Business methods undermine health service (1994)

From the August 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

In recent years there have been a number of sinister changes in the National Health Service. The use of deliberately deceptive rhetoric employed in the 1989 White Paper Working for Patients has tried to disguise the fact that the NHS is becoming increasingly subjected to market forces to the detriment of patient care and is becoming increasingly undemocratic. Expressions of dissent are stifled by getting rid of medical and nursing staff who protest at the deterioration in health care.

With a record 1.07 million people on the waiting list for treatment and an estimated two million people waiting for their first appointment before they can even join an official waiting list (Guardian, 7 May), it is clear that there is something seriously wrong with the health service.

Of more serious concern is the fact that so many people are ill. Poverty is the main contributory factor of ill-health and the increase in morbidity rates in recent years reflects the attacks on the living standards of the workers and the continued high rates of unemployment caused by capitalism’s slump.

Almost half the health trusts are failing to reach their financial targets and in 1992-93, £265 million had to be borrowed from the government or from banks and underwritten from taxes (Observer, 22 May).

To try to save money the Mancunian Community Trust is sending letters to its staff asking them if they want to take breaks to start families, take up courses or work overseas. All of these options are cheaper than redundancies, but the Trust’s chief executive Elizabeth Law has warned that if the workforce cannot be reduced by voluntary means then people may have to be forced out (Manchester Metro News, 27 May).

More bureaucrats

Administrative costs in the internal market have risen from four percent in the mid-1980s to eleven percent of NHS spending by 1993, and there are now half as many administrators and clerical staff as there are nurses in British hospitals.

In fact, when one considers that nurses work a three-shift system to cover 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are actually more clerical and administrative staff working in hospitals on weekdays than there are nurses.

The Health Secretary has the power to appoint the general managers of large hospitals and the chairpersons of trusts are political appointees: Ann Parkinson, Sheila Taylor, Sarah Biffen and Mary Archer, all wives of well-known Conservatives, are on the boards of trust hospitals. The government has succeeded in pushing through unpopular measures by political appointments and patronage. Thus, lacking control of local councils in many areas, Conservative ideology can be imposed on the electorate which would have been opposed by councillors on the old boards.

The NHS has never been particularly democratic. Nurses have been subjected to a para-military, hierarchical management which has placed them in a subordinate position to medical staff. A questioning attitude has been discouraged; speaking out considered "unprofessional". Consequently, very few nurses have spoken out about shortcomings in the service or their terms of employment. In the past, large numbers of immigrant nurses were dependent on hospital employment for a place to live and continued stay in this country. And this made criticism extremely difficult because of the risks of speaking out.

Doctors have always been in a privileged position in terms of pay, status and power in the NHS and have been able to speak up for their patients. But in the last fifteen years this has begun to change. Doctors who speak out about shortcomings in their hospitals now risk disciplinary action being taken against them.

Disciplinary action

Early in 1990 Dr Helen Zeitlin, a consultant haematologist at Alexandra Hospital, Redditch spoke at a public meeting against the hospital becoming a self-governing trust. She also criticised the shortage of nursing staff at the hospital (Guardian, 10 May 1991). In November 1990 Dr Zeitlin was told that disciplinary action would be taken against her for misuse of a nursing report on staffing levels. Redundancy was then proposed, only to be changed for a different set of disciplinary charges. These charges were then dropped and Dr Zeitlin was made redundant with 24 hours notice instead of the usual three months.

Hospital bosses sometimes go to extreme lengths to silence critics. Dr Bridget O'Connell worked as a consultant paediatrician at the King George Hospital, Ilford from 1977 until the end of 1982 when she was suspended because of her alleged "inability to relate effectively with clinical colleagues". Significantly, this occurred after she had complained to management of her concern about the standard of care within the paediatric service. For the next eleven-and-a-half years Dr O’Connell remained suspended on full pay of about £50,000 a year before the North Thames Regional Board withdrew all allegations, apologised and paid damages believed to be a six-figure sum (Guardian, 7 May).

