HL Deb 21 July 1998 vol 592 cc95-7WA
Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When in 1998 they intend to publish their draft Freedom of Information Bill, in accordance with the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his foreword to the White Paper Your Right to Know (Cm 3818, December 1997). [HL2614]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Our intention is to publish the draft Freedom of Information Bill by the end of September.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will publish a summary of the comments they have received from the public and non-governmental organisations in response to the proposals contained in the White Paper Your Right to Know (Cm 3818, December 1997). [HL2615]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Copies of all the responses received to the White PaperYour Right to Know (except where respondents asked for their responses to remain confidential) were published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 1 April.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, with reference to the proposals contained in the White Paper Your Right to Know (Cm 3818, December 1997), they have received comments from the public and non-governmental organisations arguing that the proposed powers of the information commissioner are too wide and should be restricted to the powers of a judicial review court. [HL2616]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Of the consultation responses that commented on the proposed appeals procedure, the great majority welcomed the establishment of an information commissioner with strong enforcement powers. None made the specific point referred to in the question.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have any information on whether the freedom of information legislation of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Ireland restricts the powers of the information commissioner or the courts (as the case may be) to powers of judicial review rather than appeal on merits. [HL2617]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

In preparing our freedom of information proposals the Government have studied the relevant law in these countries and in a number of others.

Broad generalisations in relation to overseas systems of law based on characterisations under domestic law are not always easy to make. In particular it is difficult to draw precise comparisons between the concept of "judicial review" as known in the law of England and Wales and review or appeal by courts or bodies under foreign systems of law. The appeal structures in those countries vary considerably and, in any event, the laws of Australia, Canada and Ireland make separate and specific arrangements for the review of cases involving national security, defence and international relations.

In Australia, s.58 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 gives power to the tribunal to decide any matter in relation to a request for information "that could have been or could be decided by an agency or Minister" but, in relation to documents claimed to affect national security, defence or international relations, and documents claimed to affect relations with states (i.e. of the Commonwealth of Australia), Cabinet and Executive Council documents, the tribunal has power to determine if there are reasonable grounds for the claim.

In Canada, the Access to Information Act 1985 empowers the Information Commissioner to consider whether a complaint is well-founded and to make recommendations to the head of the relevant government institution. If access is not given to the information, the complainant may apply to the court which may order disclosure if it considers that the institution was not authorised to refuse disclosure, or—in the case of information relating to federal-provincial affairs, international affairs and defence, law enforcement, security of penal institutions, financial interests of the Government of Canada, or the management of the economy—if it considers that the institution did not have reasonable grounds to refuse disclosure.

In New Zealand, under the Official Information Act 1982 the Ombudsman may make recommendations to a Minister where he considers that the "request…should not have been refused." There is a public duty to observe a recommendation, but the Ombudsman may not make a recommendation where the Prime Minister certifies that disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice security, defence or international relations or where the Attorney General certifies that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention, investigation or detection of offences. Where a recommendation is made to a Minister of the Crown, the Governor General may make an Order in Council directing otherwise. The Order in Council may itself be reviewed by the High Court on the ground that it was beyond the powers of the Governor General or otherwise wrong in law.

In Ireland, the Information Commissioner may annul a decision to refuse disclosure and make such decision as he or she considers proper.