Access to Information: Code (Hansard, 21 April 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, the code of conduct on public access to information held by the Council and the Commission came into effect at the beginning of the year. It provides for the widest possible access, subject to certain safeguards. The Council of Ministers was unable to reach a decision on the application under the code by the Guardian newspaper for access to a number of Council documents.

§ Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I appreciate that she 285 did not refer to the situation that has now arisen, with the Danes vetoing the Council of Ministers' decision. In the light of the fact that the position has to be reconsidered, how does the Minister reconcile the protestations of the British Government in their desire for greater transparency in open government by the Council of Ministers with their support for the restriction on the release of information?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I should make it clear to the noble Baroness that the Government have strongly supported the efforts made to increase openness in the Community. Indeed, we took the lead building on the Maastricht declaration in 1991 on the right of access to information. That culminated in the decisions taken at the Edinburgh Council. In addition to the code of conduct on public access, there have to be safeguards to protect relatively small amounts of classified information supplied in confidence by member states.
The situation which occurred at the meeting where the Danes would not agree to pass what we thought had been agreed arose because they wished for a full debate. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness that the matter has to be reconsidered unless another course is taken. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that all that has happened has been in order to make as much information as possible publicly accessible. We shall go on working to do that.

§ Lord Ewing of Kirkford
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the subjects that was discussed at the meeting and on which the Guardian sought information was the protection of children in respect of their working hours? The United Kingdom delegation—made up of Mr. Michael Forsyth, the employment Minister and Mr. Alistair Burt, the social security Minister—sat silent at the meeting. They made no comment whatever on the need to protect children in terms of their working hours. Their silence was based on the United Kingdom's opt out of the social contract. Is the Minister aware that the other 11 member states made it clear that the presence of those Ministers was not acceptable and that on future occasions they will be asked to leave the meeting? Is that a situation of which Her Majesty's Government are particularly proud?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand that 13 applications were made for the information sought by the Guardian. Of those, seven applications were agreed and six were not agreed. As I said to the noble Baroness, the matter was not agreed at the Council meeting at the beginning of this week because Denmark wanted to discuss the matter in full. I do not have access to the exact detail of the Council meeting, although no doubt the noble Lord has read it.
We wish every debate to be as open as possible but undoubtedly there will be times when, if every debate is open in its fullest detail, the discussion will be pushed out into the corridors of the Council. That is why in December the European Council took the decision under Article 4.2 to include safeguards when it believed 286 it was not in the best interests to reveal all the detail. As to the subject matter, sometimes one is silent because there is nothing more to add.

§ Lord Hylton
My Lords, would it not be possible to separate the executive and the legislative functions of the Council of Ministers and, in accordance with the best democratic practice, to publish an equivalent of Hansard for the legislative deliberations?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that is an idea but it would mean even more paper, some of which would probably be pure gobbledegook, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would say.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, will the Minister be so good as to let us know how the British representative on the Council of Ministers voted on this matter and what position he adopted when the question arose? Is information of that kind barred on the grounds of secrecy about what occurs at meetings of the Council of Ministers?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would know that the agreement on the publication of votes is that they are published automatically unless, exceptionally, the Council decides against publication. We were in favour of the decision which came before the FAC earlier this week. That decision was to give to the Guardian answers to seven out of its 13 applications but not to the other six. In that we were in very good company with our other partners.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us remember well the Edinburgh Council when transparency and openness were trumpeted as being the great achievements of that conference? Whatever the Minister may say, the impression has been given, because of the proper application by the Guardian for relevant information, that the policy which Her Majesty's Government supported has fallen at the first hurdle. Will she give an assurance that Her Majesty' s Government will now take this matter firmly on board and ensure that the promises they made in Edinburgh are kept?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, we made sensible promises at Edinburgh. It is early days in connection with the release of documents to form a firm opinion. I should point out to your Lordships that the Guardian application has focused attention on unsuccessful applications only. The code of conduct has had the positive effect that we intended it to have at Edinburgh of opening up access to Council and Commission documents. We intend to see that that works properly, whatever the teething problems that we have experienced with this situation.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords—

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords—

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, the noble Baroness, I think.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, in the minutes that remain will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter as to how our representative voted in the Council.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand that it was with the other members, which would have been in favour of the publication of seven out of the 13 applications.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is it not a fact that after being given some of the documents the Guardian newspaper was alleged to have received them incorrectly from the Social Affairs Department? Is it not also a fact that the safeguards regarding classified information to which the Minister has referred could not conceivably have been invoked properly here? What are the safeguards in this instance? Is it not a fact that the Government merely pay nothing but lip service to openness?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, no, the noble Lord is wrong. We are not merely paying lip service to openness. We wish to see increased openness. We wish to see documents published. I agree with the noble Lord, however, that according to the Council secretariat one document was released which would not have been released had the people in the Council taken account of Article 4.2.