A doctor was dismissed in 1993 in Cornwall for misconduct. Nurses had pressure put on them to keep secret diaries of her activities to provide evidence which could be used against her (Nursing Tunes, 13 April).

The row caused by the disclosure that a consultant in Luton, known to be opposed to trusts, had his telephone bugged by the chief executive forced junior minister, Tom Sackville to intervene. He stated that anyone "bugging" a telephone will be sacked but that individual employers have to decide whether to include confidentiality clauses in their contract of employment (Manchester Evening News, 24 May).

Most nurses have not seen the NHS executive Duncan Nichol’s guidelines on reporting incidents which give rise to concern over treatment or staffing levels, and some NHS trusts have introduced catch-all gagging clauses into nurses’ contracts to prevent them from speaking out, although barrister Michael Douglas has stated that some of them are so broad as to be meaningless (Nursing Times, vol.90, 1994).

Spying, illegal telephone tapping and the use of disciplinary action to silence critics all add to the climate of fear and mistrust pervading the health service. For health workers the message is clear: to speak out against the undemocratic, anti-working-class measures is to risk the sack.

Business methods can never operate in the interests of the workers; the whole history of capitalism has shown that misery always follows in its wake. The NHS, in its slow but inexorable move towards private health care, is showing all the ugly features of capitalism. Only by workers uniting to get rid of capitalism can we stop the misery that the system imposes on our lives.

Carl Pinel

Pathfinders: Boeing: out in the cold (2024)

The Pathfinders Column from the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

After nearly three months on the International Space Station, two astronauts are to be marooned there until next February as their proposed transport home, Boeing’s Starliner capsule, remains out of service after a host of thruster failures, software glitches, parachute problems and helium leaks. The astronauts are being philosophical about it, but Boeing will be aggrieved at losing credibility points to its arch-rival NASA co-contractor, the Elon Musk-owned SpaceX, which will now take on the responsibility for bringing the astronauts home (tinyurl.com/3bj3ua2t).

Boeing is fast becoming a byword for ‘omnishambles’ with a recent history that showcases just how capitalist competition and corporate profit-chasing can result in highly uncreative destruction.

When Boeing swallowed up the last of its US aviation rivals in the 1990s, it saw the chance to adopt a less product-oriented and more shareholder-focused and monopolistic approach which sought to maximise returns by outsourcing not just part production but the cost of part development too, while also extorting price reductions. This put the squeeze on suppliers, who were faced with a Hobson’s Choice of a bad deal or no deal at all. But outsourcing creates complexity, and this compartmentalised approach on the wide-bodied 787 Dreamliner resulted in delays and overruns and never delivered the savings expected (tinyurl.com/fsmbd8mz).

While Boeing wrestled with a problem of its own making, its major European rival, the joint venture Airbus, announced the re-engined narrow-body A320neo, which it claimed could cut fuel use by up to 35 percent. This caused consternation at Boeing, whose 50-year-old 737 had previously dominated the core-segment single-aisle market. To compete, Boeing really needed a brand new plane, but the lead-time to mass production of an all-new design, outsourced or not, would be far too long, and Boeing were already haemorrhaging buyers to Airbus. So bosses resorted to the least-worst option, to re-engine the 737. Morgan Stanley said of this ‘reactionary’ solution, ‘Boeing’s hasty decision to re-engine the B737 is a clear indication of the success and strong competitive positioning of the A320neo’ while another business analyst was ‘astounded at the Airbus smackdown’ (tinyurl.com/36rkdsrr).

Enter the 737 MAX. But when you put new and bigger engines on a 100-ton aircraft they alter its centre of gravity and flight characteristics. Normally this would necessitate costly flight simulator retraining and recertification of pilots. Instead Boeing used a background software fix known as the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which altered the plane’s rear flaps in response to sensor signals. As long as it worked properly, they reasoned, the pilots didn’t need to know about it. So Boeing did not tell them about MCAS or include it in the pilot manual. The Federal Aviation Administration wasn’t too worried, despite whistleblower allegations of its regulatory capture by Boeing, and agreed with the company to give pilots just an hour of training on an iPad, without mentioning MCAS. Boeing weren’t worried either. They had calculated the likelihood of a ‘major failure’ (one not resulting in the loss of a plane, which is termed ‘catastrophic’) as once in every 223 trillion flight hours – around 2 billion years of annual MAX fleet service (tinyurl.com/549z2ahj).

