The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Why the 'valuable and peculiarly British' D-notice system could be in danger

By Chris Boffey

February 10, 2014 | 5 min read

The law of unintended circumstances is rarely, if ever, discussed by editors and reporters at editorial conferences. Publication normally has risks that are all too evident without going into the what ifs.

The D-notice system could be merged into the MoD press office

When the Guardian started out on its phone hacking investigation, some far-seeing executive may have entertained thoughts on the closure of the News of the World, mused about serious criminal charges against senior News International figures or even dreamt about the downfall of Rupert Murdoch.

What would not have been foreseen was the Leveson Inquiry, the scrapping of the Press Complaints Committee and the prospect of some form of statutory regulation causing the mother of all rows and a massive split between press and politicians.

When the Guardian broke the Edward Snowden spying files story it was obvious that there would be massive consequences causing worldwide ripples but I doubt that anyone would have put money on the possible scrapping of the Defence Advisory Notice System, usually called D-notices (it is only bureaucrats that call it the DA-notice system).

D-notices have been around in one form or another for more than 100 years. A committee, the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC), made up of government officials and media outlets, oversees a voluntary code which operates between the departments that have responsibilities for national security and the wider media.

In its own words DPBAC says: “The objective of the DA-Notice System is to prevent inadvertent public disclosure of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations and methods, or put at risk the safety of those involved in such operations, or lead to attacks that would damage the critical national infrastructure and/or endanger lives.”

By and large since 1912 the press and the committee have rubbed along pretty well. There are five standing D-notices which cover military operations, nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, ciphers and secure communications, sensitive installations and home addresses and security and special forces.

If a media outlet was in the process of publishing what could be considered sensitive information, the D-notice committee through its secretary, usually a high-ranking military officer coming to the end of his time, would offer advice. That advice is usually heeded.

What put D-notices under recent scrutiny, and maybe the ending of the voluntary agreement, was the decision by the Guardian not to check with the secretary the first Edward Snowden story which revealed GCHQ, the government’s monitoring station, had been spying on foreign diplomats at a British G20 summit.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor, took the view that the story may have been politically embarrassing but did not breach any security considerations so he was not going to reveal the details before publication for fear of an injunction.

At a subsequent select committee meeting he said he had diligently checked every Snowden story since with air vice-marshal Andrew Vallance, the DPBAC secretary. Rusbridger’s critics would say he was having his cake and eating it.

The Ministry of Defence has now commissioned a review of the voluntary system in effect asking if it is fit for purpose. There are suggestions of moves to merge the system into the MoD press office. This has alarmed the Society of Editors (SOE) whose view is quite clearly that the system would fail if it were to become a mere functionary of any government press office.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has also taken an interest. Its chairman, Keith Vaz MP, has written to some editors asking for views on the working of the DA System but seems to misunderstand how it works.

One of the questions asked is: "How many D-Notices are currently enforced?" That question, according to the SOE, shows a basic misunderstanding of the system. D-Notices are in fact Defence Advisory Notices with the emphasis on advisory. They are not slapped on the media but offered as advice rather than enforced.

Bob Satchwell, the director of the SOE, has said: “The media side of the DPBAC and the SoE has consistently reminded the government that the system is a valuable and peculiarly British system that enables the media to avoid inadvertently undermining national security or putting lives at risk. It is a system that many other countries envy, it works and the only alternative would be censorship in some draconian form, and that has never been used in peacetime.”

Maybe we should just have a first amendment.

Trending

Industry insights

View all
Add your own content +