NAMED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Today, The Scotsman ends the farce that was fast becoming a disgrace to out
public life, our freedom of speech and our democracy. Today, we can tell
what every reporter, commentator, television pundit, Member of Parliament,
civil servant and habitue of the bars of Westminster has known for days:
the government minister whose 17-year-old son was arrested on 15 December
for dealing in cannabis is Jack Straw, the Home Secretary and the Cabinet
member charged with ridding Britain of drugs.

We do this not out of any sense of mischief but because what started out as
a reasonably minor family difficulty has turned into a major arguement over
a point of principle. This is an arguement over what the British public is
and is not allowed to know about a matter of public interest - and who
decides.

After all, we are being invited to believe that the matter is almost at an
end. The affair may have involved a minister of the Crown, a national
newspaper, the Attorney General, a key government policy and allegations of
political censorship. Yet now the 17-year-old accused by the Mirror may
face a caution, at worst. End of story?

Hardly. In the beginning it was possible to argue that Mr Straw's son was
entitled to privacy (legally-guaranteed, so we were told) and that the
minister himself should not be named, even when the entire press was in
possession of the facts. We, like others, took the view that the guidance
of the Press Complaints Commission should be respected. As a Scottish
newspaper, moreover, we were under no obligation to connive in the secrecy
yet judged, at first, that this was a private affair.

The Government has caused us to alter our opinion. It has turned an
arguement over privacy into a battle over press freedom, political
interference and the public interest. It has also made strictures of the
PCC somewhat beside the point. Given that Mr Straw has expressed
frustration at his supposed inability to identify himself, and given that
he has been indentified in publications overseas and on the Internet, we
are happy to place his name in the public domain, in Scotland at least. For
Mr Straw's legal advisors do not seem to have recognised that there is no
restriction on identifying the minister north of the Border.

Whether his son is cautioned or whether no action is taken against him
matters only slightly now, ironically enough. Given that the alleged crime
involved only 10 UKP worth of cannabis a caution might seem sensible,
though we must wonder with what seriousness we are now supposed to treat
the Government's attitude towards drug trafficking. Mr Straw, as the
minister responsible for drugs policy, has long asserted that dealing is
very much worse than possession. Now that he has been identified, he might
like to share with us again his belief in the need to be 'tough on crime'.
Perhaps, too, he could at least reconsider our call for a Royal Commission
on drugs.

Before he does, however, there are a few other things he and the Government
might discuss. One is how he proposed to lead the campaign against drugs
while attempting to remain anonymous in his son's case and while every
member of the Commons knew perfectly well that he was the minister
involved. Did Mr Straw really intend to offer us the black comedy of
pretence when a drugs problem existed in his own household? How did he
imagine he was supposed to answer parliamentary questions? Was it credible
that every MP should know of his predicament while the public, with a
legitamate interest, was kept in ignorance?

For that matter, can the Government explain its decision to use the law to
protect a senior minister who would have done himself a favour if he had
revealed his identity at the outset? For the sake of a 10 UKP crime it has
attempted to gag the press; it has seen the arrest of a reporter going
about her job; and it has reduced its vaunted drugs policy to mere
shambolic rhetoric. All that and it still demands our silence?

Besides, the injunction granted against the Sun and hence all other Fleet
Street newspapers was a dubious device used for dubious purposes. At first
we were supposed to believe that Mr Straw's son was protected by section 49
of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which grants anonymity
automatically to persons under 18. But as the Sun argued, this only comes
into effect when proceedings have begun, in other words when a person has
been charged. Since Mr Straw's son has only been arrested and bailed, the
act has no relevance to the issue of anonymity.

Mr Justice Jones accepted as much but nevertheless ordered that secrecy be
maintained under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This is intended to
safeguard the administration of justice and it is a moot point whether it
was ever devised to cover questions of anonymity. At the very least, Mr
Straw's insistence that he has not been 'allowed' to identify himself is
arguable.

In any case, who was it who published a White Paper last year calling for
'more openness' in youth court proceedings and asserting that "Justice is
best served in an open court where the criminal process can be scrutinised
and the offender cannot hide behind a cloak of anonymity"? Who is the
minister who knows perfectly well that even the provisions of Children and
Young Persons Act were relevant they have been breached in the past without
law officers seeking injunctions? The answer in both cases, of course, is
Jack Straw.

Nevertheless, such a sweeping use of legal power is of a piece with the
entire affair. At its heart is the question of Mr Straw's ability to do his
job with regards to drugs while claiming anonymity in a drugs case
involving his son. Furthermore, though police deny that pressure has been
placed on them, there has been a clear attempt to silence questions. One
can only wonder how this Government would have behaved had the original
matter been more serious. As things stand, they oblige us to identify the
Home Secretary: this version of official secrecy cannot be tolerated.

Yet the real joke, the true measure of the affair's absurdity, is that any
MP could name Mr Straw in the Commons without fear of legal challenge.
Under absolute privilege all newspapers would then be free to publish. Mr
Straw may wish to consider that this morning we have merely saved him from
the humiliation on the floor of the House.