In the event they had two catastrophic failures in less than 6 months. The sensors and control panel light didn’t work properly, and pilots did not know about MCAS or how to override it when it malfunctioned. In October 2018 a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed in the Java Sea, killing all 189 people. Airily dismissing this as ground crew and pilot incompetence, Boeing announced record $100bn earnings the following January. But in March 2019 an Ethiopian Airlines MAX 8 also fell out of the sky, killing all 157 on board. Clearly this was no coincidence, and Boeing immediately saw its orders, stock prices and reputation plummet. Its CEO promptly resigned, though with a cosy retirement package of $80m in stock options (tinyurl.com/498cvau4), and the new CEO issued a mea culpa to the US Senate, accepting the company’s responsibility for the deaths and agreeing to pay compensation and submit to regulators.

And then, despite all the regulation, a door panel blew off an Alaska Airlines flight in January this year, because bolts were missing. How could this happen? Multiple whistleblowers had faced company reprisals after drawing attention to falsified inspection reports and a string of unsafe practices due to cost-cutting and inadequate staff training. In July Boeing pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy after being found to violate the terms of the regulatory agreement, meaning the company now has a criminal record (tinyurl.com/mv4av7m2).

On top of that, Boeing workers have been on strike against a union-busting and bullying culture, pay rates that have not increased in 16 years as the cash-strapped company grinds down on its own workforce, and ‘panic mode’ as managers hound staff to keep quiet over quality concerns (tinyurl.com/ysjh9mnc).

Now Boeing has $60bn of debt and is ‘one level above being potentially downgraded to non-investment grade status – junk status’. But nobody wants Boeing to collapse, not the airlines, who are faced with a global shortage of aircraft and fear an Airbus monopoly even more than the current Boeing-Airbus duopoly, and not the US government, which relies on Boeing’s aerospace defence arm and fears market capture by a major Chinese competitor like Comac (Economist, 20 June).

Airbus has seen A220-300 engine failures, diversions, groundings and supply chain problems but no crashes, and its stock has gone up, not down. The story of Boeing shows what can happen when market competition tightens the screws, and things like quality control, adequate training, product performance and company honesty begin to crack and splinter. Accidents will still happen in non-market socialism, but not because someone is eyeing the balance sheet instead of the safety inspection reports.

Meanwhile the astronauts continue to float in the ISS, patiently above it all. Compared to what many others have suffered at Boeing’s hands, they might consider themselves lucky only to be left out in the cold.

Paddy Shannon

Pathfinders: Death by algorithm (2024)

The Pathfinders Column from the May 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The world held its breath last month as April showers of Iranian missiles descended on Israel, only to be blown out of the sky by Israel’s Iron Dome defence system. Would regional war flower as a result? Iran has around ten times the population of Israel, but Israel has an elite air force, courtesy of the USA, and some of the best technology in the world. Now insiders have revealed that it has been using AI in the war in Gaza.

According to a non-profit magazine run by Israeli and Palestinian journalists, Israel has been using AI to identify ‘tens of thousands of Gazans as suspects for assassination, using an AI targeting system with little human oversight and a permissive policy for casualties’. According to six Israeli intelligence officers involved in the Gaza war, some of them actually in the targeting rooms, the AI system, known as Lavender, is designed to remove the ‘human bottleneck for both locating the new targets and decision-making to approve the targets’. The officers say that, in the early stages of the war, the Israeli Defence Force almost completely relied on Lavender to identify the domestic homes of up to 37,000 high to low-ranking Hamas and Islamic Jihad military personnel for potential drone strikes. Such was the cursory nature of IDF oversight, which is demanded by international law, that Lavender’s outputs were treated ‘as if it were a human decision’, and the kill lists given ‘sweeping approval’ without anyone checking the raw intelligence data. This was despite it being known that the system had a 10 percent error rate.

