Tony Blair introduced the Freedom of Information Act but later called it dangerous legislation. It is there to expose government workings but in publishing the names of people who have rejected honours, the law is intruding into private lives.

The FoI has been used to disclose that JB Priestley, Graham Greene, Lucien Freud, Philip Larkin and many others rejected honours from OBEs to Life Peerages. But these people did not solicit such gongs, they rejected them when offered and they kept quiet subsequently. So why should the state reveal such private matters?

The list includes 277 people who turned down honours between 1951 and 1999 and who have since died. So those people still living who have rejected titles and medals must spending their dying days fearing that the same information will be published after they too have passed away.

In fairness, the Cabinet Office spent 18 months arguing why this information should remain confidential. That merely confirms Blair’s admission of his error in passing this legislation as prime minister in 2005. He blamed his civil servants in his autobiography.  “Once I appreciated the full enormity of the blunder I used to say to any civil servant who would listen: Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? How could you have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government?” he wrote. “It is a dangerous Act.”

The 277 names on the list are notably short of business people: they seemed to have no qualms in accepting tokens of recognition from their country. But the FoI revelation is a dangerous precedent that business should worry about. It shows that it is not only government deeds that are subject to disclosure, but also those of private people – and presumably private companies – if they come into contact with the state, however unwelcome the connection.

Officially the FoI applies to government and quasi-state bodies but as transparency and disclosure is widened – as is happening with corporate pay - it is not unlikely that public companies will ultimately be subjected to a similar regime as public authorities. The Cabinet Office must resist the concept that everyone is entitled to know everything: if someone turns down an honour and keeps quiet about it, who is the state to reveal that?

Share this: