whichcam,to effect on April 1 ofyear.• Full report - page...----.

Local Go,Act-on.year on

__ _ ~ -"~ ...... ~ __• • Archy Kirkwood MP

an "enabling" bill of6bling" biUofthis kind was the only chance ofgettinglegislation through lion through before an early election.

Mr Waddington hd/addington has promised MPs that ministers would''undertake to make uake to make regulations in all the fields covered bythe BiUwithin 12 mon within 12 months of the Bill receivingRoyalAssent."But he warned that warned that if the consultation process threw upunexpected problems-ted problems the regulations may take longer.

A battle is being f,tt1e is being fought to keep medical records in theBill. During the deluring the debate on February 20 and again inCommittee many Coittee many Conservative and Labour MPs called onthe Government allowernment allow access to medical records. An amend­ment which would do wch would do this has now been tabled in Committeeby Chris Smith MP is Smith MP and Robin Squire MP.

The Campaign fOlCampaign for Freedom of Information is stronglybacking the amendmt the amendment. And leading health organisationshave written to Mr Tcitten to Mr Tony Newton the health minister callingon him to agree to ac to agree to access to medical IO:"UIUs, .1 ney m"IUUO: . r---....;.----­the Royal College of N1I College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, •the Health Visitors Alith Visitors Association, the Association of Com­munity Health COli Health Councils, RADAR, RNm, MENCAP,MIND, the College 01 the College of Health and the Patients Association.

Maurice Frankel, d'ice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedomof Information says: rmation says: "It has been difficult to persuade thegovernment to respoment to respond to the enormous public support forthe Bill. Archy Klrkw Archy Kirkwood and his main co-sponsors SteveNorris and Chris Snand Chris Smith have achieved much. It was vitalto get the Bill into a fOle Bill into a form which stands a chance of becominglaw before an early elere an early election, and we have done this. Thoughit is limited the new lited the new Bill will be of great value to very manypeople. It is a first slit is a first step, and one we can build on.

"Obviously we areiously we are disappointed that other records ­government benefit, enent benefit, employment, bank and building societyrecords - have had to- have had to be dropped, for now. But we are deter­mined to do everythillO do everything possible to keep medical records inthe Bill!' r• Report on the debrt on the debate - page 2, the case for access tomedical records page. records pages 4 and 5.

section. It is 15 years It is 15 years since the Franks Committee stated"m found Section 2 and Section 2 a mess. Its scope is enormously wide.Any law which impin; which impinges on the freedom of informationin a democracy shoubtocracy should be much more tightly drawn."

It was under Sectior under Section 2 that Jonathan Aitken MP, thena journalist, was proslist, was prosecuted in 1971 and acquitted, thatSarah Tisdall was imprsdall was imprisoned for six months, and that ClivePonting was charged swas charged and subsequently cleared by an OldBailey jury. Iry.

Its many critics - tiny critics - they include politicians of all parties,senior civil servants, juvil servants, jurists, and all the serious newspapers- have condemned ilcondemned it on three main counts:

First because of itsbecause of its catch-all quality, which makes nodistinction between dim between different kinds of information.

Second, because it d, because it subjects to criminal prosecutionspeople who at w01'SlVho at worst should be subject to internaldisciplinary procedureary procedures. .

Third because of its because of its oppressive effect on Whitehall andother p~blic instituuublic institutions generally, which reinforces atradition of secrecy, at of secrecy, and acts as a block to a more openand accountable appnuntable approach.• Campaign Commeiaign Comment, page 3.

The publication by journalist Duncan Campbell in the NewStatesman of details of the Zircon spy satellite, and the rowover Campbell's banned BBC programme, coupled withraids by the Special Branch on the BBe, have once moreput issues of freedom of information and unnecessarysecrecy high on the political agenda.

It is now highly likely that the Conservatives will promisereform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act in theirelection manifesto.

The Labour Party and the Alliance have alreadypromised to repeal Section 2.

The difference between the Conservatives' position andthat of the other two parties is that the Conservativeproposal would probably be to introduce measures tofurther protect information rather than to allow widerdisclosure. Mrs Thatcher attempted this once before, withher Protection of Official Information Bill in 1979, but itwas widely opposed, and finally dropped when it became.clear that had it existed at the time, the uncovering of thespying activities of Anthony Blunt would probably havebeen impossible.

Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act is the catch-all

Zircon controversy 111~ l11akes OSASection Two an electiection issue

A short revised version of the Access to Personal Files Billnow looks set to reach the statute books.

The Bill is likely to cover housing and social work records,and either include education records or be accompanied bya firm government undertaking to introduce regulations onaccess to school records within 12 months. The governmentalready has powers to do this. And a major campaign hasbeen launched to keep health records in the Bill.

An agreement that has been reached with ministers onthe Bill would give a right of access to the parents of 8.7million school pupils; to tenants in 5.5 million council dwell­ings; and to more than 1 million social services clients.

The Accessto Personal Files Bill, drafted by the Campaignfor Freedom of Information, was introduced by LiberalMP Archy Kirkwood with all-party support. It received anunopposed second reading in the Commons on 20 Februaryand went into Committee on March 25. But Home OfficeMinister David Waddington said the government would notallow the Bill to proceed unless its original scope wasrestricted, probably just to education, housing and socialwork records.

Following long discussions with ministers, Archy Kirk­wood and his main co-sponsors Steve Norris MP (Con) andChris Smith MP (Lab) have now introduced an amendedBill covering these three areas. The new and much shorterBill leavesdetails of exemptions and procedures to be spelledout in later regulations.

This approach was decided on after it became clear that

Access to Personal Flal Files new shol. - ' .

Bill gets governl11entent backingMPs fight foraccess to medicalrecords

Access to Personal Files deba'debate

'Bill will redresess the balancbetween state ae and individuc

Secretecret facts

No one opposed a Second Readingof the Access to Personal Files Billwhen it was debated for five hoursin the House of Commons onFebruary 20, although the HomeOffice Minister, Mr David Wad­dington, made it clear that the BiDwas unacceptable to him in its pre­sentform.

The Billwas dulygivenits SecondReading and sent to its committeestages.

Opening the debate, ArchyKirkwood, MP for Roxburgh andBerwickshire, said that the Bill"wasbased on the entirely reasonableproposition that people should beable to seethe recordsheld on themby public authorities and other in­stitutions and check that they areaccurate".

Constituents did not have theluxuryof beingable to be treated bya single individual when they'wanted professional guidance andhelp from statutory bodies andpublic undertakings . They werein­evitably involved, whether theyknew it or not, with a collection ofindividuals, perhaps other membersof staff, many of whom they had.never met or seen but who never­theless wereinvolvedin discussionsor decisions about them. Many ofthe staff inevitablycould not act onfirst hand personal knowledge.They were obliged to rely on the

Steve Norris MP

material available to them in per­sonal files.

"The information held in thosefiles will not always be recent or 'comprehensive. There may be oldcorrespondence about a problemthat mayor may not stiD exist.There may be incomplete forms orillegible notes. There may also bememorandums listingtentativecon­clusions, reachedsometime ago butwith nothing in the me to showwhether those conclusions werelater rejected or confirmed. Theremay be comments which meantsomething to whoever wrote thembut whichcould givea differentandperhaps misleading impression tosomeone who perhaps does notknow the person to whom theyrelate or the context in which thenotes weretaken.

"Therefore, a decision suddenlyhas to be made but no one whoknows him or her personally isavailable. Therefore, inevitably so­meone else reaches for the me andsits down to decide what to recom­mend, based on information whichcould quite easily be misleading innature. Wehave the prospect of im­portant decisions about peoples'job prospects, health, children'seducation, intervention that socialworkersmay be seekingto make, orentitlement to some badly neededservice or benefit being takenagainst that background" .

Page 2

Mr Kirkwood said it "was notsurprising that mistakesweremade.Or that entries could be misinter­preted. People would therefore beanxious about what their recordsshowed. Obviously it is impossibleto ban mistakes, but we can allowindividuals to see what is recordedabout them so that they can identifyerrors, omissions, or misleading orirrelevant information. If theydisagreewith an entry, they can askthat their point of view isacknowledged explicitly on therecord"

Data Protection ActHe reminded the House that the

principle of access was beyonddispute and non-controversial. "Isay that becausethe principle formspart of the Government's computerlegislation. From November, theData Protection Act 1984, will allowpeople to seethe personal informa­tion that is held on them providedthat information is held on com­puter meso However, they will haveno right to see information aboutthemselvesthat is kept on ordinarypaper files and records, and that iswhere most important informationis still kept. The Billseeks to extendthe right of accessto certain classesof those ordinary manual records".

He concluded that the legislationwould do more to enhance thequality of democracy and redressthe balance between the state andthe individual than "almost anyother Bill that could be introducedby a backbencher.'

Steve Norris, MP for OxfordEast, said the measure was widelysupported across the political spec­trum. Over 50 Conservativebackbenchers had responded to aninvitation from him to support theCampaign behind the Bill. A MORIpoll had shown there was over­whelming support in the countryfor the principle.

"Let us consider the principle ofthe right to know what is said aboutone on a me. Why isthat, in prac­tice, so important? One of the prin­ciple reasons - in my view, thedominant reason - is that files,alwaysby definition, develop a lifeof their own"

Mr Norris said that once an errorhas found its way onto a me itassumes the status of fact. "It thenassumes the status of eternal truth,and from then on it forms the basisof subsequent judgements. There isno question but that the lifewhichame obtains is a major reason forneeding to be able to control it andassure that at all times this live

.animal is what it saysit willbe."Files in this modern age are ap­

pallingly powerful weapons I usethese words advisedly. Files are col­lectedbya huge varietyof organisa­tions - governmental agencies,local authorities, public bodies ofvarious types and even voluntaryagencies. Those files can affect aperson's health; they can determinewhere or how a person lives; theycan determine for parents how theirchildren are educated; whether peo­ple are promoted or demoted atwork; whether they are offeredcredit to buy items that they mayneed to improve their standard ofliving; whether they are entitledbenefit on which to live - all ofthese areas of a person's life can bevital in terms of their comfort andthe general standard of living thatthey enjoy.

"While it may be Ie it may be perfectlyjustifiable and lawful toile and lawful to maintainsuch files, individuals muss, individuals must havetheright to see, correct or dissee, correct or dissent fromjudgements on the files ents on the files and to be- -

Chris Smith MPChris Smith MP

compensated where ensated where errors havecaused them harm:' :hem harm:'

Mr Norris said there waorris said there was evidencethat where access was gisere access was given to per­sonal files, the quality des, the quality of record­keeping wasimproved. wasimproved.

