---

6.25 pm

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood): This is a short debate, and I shall be extremely brief as I have only one point to make. I sat on two Select Committees that produced reports on the matter--the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and, more recently, the Select Committee on Public Service. No doubt the Minister will tell us that those Committees had different views.

The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration spent a prolonged time examining nothing but the issue we are considering today. We travelled to Australia and New Zealand. Never was a trip more justified and never did more people see the light in more enjoyable surroundings. One could see conversions taking place as we travelled around that glorious land and returned to discuss what we had discovered.

The Select Committee produced what will be seen as a landmark report in the history of an issue that has been debated for so long. It represents a devastating critique of existing arrangements and a devastating argument for moving in a different direction.

The Public Service Committee--an admirable Select Committee on which I now sit--was driven by the party divide after Scott and was unable to take the same bipartisan and dispassionate approach. The party hatches came down and we all did what we had to do. The first was an example of a Select Committee at its best; the second was an example of a Select Committee reverting to type.

There is one issue to confront and the House can no longer avoid it. We have to decide whether information--the lubricant of democracy--should be considered to be a grant from Government or a right of citizenship. If the House believes that it should continue to be a grant from Government, it will be happy to continue with codes that the House has never discussed, scrutinised or approved. If, however, it believes that information is a right of citizenship, it will demand legislation to enshrine that right. The House would then be able to scrutinise the issue and examine the advantages and disadvantages of the code. The House would own the legislation.

10 Dec 1996 : Column 166

We are moving away from a system of cosy self-regulation and club government, when majorities decide how much the rest of us should know, towards an era when people claim rights as citizens and expect the House to protect those rights.

We are on the eve of what will probably be seen as the most ambitious period of political reform for more than a century. It seems quite extraordinary that the Government appear not to understand the mood and are entering a general election campaign defending the voting rights of hereditary peers while denying people freedom of information legislation. Never have a Government so misunderstood the democratic current now running through this country. We are on the eve of a great reforming Administration, and I expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) to tell us that freedom of information legislation will be a prominent part of our first year in office.

6.29 pm

Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland): The thrust of this debate has been almost inevitably towards freedom of information legislation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) for his eloquent plea. His speech was preceded by the equally eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I was also struck by the powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She issued a warning both to the present Government and to future Governments. She said that, in her experience, despite the White Paper, the code and the strength of Select Committees, Governments are now more reluctant to release information than when she first became a Member.

One of the debate's most moving speeches was made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have always had enormous respect. I hope that my saying so does not do him further damage among Conservative Members. He is a passionate advocate not only of freedom of information but of everything that touches civil liberties in the House. Often when I hear him speak, I think to myself, "This is the House of Commons at its best"--a fiercely independent Member making a plea for the rights and powers not only of the House but of individual citizens. I consider it a privilege to take part in the same debate as him.

I very much admired the way in which the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), advanced his arguments. I congratulate the Committee on its excellent report, especially on concluding that freedom of information legislation is the best way of proceeding. I want to convey my most heartfelt thanks to its members for the enormous sacrifices that they have all undergone on our behalf in going to far-flung places to examine important issues. Such sacrifices were worth while, given that the Chairman returned a convert to freedom of information. The House owes a great debt of gratitude to the Committee, which, under the hon. Gentleman's able chairmanship, initiated today's debate. There are all too few debates of this nature. Perhaps, there are all too few debates on Select Committee reports.

I associate myself with the remarks made about Sir William Reid and offer my thanks for his outstanding contribution. He has proved to be a redoubtable battler.

10 Dec 1996 : Column 167

He courageously accomplished an important task in taking the mandarins as well as members of the Cabinet in such a direction.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said about the need for open government:

"When you start saying, 'Well, we must only reveal the minimum amount of information possible to the public', and the presumption is that the public and Parliament do not have the right to know, you lead towards totalitarianism and political dictatorship, and I think that is fundamentally different from my conception of parliamentary democracy."

He was absolutely right. The White Paper on open government said:

"At the heart of the Government's philosophy is a belief in the need to return to individual citizens the power and means to make their own choices and to determine their own priorities. The Government has insisted that public institutions exist to serve the individual, not the other way about."

That is quite so. It will be Labour's intention to unlock the British people's potential to renew their communities, public services and nations, by trusting them and creating partnerships with them in the way in which the White Paper suggested.

