§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the topic of freedom of information in the first debate on the subject in the new Parliament. It is an extremely important matter—the foundation on which the rest of our democracy is built.
Governments have so much power over ordinary people's lives. They have the wealth of the civil service, the expertise of legislators, access to whatever information they want, a public budget to sell their ideas and guaranteed exposure in the media—all to ensure that Britain is painted as they wish it to be.
What is the counter-balance to all that power? There is one fundamental prerequisite: access to information—the opportunity for individuals to check what Governments are telling them, to tap into alternative sources of information and to weigh up the arguments. How can ordinary people challenge the Government if they cannot find out what the Government are doing? The press cannot function properly without information, not even Matthew Parris, whom I thank for his surprising level of interest in my activities and to whom I apologise for the fact that I am again in the House representing my constituents rather than being wherever he thinks a Member of Parliament should be.
Over the years, successive Governments in this country have found attraction in shadows and solace in darkness. In many ways we have a less open society than anywhere else in the west. In the United Kingdom the presumption has been that everything should be secret unless a reason is produced for making it public, whereas the presumption should be that everything is open unless someone decides that it needs to be secret.
I am not advocating the publication of every Government document. Of course some matters must remain secret—sensitive diplomatic correspondence, matters affecting national security, much advice to Ministers—but surely we can open things up without bringing the house crashing down?
Some of the matters held as closed files are beyond belief. I refer hon. Members to an article in the Observer a while back, entitled "Secrets the state dare not tell", which lists some of the files of which we are allowed to know the title but not the contents. They include the following matters of national security: taxi drivers carrying fares without depressing flag 1935–1952; police fees for surgeons 1926–1953; dangerous driving conditions at humpback bridge in Beckenham road, London 1935–1951.
That article is now a few years old, but I have seen no evidence that the previous Government did anything to speed up the release of files, so I would not be surprised if those were still closed. Perhaps the Minister could find out. I find it difficult to believe that there was ever anything in those files that merited them being closed, but the presumption for secrecy meant that they were marked as closed, and remain so to this day for all I know.
Then there are the parliamentary questions to which I have received answers in respect of records held but not released for public inspection. The Public Record Office tells me that the oldest document it holds dates from 1873 on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. It is difficult to 903 imagine how that can be justified. As those records are land records, I would argue that who owns what should be public anyway, as I believe it is in Scotland, although I stand to be corrected. Surely any values attached to the transactions are now irrelevant.
The Home Office holds files going back to 1876, as another parliamentary answer this week revealed. To his credit, the Home Secretary promised in his answer to review matters since I had drawn them to his attention.
Other examples of information being concealed are more serious. Why has so much manufacturers' data on pesticides been kept secret in the UK on grounds of commercial sensitivity, when such information is freely available in the United States? When tests were carried out on cows with the artificial hormone BST, the milk from those cows was collected and sold, and we, the public, were not allowed to know from which farms the milk had come. Why were we not told until recently? I acknowledge a step forward by the new Government, who revealed that radioactive material had regularly been dumped in the sea between Scotland and Ireland.
§ Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party was rightly critical of the previous Administration for hiding behind the old lies that information was not centrally held and could be found only at disproportionate cost? Is he aware that the new Government are trotting out the same excuses? In answer to me yesterday at column 408 of Hansard on specified bovine material, the same excuses were used. If we are to have true freedom of information, the Government must be prepared to find out the information and make it available.
§ Mr. BakerMy hon. Friend is right. Some of the answers that we have received so far have been in the same furrow as answers from the previous Government. I hope that that is a reflection of the fact that Ministers have yet to get hold of their brief. I shall cite further instances.
More controversially, we must try to be more open about matters that have been shrouded in secrecy. Until recently, Governments would not even admit that MI5 and MI6 existed, but Stella Rimington, the first publicly named head of MI5, showed that light can be shed even on that sensitive area without compromising national security. I hope that the Government will build on the example she set in that and similar areas.
I shall be interested to see, for example, the responses that I get next week from the Secretary of State for Defence to the questions that I have tabled about RAF Menwith Hill. We are entitled to know the basis of the arrangement between the Americans and ourselves for that base, and to an assurance that all is within the law and in the British national interest. Beyond that, there must be secrecy for operational matters, although I hope that even those will be the subject of public consideration in future.
I raise the matter in general because I believe that it is important, but there is another reason why today's debate is opportune. We must try to establish clearly what the Government's position is. At present it is not clear, and I shall explain why.