He quoted many cas.uoted many cases of pre­judiced remarks appeari remarks appearing in filesunder the present systemae present system.

Overseas expeorseas experience

He said that many of tid that many of the claimsof excessive costs and ssive costs and increasedbureaucracy had been :racy had been proved incountries such as Austres such as Australia to bewildly exaggerated in pexaggerated in practice. InAustralia it has been estinait has been estimated thatthe number of requests fober of requests for employ­ment fileswouldbe betwees wouldbe between100,000and 200,000 but in prO,OOO but in practice thenumber of requests in t of requests in 1983-4 was166.The Australian electe Australian electoral officeestimated there would beedthere would be 86,000 re­quests and in practice thend in practice there were19.Those responsible for irnesponsiblefor immigrationand ethnic affairs athnic affairs anticipated103,700 requests for ace requests for access and inpractice there were 1,069.there were1,069.

Access to personal filss to personal files did notmean everybodyrushed verybody rushed to seetheirfiles - but they could- but they could see themwhen they really needed ney really needed to.

Chris Smith, MP fOls Smith, MP for IslingtonSouth and Finsbury, saand Finsbury, said that theBill represented the froiresented the front line onfreedom of informationn of information and dealt

Not trusted to tel trusted to tellthe truth truth

Only1 in 4 people tnly 1 in 4 people trust govern­ment ministers to tell ministers to tell the truthabout the environmentr the environmental risks ofnuclear powerand evenJar powerand evenless- only1 in 5 - trust senior civ - trust senior civil servantson the subject . These are subject . These are the find­ings of a MORI opinioof a MORI opinion poll car­ried out in January 198mt in January 1987 and bas­ed on interviews with J. interviews with more than1,700 people. The resultspeople. Theresults show howsecrecy damages goverrey damages government itself- people simply stopsople simply stop believingwhat it says. it says.

Agricultural newsicultural newsmanagement ragement

A leaked Ministry of zeaked Ministry of Agriculturedocument has revealed ment has revealed how newsabout environmentally environmentally sensitiveagricultural projects .ultural projects is stagemanaged. Marked "Restged , Marked "Restricted" theMinistry's Register ofstry's Register of Environ­mental Achievements wal Achievements was obtainedbythe Guardian. Theire Guardian. Theintroduction

with those areas which matter mostto ordinary citizens.

FeesHe criticised Ministers for in­

sisting that a feeshould be chargedfor access to personal meso "Thecharging of a fee would probablyremove the practical possibility ofaccess from millions of people.About half of myconstitutents willnow be prevented from gaining ac­cess to their records because a feeis to be charged". He hoped that incommittee Ministerswould havese­cond thoughts.

He was also unhappy that anumber of categories of recordslisted in the schedule of the BiDwould not be made available ifMinisters had their way. These in­cluded medical records.

It was nonsense for the Govern­ment to be worried about cost. Theexperience not only in Australia, butin the United States and Canadahad been that the predictions aboutthe number of applications and thenumber of people that would needto be employed had been wildlyex­aggerated. The impact upon ad­ministration had proved to beminimal.

He listed the arguments for theBill: that it would lead to morecareful record keeping, that it wouldcreate the opportunity to correct in­accuracies, that it would put rightthe imbalance between access to 'records that are kept in computeris­ed form and those that are kept onpaper, that it would improve therelationship between the profes­sional and his or her client, and thatover and above the practical issues,and practical benefits ofenshriningthe principle of access to informa­tion' in our legislation, there is anoverriding moral reason.

"Individual citizens should beable to see what is written aboutthem, supposedly on their behalf,by people who are entrusted by thecommunity to servethem and to ad­minister services. Surelythis Houseof all places should support thisbasic principle".

Austin Mitchell, MP for GreatGrimsby, said that the purpose ofthe Billshould be "to empower thepeople, strengthen the odds in theirfavour and give them control over

explains that the Registry isdesign­ed partly as an internal referencedocument and partly "as ammuni­tion against those who criticise theMinistry's environmental record".

Some projects are earmarked formassive national publicity - butofficials are urged to keep quietabout others.

A promotional programmedesigned to "demonstrate the extentof the Department's commitment"to countryside conservation, to"improve the image of the farmingindustry" and to help farmers takepractical conservation steps isdestined for "Before, during andafter publicity . . . on a nationaland regional scale".

But althoughMAFF is fundinga £300,000 project on exposure toradioactivity through food, publicityon this issue is "not desirable".

Publicity for MAFF's involve­ment in efforts to reduce radio­activity discharges from theSellafield nuclear reprocessing

their destinies, lives, work,ing, and over the wicurnstances of their lives. ,give them that control unlethem accessto informatio

David Waddington, tIOffice Minister, said"I mat an early stage that thenot acceptable in its preseisaid that it would be pcamend it to produce a rruworkable measure acceptaGovernment, and that th,would be a step down thethe sponsors want to trave

He said that it coukdenied that the precedentto personal informationwell and truly establishedquestion to be addreswhether it was appropriaextend that access to a Irange of manual reccwhether that should be acvoluntary or statutory m

He argued that if acgiven to a range of reconWhitehall, "the resultin tecreased bureaucracy vconsiderable. New systerncedures would need to beed"

Replying to Mr Smiiplaint about the fee thatcharged for access, Mr Wisaid that a power to charin the Data Protectioncharge will be levied fronthe right of accesscomeson November 11. It wouldanomalous if the Billprinted without the powei.provisionin viewof the teData Protection Ace'

He was also worried ating the courts responsiblecing the Bill. "We shoukthe possibility of placirnauthorities a duty to devisfor access to records, ancupon the details to be ,regulations. That may bway of getting round theinvolved in trying to tprivate legislation in tltime available the sort oftions that would be ne,enable a generalright of aobtained:'

Robin Squire, MP Ichurch, pointed out threservations had been

plant are " li kelycounter-productive".

Results of investigatioipesticide poisoning of farmare "confidential". Al lministers have recently anew powers to protect tbefrom chemically con tanfood, publicity for thesedesirable" Nor is publicityfor MAFF research on the ilions for thecountryside of ,in theCommon Agriculturaalthough a study on this wtpleted in 1986.

Publicity for MAFF wfertiliser useand water pollnot wanted "at this stagealthough MAFFwantsmolicity for its efforts to emfarmers to avoid polluting alit does not wantpublicity fasideration of environmentalin the context of water j:arion",

• contioued 00

Was the Zircon An Affair a classi4case of unneces!essary secrecy~

THETl~ESWEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 4 1987

At a time when so many public services, including educa­tion, health, and housing, are deprived of desperately neededfunds, a decision to spend £500 million of public money onany project should be the subject of well-informed and opendebate.

Instead, the decision to put a spy satellite above the SovietUnion was taken in extreme secrecy.

Can there be any justification for this?Possibly there could, if disclosnre would endanger our

defences or national security. Bnt no evidence has been pro­duced that disclosure and debate would have done that. Itwas only a matter of time before the existence of the Zirconspy satellite would have become known.

The real reason that it was surrounded with secrecy wasthat the Cabinet knew it would never be able to convincethe House of Commons or the public that the expenditurewas justified ... that Britain needed the satellite. This wasjust another case of secrecy being used to stifle properdebate.

It is not the role of the Campaign, or this newspaper, todelve into whether or not Britain needs this extraordinarilyexpensive bit of equipment, but rather to argue that thosewhose role it is to debate such matters should have the op­portunity to do so. Undoubtedly this is the role of the Houseof Commons and the House of Lords and we hope they willnow insist upon a full debate.

In the meantime, we are concerned by another question:how many people realise that the debate about Section 2of the Official Secrets Act has moved on from whether itshould be repealed to what should be put in its place? Andthat there is a colossal difference between what Mrs That­cher would do, and what the vast majority of the Act's othercritics would do?

Mrs Thatcher's position has not altered since 1979 whenshe first attempted to replace the Official Secrets Act. Notfor her a positive measure, freedom of information, linkedto the protection of essential secrets. What she attemptedwas a different kind of secrecy law, a Protection of OfficialInformation Bill, that would have made little more infor­mation available, but would have been even more draconianin its protection of secrets or so-called secrets.

The other political parties (and, to be fair, many individualConservatives) and almost everyother respected critic of Sec­tion 2, would prefer to see Section Two replaced by a muchmore positive measure, making information more widely

available, and restrieile, and restricting secrecy to the minimum. Paradox­ically, one of the effeone of the effects of this more creative approach wouldbe to better protectbetter protect secrets, as the Co-Chairman of theCampaign, Des Wilsign, Des Wilson, pointed out in his article in TheTimes reproduced breproduced below.

Nobody should beody should be in any doubt about the difference be­tween the two propdhe two proposals to repeal.

So widespread waridespread was the opposition to the Protection ofOfficial Information I Information Bill in 1979, that Mrs Thatcher has notdared to attempt its 10 attempt its re-introduction, even with a huge ma­jority in the House. n the House. That is why Section 2 has remainedunaltered despite the ed despite the fact that it has, after the Ponting case,become virtually une virtually unenforceable.

But her obsession her obsession with secrecy, fed by Sir Robert Arm­strong, and reflected and reflected in the Wright case in Australia, in thetirades about nationsahout national security after the Zircon disclosures(unsubstantiated in dstantlated in detail), and by her government's refusalto even countenance countenance a full Access to Personal Files Bill, issuch, that the temptaiat the temptation to strike another blow for secrecymay become irresisti:come irresistible.

It is worth consideworth considering what her argument will be. It willbe that recent dlsclosireeent disclosures are endangering national security.But is this so? The this so? The prosecution in both the Tisdall andPonting cases admitt~ cases admitted in court that national security wasnot endangered by tBangered by their disclosures. There is no evidenceso far that disclosure nat disclosure and debate on the Zircon project wouldhave endangered natidangered national security. There is every reason tobelieve that if the Wlthat if the Wright case leads to wider debate aboutthe security services,urity services, it will be of positive benefit.

The Franks CommFranks Commtttee said in 1972 that "the appropriatetest, in relation to n: relation to national security, is that unauthoriseddisclosure would caure would cause serious injury to the nation". Itstressed that criminal that criminal laws should not be used to "serve thepolitical interests of II interests of a government, or to save Ministers orofficials from embars from embarrassment".