In oral evidence to the Select Committee on 17 January, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:

"The two major advantages"--

of open government--

"are, first of all that in a parliamentary democracy it is extremely important that all those who take an interest . . . should know the facts behind a particular government decision, the reasoning behind administrative action, so that there can be an informed debate, so that those affected can understand what actually will affect them and why . . . Secondly, it is very important in government there should be a culture, a spirit of openness, for that makes better decision making among civil servants and ministers, because civil servants have to take minor decisions on behalf of ministers in many different circumstances. It is very important that the approach should be the public need to be informed about this particular process or decision, that should be the assumption of civil servants, and I think it makes for better decision making".

The irony is that the Chancellor made that statement when the Scott report was in the course of completion. Scott revealed, however, that a culture of secrecy permeates almost every aspect of the Government's activity. Information was treated as a precious resource, to be given out only when absolutely necessary and, even then, not in full. If guidelines were changed, it was considered that there was no need to tell Parliament. Instead, inaccurate and evasive replies were used as a series of excuses for keeping Parliament and the public in the dark about what was going on.

The Scott report made the case for a freedom of information Act unanswerable, not only because of how it might have been applied in the specific case with which the report dealt, but due to the sea change that it would bring about in attitudes towards the release of information. Ministers have said that a freedom of information Act would not have helped in the arms-to-Iraq affair; that the information would have been covered by the exemptions that any sensible freedom of information Bill would have to include.

Much of what was being asked did not relate to national security or even commercial confidentiality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich so ably

10 Dec 1996 : Column 168

exposed. Information was withheld, because that is the culture in which the Government operate, and Ministers wanted to avoid embarrassment and accountability. Despite his fine words about open government, the Chancellor of the Duchy was put up in the Scott debate to defend the indefensible in one of the most ruthless and cynical exercises of self-preservation undertaken by any Government in modern political times.

The Scott report underlined the case for a freedom of information Act. Scott stated:

"Without the provision of full information it is not possible for Parliament, or for that matter the public, to hold the executive fully to account . . . If Ministers are to be excused blame and personal criticism on the basis of the absence of personal knowledge or involvement, the corollary ought to be an acceptance of the obligation to be forthcoming with information about the incident in question."

We heard a clear statement from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Both his party and mine have long been favour of introducing a freedom of information Act to stop unnecessary secretiveness in government. The control of information is one of the greatest powers available to the Government and that power will grow as the information society develops. A Government's attitude to sharing information with the people says much about how they view power and the relationship between themselves and the people who elect them.

The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, in the report under discussion today, recommended in paragraph 126 that the Government should introduce a freedom of information Act. It asserts that a statute would bring about a far greater change in the culture of Government than merely publicising rights. The report states:

"A more powerful reason (than publicity for rights) given for statute by those we met when we visited Australia and New Zealand was the need to change governmental culture from one of secrecy to one where openness is accepted and there is a willingness to allow the public to participate in the process of government . . . The Committee noted that New Zealand had a directive in place prior to the Act but this was, however, later deemed to be ineffective."

It concludes:

"We are convinced that on balance the advantage lies in favour of legislation. We recommend that the Government introduce a Freedom of Information Act."

That is a seminal and landmark report that will be extraordinarily influential.

Four out of five voters now support freedom of information legislation, yet the Government reject that, instead placing their faith in the operation of the code of practice. The Government believe that

"the Code should now have an enhanced role underpinning the answering of Parliamentary Questions and in other matters of accountability. Given this increase in the importance for the provisions of the Code, the Government does not believe it would be sensible to seek a fundamental change in the status of the Code."

I shall not go into further detail, because we have had an important debate in which Back Benchers have participated. I shall bring my remarks to a close by complimenting the Government on the strides in greater openness that they have made. All the great campaigners--I count colleagues in the Chamber among them--know how difficult it has been to persuade Governments of all complexions to go in the direction of freedom of information. Indeed, it is easier for Oppositions than for Governments to be persuaded.

10 Dec 1996 : Column 169

We believe that the code does not go far enough, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood the promise that he sought: we will take an early opportunity to legislate for a freedom of information Act. Bills are available and much of the work has been done by others who have preceded us. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was one of those and we have his Bill. The Cabinet Office has also done much of the work. Its staff have also been to New Zealand and Australia to see how things are done there. All the work has been done and it could be that, in 12 months' time, if the electorate do the sensible thing, freedom of information legislation will be on the statute book. I look forward very much to that. Such legislation will not be a panacea--no Act of Parliament ever is--but it will be a step change in altering the culture in Whitehall. I even predict that some of my hon. Friends--right hon. Friends if they are in the Cabinet--may not be as enthusiastic about such legislation as some of us are. Nevertheless, we will deal with those problems if and when they arise. I am delighted to have taken part in the debate and I look forward to the Chancellor's remarks.

---