The Labour party has long been committed to a freedom of information Act, and produced a Green Paper on the subject as long ago as 1979. We have been told 904 that such an Act is crucial, yet no such Bill appeared in the list of legislation for this Parliament. Why not? When I asked the Prime Minister, he told me in a written answer that he wanted to consult. Elsewhere I have heard it said that no Bill is ready. What nonsense that is.
A great deal of work has been done on potential legislation in recent years. There are Bills waiting to be plucked off the shelf, such as the Right to Know Bill introduced by a Labour Member in the previous Parliament. In January 1991, the then shadow Home Secretary, Roy Hattersley, said that freedom of information
is not only suitable for early enactment. It is ready for early enactment. If a Labour Government was elected… I would be able to send the headings of a Bill to a parliamentary draughtsman on the following day.'''—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 106.]In the interests of open government, I should reveal that my source for that quotation is the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the first day of debate on the Queen's Speech. It was a privilege to follow such a contribution when I made my maiden speech to the House that day. I cannot understand why the hon. Lady is not in the Cabinet—or perhaps I can.As there are no drafting problems, do the Government really need to consult further? Opinion polls clearly show a significant majority for a freedom of information measure, and the Government have a mandate for it. It is not necessary to delay any further for technical or democratic reasons, so why was such a Bill missing from the first Queen's Speech?
I believe that the Government are split between those who are clearly committed to such a measure and would happily introduce it tomorrow—I include the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), in that list—and those who are more reluctant and who perhaps see benefits in, and less discomfort from, keeping things much as they have been. I suspect that that group includes some people who might be classed as the inner circle.
If I am wrong in my analysis, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), will put me right. In that case, he must come up with a much more convincing explanation for the absence of a freedom of information Bill from the Government's first legislative programme. There has been no convincing explanation to date.
The Government must examine the practices that they have introduced and decide whether they are compatible with a culture of openness. How, for example, does the role of the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), sit with the professions of openness? He is clearly a powerful figure in the Labour party and in the Government. His fingerprints are everywhere, but in what way is he accountable? Through written questions, I was told in a written parliamentary answer from the Prime Minister.
Since then I have asked the Minister without Portfolio a number of written questions, from which I have learnt virtually nothing about what he does. He refuses to list meetings that he has attended. So far as I am aware, he has not spoken in the House since the election, despite his central position. I dropped him a note last week informing him that I intended to refer to him in this debate and that I should be happy to give way to him, should he turn up. He has not done so.
905 Is the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the millennium dome, or is the Secretary of State for National Heritage responsible? On 18 June I asked the Prime Minister for clarification of their respective roles, with a named date for response of 23 June. So far, I have received only a holding reply.
To give credit where it is due, the Minister without Portfolio provided me with a written answer earlier this week, stating that he would answer oral questions on the millennium exhibition—or experience, as I suppose we must now call it. I welcome that, but it deals only with the most visible issue.
What is the role of the Minister without Portfolio in determining the future of the royal yacht? He tells me in parliamentary answers that he has no responsibility, but an article in The Guardian dated 26 June states that the British Exporters Association has had "favourable noises" from him. What exactly is his role in that? My suspicion is that he is sorting out policies behind closed doors with the Prime Minister, and that Ministers have been put up in public to defend those decisions. I hope that the Minister can tell me that I am wrong. If I am not, the present arrangements are not in the spirit of a culture of open government and are not consistent with accountability to the House.
Then there are the responses that I have received to written parliamentary questions about public records. I asked each Department for information about documents that were passed to the Public Record Office. Some answers, such as that from the Foreign Secretary, were helpful. Others told me that the Public Records Act 1958 does not require information to be kept in the form requested and that to do so would "incur disproportionate cost". That famous phrase has been used over the years to avoid answering questions, and although it is sometimes justified, it is often abused.
That was a curious response to receive from the Department of Trade and Industry as my question was an exact replica—apart from the change of year—of that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 2 July 1990. On that occasion, the question elicited a full response, and every category that my hon. Friend specified was given a percentage correct to one decimal place. I subsequently took up the matter with the Consumer Affairs Minister, who has been most helpful and who provided the information that I requested in a very full letter. However, that means that the official answer I was given—namely, that the information that I sought was not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost—was clearly incorrect. In this case, the information provided originally by the present Government was of a lesser quality than that provided by the Conservative Government, which is no cause for self-congratulation on the Government Benches.
The Minister will undoubtedly tell me about the proposals that he intends to publish shortly. They will be welcome if the proposals to allow access to information are not couched in terms which enable the public sector—I hope that the Bill will apply to the whole of the public sector, including quangos—to cite exemptions. I hope, too, that the Government will not impose prohibitively expensive charges for gaining access to information. I ask the Minister to respond to those points.