This is at the crux is at the crux of the matter.The debate over tIdebate over the replacement of Section 2 should be

concentrated on howtrated on how we identify the dividing line betweeninformation to proteetlon to protect national security and information toprotect the political •the political face of the government.

THETIl

"Tbe Official Secretssbould not be usedmeans of stopping enrassment to Govern.departments and MiJilibut only in cases wbennational interest is gemIy involved".Lord Whitela w (iWilliam Whitela w ~

speech to the NewspSociety, 1971.

" I believe tbat our ,sbould be to pre'newspapers from revelinformation whicb maytbe security of tbe stalrisk. I do not tbink an:would dispute tbat. Butalso rigbt tbat tbe Gmment sbould be prevefrom keeping informasecret and hidden wbennot necessary to do so .sbould like to Imagineno one seriously defend'retention of Section :measure passed in Piwitbout proper parliantary consideration, and fJIy and conclusivelycredited by the 1971 SUITelegrapb case . . . I be'tbat newspaper editorsrigbt in saying tbey sblbave tbe rigbt to plea,tbeir defence tbe publi ,terest . . !'The Rt Han Norman FaMp, speaking in debauthe Franks report, 1973

Wereally areclose to farce when a:"Campaigner fcr : freedom of.jnformation has to advise min­.. istershowto keep theirsecrets; butsomeone·basto do it. for it.isclearIhat'lhe combined forces of the;,CiviI Service and me Special·.Braqch.bave failed lamentably.J: 'Thai:~ine secrecy is necessary I·-·accept·utireserv.edIY. Of course wehave IQ ' avoid disclosures that

.....Ollid endanger thesecurilyoftbe.· ~tate•.would impair 'proper law·enforcement: would adversely af·

.'feet legitimate state and private.'.financial transactions or' would: ill\'adepersonal privacy.

.: However; to control disclosures·it is necessary to maintainrespect· tor the very word"secret" 'and to·.establish a consensus on wbalneeds to be kept secret and whatdoes not. Section 2 of the OfficialSecrels Acthas become a menace10stateandcitizen alikebecause ithascauseQ theopposite 10happen.

· Because of its indiscriminate na­lure' it has"given"~ a. badname. Andwhile ilexists tltere isno .chance of a consensus onconlroland'disclosure of informa·tion~-a consensus that inmyview.is otherwise achievable: . '.AD'of Ihiswas foreSeen by the

Franks Cqinmi\t" as .tar "",ck. as1912; ."A government which op­er.ai.Os ill.greatei.sec~ tb&n Ihe'effective conduct of Its proper

function requires ... williose.)uires ... will lose thetrust of the people .. , Its cn people .. , Its criticswill try to break·downall barr,reak·dOwn all barriersel'C;!'t~ 10.' preserve secrecy 'preserve secrecy andIbey wUl dIsclose all~at they'lelose all that theycan,bywbatever.means, discover. 'r.means, discover. Asaresult. matters WIll be rev"iters ' will be revealedwhen ' Ihey ou$ht to' re'\' ought to' remainsecret," .. :We bave evidence ,thal ,ex, e.vidence Ihal ,exact!yIhis has bappened in_lbe Y'\ppened hiibe 'l)ni\edStates, from~ source.!\Sunhken ~sOurce .i\SutilikelY asa former dlreetor·.of. ·the. ~dlreetor' of. ·the CIA•Admiral Stansfield·Turner: tal'isfield:Tumer:: "Tbeincrease of classified .infonn~ classified 'infonnalion... has diminished respect lminished respect for iland encotiraaed carelessn~raaed caielessness inhandling it . '. ' ~e openputt. '. ' The open publica­tioti of all matenals Ihal .~ ritaterials Ihal can.bedeclassified sbouldbeen~urd sbouldbeencouraged.This would reduce the dlsclld reduce the disclosureof. what really . must be really must be keptsecret.,. . ." . .. ,

My case tben,s thaI one Ie tben;s thaI one of lhemainobstacles toIbeprotecttacles tollieprotectionof~alseCretsJan obs!&cle, al'ts (an obstacle, also•. tofreedomofinformauon)ISSi)flnformittion)isSection2' itself. II isn,Ow -bel,! tnll is nOw -beld in suchunivetsi!.conlempt, nOljusl1 conlempt, noljusl byso­called . radicals . .bul. by wcals bul.by seniorpoliticiansof all parties. bYls of all parties. by manyp~..nt and.~1 civil serva\nd ~I civil servants. byrespected . juns.ls• .and. bj. jurisls. and by !bepubl!c. thaI il IS WlIb tnClbal il is Wilb increaslllg

Escaping from rom the secrecy farceA th BBC tr BBC tr D W'I should be Ihal of, say, Duncan

S e con (] con oversy rages, es I son Campbell. If there are doubts, the.ti • ti • • I th k decision .· should" Ite WIth an

argues or an m (Is for an mformation aw at wor s information commissioner (of astatui similar \0 or even stroqer

justification being abandoned in than the ombudsman) and/or' a .practice. tribunal, poSSIbly made up of an

The final nail in its coffin all·pany team of pnvy coun·should have been the refusal by 5\'110,," . . .' .the jury in the ClivePonlingcase Onl:e the consenSllJ. \S achieved .to convict, despite a clear tead to .olt .wba~ sbould !C"Wnsecret, alldo so by Ibejudge. . . 'ellher mfonnaUon should be .

As the eXlraordinary.' fiShing readily available underfteedomofexpedition by the Special Brancb .in~lion lesislation. . 'at the BBC offi~ in Scotw,ld WewiD tben.aU pow where weunderlines, the rem!!,:alof~on lie..Yes. mini$~ can. keep lbe2 will have jhe addlUona! ~van· feW' seems thaI are really aee­tage of enhancing civiLli~es. essary. .·Yes. we then can ~vefor it ~iltains powers ,to.Je:iIdt ;'~ter. Jlublic accountabibty.and SjllZO Iba. would more.tlianAjld,yes.;t1d~work. F~mofsatisfy Ibe J',GB. r. . . informallon. WlIb e.empuons for. What then is Ih.e altef!'llu~l,l~ .JOlIuinelY neces,sa'l: sec~Y. etlilts

is, first. \0 establish a Cll~1IJUS "Imanycountnes.I~udllll thosebetween the state l\JId :the CItizen :WIIose conslitution IS based on the.as to .wbal in t!te pul!lIcintereSl Westminster model.should be kept secret. II sb0l'ld : Whatever olber reservations.nol be .uffi~ienllbal info~uon. pOople may baVeabou~ it, ilbaahas tel do WIth defence or nallonal tiever been suiMSled m any ofsecurity. 0; I~w-enfon:ement, · bll.tthlisecountriesiliat it has \Cd to an .ralher Ibal dl~los\,re would ~n'i""" in leaks of vitai~OUsly endangf', or Impair def~' .The0~1e i$:~eue. The Ironynallo.na! .seCunty . ~r Iaw-:enf!"\»". iit.thatwe in Bnwn.baveIbemost,"!'ent. :Nor should,I be.a justifiea-

f· ':dlleonian secret.lawsan'! alsoII!"

lion for secrecy thaI Ibe.relo:aselbo -:milsl leakl'!l of Informallon. Thll

information would embanaSS e .speitks for·itself. . . '.governmenl oflbe day, . ' . •L Wilson is co,<hai",ian"fthe

Nor shouldtbe decISIOn as to tJe>. . . F d .r' . • • • . • sti' ··fi' ...... betha. :Campalgn for ree om OJ .

whelhersecrecy ISjU ~ . " . '1"r.o.-.,·0,, · .of government, ....ym~ \baD .tt .. :.""".._ I .

about his Local Govt, (Accessto Information) Act. "Wewere told that chaos wouldstrike local authoritiesthroughout the country, tbatit would be too expensiveandthat, in any case, nobodywould want to look at orbother about the information."Surprise, surprise, there hasbeen no chaos, and, as far as Ican ascertain, tbe cost basbeen minimal if indeedmeasurable. Some peoplehaveasked for accessto infor­mation. but many have not. Iam sure tbat members onbotb sides of the Housewould not support the con­tention that, because only aminority of people seek totake advantage of the law,it isunnecessary.

"Tbe objections to tbe Billwere not weighty. Somepeople say that it wouldoverload local authorities. InLondon alone. fourauthorities already providefull accessto tbe ftlesof hous­ing tenants and they seem tohave no major problems".

He objected to the exclu­sion of medical records andargued tbat the case for theirinclusion was overwbelming.

Personal Filesfrom page 2

Why we shou[)uld .have ,t hright to see m medical file

A recent MORI poll found overwhelming pwhelming public support for a right of accessto medical records. Interviews with 1909 pwith 1909 people revealed that 73070 wanteda right to see their own GP records. Supporrds. Support was uniformly high throughoutthe social class groups, and more people wam people wanted access to their medical recordsthan to any other type of personal record meal record mentioned in the poll. Why is theresuch strong support?

" H elen Mann, a 26-!en Mann, a 26-year-old chef, simply laughed when hernew GP accused herGP accused her of being a heroin addict. But when shesaw be was serlous,be was serious, she became anxious about what otbererrors bad been pats had been passed on to him in her medical notes.

" It took Helen M took Helen Mann montbs to discover that an addicthad been ImpersoniQeen Impersonating her at her former GP's practice . •.Included on the nOlded on the notes were four references to drug addic­tion and another g and anotber givIng details of a hepatitis episode atCharing Cross bospring Cross bospltal. Luckily Miss Mann was able to useber passport to pro'lassport to prove she was abroad at tbe time those en­tries were made in were made In her notes.

"Not surprislngly;ot surprisingly, she Is one of a growing number of pa­tients demanding tlis demanding the right to see her medical records. Hernew GP . . • allowedGP . .. aUowed her to examine the notes, and her formerGP has since agreeaas since agreed to erase the sections which referred totbe addict. lddict.

" 'What angers m'What angers me is that It took 10 months and 17 lettersto get that far' she ! t that far' she said. 'And It is also worrying that I onlyfound out about thed out about tbese entries because I happened to see myGP. Supposing I hacSupposing I had been trying to emigrate or to get a mort­gage, and my doctor, and my doctor had been asked for a medical report? ' ..BMA News Reviewt News Review, November 1985.

II

Increasingly, people want toknow as mucb as possible abouttbei r bealth and be fully involvedin decisions tbat bave to be taken.

