Freedom of Information (Hansard, 18 November 1998)

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the right of access to information held by public authorities; and for connected purposes.

A freedom of information Bill is long overdue and much needed, as the role and complexities of Government are increased, particularly with the growth of the new technologies. The promise of such a Bill is one of the few promises to have endured in Labour manifestos since 1974, and it is yet to be realised. It survives there because, apart from the fact that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members throughout the Chamber, the concept has the endorsement of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister stated that in the introduction to the White Paper that was prepared for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). My right hon. Friend was a principal architect of the White Paper, and many of us would have liked to see him pilot through the legislation and realise that election promise by getting it on to the statute book as a Government Bill. However, I am pleased that he is in his place today. His presence, together with that of other hon. Members, underlines the fact that there is widespread support for a freedom of information Bill across the political spectrum. That support is also reflected by the sponsors of the Bill, which I shall publish today.

We desperately need to change the public service culture on the keeping of records and public access to such records. My Bill would make it a presumption that all records held by public bodies could, and should, be available for public access and scrutiny. The legislation draws upon the experience and the statutes of other jurisdictions, such as the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It defines "records" as any written or printed document, any plan, map, photograph, tape or electronic record.

The Bill does not exclude the security services, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service from its scope. It is right that we should not jeopardise their role in detecting crime and determining who should be prosecuted and the means of prosecution. The defence of the realm should not be put in jeopardy. My Bill would introduce safeguards to guarantee that those important functions were not impeded in any way. However, I believe that it is quite wrong that there should be a blanket exemption for the services to which I have referred.

Many members of the public will welcome the fact that the Bill's provisions would apply to the former publicly owned industries that are now in private hands, which enjoy a monopoly or near-monopoly. I have in mind industries such as water, gas, electricity and so on. The spirit of the Bill is one not of compulsion, but change: we want to change attitudes and encourage the holders of public records to prepare now to make them available. We want to reassure them that any reasonable custodian of such records would have nothing to fear from the fact that the public would have access to them.

Whenever there was disagreement, mediation would be the key. My Bill envisages that every Ministry, public agency, or former public utility that is now in private 954 ownership would designate a senior person to listen to the arguments of those seeking access, and of any agency refusing to grant access by claiming that the disclosure of information would cause substantial harm. We hope that the resolution of such differences would be dealt with in house, but, as a fall-back position, a new information commissioner would be appointed. He would have the status of a judge, and the power to demand access to documents and to reach some conclusion. He would also be able to issue instructions as to what documents could, and should, be made available.

"Reasonableness" is the key word throughout the Bill. That includes reasonableness in the cost of access. We will not tolerate any abuse of the right of access. However, the Bill also ensures that individuals with few resources who were trying to fight the big battalions—perhaps they opposed some motorway scheme or a proposal that adversely affected their businesses—would not be disadvantaged by cost. Charges would be very modest, but there would be safeguards against those who might seek to abuse the system. In addition, the legislation ensures that the disclosure of public records would not place a disproportionate additional burden on the public purse. 1 re-emphasise that I want a culture whereby our Ministries and agencies prepare documents and records in such a way that they can be made available at minimal cost and with least delay.

Obviously there would be tests for disclosure. The primary test would be the public interest, and exemptions would be justified only where the people resisting the disclosure of information could show that substantial harm would be done to the public interest. I make no apology for reminding the House of recent scandals: the BSE scandal; the Bristol royal infirmary scandal, in which people should have been given information a lot earlier; and the plight of, and distress experienced by, many people in respect of Gulf war syndrome—in all those cases, there was a failure to grant access to information, and to recognise that there were problems.

The history of all those shameful parts of our recent history would have been different had such a measure been on the statute book. Most related to the previous Administration. However, I am disappointed that, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a parliamentary question about the dates on which the Cabinet has met since the general election, I was not able to have that information. That underlines how we must change the culture of government and of people who advise Ministers. Why on earth cannot such information be made available?

I draw strength and support from the Prime Minister himself. Addressing the Campaign for Freedom of Information, he said: It is not some isolated constitutional reform that we are proposing with a Freedom of Information Act. It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years. I acknowledge the bottleneck for legislative time, but I say to my right hon. Friends that placing such a Bill on the statute book could be a great benchmark for the radicalism of the Government and, indeed, this Parliament, in which we are all privileged to serve. The Bill would become an enduring Act, which would create 955 new rights and enhance our democracy. I therefore hope that I have the overwhelming support of the House to introduce the Bill.