Censorship: how the other half lies

Governments can justifiably suppress information to save lives, but not to save face, says Alan Clark

Related Topics
Censorship is one of those terms like "fascist" or "politically correct" that have slid downwards into the pool of all-purpose pejoratives, whose deployment can often indicate little more than generalised distaste, or hostility.

I regard it as meaning the denial or interdiction of information by decree (usually Order in Council, occasionally by Statute) when applied by government. The term can be stretched to include deliberate omission or distortion of "news" by private or corporate pressure, or the threat of civil damages, but I would like to look at censorship by government.

In my view this is justifiable in two categories only, and they should be drawn as narrowly as possible.

First, the vexatious heading of "national security". Most people would accept that technical service information - the operational charts of ocean-going submarines; codes and cyphers; key sequences in electronic counter-measure, for example - are properly kept secret. And in the intelligence field the authorities have a duty to protect as best they can the lives (and thus usually the identities) of their agents.

The second area in which a measure of censorship by government is legitimate (but where, I am sorry to say, it is often abused) is that classified as "commercial confidentiality". Plainly, where an investor with prior knowledge could make a fast profit - ministerial procurement contracts, referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission - the authorities have an equitable duty to avoid premature disclosure.

There are three other categories where governments do practise, or at least attempt to apply, censorship. In my view they do so quite wrongly and often under the pretence that one or both of the two "primary" considerations apply. These are administrative convenience, public reputation of ministers or officials, and personal embarrassment.

Most MPs are slack and incompetent, if not actually venal, in their operation of the procedure for parliamentary questions. They draft usually on the basis of getting a headline that will, if noticed by their constituents, indicate "activity". Some table, or get their researchers to draft, hundreds. Some occasionally perk up a bit and take (extra) money for so doing.

Very few MPs - Tam Dalyell is the most effective and persistent, but Nicholas Budgen and Richard Shepherd are also "dangerous" - have mastered the technique of repeated interrogation: how to use last week's ministerial answer as the building block for next week's question. But if you have worked in a minister's outer office you will know the flap that precedes "First for Questions". There is an apprehension not just that the minister will fluff his answer, but that something might be given away that will lead to more work; establishment, or erosion, of "precedent"; even a reproachful note from his permanent (or, still worse, the cabinet) secretary. All because of this one critical pitfall: a minister must not lie to the House of Commons. If he does, he's out. The same day.

As a result, every Question Time is a potential bout of arm-wrestling between the established order and those who have the capability, though it seems very seldom the inclination, to discover the truth. I always found it strange that MPs did so little to press their advantage here. I never saw officials actually repress information, although sometimes they would withhold it (passim Sir Robin Butler, "Truth can be no more than half the picture"). But here no reform is needed, except to the intelligence and tenacity of those who are entitled to put the questions.

The fourth category, which as a historian I have always found particularly irritating (and which, of course, often overlaps with that of administrative convenience), is the protection of reputations. As we know, this can be extended from the reputation of a deceased functionary into a general susceptibility to the feelings of relatives, and even surviving offspring.

The arguments are well-rehearsed. They are deployed to justify the 30- year rule, which is too often extended to 50 years, sometimes even to the total excision and destruction of documents. Freedom of discussion and the quality of official advice would be inhibited if the participants thought that their fallibility might, with hindsight, be prematurely (sic) revealed.

This is completely bogus. The public are not allowed to know the truth about Cabinet discussion of peace terms with Hitler; or the contents of Rudolf Hess's brief which he brought on his mission in 1941; or the wartime antics and financial speculations of the Duke of Windsor; or the full degree of pressure applied by the Americans to sterling over Suez; or the text of the consultations during the Cuban missile crisis. None of this has anything to do with personal reputations. It is far more a kind of general "not-in-the-public interest" factor.

You might ask, why not? To which the only possible answers are (a) "because not"; and (b) "because it might lower the esteem in which you held your elders and betters". Unbelievably, (b) is also deployed as a serious argument to justify the suppression of reportage (only disreputable reportage, of course) concerning the "private lives" of politicians, members of the Royal Family, and, it sometimes seems, even the more prominent alumni of caf society.

These are people who spend a large part of their own time writing personal press releases, searching for photo opportunities, paying agencies to contrive or fabricate favourable "publicity". On what possible basis can they claim that they should enjoy some kind of immunity from comment if the technique goes wrong?

The last category, where I believe the arguments are more finely balanced, but which I approach with diffidence as I have strong feelings about it but no expertise, is pornography.