I acknowledge the positive way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has answered my questions, both on the Floor of the House and in written 906 answers. I acknowledge, too, his positive response in the past few days to my question about his intentions to open up the existing code of practice on access to Government information. I remain hopeful.
The problem is that, although we have had many expressions of support from Ministers, we have seen no concrete action to date. I appreciate that these are early days, but a freedom of information Bill could have been introduced this Session. I ask the Minister to provide a convincing explanation as to why that is missing from the first year of Government legislation. The longer we go without a freedom of information Bill, the more attracted to secrecy Ministers will become. They will find it easier not to release information, and we shall be back in the trough created by the previous Government.
The Minister will know that I have introduced the Public Records (Amendment) Bill, which is due for Second Reading on 30 January 1998. It aims to reduce the 30-year rule to 20 years and to reduce the rule for royal documents from 100 to 20 years. That is a modest measure and in line with practice in other countries.
I offer today to work with the Minister and the Government to create sensible, workable legislation—taking account of costs and other potential problems that he and his colleagues may envisage—in an attempt to make progress in this area. I am willing to attend meetings and to co-operate completely with the Government if the Minister wishes to make progress with the legislation in the House.
Will the Minister take up my offer so that that legislation may proceed in advance of any White Paper recommendations? The current parliamentary timetable is very full, and the White Paper will not see any legislation—even putative legislation—before next April, May or June. Will the Minister accept my offer and introduce legislation so that the Government may restore their credentials in the area of freedom of information? That would go some way towards reversing the unfortunate impression created in some quarters that part of the Government is not enthusiastic about freedom of information.
I hope that the Minister will not instruct his colleagues to block the Bill, citing spurious reasons for so doing. The Minister can have no sensible reasons for blocking my Bill when I have offered to work with him and to incorporate Government proposals. Will the Minister work with me on that legislation, and will the real Labour party, metaphorically, stand up and be counted?
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle)This debate has been short, but none the less interesting and informative. I must agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) about Matthew Parris's article in The Times. The hon. Gentleman probably took exception to the valediction that a bore is born; I think that he will agree that a bore is made and not born. I pay credit to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) for their contributions. The hon. Member for Lewes has taken the opportunity to reflect on the considerable importance of freedom of information, and I know that many hon. Members—including me—take a strong interest in that subject.
However, an issue of timing is involved. The hon. Gentleman has initiated this debate, and he has asked numerous questions about freedom of information and 907 other subjects in the House. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he recently presented a Private Member's Bill on public records. The hon. Gentleman misses no opportunity to let the House know the depth of his undoubtedly genuine and deeply felt concerns about those issues.
I wonder, however, whether the hon. Gentleman has listened to a number of important points that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made very clearly both within and outside Parliament in the past few weeks. The hon. Gentleman paid credit to my right hon. Friend for assisting the hon. Gentleman's cause. My right hon. Friend has said clearly that the Government take freedom of information very seriously. As everyone knows, we are pledged, through our manifesto, to introducing a freedom of information Bill. The Gracious Speech made it clear that we would begin to implement that commitment through an early White Paper, setting out our proposals for FOI legislation.
My right hon. Friend has been at pains to stress time and again that consultation is the essence of our approach. First, we will issue the White Paper very shortly—it remains my right hon. Friend's intention to do this before the House rises in a few weeks' time. The White Paper will be wide ranging—it will certainly cover public records and other issues that have been mentioned today—and will initiate a period of consultation. A few months later—probably at the beginning of next year—we shall publish a draft Bill, which is part of a significant move towards more open government. That will then lead to a further period of consultation before any legislation is introduced.
The hon. Gentleman offered to consult with the Government in introducing the freedom of information measure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he, other hon. Members and the wider public will have every opportunity to make their views known during the legislative process. Naturally, the freedom of information Bill, in its final draft form, will be debated extensively by the House—and no doubt in the other place. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewes will serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill. I am sure that he will take part in the forthcoming debates, and my right hon. Friend and I will look forward to debating the important issues with him at that stage.
Under the exceptionally open and consultative approach that the Government will take to FOI proposals as they develop, the hon. Member will have ample opportunity—both in the light of the White Paper and on the basis of the drafted legislation—to make clear his points or areas of concern and to engage the Government in discussions about them. I hope, therefore, that the House and the hon. Member will understand my concern that we must be careful not to embark on the consultative process prematurely, and not to get immersed in debate too soon.