We are encouraged to take muchgreater responsibility for ourhealth , learning what contributesto good health and what leads tosickness. The limitations ofmedicine are much better appreci­ated: complete cures are often notavailable, and many treatment sthemselves have seriousdrawbacks.

This awareness means thatrather than simply follow thedoctor's advice, people want tounderstand for themselves wha ttheir symptoms ind icate, whyparticular tests are being carriedout, and what the risks or implica­tion s of particular form s of treat­ment are. They expect to be able tota lk to th eir doctor on a moreequal basis - if necessary seeingthe report s or test results for them­selves, and discussing what theypoint to. For many, th e oppor­tunit y to see their own med icalrecords cou ld provide a chance tohave greater control over their ownlives.

Many people are dissatisfied witbtbe level of information tbey re­ceive wben tbey are ill; access totheir records may be a way of keep­ing t bemselves adequatelyinformed.

Numerous studies have reporteda high level of patient dissatis­faction with communications. TheBriti sh Medical Association'sHandbook of Medical Ethics(1984) recognises that " T hecommonest cause of problems be­tween doctors and patients isfailure of communication". Thisisn't necessarily the doctor's fault .The patient may be too anxious toremember what has been said, orforget to raise the questions he orshe wanted to ask.

But sometimes the doctor mayseem too busy to answer questions,or wrongly assume that the patientis incapable of understanding oronly wants reassurance. A markeddifference of opinion often existsbetween doc tors and patients onhow much information is appro­priate. One American study foundthat while three quarters ofpatients felt they should be told allpos sible risks associated with thenormal use of their medicine, onlyabout 25"70 of doctors agreed .

Doctors som et im es under­estimate their patients' ability tounderstand. Doctors caring forpregnant women from 'unskilledworking class families ' in Aber­deen were asked what proportionof women they thought wouldunderstand terms commonly usedin their wards. The 18 doctorsthought none of the women wouldunderstand the words 'membranes'or 'scanning' - in fact over 50"70of them could explain the terms.They thought onl~ 20"70 wouldknow what "breech birth" meant- in fact 90"70 understood. (Jour­nal of Health and SocialBehaviour, 1975, 16, 3-lJ) .

Another study of expectantmothers found that many startedout " feeling that they and theirattendants were in partnership andjointly responsible for the care of

Page 4

the pregnancy" but stopped con­tributing in light of the responsesthey received. One woman said sliewas put off asking questions afterasking a midwife who had justtaken her blood pressure, what itwas: she said the midwife hadasked her why she wanted to know,as if it was no business of hers, andtold her she had nothing to wor ryabout. (Midwives Chronicle andN ursing Notes, November 1982,387-394).

A study of the way in whichyoung doctors handled consulta­tions found that "Though mostgave simple information on diag­nosis and treatment, few men­tioned investigations, aetiology(the cause of the illness), or prog­nosis . Very few obtained and tookany account of patients ' views orexpectations of these matters".(British Medical Journal, 14.6.86,1576-8).

In normal circumstances, mostpeople will prefer to get their infor­mation from their doctor in per­son. Where this doesn't happen,access to the records will help.

In some cases people are deniedinformation about a serious con­diti on because the doctor wronglyassumes they do not wisb to knowtbe trutb - or finds it difficult tobreak tbe news.

Interviews with 167people withmultiple sclerosis revealed that thegreat majority (83"70) felt theyshould be given the diagnosis bytheir doctor as soon as it wasknown. Yet many had found outonly by accident: from the clinicreceptionist for example or, in onecase, from a home help. A largegroup had diagnosed themselves,comparing their symptoms tothose of people they knew to havethe disease. Thirty patients in thesample still didn't know that theyhad multiple sclerosis - although22 of these were amongst thosewho felt they should be told thetruth if the doctor knew it. Theconsultants responsible for thesepatients only allowed the inter­views to take place on conditionthat "under no circumstances mustthe patients find out that they haveMS". (Lancet, 6.7.85, 27-8).

Although doctors often claimthat the decision on whether toreveal the diagnosis of an incurableor terminal illness is one that ismade case by case depending onthe individual circumstances "inpractice the vast majority (ofdoctors) opt either for a policy oftelling nearly all their patients orone of usually not telling anyone".Lancet, 7.8.76, 300-303).

Dr Robert Buckman has sug­gested that some of the reasonswhy doctors may try to avoidbreaking bad news to patients mayinclude fear of being blamed,particularly if the doctor has pre­viously implied that a cure orimprovement is likely; fear ofprovoking an emotional scene in

the middle of a busy wardle of a busy ward or clinic;difficulty in acknowledg- in acknowledging thatthe doctor is powerless to oris powerless to help; andthe doctor's own denial 'or's own denial of illnessor death. (British Medical. (British Medical Journal,

Special Repecial Reportby by

Maurice Fraurice Frankel

26.5.84, 1597-9). 1597-9).Some of the multiple of the multiple sclerosis

patients described above described above who hadlearnt their diagnosis, haeir diagnosis, had to putup a fight to get it. Oneht to get it . One said: "Ifelt the doctor should notioctor should not get awaywith not telling me; I foretelling me; I forced it outof him". .

There must be an alter must be an alternative tothis - and the simple annd the simple answer is toentitle patients to ask foratients to ask for and readtheir own medical notes . .n medical notes. This is farfrom an ideal way for a i ideal way for a person tolearn of a serious diagno:a serious diagnosis: but itwill be welcomed by pativelcomed by patients whowant the truth and feel tb truth and feel they aren'totherwise able to get it. se able to get it.

Records may contain sern may contain serious errorswhicb only the person only th e person concernedis likely to be able to d, to be able to detect.

Errors, or incomplete infor­mation, could lead to the wrongdiagnosis and to delays in pro­viding urgently needed treatment.

A study of more than 1,300GPrecords in the Leicester area foundthat 1.4"70 omitted, or wronglyrecorded, the sex of the patient.The patient's date of birth waswrong or omitted in 5.8"70 ofrecords. Mistakes in the date ofbirth could lead to informationabout one patient being recordedon the file of someone else with asimilar name. (Journal of theRoyal College of General Prac­titioners, 1981, 31, 410-419).

Twelve percent of patients whosaw their records in a Londongeneral practice found errors.These ranged from wrongaddresses to information aboutone child recorded on the file of abrother or sister; in one case awoman was described as havinghad an abortion when in fact shehad refused it. (British MedicalJournal, 1.3.86, 595-8.)

Eighteen per cent of pa tients inthe Oxford area who were sent asummary of the ir medical historyrequ ired additions, corrections ordeletions. (Journal of the RoyalCollege of General Practitioners,1982, 32, 80-86).

A study of records at a Londonpractice reported: "The doctorswere ignorant of mu ch of the in­format ion considered to beimportant for the clinical care ofpatients . . . 50"70 of the complica­tions of pregnancy (miscarriages,terminations and stillbirths) werenot known to the doctor .. . It wasdisturbing to find that none of theten instances of drug allergies wereapparently known or recorded".(Occasional paper 5, Royal Collegeof General Practitioners, July1978).

A do ctor who examined theaccuracy which which he sum­marised patients' notes found he

made errors in 27"70 ofabout diagnoses. He d58"70 of these errors as "sA similar error rate wawhen the same task waspeby a nurse. He reporteamples of serious erroromission of hysterectorrrsion of intrauterine devicsion of reactive depressiona barium meal as a bariurrtonsils - misreading 'ren'reassurance'; omission 0history of steroids and omtuberculosis". (JournalRoyal College of Genentitioners, Februrary 1986,

A rigbt of access would psafeguard against the h'condescending commenttimes made about patientsrecords.

Comments found onrecords include:

"doll-like woman"" totally self-indulgewithin a very softpackage""on the way to beerich young fool ""her husband seemingly sensible"" a stupid andwoman""thinks more of hisof (his wife)"

If comments like these 'only by the doctor whothem, they would be of Usequence. But the file isdocto r ' s private diar:hospital, the file is circuladepartment to departmerit may seen by a great mdifferent staff. If a GP renotes are inherited by hsuccessor, and if the patiethe file is transferred topractice. An unpleasantstays with the patientprejudicing the way in whshe is treated by anyonethe file. Some patients artstated by the unfriendly I

they meet from doctors'never met them , but whotheir file, that they seek tprivately purely to esc,NHS file.

If doctors knew thatcould see their notes,fessional pejorative c,would be much less likely- and patients wouldsuspicious of what the icontained.

Allowing patients to ba1of tbeir records may mal<likely tbat tbe record iswhen tbey see a new do

Patients would be ablecopy of the record withholiday; have it at hom.an emergency visit byfamiliar doctor was necetake a copy to their newthey move (it can sometiseveral months for recorforwarded from the old I

A study at St Thomas'in London found that thailost or mislaid the notes,tant mothers attendingnatal clinic in 26"70 of (contrast, not one of a Iwomen who carried Itnotes, as a group of themlost them.

Experience shows tha thataccess is beneficial Ell

Answers to the fearabout access to file!

There Is now a suhstantial body ofexperience of lbe resulls of accessfromdoctors and olber health p~fessionals

whoallow, or in many cases encourage,patients to look at their own records.They report that access is not onlyfeasible but positively beneficialleadlng to better informed patientswho have a greater confidence inmedical staff treating them. This hasbeen found true also of psychiatricpatients, and psychiatrists have foundthat access policies provide valuabletherapeutic opportunities.