Moreover, the AI system was designed to target militants at their most vulnerable, when they had returned to their domestic dwellings to be with their families. A second AI system, chillingly known as ‘Where’s Daddy?’, identified when the militants actually entered their family homes. ‘We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,’ one intelligence officer said. ‘It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.’

For lower-ranking militants, the army decided not to use smart bombs, which can take out an individual or a car, but unguided ‘dumb’ bombs which destroy entire buildings or apartment blocks on top of the target individual. ‘You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage’, said one officer. Two others added that the army had also agreed that ‘for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians’, while for a battalion or brigade commander, the permissible civilian deaths could be over 100.

This explains why the number of women and children killed has been so enormous. In previous operations, the IDF had strict rules of proportionality, in compliance with international law, and requirements to cross-check, verify, incriminate and confirm the target’s presence in real time. Because human targeting generated limited results, it was feasible to stick to these rules. Since October 7, targeting has been given over entirely to AI, which has produced gigantic kill lists, and all the verification rules have gone out of the window. Who the system identifies as a target depends on where the users set the bar. It could be little more than changing one’s address or mobile phone. ‘There were times when a Hamas operative was defined more broadly, and then the machine started bringing us all kinds of civil defense personnel, police officers, on whom it would be a shame to waste bombs.’

To call this unprecedented is an understatement. Nothing like it has been known before in Israel’s military operations, nor that of anybody else’s including the USA, not even against high-ranking targets like Bin Laden. A US general and former commander of operations against ISIS said, ‘With Osama Bin Laden, you’d have an NCV [Non-combatant Casualty Value] of 30, but if you had a low-level commander, his NCV was typically zero. We ran zero for the longest time.’ For the Israeli Defence force however, things were different. ‘There was hysteria in the professional ranks,’ said one officer, ‘They had no idea how to react at all. The only thing they knew to do was to just start bombing like madmen.’

What will be the long-term upshot of this policy of indiscriminate, AI-assisted slaughter? The Israeli whistleblowers are under no illusions: ‘In the short term, we are safer, because we hurt Hamas. But I think we’re less secure in the long run. I see how all the bereaved families in Gaza — which is nearly everyone — will raise the motivation for [people to join] Hamas 10 years down the line. And it will be much easier for [Hamas] to recruit them.’

So, never mind rules, never mind international agreements, this is the shape of wars to come, where the critical factor is not law but LAWS – lethal autonomous weapons systems which track, target and destroy human life with no human oversight at all. The irony is that capitalism’s technological revolutions have created a global productive capability that could put us all beyond any need for outdated capitalist trade relations, where we could live in peace without markets, prices, wages, debts – or wars. Yet capitalism’s internal logic is to compete for profit, to grow or die, and the inevitable extension of that logic is war. Now AI targeting and LAWS are genies out of the bottle. If we don’t abolish capitalism soon, the human race could end up being obliterated by its own technology.

Paddy Shannon

Material World: Dedicated to serving the rich: the reality of aid (2010)

The Material World column from the March 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

“CARE: Dedicated to serving the poorest of the poor.” So reads a wall poster at the Haiti offices of the “humanitarian” agency CARE International. The offices are housed in a mansion in a wealthy district up in the hills above Port-au-Prince, at a hygienic distance from the poor people they are “dedicated to serve”.

Well, you can’t expect the respectable ladies and gentlemen who administer aid to live and work down in the filth and stench of the shantytowns. Of course, you can’t blame the poor for the lack of sewers, but still…

The aid administrators realise that they need the assistance of people who do know something about the poor and are capable of interacting with them. So they hire specialists called anthropologists, who acquire the requisite knowledge and skill as trainees by living for a time among poor people (formally in order to gather material for their Ph.D. theses).

But some trainees “go native”. They come to sympathise with their temporary neighbours and feel the urge to talk about inconvenient realities that they have discovered. This annoys the administrators, who label them “idealists” and say they have “a negative attitude”. It would be quite unsuitable to appoint them to responsible positions in aid agencies.