That is partly because we do not yet have the advantage of a published White Paper—let alone a published draft Bill—on which to structure our thoughts, and partly because the Government have embarked on a major exercise in working towards an important and very early 908 statement on freedom of Information. It is essential that we do not delay that process by trying to thrash out all the details beforehand.
None the less, the hon. Member has chosen to raise some specific points in the House today, and I should like to respond to them.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am interested in what he has to say. Before he moves on to particular points, will he clarify the status of the White Paper? He has made it sound as though it is not so much a statement of Government conclusions as a discussion paper on which the Government might be ready to make changes if persuaded that those changes were meritorious.
§ Mr. KilfoyleI am sure that my right hon. Friend fully intends the process to reflect the opinions expressed in the House and beyond on the substance of the White Paper. It would be entirely in keeping with the Government's intention to be open and consultative in their approach if that is the line that is taken.
The hon. Member for Lewes referred to previous files. Admittedly, those references were somewhat dated. I assure him that I shall do everything that I possibly can to investigate the specific files that he mentioned and will come back to him. We must be careful, however, not to overlap with the debate that will take place on the contents of the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not clear about the Government's position. I hope shortly to be able to make absolutely clear exactly what the process will be and where we stand in terms of openness and consultation. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Right to Know Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). The hon. Gentleman said that there were no drafting problems. It is my recollection, however, that it contained about 83 clauses, which shows how complex the subject is. Indeed, so intent are we on getting this right that we are committed to the extra consultation to which I have referred.
Many references were made to the Minister without Portfolio, and I am sure that he will answer for himself. As for my hon. Friend's millennium dome responsibilities, the hon. Gentleman has already had an adequate answer. My hon. Friend will be answering oral as well as written questions. When the hon. Gentleman reads accounts of what my hon. Friend may or may not think about issues that are far beyond his portfolio. I remind him that he should not, as anybody who has become a Member of Parliament will know, believe everything that is written in newspapers.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about public records. The Government agree with him that that is an important aspect of openness. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it clear that our White Paper will cover that area. He has also informed the House that he hopes to see a considerable extension in the release of public records under the 30-year rule. That remains the case.
The hon. Gentleman proposed reductions in the 30-year rule. Like the rest of the House, he will have to wait until the White Paper is published before considering what we have to say on this specific issue. Believe me, I am as 909 keen as anyone to avoid unnecessary secrecy in our public records system. When I was a Back Bencher, I tried to elicit information in the same way as the hon. Gentleman, and I know how difficult it can be. We have to remember, however, that when holding an estimated 7 billion pieces of paper—not to mention other types of record—in files that would stretch approximately 900 miles, and with about a mile of documents being released by the Public Record Office each year, major and sudden changes affecting the whole system of record review and storage are bound to involve a significant cost in time and money.
It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know, however, given his evident view that the openness of the system is inadequate—there is much sympathy with that view on both sides of the House—that over the past five years, under the Conservative Government, more than 77,500 records held both within and beyond the 30-year period were released as a result of the review efforts of Departments and the Public Record Office. I can assure him that the Labour Government will ensure that the impetus towards openness is at least maintained if not increased, that public access to public records is improved, and that our White Paper will make proposals on that.
I hope that I have made it reasonably clear, not least to the hon. Member for Lewes, that the Government believe in openness and that in our first weeks in office we are working steadily to achieve that aim. Many of the hon. Gentleman's representations were a reflection on previous Governments more than on the present Government, but we are determined to get this absolutely right, in an open and transparent way.
The House should consider, for example, the recently announced decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that all national health service trusts will be required to hold their meetings in public. That is the kind of development that we need after the legacy of the past 18 years: greater openness in our quangos and other public bodies. Freedom of information will meld 910 very much with the intention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to produce, later this year, a White Paper on better government. It will be an important element of that.
Then there are the actions of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has published for the first time an unprecedented and full explanation of why the Government disagreed with the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Bass, Carlsberg and Tetley merger. There is also the work of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in preparing the ground for the setting up a food standards agency to provide substantially more open and transparent arrangements for maintaining public confidence in relation to what we eat. Those are matters of vital importance to consumers.
I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's White Paper on better government will make further important proposals on opening up our public life to the examination and scrutiny that is so important to ensure proper accountability to the House and to the nation as a whole.
Finally, I refer again to our forthcoming White Paper on freedom of information, which will set out in detail how this Government, unlike any of our predecessors, are prepared to give a statutory right of access to every individual or organisation wishing to use it. That is evidence of our commitment to freedom of information and to open government, and I accordingly commend it to the House.
§ Sitting suspended.
1.30 pm§ Sitting resumed.