• Staff at a south-east Londongeneral practice whose patients havehad access to their records since 1983report that "Patients confirmed overand over that having access to theirrecord s broke down barriers betweendoctors and patients, enhanced theirconfidence in doctors, and was re­assuring, interesting and informative· .. We expected many difficulties atthe outset. The contrary has been thecase: patients have been very apprecia­tive and, surprisingly, it has not af­fected our clinical work greatly". (1)

• OPs at an inner-city Birminghampractice whose patients have hadaccess to records since 1977report thatit has led to "appreciable patient satis­faction"; that it implies that "thepatient is trustworthy and a primeagent with the practitioner in thesearch for heal th"; and that access canprovide "a natural and useful tool forthe patient to understand his or herown health". It was found necessary towithhold information from only 12outof 4000 patients (0.3'10) in a year, andthe GPs have found that "recording ofconsultations is not materially affectedby the knowledge that patients subse­quently read what has been writtenabout them" (2)

• The consultant and registrar at aLondon hospital rheumatology clinicwho showed patients copies of theletters sent to their GPs about themreported: "patients are pleased to readcopies of our letters to their generalpractitioners. -They derived consider­able benefit from doing so ... Fearsthat the letters may be confusing werenot confirmed . . . Open access tonotes may not be the spectre thatphysicians fear but may have thepositive advantages of improved com-

o munication and understanding. Thedebate whether patients should haveopen access to their medical notesshould concentrate more on the poten­tial advantages which may result andgive less attention to the possibledrawbacks" (3)

• Ninety seven per cent of patientswho saw their records at a Vermontclinic in the US reported that they feltless anxious about their health afterseeing them, probably because accessallayed fears about what may havebeen 'hidden' by the physician .Doctors reported that nearly 80'10 ofpatients "indicated that they weremuch more careful about followingspecific recommendations for medica­tion" and most reported changes intheir patterns of living, eating or

"One of the fears some doc­tors have is that people wiDread their notes and jump outof the window and killthemselves because they're soterrified. Its absolutely theopposite of what happens. Inreality its tremendouslyreassuring to the vast majori­ty of people. Even if they havebad news, of a seriousdiagnosis, they still find itreassuring to know that theywill have nothing kept fromthem. And if they don't wantto know they don't have tolook iu the notes. Its up tothem."Dr Brian' Fisher, a LondonGP whose patients haveaccessto their own notes.

drinking after reading their notes anddiscussing their implications. Theauthors reported "When physicians atthe centre began sharing records, theyexpected that they would choose notto share records with a substantialnumber of patients because of the sen­sitive issues often involved (eg cancer,chronic infirmity). However, physicianshave elected to restrict information forless than 1070 of their patients and forthe most part important and previous­ly unapproached issues have beendiscussed openly". (4)

• Doctors at a Melbourne hospital

"With a few honourable ex­ceptions medical records(hospital or general prac­tice) are a disgrace, and toshare them with the patientswould be to expose the ex­tent to which the sciencebased technology ofmedicine depends on an in­formation system that hasneither been rethought noreven taught In a disciplinedway for several practicelifetimes. Perhaps sharingrecords would Inculcatemuch needed discipline inthe profession's recordkeeping!'David Metcalfe,Professor of GeneralPractice,Manchester University.

"(the Access to PersonalFlies Bill) is a developmentthat should be welcomedrather tban res is ted bydoctors"Lancet editorial, 19.10.85.

who gave patients access to theirmedical notes reported "numerousindividual instances . .. where theavailability of the record facilitatedcommunication between patient andphysician". They found that twopatients with chronic disease whosecausation was poorly understoodprivately (and wrongly) believed theyhad cancer. "The existence of theirfears was in both instances not suspec­ted by the physician .. . nor were theyexpressed . .. until the record wasreviewed by the patient. Review of therecord provided both a focus for dis- .cussion and evidence to clar ify thediagnosis for the patients". (5)

• Patients who saw their records at amedical rehabilitation centre in the US"often expressed a sense of relief athaving the secrecy removed from theirrecords and were pleasantly surprisedto be treated as adults". Staff reportedthat their initial fears "were soondispelled by the realisation that most ,patients were ready to handle the infor­mation and were waiting for thisdegree of openness. Patients who werein a stage of denial simply sorted outfor themselves what they could dealwith at that time and gave the staffadequate guidelines as to where theyshould stop . .. the effect on patient­team relationships was strong, tend­ing away from paternalistic andcaretaking relationships towards morecollaborativeand educational ones .. .The patients used their records toexplainthemselves to their families ...We could identify no instance in whicha patient was harmed by being offeredhis record", (6)

• Psychiatrists at a Pittsburgh clinicwhose patients saw their recordsreported that "the great majority ofpatients viewed the experience as apositive one .. . Our tentative con­clusion is that psychiatric patients arenot likely to be harmed by this experi­

,ence,and are often benefitted. Patients- even those whose requests to see

their record s are based on a vas are based on a variety offears - value accurate and del.ue accurate and descriptiveaccounts of their behavi our if their behaviour and arenot harmed by reading med by reading most suchdescriptions. In fact, most as. In {act, most are quiterelieved to find that the rec find that the records aremore innocuous than thocuous than they hadimagined" (7) (7)• The great majority (Breat majority (86'10) ofpsychiatric inpatients shov.: inpatients shown theirrecords at a Washington .t a Washington generalhospital said it "helped thern dd it " helped them to betterunderstand their problems atl their problems and take amore active role in their tree role in their treatment".Seventy-one per cent felt nne per cent felt more self­confident as a result, despiteas a result, despite the factthat about half had been t half had been upset bysomething they read and a t they read and a third hadfelt more pessimistic. Nea pessimistic. Nearly halfthought staff became more raff became more respectfultowards them because of theem because of their accessto the record s. Seventy per cerds. Seventy per cent of thestaff thought access helped \lht access helped the treat­ment of most patients. Althcost patients. Although oneor two patients were thoughtients were thought to havebeen harmed none of the staffednone of the staff thoughtaccess was generally harms generally harmful. Theauthors reported that: "Tleported that: "The recordprovides documentation of iocumentation of progresswhich might otherwise not ~ht otherwise not be clearlyperceived by the patient. Mby the patient. Movementtowards the patient's therapete patient's therapeutic goalscan be reinforced, or his regreforced, or his regression canbe noted and possiblydiscouind possiblydiscouraged ...Information which may hen which may have beengiven verbally at a mornentially at a moment of stresscan be repeated in the record.ea ted in the record, and thus

. be 'stored' until the patient.' until the patient is betterable to utilise it". (8), (9) Ilise it". (8), (9)

• Psychiatric inpatients gratric inpatients give accessto their records in a Canadiecords in a Canadian mentalhospital "were more likely'were more likely to havecorrect information about tformation about their con­dition and treatment" than tl treatment" than those whodid not seetheir records. Stafe their records. Staff reportedthat in a number of cases "viumber of cases "viewing therecord was helpful to the ps helpful to the patient inallaying suspicions, develotuspicions, developing trustand even in achieving cons in achieving consent for aspecific treatment". Most ofeatment", Most of the stafffelt they had made some chad made some changes intheir recording practices, burding practices, but most ofthese were considered impre considered improvements.The most frequently rnst frequently mentionedchanges were describing twere describing behaviourmore specifically(mentionecifically (mentioned by 11/24staff), paying more atteaying more attention toaccuracy (8124), providim (8124), providing greaterdetail (6/24), and rephrasir24), and rephrasing certaininformation (6/24). "IWo stafbn (6/24). "IWo staff said theyincluded additional materi additional material in therecord; only two said less inhly two said less informationwas recorded. Twenty-threeded, Twenty-three of the 24staff said they were comforl they were comfortable withthe open records,and the maecords, and the majority feltaccess to the records could lthe records could be used asa therapeutic tool. (10) utic tool. (10)

• Psychiatrists at a Vermonatrists at a Vermont hospitalhave used requests for acd requests for access frompatients as the basis for ths the basis for therapeuticwork. They recommend thaty recommend that "recordsrequests should provide ashould provide an oppor­tunity for education and rr education and treatment"and suggest that the responest that the response to suchrequests should be "a posshould be "a positive andencouraging one". Before ing one". Before access isactually giventhey spend timiventhey spend time with thepatient trying to clarify the f'ling to clarify the factors thatprompted the reques t: "wt the request: "we develophypotheses to help explain tes to help explain the requestand then explorethese hypotexplorethese hypotheseswiththe patient . . . The questionu .. . The questions focus onpossible sources of cent sources of conflict bothcurrently and in the past. and in the past. If patientand therapist work thrcrapist work through thedynamic issues in this fashiissues in this fashion beforeturning to the record the ac) the record the actual chartreview can be accomplishecn be accomplished in a lessemotionally charged, morelly charged, more collabo­rativeway ... Readingthe re ... Readingthe record is thelast step and is often anticlimd is often anticlimatic. Weknow we have been successfthave been successful in trans­lating one kind of requesie kind of request when apatient who has been covho has been consistentlydemanding the record finahg the record finally gets it,casually flips through a (flips through a couple ofpages, and thanks us for oud thanks us for our time .. .For the patient who wants toitient who wants to read eachentry, we make ourselves a\ make ourselves available todecipher words, give definilwords, give definitions, andprovide brief nondefensive srief nondefensive answers toquestions about diagnosis ; about diagnosis and treat­ment. Finally, there are paially, there are patients forwhom a chart review sessionhart review session becomesthe vehicle for significant JIe for significant reaffirma­tion of the therapeutic alliei e therapeutic alliance and atime for meaningful psychotneaningfulpsychotherapeuticwork". (11) 11)

Won't people be upset or hann­ed by things they might read ontheir records?

People who want to beshielded from potentiallydistressing information will notbe affected by the Bill. Theywill simply not ask for theirfiles . But people who want fullinformation, and are preparedto face any distress that theknowledge may bring. would beable to obtain their records .

In fact , the evidence fromdoctors who allow patients tosee their notes is that most peo­ple are helped, not harmed, byseeing them.

If the doctor or social workerthought the person might suf­fer actual harm through seeingthe record, the Bill would allowthem to defer access for aperiod of up to six months .This would allow access to begiven after, rather than in themidst of, an acute emotionalcrisis. It would allow time fortreatment or counselling to beprovided or for the informationto be provided step by steprather than all at once. But theinformation would not bewithheld altogether.

One concern expressed bydoctors is that patients maycome across unconfirmedpossible diagnoses which maylater be found to be groundless.Wouldn't it be better to sparepatients the anxiety of discover­ing what is suspected until afirm diagnosis is reached?

Like the Data ProtectionAct, the Access to PersonalFiles Bill would allow up to 40days before a request for accesshas to be granted. This periodwill often be sufficient for teststo be carried out, and theresults used to confirm or rejectthe hypothesis.

But if the patient does notwant to wait, and would ratherknow what the possibilities arethan be left in complete ig­norance, the patient should beable to insist on knowing.