An eye-opening book has just appeared, written by just such a chatterbox: Timothy T. Schwartz, Travesty in Haiti. No publisher would touch it, so he published it himself.

Charity for the rich

Very little aid ever reaches the poor, let alone the poorest of the poor. This is partly due to the practical difficulty that the poorest areas also have the poorest infrastructure (roads, storage facilities, etc.). But mainly it is because those who are supposed to distribute the aid sell most of it and pocket the proceeds.

In some cases, aid goes directly to the rich. Schwartz describes an “orphanage” run by an American reverend where the “orphans” have parents who could easily afford to provide for them. The place is really an elite boarding school. Meanwhile, naïve churchgoers back in the States, most of them ordinary working people, fork out to support the “poor orphans” they have “adopted”, send them gifts, and even pay for their college education. The poor in rich countries give charity to the rich in poor countries.

The more aid, the more misery

Schwartz’ most important finding is this. When the flow of food aid into Haiti increases, the overall result is that malnutrition becomes more widespread, not less. Why? The great majority of Haitians are small farmers, dependent on selling food to meet their non-food needs. Typically, natural disaster prompts the decision to send food aid, but by the time it arrives the emergency is over and the country may well be right in the middle of a bumper harvest. The effect is to drive prices down further, causing enormous misery throughout the rural areas.

It seems commonsense. If you see hungry people on TV, so you give money to buy and send them food. But capitalism has a perverse logic of its own that has nothing to do with commonsense. Reactions that ignore that logic are liable to do more harm than good.

Some experts and charities – notably, Oxfam – advocate aid in the form of cash transfers. Then food for distribution can be bought locally instead of imported, strengthening rather than undermining the local peasant economy. Local supply would also be quicker and easier to organise.

Nevertheless, most aid agencies, and especially those like CARE that are dependent on Western governments, keep on shipping in food. They even require their national affiliates to cover operating expenses by selling part of the food received locally (“monetised food”).

Expanding export markets

US overseas food aid began in 1954. Until recently it was openly justified as a foreign policy tool and means of promoting American business interests. In particular, it has expanded export markets for US agriculture. Dumping surpluses abroad has helped the US and the EU maintain prices and profits on their domestic markets.

According to the website of the US Agency for International Development, aid was used to transform Egypt from a food exporter in competition with the US into a net importer of food with a low-wage industrial sector. Since the 1980s Western governments and financial institutions pursued the same strategy in Haiti. The country was turned from an exporter into an importer of rice, sugar, and other crops, while 100,000 peasants abandoned the land to work for $2 a day in assembly plants, mostly US-owned, making T-shirts, jeans, and the like for the American market. This new industrial sector has now also largely collapsed, leaving Haiti to depend increasingly on the Columbian drugs trade.

A striking illustration of the commercial interests underlying aid is the fate of the Haitian pig. Farmers used to rely on a small black pig well adapted to conditions in rural Haiti. USAID had these pigs exterminated under the pretext of fighting a swine fever epidemic. The Haitian pig was replaced with a large white pig from Iowa that had to be fed large quantities of imported US corn.

Do they know?

Do the aid administrators understand what they are doing? It is clear from Schwartz that they understand very well. When he “reveals” his sensational findings, they do not argue that he is wrong. They just advise him that if he wants a job he should stop saying things that the US government does not want to hear. They know who they really serve.

Stefan.

In Material World February issue we didn’t mean to write that the poll showed that people with high incomes were more likely to be favourable to the word “socialism” than those with low but the opposite, so:

“Women are slightly more likely than men to prefer ‘socialism’; people with low incomes (under $40,000 per year) more than twice as likely as people with high incomes (over $75,000); and blacks almost twice as likely as whites, with equal proportions favouring ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ (31 percent each).”

Sting in the Tail: Good Ideas Department (1989)

The Sting in the Tail column from the May 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Good Ideas Department

A Canadian scientist Martin Satin has come up with a good idea. . . to make bread without wheat. He has found that a viscous substance which can replace wheat gluten can be made merely by boiling cassava, or flour from sorgham or maize, in water.

