By Simon Bucks, Associate Editor

Yesterday was a good day for everyone who believes in the right to know.
Gordon Brown announced that the government had retreated from two measures which would have seriously diluted media freedom. 
One was a plan to restrict the rights of journalists to report inquests in coroners’ courts, which would have made it possible for a coroner to prevent the name of the dead person being made public.
The other was a proposal to tighten the charging system for Freedom of Information requests, which would have effectively rationed them, and made it easier for officials to refuse them.
The FOI was introduced by the Blair regime, but as it resulted in a string of stories exposing official incompetence and scandals, the government (unsurprisingly) went cold on it.
The new Prime Minister, by contrast, says he is determined to improve the transparency of government.
Yesterday’s announcement represents an important victory for media groups including the Society of Editors who have been lobbying against the proposals.
But Brown has gone further – saying that he wants to extend the FOI to cover private firms doing government work, such as Private Finance Initiative contracts.
And he has set up a commission to review the rule which delays publication of government papers for 30 years. If that results in the period being cut to, say, 20 years, we could soon learn some of the secrets of the Thatcher administration.
These announcements were wrapped up by Brown in a speech which outlined a wider shake-up of secrecy laws and constitutional reform. Opposition parties argue that the Labour government remains the most authoritarian in modern British history.
But for today at least we should celebrate the striking of an important blow for media freedom.

Comments

[Eddie Allen Tyne & Wear 17 Dec 2007 12:20:22]

Freedom of the press to do what exactly ?

The only time this government pays any attention to them is if they want an election but all other times they dismiss the press as biased.

Even the polls taken are ignored, just look at how many polls have been taken on the Treaty for instance and yet Brown dismisses the value of them as reflecting public opinion. Truly this is a flagrant abuse of power we are seeing and if the press really are free, then it should start to exercise that freedom on behalf of their readers by campaigning intelligently for a referendum and general election in order that freedom and democracy can be served as a traditional English dish.

[kevin, nottingham 28 Nov 2007 18:50:30]

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a sky news story page for the current week made up from contributions from posters of alternative versions of the stories that sky had published, obviously with the posters angle on the story and hence removing any responsibility from Sky News.

It could turn out to be fun if set up in the right way so that readers realise the source of the stories is not sky news.

Any angle as daft as you like could go as long as it's not offensive and whoever sky news allocated could select the stories on their value be it amusing or creative.

See what you think Ed.

Might stop a few gripes!

[G. Browne, London 30 Oct 2007 16:32:39]

Sky News and Freedom of Information ??? How about giving us some Freedom-from-Bias-and Mitchell propaganda when disgracefully reporting the McCann stories then

[Sam Mitchell 28 Oct 2007 08:08:57]

You appear to believe that giving journalists more information will somehow open our eyes. How out of touch you are. I suggest you try to read Private Eye. Discover the links to relationships between politicians, their friends, their family members who all hang on to the gravy train, and yet all these links are rarely reported, especially in Sky News. So what with more FoI would your organisation report, old news, entertainment gossip or sports?
I agree that this NuLabour crew have introduced more restrictions on freedom than the public is normally aware of yet your employer never reports on this but supports through its media outlets those who back NuLabour.
The pot calls the kettle black.

[roy jnkins 26 Oct 2007 18:22:25]

I have to laugh when i read this the Commissioner at the Information Commission Office has just written to me stating he will not contact President Bliar, President Brown, the Home Office, the Speaker of the house and others.

Firstly this commissioner claims i was to late with my request, he then states i should have a good reason for being late with my application, i have pointed out that though these corrupt individuals and authorities replied to my request letter they refused to give me the information i requested and further they never informed me in their letters that if i was dissatisfied i should contact the ICO.

Today i have received another letter from the same commissioner of the ICO now saying as i didn't supply information to the ICO regards Falconer and the Civil Appeals court i should write to Falconer again.

The ICO state they have no power to prosecute or to take people to court, yet on a Watchdog program not so long ago one of the ICOs senior officers stated on this program that if they didn't get the replies they had requested the persons involved could/would be taken to court:))

Also earlier this year a national paper had the ICO force Gordon Brown MP to release documents they had been requesting for two years after the ICO intervened Brown released the files requested. I have been told the ICO do not have the power to obtain documents for me from Brown??

Still as the most corrupt government in English history it isn't surprising is it.

Documents available any time.

[Khalid 26 Oct 2007 12:53:52]

Insofar as to the matter of Coroners’ Inquests, it really beggars belief as to why anyone would want to withhold the name of the deceased, save for matters within, many an insurance policy payout depends upon such factual reporting.
Thus far as the FOI and its perceived rationing, further taking on board the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, I’m afraid government will have a very hard task to convince that (a) When you pay you get something meaningful. (b) When and if such a subject access request is or if delivered, it will either make sense or be viable by the time it is delivered.