Couldn't the release of a recordaffect other people's rights?No, because the Bill containsspecific exemptions to protectprivate information aboutsomeone else, or informationwhich if released would exposesomeone to risk of attack orharm. Relatives would continueto be able to talk to a doctor inconfidence about the problemsof a mentally ill familymember: anything which identi­fied them as the source of any

REFERENCESI. M Baldry, C Cheal, B Fisher, MGillett, V Huet. 'Giving Patients TheirOwn Records in General Practice:Experience of Patients and Staff.BritishMedicalJournal, I March 1986,292, 595-8.2. A P Bird, M T I Walji. 'OurPatients HaveAccess to Their MedicalRecords'. British Medical Journal, IMarch 1986, 292, 595-6.3. M W Gill, D L Scott. 'Can PatientsBenefitFrom Reading Copies of TheirDoctors' Letters About Them?' BritishMedical Journal, 15 November 1986;293, 1278-9.4. D L Bronson, A S Rubin, H MThto. 'Patient Education ThroughRecord Sharing'. Quality ReviewBulletin, December 1978, 2-4.5. D P Stevens, R Stagg, I R MacKay.'What Happens When HospitalisedPatients See Their Own Records'.Annals of Internal Medicine, 1977, 86(4),474-7.6. A Golodetz, J Ruess, R L Milhous.'The Right to Know: Giving The Pa-

particular in formation wenot be disclosed .

Wbat about parents wbo •to see their children's recoiThe Bill would allowpatients of a person under Isee their records, but the I

tor would not be alloweereveal information provide,the young person in confidor information which if reied to the parent would danthe confidential basis ofdoctor-patient relationsInformation which mightpose the child to risk - fOIample from a violent palcould also not be disclose

Would records compiled II«the Bill came into fore'covered?No, the BiD does not aretrospectively. But docwould be free to show patitheir earlier records ifwanted to .

Could a doctor be sued forby a patient who fosomething uncomplimenwritten on the notes?No, doctors and medical ,are protected from libel actby 'qualified privilege' preed the comment was macgood faith.

Won't doctors be overwheby an unmanageable nOtaccess requests?In most cases people wilneed to use a formal right I

cess to get the informatiorneed. A change in the lavmerely signal to doctors all

tients that people who W2see a report that comes in Ithem from a specialist, 0results of tests, should beto do so. Usually this .need a formal written apjtion: the patient who ext»an interest in seeing a lettehas arrived will simplshown it.

Often the only reasondoesn't normally happepresent is because offessional etiquette. The cotion is that doctors write teother about the patient infidence. The GP's only nfor not showing a consulletter to the patient may Ibelief that this would firquire the consultant'smission. If a right of acceists, letters will be writtenknowledge that the patiersee them, and the unnececomplications raised by psional etiquette will no 1apply.

tient His Medical Record'. AIMed. Rehabil. February I78-81.7. L R Roth, J Wolford, A'Patient Access to Records:Toxin?' Am. 1. Psychiatry, J(5), 592-6.8. E J Stein, R L Furedy, M ,ton, C H Neuffer. 'Patient!Medical Records on a Psychipatient Unit'. Am. 1.Psychiatr1979, 136 (3), 327-9.9. M J Simonton, C H NeuStein, R L Furedy. 'The OpenRecord: An Educational Toand Mental Health Services, I1977, 25-30.W. W J G McFarlane, R G IM MacInnes. 'Patient AlHospital Records. A PilotCan.' 1. Psychiatry, 1980,497-502.11. R A Bernstein, E A !'Response Strategies for CIquests From Psychiatric InjHospital and Community PsOctober 1982, 33 (10), 841-3

r

Freedom of Inforrormation inthe Town Hall a- a special repol

The Loopholes in the ActThe Local Govt. (Accessto Infonnstion) Act has now been in operationfor a fnll year and a survey of a suhstantial cross-section of localauthorities - more than 200 in aU - by the Campaign for Freedomof Information reveals suhstantial wriations in the way the legislationis being implemented.• Some local authorities have done a lot to publicise the new oppor­tunities for access to information. Others have done little.• Some local authorities make no charge, or only a small charge foraccess to information; others charge prohibitively.• Some local authorities have kept exemptions from access tocommittees and infonnstion to a minimum; others stiD devote consider­able ingenuity to the presemtion of secrecy.

The broad conclnsion to be reached from tbe survey is that some localauthorities are trying hard to reflect not only the stated intention butthe spirit of the law and others are ducking their responsibilities withaU of the determination and guile usuaUyassociated with tax avoidance.

As a result of its survey, the Campaign for Freedom of Informationhas decided to launch a campaign to promote more positive implemen·tation of the Act.• The Campaign will be writing to all local authorities with details ofthe survey.• It will also be requesting local authorities who are thwarting theintentions of the Act to reconsider their policies.• It intends, bowever, to apply pressure on the delinquent authoritiesvia local supporting organisations, rather than from a national plat­form. believing that local pressure will be more effective and thatnationaUy applied pressure can be counter-productive and sometimesinsensitive to particular local circumstances.

The Campaign received 204 fully- have dealt with bet:w~en 500 ~dcompleted questionnaires from a 600 requests for their Informationbroad cross-section of local desk:authorities. Where the breakdown We asked: have you, in additionof answers does not equal this total or instead of contacting hou.se­it is because of qualifications in holds taken any of the followmganswers, or lack of clarity. measures:

Advertised in local papers:~s~ed whet~er they had sent Replies: Yes 22, No 171.

publiCity matenal o~ th~ A~t to Arranged editorial publicity inhous.eh?lders, 29 replied yes and local papers:165 no . Replies: Yes 54, No 141.

Common ways of reaching Put up notices in suitable publichouseholds were: places:• Publication of a feature on the Replies: Yes 92, No 92.

Act in a council newspaper dis- Asked how many days' noticetributed to all households. they gave the public of forth-

• Sending of a summary of the coming meetings (under the ActAct with rate demands to all they are required to give three clearrate-payers. days) local authorities responded

Some local authorities have been as follows: 79 gave a minimum ofoutstandingly determined to three clear days notice, 64 gavepublicise the Act for instance. more than three clear days notice.Bradford has sent a summary of 50 gave three days notice but notthe 'open access provisions' with necessarily three clear days.rates information to all house- Under the Act local authoritiesholders. It has paid for a two-page are required to give '3 clear days'ad. in the local business telephone advance notice of meetings, thisdirectory. Leaflets on the policy are includes making available not onlyavailable at all public libraries . A the time and place of the meetingfive-minute video film has been but the agenda, any reports likelycommissioned and will soon be to be considered in public andavailable for public showing. An copies of background papers reliedannual budget of £10,000 has been on in preparing such reports. '3set aside to publicise the new clear days' here means 3 daysrights. excluding weekends or bank

Hertsmere have produced and holidays when council offices arewidely publicised full details of the closed and not counting either thepublic's rights to obtain infor- day of the meeting or the day themation, see documents and attend notice is posted.meetings, in the form of a council Most of those authorities whichguide, "Access to Information". gavemore than 3 'clear days notice,Copies have been made available in fact give 7 days notice. Onefree of charge by post and from notable example of good practicevarious council offices throughout is provided by Rochford wherethe Borough. Posters and handbills Agenda are put on deposit 'twogiving the same information have Fridays in advance of the week ofalso been widely distributed. the meetings'.

Since April I 1986 Hertsmere The intention here is clear -

•Four Campaign AimsThe Campaign for Freedom of Information urges local organisa­tions, and councillors , to carry oot their own review of how theirlocal authority is implementing the Act.

II proposes that, In particular, they press for the following:(1) Imaginative puhlicity of the rights created by the Act,

preferably direct to every home.(2) Minimum possible charges for photocopying, and in the cases

of a few pages, no cha'l:e at all,(3) Elimination of the charge for inspection of papers and reports

where photocopying Is not involved.(4) Review of information stiDdiscussed in secret, aod extension

of Implementation of the Act to cover all groups within thecouncil's control - I.e. panels, working parties, as well as for­mal committees .

Page 6

maximum posisble advanm posisble advance noticeof meetings is provided tmgs is provided to encour­age people to exercise thele to exercise their rightsin accordance with the spilancewith the spirit of thenew law. This contrasts d This contrasts dramatic­ally with the attitude 0 the attitude of thoseauthorities which in attenes which in attempting tocomply with the minimunvith the minimum require­ment for advance notice ' advance notice of meet­ings etc, fail even to dis fail even to distinguishbetween days when the days when the counciloffices are open, and tire open, and thereforeaccessible, compared to \'C, compared to weekendsand bank holidays. k holidays.

Asked whether they whether they made acharge for photocopying, ir photocopying, 178 localauthorities said 'yes' andes said 'yes' and 17 said'no'.

98 report that they chanrt that they charged lOpper A4 sheet. heet.

37 charge more than uge more than lOp persheet.

39 charge less than arge less than lOp persheet.

The discrepancy betwescrepancy between thoseauthorities which either res which either make nocharge or charge whaor charge what couldgenuinely be describers be described as 'areasonable fee' and thosle fee' and those whichovercharge is often comge is often compoundedby the authority's policy cthority's policy on mini­mum charge. Giventhat,wlrge. Giventhat.when onlya few sheets are requireieets are required (as isoften the case for agee case for agenda formeetings, for example), th, for example), the cost ofprocessingthe charge is likg the charge is likelyto bemore than the sum reeoverathe sum reeovered, thereare two options: either toptions: either to imposea minimum charge or toam charge or to issue alimited number of copiesumber of copies free ofcharge. There are, as usual,hereare, as usual, notableexamplesof good and bad of good and bad practicewhich givesome idea of the some idea of the overaUdiscrepancy here. ICy here.

Basingstoke & Deane,stoke & Deane, Lutonand Winchester all chargchester all charge £2 forthe first sheet copied and .heet copied and lOp persheet for subsequent copicsubsequent copies; Mid­Bedfordshire charge £1 foriJire charge £1 for the firstsheet and 50p per sheet for 50p per sheet for furthercopies; compare this w:ompare this with thecharges levied by Dyfflevied by Dyffed andForest of Dean of 2p per sDean of 2p per sheet, orDevon of 3p per sheetf 3p per sheet. Some ­authorities have seen fit es have seen fit to revisetheir original policies on cinal policies on chargingsince the Act was introdi Act was introduced: inJanuary 1987 Oxford Cit]l987 Oxford City Coun­cil issued a press release ara press release announc­ing the introduction of introduction of a trialscheme to make committo make committee agen­das and reports availablereports available to thepublic at no cost (Previouslno cost (Previously 5p persheet). The Chair of theme Chair of their PublicAffairs Committee said: '''ommittee said: "We hopethat by making committee aking committee agendasmore easily available, sily available, Oxfordpeople will be encouragedll be encouraged to playa fuller part in the affairs art in the affairs of theirCity Council . Voluntary oncil. Voluntary organisa­tions and local groups, il local groups, in parti­cular, often need detailed izn need detailed informa­tion about the work of thrt the work of the Coun­cil and we want to make th. want to make that infor­mation about the C, about the Council'sactivities as easily avail as easily available aspossible:'

Asked "Do you make s"Do you make a chargefor inspecting backpecting backgrounddocuments", 49 answered ~s", 49 answered 'yes', and145 answered 'no'. ered 'no'.