But why do we need this good idea? We are continually being told of the plight of the Canadian and USA wheat producers. They from time to time are paid NOT to produce wheat. Their governments face the awful problem of paying millions of dollars a year just to store the surplus wheat.

We don’t imagine Mr. Satin, a UN food technician, is going to be too popular with the Canadian capitalist class because according to The Observer, 19 February:

  Now officials are to give demonstrations In countries such as Sudan, Nigeria and Cuba to persuade bakers to give up wheat.

Socialists want a new society where everything is produced solely for human needs. A society where we don't store food while people starve. Now isn't that a better Idea, Mr. Satin?

Liquid Assets

Another example of capitalism's "ethics'' has been uncovered by some environmentalists who by happy chance found "confidential" papers which detail the cynicism of Britain's water authorities as they prepare for the lucrative privatisation of the water industry.

An article in The Guardian 8 February 89 dealing with these papers reveals the dismay of the authorities at the refusal of the European Commission to lower its drinking water standards and the attempts being made, with government help, to persuade the Commission to compromise.

The authorities are apparently:

. . . determined to overturn public concern about pollution standards In order to keep to the £7 billion sell-off’s tight timetable.

The article seems shocked that:

  . . . Top directors of water authorities appear to be more interested In the financial and political implications of flotation than the need to conform with European pollution standards.

Tut, tut. Imagine business men putting profit before safety. Whatever next will they ask us to believe In?

The Cowardly Lion

"Labour Chickens Out"  . . .  this was the front page headline in the Govan victory issue of the Scots Independent, the journal which supports the Scottish National Party. The story dealt with the Labour Party's sudden change of mind about elevating another Scottish Labour MP to the peerage in case they lost the ensuing by-election as well.

Doubtless these nationalists are right about Labour's lack of courage but who are they to talk?

Every year the Socialist Party In Scotland challenges the SNP to debate in public the issue of Nationalism versus Socialism. Invitations sent to their head office, local branches, councillors and MPs have either been ignored or turned down.

Maybe the animal which symbolises the Labourites is the chicken but which one most closely sums up the SNP - the Cowardly Lion?

Talking Dirty

"Profit Doesn't Have to be a Dirty Word" claimed the headline above a half-page advert in The Guardian (4th. March). The ad. informed us that £1,000 invested in Britain's first "ethical" unit trust had been turned into £2,714 in Just 57 months and "without hurting anyone".

What the "ethical" bit means is that investors' money doesn’t get invested in oppressive regimes like South Africa, the arms trade, animal experiments, etc., but only in ". . . companies with healthy track records in labour relations, pollution control and environmental protection". Oh well, that's all right then, isn't it?

But is it? There's still the little matter of how £1,000 became £2,714. Was it because these companies didn't pollute the environment or had good labour relations? Of course not, it was because their workers created wealth greater than their wages and salaries. They produced a surplus, part of which belonged to the unit trust and that's where the extra £1,714 came from.

Conscience-stricken Investors may think this legal robbery is "ethical" but to socialists profit IS a dirty word.

The Patriot Game

A recent decision to retain the Gurkhas should surprise no one. If we look back to The Observer of 12 February we can find the answer.

 Recruiting Gurkhas means an extra cost in travel permits for visits to their families in Nepal, who often survive on remitted wages. But the MPs found that the men still proved exceptional value in cash terms because of their much lower pay.

Cheaper cannon fodder! The old definition of a patriot is still true. One who wants YOU to die for HIS country!

A Suitable Case For Treatment

In Peter Thornton's book Decade of Decline — Civil Liberties in the Thatcher Years, he deals with an MI5 agent Cathy Massiter who was so upset at surveillance of NCLL, TUs and CND that she appeared on TV to express her concern.

Before resigning from the service Massiter had complained to senior civil servants that she considered the surveillance to be in breach of internal guidelines. She was told to see a psychiatrist.

And to think that the British Government complains about dissidents in the USSR being forced into psychiatric clinics,

Official Secrets (1988)

From the August 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

The present Official Secrets Act. with its notorious "catch-all" Section 2, went through all its parliamentary stages in 1911 in just 30 minutes. As a result section 2 has been variously described as "a mess”, "a blunderbuss" and now. in the present White Paper on secrecy laws, as "unsatisfactory" and "in need of reform". The proposed new legislation is likely to be much more carefully drafted and. as a consequence, potentially more of a threat to those who want to find out what the state is up to.

