AT LAST, after more than 20 years of Labour manifesto promises and after months of delay since the party came to govern, a Freedom of Information Bill finally trundles into the open today. But it comes with the squealing sound of the brakes being applied to those high-minded good intentions of old.

But how paradoxical that the party, which for so long pledged itself to freedom of information, should be today unveiling its proposals for enacting this - albeit with some watering down - when at the same time it is seeking to stifle information in the most draconian way.

For while the Bill published today may contain some disappointments for those who have long campaigned for the lifting of the culture of secrecy pervading Whitehall, Westminster, town halls and public bodies in Britain, another Bill the government is promoting can cause nothing but horror to anyone concerned about openness and democracy.

This is because the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill will not only make it an offence for the media to identify anyone under 18 who is charged with offences, but amazingly also if anyone in this age group is also a victim of crime or a witness to it.

The ramifications of this are tremendous - and crazy. There are thousands of instances to which such a gag would apply, not least the Dunblane massacre.

But just one example will suffice to show what a stupid and dangerous impact this measure will have - that of the recent case of the 12-year-old East Lancashire boy who went missing while believed to be in the company of a convicted paedophile.

Remember the nationwide appeals in the press and on TV and even on the giant screen at Ewood Park - naming the boy and the man he was thought to be with and showing photographs of the two of them?

And think on how all this publicity helped to find the boy - hundreds of miles away from his home?

Under this half-witted Bill it would all have been kept secret and it would have actually been a criminal offence for the newspapers, radio and TV to try and help.

What sort of law is that?

If the government, and particularly Jack Straw, is committed to freedom of information, it should accept that its nannying and misplaced concerned for privacy is an outright affront to the very notion - and then smartly drop this proposal.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.