Amongst those autIgst those authoritieswhich levy a charge, sumy a charge, sums rangefrom 25p to £10.00 + VAlto £10.00 + VAT per setof background papers.ground papers. Someauthorities charge an hoes charge an hourly ratedepending on how muchg on how much officertime is taken up - the eiken up - the exampleswe have are in the range ore in the range of £4-£5per hour.

The general impressionneral impression here isthat most of the figures qt of the figures quoted inresponse to this questi to this question aretheoretical amounts whicil amounts which couldbe levied if the occasion sif the occasion arose. Aminority of councils are sof councils are attempt­ing to cover themselves byer themselves by making

The Local Govt. (Access toInformation) Act required aDlocal authorities to admit thepublic to not Just couneil andcommittee meetings but alsosub-committee meetings.

It created newrights of accessto the agenda, minutes,background papers and reportsfor meetings.

The variations in implemen·tation have occnred because ofthe Act's flexibilityon a nmoberof issues.

For instance, it wasieft up tolocal authorities how theywould publicise the Act. Theonly specific requlrementis to

a provision to charge substantialsums and then justifying this bysaying they have not actually feltit necessary to impose these feesbecause of the small number of re­quests they have had to deal within practice. The problem with thisrationale is that it ignores theconsiderable disincentive offeredto the public by the existence ofsuch a system of charges. Theattempt to pre-empt the possibilityof having to deal with time­consuming requests for informa­tion goes totally against the spiritof the new legislation.

The last two questions deal withthe exclusion of the public frommeetings of council bodies otherthan committees or sub-com­mittees (and therefore outside thescope of the Act) or from com­mittee and sub-committeemeetings (when 'exempt' informa­tion is to be discussed).

Asked ''Which official Councilbodies do you believe are notcovered by the Act and thereforeclosed to the public'.

125 authorities gaveexamples ofworking parties or other bodieswhich are closed to the public.

66 anthoritles replied that noneof their Council bodies is closedto the public.

The range of replies to thisquestion again reveal fundamentaldifferences in attitude to the newrights enjoyed by the public underthe Act. Under the Public Bodies(Admission to Meetings) Act 1960and the Local Govt, Act 1972 fullCouncil and committee meetingshad to take place in public - butsub-committee meetings did not.Thus a committee could delegateitems to a sub-committee so thatthey could be discussed in private,regardlessof the public's interest inthe issue. Public discussion issimilarly avoidable by relegating aparticular item to discussion dur­ing a meeting of a working partyor specialist panel.

To be fair, many authorities areat pains to point out that anyworking parties etc which areclosed to the public pre-date theAct and are emphatically not adevice to escape from the obliga­tions it imposes. Some of theexamples of working parties etcmeeting in private did appearfaintly ridiculous: Aberdeen's'International Football FestivalTrust, for example, or Hertsmere's'Indoor Tennis Centre WorkingParty.'

But perhaps more worrying thansuch idiosyncracies is the failure ofmany authorities even to specify inwhich particular area any workingparties held in closed session wereoperating. 'Working Party' can be

have details of rights to hmatlon avaUahle for inspl!<at the town haD.

Second, councils weremitted to charge "a reasonfef!' to cover administl1costs of photocopying an,spectlon of docmoents,there was no definltlom"reasonable". Furthermorwas entirely up to the COlwhether it would charge a fonot.

Third, the Act left Iauthorities with considelpowers to exempt informlfrom its provisions, or dissome matters in secret sess

used as a blanket technicthe same way as 'Sub-Comonce could . In contrast wattitude other authoritiesclear that it was their pcapply the Act to all meetinthough they may not teclfall under its provisions. 5was one of these: "Certaiiing parties, consultative bOIsite visits are not coveredAct. The Council has decidever that all these quasimittees should be open to tand public as if they wereby the Act. At the momeiis no meeting of a ConSub-Commitee or Qua!mittee of the Council whicopen to the public and prwhich is not subject to the:ments of the Act:'

Asked "Can you list sthe matters for which CODor bodies which normaDthe public to attendnecessary to go into 'exe..sion' all bnt 3 authorities Iamples of occasions when Ithis to be necessary.

However, a large numauthorities pointed ouexclusion of the public is r.happens less often than WI

technically possible if ,categories of exempt inforwerefullyexploited.TheActthat Councils may, but do nto excludethe public from aof a meeting when it is like'exempt' information woukwise be disclosed. Theobvious reasons why inforwhich comes under theheadings listed above maybe considered in private ,But it is equally obvious tlwill not always be the casematic exclusion is likelyunnecessarily restrictive.authorities recognise this:

"There is no automatksion of the public but thoters for which the pubusually be excluded ilnegotiations between tradeand councils .. . considerstenders (report of decisiopublic); staff matters conindividuals (but not wgeneral policy is under dis- unless it is the subnegotiations etc):' [NortDerbyshire]

Variations in implemethere as elsewhere, are the r,the Act's flexibility - d,made at the discretiindividual authorities conconfound the Act's intent:

IReport by Laura Tho

National UriionofEmployees

National Union ofStudents

SHACSHELTERSocial AuditSociety ofCivil & F

ServantsSOGAT'82The Patients AssocTown & Country P

AssociationTRANSPORT 200World Developmer

MovementWriters ' Guild of C

Britain

Carey OppenheimArthur OrmondUna PadelVicky PhillipsChristopher PriceRussell PriceEsther RantzenGeoffrey RobertsorArnold SimonwitzTony SmytheSarah SpencerKim StallwoodNancyTaitJames TyeJohn WardSandra WardWHPWatleyBen WhittakerDes WilsonJohn Winward

Self-Employed &Businesses

National Gas ConstCouncil

National Peace COtPrison Reform TruRoyal Town Planni

InstituteScottish ConsumerUnion.ofShop,

Distributive & AlWorkers

Workers EducationAssociation

Patricia HewittDave HiggsSimon HigmanRalph JacksonPeter JayMargaret JeffreyWalter JeffreyJohn JenningsGeorge JeromeJulie KaufmanSheila KavanaghJenny KuperTim LangFaith LawsonTony LennonSuzanne MayMary McAnallyNeil McIntoshSheila McKechnieCharles MedawarThe Bishop of

Birmingham

GingerbreadGMBATUGuildof British

Newspaper EditorsInstitute of Information '

ScientistsLondon Regional

Passenger CommitteeNational Consumer

CouncilNational Council for the

Welfare of PrisonersAbroad

National Federation ofWomens' i nstITUtes

National Federation of

[)ame Elizabeth AckroydLord AveburyRon BairdDavid BaldockAlastair BeatonTom BerneyWilliam BingleyGodfrey BradmanLeslie ChapmanJames Cornford

(Chairman)George CunninghamAnne DillonLord DonoughueJake EcclestoneValerie EllisHarold EvansDaphne GroseDavid HallVincent HannaToby HarrisAlex Henney

Association of FirstDivision Civil Servants

British Youth CouncilBroadcasting &

Entertainment TradesAlliance

Cancer Prevention SocietyChild Poverty Action

GroupChildrens Legal CentreChurch of England Board

for SocialResponsibilityConsumers' Association

' Earth Resources ResearchFriends of the Earth

(Scotland)

Council for Freedom of Information(The Policy-making forum for the campaign)

Observer Organisations

Supporting Organisations

ACTT CLEARAction for the Victims Fire Brigades Unionof Medical Accidents Friends of the EarthAssociation of Institution of Professional

Metropolitan Civil ServantsAuthorities Legal Action Group

Association of Library Association"' Community Health London Food Commission

Councils MINDBritish Humanist NALGO

Association National Council for CivilBritish Safety Council LibertiesBUAV National Council forCampaign for People with Voluntary

Mental Handicaps OrganisationsCampaign for Press & National Graphical

Broadcasting Freedom AssociationCivil & Public Services National Union of

Association Journalists

The CampaignII for Freedomof Information

3 Endsleigh Street, London WClH ODD Tel: 01-278 9686

a welcome modernisation oe modernisation of the law.It would also be consisten also be consistent with theprinciple that 'I n an open sothat 'I n an open society thereshould be freedom of inforre freedom of information andpublication' ", on' ",

Justice behind close' behind closed doors

The Independent 'is ndependent 'is currentlyheading a substantial campzasubstantial campaign againstgrowing trends in secrecy artrends in secrecy among thosewith authority in the courhority in the courtrooms.

Various areas of High COIS areas of High Court secrecy,including the indiscriminatg the indiscriminate use of theContempt of Court Act !pt of Court Act throughouttrials either to delay publicaier to delay publication of cer­tain details, or to put a cosils, or to put a complete banon publication of proceedcation of proceedings, havebeen subject to a barrage oject to a barrage of criticismin recent editions. t editions.

A January report desnuary report described theRoyal Courts of Justice.lourts of Justice, home ofEngland's supreme civil a's supreme civil and appealcourts. as the 'biggest foruns the 'biggest forum for secretjustice'.

It gave as an example the' as an example the 99 per centof cases in the Family Divi:in the Family Division whichare held behind closed do: behind closed doors despitethe fact that the argumentthat the argument for open­ing the family courts can heunily courts can he supportedby past cases showing an intases showing an interest whichstretches into the public d. into the public domain.

Attempts to contest secnpts to contest secrecy rulingshave frequently heen thwarquently heen thwarted becauseof Section 29 of the Supron 29 of the Supreme CourtAct 1981 which directs ttl which directs that judges'orders, even if made impreven if made improperly andunlawfully, cannot he <jly, cannot he questioned.Although decisions madeh decisions made in lowercourts are subject to judice subject to judicial review,Crown Court judges canneourt judges cannot be con­"tested over matters relating'er matters relating to trial onindictment. :nt.