As the Official Secrets Act (amended in 1920) stands, it is a criminal offence to disclose or receive any official information without prior authorisation. The White Paper proposes to legislate more precisely on which kinds of information cannot be disclosed without being subject to criminal sanction. Broadly speaking those areas are defence, security and intelligence; international relations; information obtained in confidence from other governments or international organisations; information useful to criminals; and information relating to telephone tapping and the interception of mail and other communications.

Despite this narrowing down of the categories of information to be covered by the new law, no-one should be under any illusion that this will be a "freedom of information" measure. Leaks of other "less serious" material will be dealt with by means of internal civil service disciplinary measures. In other words civil servants who leak information are likely to be quietly sacked without even having the chance to defend their actions in public. Furthermore, disclosure of certain kinds of information will be subject to an absolute ban — significantly some of those areas which have caused the government embarrassment in recent years. These are telephone tapping (details of which were revealed by former MI5 officer. Cathy Massiter) and the activities of GCHQ; disclosure of any information by serving or former members of the security and intelligence services (such as Peter Wright, author of Spycatcher); and confidential information from foreign governments.

It is also worth remembering that, despite the concentration on the Official Secrets Act, there exist approximately 100 other pieces of legislation that prevent certain categories of information from being disclosed. These range from price-sensitive material to information relating to the nuclear industry and also include information on health and safety matters.

What quickly becomes apparent from a close look at the White Paper is that very little (if any) information not disclosed today is likely to be available as a result of the proposed new legislation. So, far from being the "liberalising" measure that Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, has claimed it to be, by tightening up the existing law the current proposals will ensure that successful prosecutions for unauthorised disclosures can be bought more easily. And after the embarrassment caused by Clive Ponting's acquittal and the interminable fiasco over Spycatcher, that is precisely what the government wants to achieve.

For, in addition to the more precise specification of what kinds of information cannot be disclosed, the legislation will seek to outlaw the defence that disclosure is "in the public interest" — successfully used by Ponting in 1985. In other words, no civil servant will, in the future, be able to speak out about official negligence, malpractice or dishonesty without risking imprisonment.

The ending of the "public interest" defence and the abolition of the "prior publication" clause (that is. that a piece of information is already in the public domain) will particularly affect newspapers. They will no longer be able to make such disclosures as those by The Observer in 1984 that MI5 was secretly black-listing certain BBC employees who were deemed subversive, nor would it be able to publish details about the recent Stalker case, on the grounds that it was "in the public interest" to do so.

Furthermore there are other new laws in the pipeline which will require senior civil servants and employees of the security services to sign contracts of employment obliging them to maintain a life-long silence about their activities. Any breach of contract would lead to loss of pension rights and the possibility that they would be sued for damages by the government.

At the same time as official information is becoming more difficult for "us" to obtain, information about individuals' private lives is becoming easier for "them" to get their hands on. partly due to the potential created by new information technology. Currently Home Office. DHSS, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise computers are being linked together to form the "government data network", which will allow information to be exchanged between government departments' own data banks. This will allow a huge amount of information on all of us to be networked together, enabling the possible construction of comprehensive “personal profiles". Once this happens it is unlikely to be very long before a national system of identity cards is introduced.

Why is this issue of information and access to it of importance to the working class? Increasingly we are subject to a diet of information that is distorted, manipulated and censored. That affects not only what we know about the world but also how we view and understand it. For example, we are frequently told that “we" are all better off now, and yet statistics about the distribution of wealth in this country are no longer available and so we have no means of assessing such statements. Information presented to us as "news" is frequently taken directly from government press releases or “leaked" officially. In other words we are hearing the news that the government wants us to hear.

Information and control over it are about power. Attempts to deprive us of information while at the same time building up data banks on our private lives, constitute a consolidation of class power.

Janie Percy-Smith