---

6.49 pm

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): May I be the first on the Government Benches to congratulate you on your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I know that you will bring to that office the essential qualities that you have brought to every office that you have held in the House. I am delighted by your appointment.

I am pleased to be on the Government side of the House after 18 years in opposition--five years in the European Parliament and 13 years in the House. To those of us who have been in the Opposition for such a long time, it is a great delight to be here. It is particularly pleasing that the number of women Members has doubled. As the only Welsh woman in the House for the past 13 years, I am glad that there are now four of us. That is a considerable improvement, as there have been only three previously this century. There is clearly a long way to go, but it is an important start. I am pleased to be in the House at this time.

Many important measures will be introduced in the first Session of Parliament, and I welcome that. The Government are addressing important issues very quickly. However, I am sorry that a freedom of information Act is missing, although there is a promise for the future. The Labour party's commitment to freedom of information

14 May 1997 : Column 106

goes back more than 20 years. Since 1974, that commitment has appeared in manifesto after manifesto. Many hon. Members spend a considerable amount of time trying to obtain information from reluctant Ministers. We expend considerable effort in framing questions to elicit the information that is often denied us.

It has been suggested that early legislation was not possible because no one had had the time to work out what it should include. Apparently, we need a White Paper first. There has already been plenty of discussion. As long ago as March 1979, the Labour Government published a Green Paper entitled "Open Government". The Conservative Government published a White Paper with the same title in July 1993.

I read with some amazement that we could not have early legislation because no Bill was available. Freedom of information has been the subject of countless Bills, most of which were all-party measures. Many of them were introduced or sponsored by members of the present Government. In 1978, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary introduced a freedom of information Bill, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In 1979, another Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. Many other Bills followed and were introduced by hon. Members from all parties.

As recently as December last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the then shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said that a Labour Government would

"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 . . . 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."--[Official Report, 10 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 169.]

There was no sudden realisation. As long ago as January 1991, the then deputy leader of the Labour party and shadow Home Secretary 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."

It has been widely remarked that the new Government have hit the ground running. They have launched well-thought-out and well-developed new policies from day one. Rapid action is particularly important for freedom of information. If we have impressed Whitehall with our determination to press ahead with other policies, what message are we conveying by delaying action on that issue? I hope that the message is not that we are prepared to tolerate the time-honoured, closed Whitehall ways of getting things done now that Whitehall is supposed to be working for us.

Labour shadow Ministers went through intense preparation for office. They went on training courses, had meetings with permanent secretaries and had the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). They were forewarned of the dangers of losing sight of their own strategy and being sucked into their Department's agenda. Were they also briefed about the need to resist being seduced by secrecy?

When I first came to the House from the European Parliament, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley

14 May 1997 : Column 107

(Mr. Heseltine), two questions. His answer to both was that the information was confidential. However, three days earlier, the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO had given precise answers to those questions, and had briefed journalists in Brussels.

Secrecy is tempting. It makes life easier for Ministers and officials, and protects them from inconvenient questions. It allows Governments to get their business done with less challenge. It helps officials to conceal from the public their own uncertainty: the questions that have not been answered, and the problems that have been identified but not yet solved.

We should recognise the dangers of that approach. Having faced the problem across the Chamber for so many years, I have learnt that the dangers are obvious. A Government who insist on the right to operate in secrecy will quickly lose the ability to distinguish between what is in their own interests and what is in the public interest.

The Scott report concluded:

"In circumstances where disclosure might be politically or administratively inconvenient, the balance struck by the Government comes down, time and time again, against full disclosure."

Just before the recess, I undertook an investigation of my own. I found that more than 1,200 of the parliamentary answers given by former Ministers since Lord Justice Scott called for more openness in government were that the information requested could not be provided either on the ground of disproportionate cost or because it was not held centrally. Since February 1996, Ministers have used those devices over and again.

The Ministry of Defence cited those grounds on 73 occasions, Health Ministers used them on 360 occasions, the Department of Trade and Industry on 55 occasions, and the Foreign Office did so on 32 occasions. When he was interviewed recently on the anniversary of the publication of his report, Lord Justice Scott called on Members of Parliament to step up their attack on excessive Government secrecy. It is now clear that, even after the Scott report was published, former Ministers time after time used "disproportionate costs" and "information not held centrally" as blocking devices.

The report of the Franks committee dealt with the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. It said:

"A government which pursues secret aims, or which operates in greater secrecy than the effective conduct of its proper functions requires, or which turns information services into propaganda agencies, will lose the trust of the people."

To lose the public's trust is no small thing. To a democratic Government, at least, it is fatal.

Today, obviously, we feel great delight--even euphoria--at the results of the election, the prospects that lie ahead and the start that has already been made; but the public look to us for more than new policies. They are looking for a new approach to politics, and that requires us to be honest about what we can achieve, to be prepared to admit to mistakes if we make them and to trust the public with information.

We should not be blind--I do not think that any of us is--to the enormous disillusionment that so many people have felt with politicians and the political process. We will fool ourselves if we believe that that disillusionment is directed exclusively at the previous Government, and

14 May 1997 : Column 108

does not colour the way in which all politicians, and any Government, are unfortunately perceived by the public. If we appear to act in a high-handed way, denying information to the public and repeating the familiar chants that the facts are commercially confidential and disclosure would be premature, without good reason, we can be certain that cynicism will return more quickly than we may now imagine possible.

If we wait two or three years before legislating, Ministers will have slipped into the traditional cosy way of making decisions. It will seem familiar and natural: the dangers of exposing too much information will seem obvious, and the benefits will be harder to remember. The enthusiasm for openness may have evaporated. The legislation that is then introduced will be more tailored to the convenience of administrators, and less effective for the public. A policy that has been developed openly will have been tested more rigorously; any potential weakness will have been recognised before the policy is settled, and while there is time to get things right. The policy itself will be better, and will also enjoy wider public confidence.

We should not be afraid of freedom of information legislation. It already exists in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United States, Sweden, Hungary and many other countries. Ireland passed its freedom of information Act only last month. I read with interest the words of the former premier of Victoria about freedom of information in that state. He said that it was

"a bit like a compulsory random breath test on our roads. Motorists are aware of its presence and the ever-present likelihood of a check. Governments, likewise, are aware of the prospect of examination of a comprehensive list of documents on which a decision is based. Because of that the Act has had a significant impact on the quality of decision making."

I also recall what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in March last year, at the presentation of the Campaign for Freedom of Information annual awards. He said:

"The crucial question is does the government regard people's involvement in politics as being restricted to periodic elections? Or, does it regard itself as in some sense in a genuine partnership with people?"

My right hon. Friend said that he did not believe that the impact of a freedom of information Act

"would simply be in the pure matter of legislation . . . It would also signal a culture change that would make a dramatic difference to the way that Britain is governed. The very fact of its introduction will signal a new relationship between government and people: a relationship which sees the public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country and sees election to serve the public as being given on trust . . . I regard it not merely as simply a list of commitments that we give because at some point in time, someone got up and agitated for it . . . It is genuinely about changing the relationship in politics today . . . A Freedom of Information Act is not just important in itself. It is part of bringing our politics up to date, of letting politics catch up with the aspirations of people and delivering not just more open but more effective and efficient government for the future."

That is as persuasive a case for early action on freedom of information as could have been made by anyone. I hope that we can make swift progress towards implementing the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

---