I dislike the material intensely. Some of the most disagreeable intellectual experiences that I have had to endure as an MP involved the display of suspiciously "lifelike" videos seized by the police (which they were subsequently forced by the courts to release) showing appalling violence and sexual abuse against children and women.

Common sense tells me that these films are an encouragement to commit crimes of a particularly cruel and degrading kind, and that both their manufacture and their distribution should be visited by heavy penalties.

But at the same time I recognise that many of the general convictions that I hold in rejecting most other forms of censorship may make this standpoint difficult to sustain in logic.

This article is taken from the new issue of `Index on Censorship', published on Monday, which examines the state of free speech in Britain today. Copies available from bookshops, or telephone 0171-278 2313.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Games Developer - HTML5

£28000 - £45000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: With extensive experience and a...

Recruitment Genius: Personal Tax Senior

£26000 - £34000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an opportunity to join ...

Recruitment Genius: Assistant Product Manager

Negotiable: Recruitment Genius: Due to on-going expansion, this leading provid...

Recruitment Genius: Shift Leaders - Front of House Staff - Full Time and Part Time

£6 - £8 per hour: Recruitment Genius: This is an opportunity to join a family ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Jeremy Corbyn could be about to pull off a shock victory over the mainstream candidates Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall   

Every club should be like Labour – you can’t join as a new member unless you’re already a member

Mark Steel
The biggest task facing Labour is to re-think the party's economic argument, and then engage in battle with George Osborne and his policies  

There's a mainstream alternative to George Osborne's economics

John Healey
A Very British Coup, part two: New novel in pipeline as Jeremy Corbyn's rise inspires sequel

A Very British Coup, part two

New novel in pipeline as Jeremy Corbyn's rise inspires sequel
Philae lander data show comets could have brought 'building blocks of life' to Earth

Philae lander data show comets could have brought 'building blocks of life' to Earth

Icy dust layer holds organic compounds similar to those found in living organisms
What turns someone into a conspiracy theorist? Study to look at why some are more 'receptive' to such theories

What turns someone into a conspiracy theorist?

Study to look at why some are more 'receptive' to such theories
Chinese web dissenters using coded language to dodge censorship filters and vent frustration at government

Are you a 50-center?

Decoding the Chinese web dissenters
The Beatles film Help, released 50 years ago, signalled the birth of the 'metrosexual' man

Help signalled birth of 'metrosexual' man

The Beatles' moptop haircuts and dandified fashion introduced a new style for the modern Englishman, says Martin King
Hollywood's new diet: Has LA stolen New York's crown as the ultimate foodie trend-setter?

Hollywood's new diet trends

Has LA stolen New York's crown as the ultimate foodie trend-setter?
6 best recipe files

6 best recipe files

Get organised like a Bake Off champion and put all your show-stopping recipes in one place
Ashes 2015: Steven Finn goes from being unselectable to simply unplayable

Finn goes from being unselectable to simply unplayable

Middlesex bowler claims Ashes hat-trick of Clarke, Voges and Marsh
Mullah Omar, creator of the Taliban, is dead... for the fourth time

Mullah Omar, creator of the Taliban, is dead... again

I was once told that intelligence services declare their enemies dead to provoke them into popping up their heads and revealing their location, says Robert Fisk
Margaret Attwood on climate change: 'Time is running out for our fragile, Goldilocks planet'

Margaret Atwood on climate change

The author looks back on what she wrote about oil in 2009, and reflects on how the conversation has changed in a mere six years
New Dr Seuss manuscript discovered: What Pet Should I Get? goes on sale this week

New Dr Seuss manuscript discovered

What Pet Should I Get? goes on sale this week
Oculus Rift and the lonely cartoon hedgehog who could become the first ever virtual reality movie star

The cartoon hedgehog leading the way into a whole new reality

Virtual reality is the 'next chapter' of entertainment. Tim Walker gives it a try
Ants have unique ability to switch between individual and collective action, says study

Secrets of ants' teamwork revealed

The insects have an almost unique ability to switch between individual and collective action
Donovan interview: The singer is releasing a greatest hits album to mark his 50th year in folk

Donovan marks his 50th year in folk

The singer tells Nick Duerden about receiving death threats, why the world is 'mentally ill', and how he can write a song about anything, from ecology to crumpets
Let's Race simulator: Ultra-realistic technology recreates thrill of the Formula One circuit

Simulator recreates thrill of F1 circuit

Rory Buckeridge gets behind the wheel and explains how it works