Earlier this year journalisr this year journalists and civilrights campaigners madeampaigners made a majorbreakthrough in their chough in their challenge to

, judicial secrecy when the secrecy when the EuropeanCommission on Human Rigdon on Human Rights decidedthat Section 29 of the Suprdon 29 of the Supreme CourtAct could he in hreach of.d he in hreach of Article l3of the European Conve European Convention onHuman Rights which requiRights which requires the pro­vision of an effective domes an effective domestic remedyfor those whose rights aree whose rights are violated. .

The action in question sction in question was broughtby Channel 4, the Nationanel 4, the National Union ofJournalists. and the NCCUsts. and the NCCL who con­tested a restriction of repoirestriction of reporting of theofficial secrets trial of Clisecrets trial of Clive Pontingin February, 1985. Having dary, 1985. Having decided that 'there may be an argument iy be an argument for judicialreview, the Commission wilhe Commission will now go onto study the merits of th, the merits of the case andmediate in any attempts b in any attempts between thejournalists and the governrsts and the government to set­tle, without having to go hout having to go hefore a fullhearing of the Court c of the Court of HumanRights. Initial meetings hanitial meetings have alreadytaken place . ace.

Land Registry to remainclosed to public inspection

have no right to see the evidenceagainst them which the Parole Boardrelies upon, the Board cannot beregarded as judicial in character.Britain was found to be in violation ofarticle 5(4) of the Convention. The rul­ing means either that the Parole Boardwill have to allow disclosure in suchcases, or that a right of appeal to a dif­ferent body will have to he provided.

The campalgn to end the traditionalsecrecy which veils land ownership inEngland and Wales has been stalled byopposition from The Law Society andthe Country Landowners Association,the Observer reported In January, Itsaid: ", ' , objections have promptedLord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor,to shelve plans to open the LandRegistry to public inspection, despitethe Law Commission's strong recom ­mendation in favour of such a move.Groups calling for an open register in­clude the Consumers' Association andthe housing charity Shelter. MichaelGregory, legal adviser to the landowner's association, said an openregister wou ld lead to 'noseyparkerism' and invade privacy,'

The ownership of land affects thelives of millions of people. Titles ofland ownership are for the most partregistered and at present the register onwhich the title are kept is closed topublic inspection. Almost alI othercountries in the world that haveregistration systems have entirely openand unrestricted access, Ownership ofland in Scctland, whether registered ornot, has always been a public matter.Advantages of an open Register toconsumers would include simpler andcheaper conveyancing, and for tenants,the right to know the identity ofahsentee landlords, should they wishto complain about poor maintenanceof property etc.

In 1985 the Law Commission'sreport of land registration concluded:"We are persuaded not only that thereis no sound reason for retaining thesecrecy rule, but that significantbenefits ' . . and no substantial dis­advantages would flow from a whollyopen Register of Title. We wereespecially influenced by the experienceof other countries with openregisters . , , as well as by the accep­tance in England and Wales of other

. public registers . . . Accordingly, open-ing the Register of Title would appearto us, as to the great majority of those :who gave us their views, to represent

r-

Britain has been found to be inbreach of the European Convention onHuman Rights because of the secrecyin which decisions to recall releasedlife-sentence prisoners are taken. TheEuropean Court ruling was made ona case brought by a life sentenceprisoner who was released after serv­ing lO years but subsequently recalledto prison by the Home Secretary.

Article 5(4) of the European Con­vention entitles anyone who has beenarrested or detained to challenge thedecision in front of a court or indepen­dent body fulfilling a judicial function.The scope for judicial review by theHigh Court is too narrow to help insuch cases. but the British Governmentargued that the Parole Board provid­ed a proper forum. This argument hasbeen rejected by the European Court.The Court ruled that because prisoners "

A fitter at the SeUafield nuclearplant who was contaminated withradioactive material has been sackedfor revealing details of the incident toa newspaper. Mr Philip Cundy was ex­posed. to radiation while working at theCalder Hall military reactor atSeUafield. The incident occurred inFebruary 1986 around the time ofseveral other well publicised leaks, butwas not announced by British NuclearFuels. Mr Cundy claimed that hecauseshowers at the reactor were not work­ing he was forced to take off his pro­tective clothing while they were stillcovered with radioactive dust, which asa result stuck to his hair, chest, faceand hands. After showering at anotherreactor tests showed he was still con­taminated and a second shower wasneeded. He claimed he was refused atest to see if he had ingested con­taminated dust. He gave details to anewspaper reporter who approachedhim - and was dismissed after the ar­ticle waspuhlished. Although the com­pany initially were determined to fighthis claim for unfair dismissal it agreedto pay him £6000 compensation afterhe applied for 15 witnesses to appearbefore the tribunal to describe theplant's safety procedures.

• continued from page 2

Secret Facts

Parole secrecy breachesEuropean Convention

Sellafield worker sacked for

disclosing safety defects

Campaign for Freedomdomof Information I

The Committee for Freedom of Information(The Campaign management committee)

Des Wilson (Co-Chairman) Charles MedawarChristopher Price David Hall

(Co-Chairman) Richard GutchJames Cornford Ron LaceyJames Michael Neil McIntosh

Tony SmytheMartin SmithJacob Bcclestone

r - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - ----- - ----- - - - -Panel of former Civil Servants advising the CampaignSir Douglas Wass (Chair) Sir Kenneth Clucas Michael PowerLord Croham Sir Patrick Nairne

Chairman of Council: James CornfordCo-Chairmen of Committee:

Christopher Price and Des WilsonTreasurer: Neil McIntosh

Chairman of Parliamentary AdvisoryCommittee: Jonathan Aitken MP

Director: Maurice Frankel

3 Endsleigh StreetLondon WCIH ODD

Telephone: 01-278 9686

'ice Frankel

I StreetIHODD1-2789686

All-Party Parliamentary Advisory Committee

Jonathan Aitken (Con) Charles Irving (Con)(Chairman) Robert Maclennan (SOP)

Sir Bernard Braine (Con) Ian Wrigglesworth (SDP)Robin Squire (Con) Jeff Rooker (Lab)Chris Smith (Lab) Michael MeadowcroftSteve Norris(Con) (Lib), .

Clement Freud (LibDafydd Wigley (Pla

Cymru)DOQaldStewart(S~Allan Roberts (Lab:

NAME .

You can support the Campaign by becoming a subscriber and sending £10 a 3!nding £10 a yearI/We wish to be a subscriber and enclose £10.

How to be a supporter ter International AdvisersRalph Nader (USA) Spencer ZifcakHarold Relyea (USA) (Australia)Lars Brach (Netherlands)

Scottish Advisory PanelPeter Gibson David Goldberg

.Sir Guy Powles (NeZealand)

Donald MacPhillac

ADDRESS .

.............................. ............................................................................................. Local affiliate organisationsThe Campaign has 366 local affiliate organistions•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • •• • • ••• ••• • • • •• ••••• • • 0. 0 0 0 0 .0 • • • • 0000 • • 0. 00 00 • ••••

To: Campaign for Freedom of Information.

I/We wish to be a subscriber and enclose £10

I1We enclose an additional £ as a donation.L ~_--~--------------------------------J

House of LordsThe Campaign has 57 supporters in the House of Lords

House of CommonsThe Campaign has 200 supporters in the House of Commm

Time to keep tb the promise~

''A Freedom of Information Act and the repealof Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act . .. I'mglad to say will feature in the SDP/LiberalAlliance manifesto;'The Rt Hon Dr David Owen,Leader of the SDp,FoI Awards Speech 1987

"I repeat here ... the next Lab. the next Labour Governmentwill, as a matter of priority, re;of priority, repeal Section 2 ofthe Official Secrets Act and Jets Act and replace it with aFreedom of Information Act;'rmation Act;'The Rt Hon Neil Kinnock, 'nnock,Leader of the Labour Party, IT Party,FOI Awards speech, 1986. 1986.

"The ease is now overwhelming .. . wereplace the discredited Official Secrets Acpositive freedom of information, with 1drawn exemptions;'The Rt Hon David Steel,Leader of the Liberal Party,FoI Awards speech, 1985•.

The following is whatCampaign would like to see i'the party manifestos at the ]General Election:

"We will act decisively andmatter of priority to repealOfficial Secrets Act, and replawith a Freedom of Informationproviding for a public right of a<to all official information, subjelimited and specific exemptiorprotect national security and prlaw enforcement, and to uprights of privacy.

"The objective of the legislawill be to establish a position wthose in authority have to desecrecy, rather that the public hato prove its right to know".

manifest(

Whafhat lIVelIVould like'_..'411; WSW'\ .. '" _

see in the

OFFICIAL INFORMA'I\L INFORMATION(PUBLIC ACCESSJBLlC ACCESS)

Mrs. Re_ Short asked I Short asked the PrimoMinister whether she intenddler she intends to bringforward legislation to establiSation to establish a publicright of access to official infon to official information.

The PrIme MinIsler: No. MinIsler: No.

Mrs. ae_ Short asked ~ Short asked the PrimeMinister if she is satisfied with : is satisfied with the currentpublic right of access to officif access to official informa­tion.

The Prime MiDlster: Yes. MiDlster: Yes.

What they sayabout f.o.i.ConservativeThe Prime Minister has made it clear that a freedomof information act is in her view "both inappropriateand unnecessary".

Both she and her Ministers have replied "no" to avariety of requests in the House of Commons either torepeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act or to intro­duce freedom of information legislation.

LabourThe Labour leader Neil Kinnock and other frontbenchspokesmen have indicated the party will introducefreedom of information legislation.

FoI has featured in resolutions endorsed by successiveparty conferences over the years, and a specific pledge

.appeared in the Labour Manifesto at the October 1974election to "replace the Official Secrets Act with a

I measure to put the burden on the public authorities tojustify withholding information".

Neil Kinnock wrote in the Secrets Newspaper in 1984"I regret that the last Labour government succumbedto the temptation, left the Official Secrets Actunreformed, a Freedom of Information Act unlegis­lated" He wenton to say that the party had re-committeditself by conferenceresolutions and in its 1983 manifestoand concluded "I have already made plain my owncommitment and that of the Labour Party to the intro­duction of a Freedom of Information Act. It is acommitment which will be honoured as a priority"

AllianceBoth leaders of the Alliance, David Steel and DavidOwen, have strongly supported the introduction of free­dom of information legislation. David Steel introduceda Freedom of Information Bill under the Ten MinuteRule procedure in the House of Commons.

Both Alliance parties have recentlypassed conferenceresolutions reaffirming their support for freedom ofinformation and repeal of Section 2.

Page 8