The obsolete British art of keeping a secret

This week, the London Stock Exchange issued a public warningabout bill stickers. The legendary flyposter has gone electronicand is virtually impossible to prosecute. It is now easy to postsensitive commercial information anonymously on the Internet forall to see. The financial world is aghast at the threat this posesto secrets that all business likes to preserve.

And bill stickers have subversive allies in other walks of life.On Wednesday, Keith Rose unlocked another awkward secret. Aconvicted murderer, he telephoned the BBC from jail to tellmillions of listeners how to escape from Parkhurst prison.Meanwhile, even the mighty McDonald's is having problems silencingdamaging criticism of its ethics: using the libel courts has turnedinto a public relations disaster. And leaks are springing from allover the place in officialdom. Poor old William Waldegrave nearlydrowned in one that said he deceived MPs about the sale of arms toIraq. Everywhere the message is the same: it is almost impossiblethese days to keep a secret.

Britain's authorities are understandably uncomfortable with thetide of information that is now flowing out, unchecked, to thegeneral public. They want to hold it back because in secrecy liestheir power. After all, undisclosed sales to Saddam Hussein allowedjust a few civil servants and ministers to run their own strictlyprivate foreign policy. There were important reasons why nobodyshould find out what they were up to. As one of Lord Howe'sofficials wrote at the time: "It could look very cynical if, sosoon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, weadopt a more flexible approach to arms sales." Indeed. If thecharmed circle of ministers and civil servants can keep such thingsto themselves, then they are never called upon to explain such actsof hypocrisy.

Even reformists within the Establishment want to keep control ofinformation. Sir Richard Scott might be ready to blow the gaffe onthe arms scandal, but only when it suits him. He chastised the BBCfor publishing his provisional criticisms of Mr Waldegrave and JohnMajor. But the public is unsympathetic. On this matter they wouldoverwhelmingly side with the BBC. Why should they have to wait forSir Richard's imprimatur before some juicy morsel of news can bereleased? We are not children: we want access to information assoon as it becomes available.

The Scott inquiry is a cameo of the new fault-line between pastand future. The past is a way of governing that wraps itself inobscure customs, sophistry and plain deceit in order to controlaccess to the truth and reduce accountability. s one whereinformation is generated and broadcast so widely that it becomesalmost impossible for a clique to keep it under wraps. In thisworld, even the conventional press, such as this newspaper, willfind itself by-passed if it avoids the awkward questions. Theprocess is reminiscent of the Protestant Reformation: Britain'spriestly class of politicians, administrators and professionalmediators is being ousted from its commanding control of truth.

A revolution in information technology dictates the trend. Butthe change also reflects a public mood. We want to know. Knowledgeis power and society is becoming empowered. There is a problem,however. Although we castigate politicians and those in authorityfor their deceits, we do not always reward them for their honesty.Indeed, we frequently hold truth- tellers and searchers incontempt. Those who bring us unpalatable realities often find fewfriends.

Look, for example, at the Church of England's brave attempt thisweek to update its vision of family life to take account of modernways. Here is an organisation that is bound by centuries oftradition and inevitably has difficulty thinking afresh. Yet theCoE is conscientiously searching for a contemporary truth, howeverawkward and imperfect that proves to be. The Bishop of London'scandid admission about his own sexual ambivalence is a good exampleof a courageous spirit. Yet the general reception given to suchhonesty has been derision towards the CoE for failing to affirm itsold certainties which everyone knows are often out-of-date andirrelevant to many people.

Yet the emergent information-rich society needs truth-tellers.They are its standard-bearers, the agents of a new transparency andopenness. They can help us to face up to difficult issues, be theysetting limits to treatment on the National Health Service,recognising Britain's relative insignificance in the world orhighlighting the threat that our lifestyles pose to theenvironment. At the moment, looking at the political parties, it isdifficult to find figures who seem prepared to play thispolitically precarious role. Most serious politicians are silent onthe really important issues that Britain is encountering.

The attitude of the Scott inquiry is striking at the heart ofthe ancien regime. His report will challenge the old secrecies andmonopolists of information. It will represent a vote for a futureof freer information and open government. It will be an expressionof confidence in the maturity of voters to deal with difficult andcomplex issues. The question is whether we and our leaders are upto the challenge.