Freedom of Information Act: Progress on Implementation (Hansard, 25 June 2001)

§ Lord McNally
asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to introduce the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 into Whitehall departments and what training programme is in place to implement that timetable.

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
My Lords, the noble Lord's interest in freedom of information is well known. He proposed successful amendments to the Bill in key areas. Responsibility for this and other related constitutional areas passed on 8th June to my department from the Home Office, from which 15 officials covering this area are in the process of being integrated into my department. The Act received Royal Assent on 30th November 2000 and it must be fully implemented by 30th November 2005. As yet there is no timetable other than that outer date. I have a statutory duty to report to Parliament on progress towards implementation by 30th November 2001.
I welcome this opportunity to make an interim statement to your Lordships. Critical to the successful implementation of the Act is the Office of Information Commissioner, which was created on 30th January and subsumes within it the post of Data Protection Commissioner. The staff in her office, currently about 150, associated with data protection will have to expand over time by about another 150 to manage the Freedom of Information Act. Recruitment of the right people in these numbers with experience of how the public service operates and with the necessary investigative skills will take time. A programme of awareness training throughout central government began in April and will continue into the autumn. However, these are early days, and the noble Lord will recall that Rome was not built in a day.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, I should have thought that this Government would steer clear of construction projects. Although the Act is only a few months old, the pledge is more than 20 years old. Does the Lord Chancellor not agree that that is a lamentable rate of progress? His is the third department in four years to take responsibility for freedom of information. The Home Office had it removed when it had a timetable agreed in Whitehall but that was vetoed in No. 10 Downing Street. Is not the problem, not the culture of secrecy in Whitehall, to which the committee of the 120 noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred, but a culture of secrecy at the very heart of government? As the Lord Chancellor now has responsibility for freedom of information, will he give, as well as that interim report, a firm undertaking that he will make his stewardship not a damage limitation exercise but a real commitment to bring freedom of information to government?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord has departed a little from his normal standards of fairness. The fact is that this Government have brought forward devolution legislation, which is now in place. They have also brought forward the Human Rights Act, which is bedding down with great success. Furthermore, the Government have brought forward legislation covering freedom of information. I can tell the noble Lord that the Government intend to implement the legislation, so far as is practicable, well within the statutory five years.
However, I shall draw a parallel with the two-year delay in the implementation of the Human Rights Act. Those two years were occupied with intensive preparation across Whitehall, as well as with training of the judiciary, extending to 30,500 lay magistrates. Opponents of the Act had predicted absurd decisions and chaos in the courts, but in fact the implementation of the Act has been a triumph and the prophets of doom have been comprehensively discredited. But now we must take even greater care, over a longer period, with the implementation of freedom of information legislation.
There are two basic reasons. First, the Act has the widest extension, covering 50,000-plus public bodies. We could have made the Act prospective, but we deliberately made it retrospective, covering past papers as well as future papers. Secondly, the commissioner will have to approve publication schemes for the 50,000-plus public authorities covered. A publication scheme is a statement of the type of information that the authority itself will publish proactively. These schemes are intended to he a driving force for openness. But all this will take time in order to succeed.

§ Baroness Goudie
My Lords—

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords—

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we take the first question from this side of the House, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.

§ Baroness Goudie
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there is a difference of opinion regarding the implementation of the Act; namely, whether it should be with a "big bang" or area by area? Can he tell the House which approach is likely to be adopted?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am familiar with that debate. Those who are impatient for implementation instinctively will favour the "big bang" approach, while those who are in the box marked "more cautious"—where I place myself—favour the area-by-area approach. So many bodies are to be covered that I do not think that a "big bang" approach is practicable. However, I do think that approaching it area by area is practicable. In the Republic of Ireland, implementation has been staged by the type of public authority. One of the most immediate tasks facing the Information Commissioner is to provide guidance as regards her expectations for publication schemes and to make arrangements to pilot such schemes.
I can identify to noble Lords five public authorities which are likely to participate in the pilot schemes this year. I do not believe that they have yet been publicly identified. They are the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development, the Public Record Office, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Medicines Control Agency. However, others may well be added to the list.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Government are giving any consideration to freedom of information on the Internet.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the Freedom of Information Act is concerned primarily with access to information held by public authorities. One of the great merits of the Act is that it is fully retrospective. For that reason, much of the information held will not be stored electronically. However, in Section 8 the Act provides that an application for information may be received by electronic means. Furthermore, Section 11 provides that an applicant may express a preference as regards how he or she will receive the information sought. The information may be sought in an electronic form and, if it is reasonable to do so, the public authority will provide the information in that form. The Information Commissioner will be able to adjudicate on issues of reasonableness in any case where there is a dispute between the public authority and an applicant.