| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Freedom of Information
2. Mr. Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the extension of the principle of open government. [19601]
Dr. David Clark: My proposals for a freedom of information Act, set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know", would transform government in this country from a culture of secrecy to a culture of openness.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to transform this Government from a culture of secrecy to a culture of openness. In that vein, will he consider the role of the Paymaster General in government, now that the hon. Gentleman has been given a role in considering closing the loopholes in offshore trusts when he has numerous offshore trusts and benefits
from them financially? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that conflicting role, given that the Paymaster General's solicitors have denied that he has control of the Orion trust yet he is able to influence that trust in relation to what shares are bought? Surely, in the interests of open government, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should now require the Paymaster General to make a personal statement to the House so that these matters can be cleared up once and for all.
Dr. Clark: The Paymaster General abided by all the rules of ministerial conduct. He took advice from Her Majesty's Treasury, which he then followed.
Mr. Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of the freedom of information White Paper "Your Right to Know" is an extremely important event in open government? Does he further agree that that contrasts directly with the attitude of the previous Administration who did not believe in freedom, except for the favoured few--and who certainly did not believe in information because they presided over the most centralised and secretive Government in living memory?
Dr. Clark: The Government believe that, in a modern democracy, the citizens should have a presumption of access to information held by public bodies unless there are very good reasons why they should not have that access.
Mrs. Shephard: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, last week we supported his proposals for more open government. In the light of his statement last week, can he explain to the House why, if the previous Government were able to calculate and make public the effect on employment of different levels of a national minimum wage, his Government, committed as he said last week to more open government, refuse to do so?
Dr. Clark: We debated that issue very fully in the House yesterday evening. Right hon. and hon. Members can raise other points in Committee.
3. Fiona Mactaggart:
What steps he has taken to make his Department more open. [19602]
Dr. David Clark:
I have published a White Paper on freedom of information which will open up not only my Department but the whole of government and public service. I intend that my Department will set an example on openness. I have therefore undertaken to publish the background material relevant to the formation of the White Paper's proposals.
Fiona Mactaggart:
I welcome my right hon. Friend's response and the openness that he has shown by publishing background material on that and on the millennium question. Does he agree that, before his proposals on open government and the reform of quangos take effect, public bodies have the opportunity to be more open and to release more information as a matter of course, as he has shown? What steps can he take to ensure that that happens?
Dr. Clark:
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that public bodies become much more proactive in
Mr. Evans:
Does the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to open government extend to leak inquiries? Does he believe that the public have a right to know who is being questioned in leak inquiries, particularly when that may involve Ministers and their answers to questions?
Dr. Clark:
There is a long agreed system for inquiries into leaks. That will continue, as it has continued over many years.
Mr. Llew Smith:
When my right hon. Friend launched his freedom of information proposals last week, he said that they would cover the commercial activities of British Nuclear Fuels plc, but a reply from the Minister for Transport in London says that details of future plans to transport plutonium fuel
Dr. Clark:
We have not excluded BNFL from the scope of the White Paper. Obviously, any information requested from BNFL would be subject to the same substantial harm test as applications to any other body within the scope of the Act.
Mr. Gorrie:
In his good work of trying to create more open government, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the access of hon. Members to civil servants' information simpler so that we do not have to go through the tortuous route of devising questions, which wastes much more of people's time? In local government, the right of each councillor to access to officials works well. Would he, in a sensible manner, allow that to happen with civil servants?
Dr. Clark:
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, with which I have considerable sympathy. I am well aware that many hon. Members feel that the relationship between them and officials in central government is different from their experience in local government. We can learn much from local government. I accept that there are difficulties on issues such as ministerial responsibilities, but I believe that we should work towards making purely factual information from civil servants much more available to hon. Members. I emphasise that we must bear in mind the fact that civil servants are responsible to Ministers, who act as their spokesmen.
4. Mr. Bayley:
If he will make a statement about the most recent recipients of charter mark awards. [19603]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle):
This has been a very successful year for the charter mark awards scheme, with 365 awards being made--the highest number ever. There were record numbers of applications from virtually all types of public service, including a successful one from the Benefits Agency in York and the North Yorkshire guidance service, which serves York. York is, of course, the original home of the citizens charter idea.
The charter mark is making a real contribution to improving public services and we intend to build on that success by developing it and making it more effective.
Mr. Bayley:
I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the fact that it was a Labour city council that invented the citizens charter. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff of the Benefits Agency office in York who won a charter mark? Does he agree that staff in Benefits Agency offices are under a lot of pressure, because when people are poor and without money they get desperate and pushy in those offices? If staff at a Benefits Agency office have won an award for excellence in public service for dealing sympathetically and well with people in such circumstances, they deserve praise. Does my hon. Friend agree that their excellent standards deserve to be spread throughout the Benefits Agency so that all people in need get the service that they deserve?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
My hon. Friend will be aware that a successful charter mark award ceremony held a fortnight ago last Monday was attended by nearly 100 Members and represented a recognition of the real achievements of those at the sharp end. That is why we are trying to cater for a charter programme that works according to a bottom-up approach to public services rather than opting for the policy of the Conservatives, who tried to impose their will on those who had the extremely difficult job of delivering services in difficult circumstances.
5. Mr. Canavan:
If he will make a statement about progress with legislation for freedom of information. [19604]
7. Mr. Sutcliffe:
If he will make a statement on progress towards legislation on freedom of information. [19607]
Dr. David Clark:
The White Paper "Your Right to Know" sets out the Government's clear and radical proposals for freedom of information. We now invite comment and debate. In the light of that, I will publish a draft freedom of information Bill in the new year.
Mr. Canavan:
Although there will be a general welcome for the White Paper, why should there be a blanket exemption for the security and intelligence services and on information relating to the arms trade and the advice that Ministers receive from civil servants and policy advisers? Would it not be better to allow the commissioner or some form of independent panel to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not it is in the public interest to conceal such information?
Dr. Clark:
I believe that we have produced a radical White Paper which will roll back secrecy in public bodies
As for the intelligence services, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am determined not to jeopardise national security. That is why that exclusion has been set out so openly and honestly. As regards detailed policy advice to Ministers, we believe that in a modern society the Government need space in which to do their business. That is why we have established a simple harm test in that case, but we have made it clear that factual and background information, which is given to Ministers as they form their opinions, should be made available.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
I welcome the radical proposals in the White Paper. Is it not the case that my constituents, and many ordinary people, will benefit from them because they will have the right to access information about themselves?
Dr. Clark:
Yes. In drawing up the White Paper, I tried to look at it not through the eyes of big business or the press but through those of the ordinary citizen. That is why it is clear, simple and straightforward. I want to get the message across loud and clear that the information is for the people, and for them first and foremost. That is why we have sought to minimise the cost and to make the system easier.
As well as publishing the White Paper in print and on the internet, we are distributing 40,000 copies of a leaflet explaining the main proposals. That leaflet is straightforward and will be available in seven minority languages, in large print, in Braille and on audio cassette.
Mr. Ruffley:
In view of the Minister's commitment to open government, will he tell the House whether the leak inquiry that he appointed last week has personally interviewed the Minister without Portfolio about the disgraceful leaking of the contents of the White Paper earlier last week? It is a simple question--yes or no?
Dr. Clark:
There is a procedure for that sort of inquiry. I have handed it over to my permanent secretary, and it is not the job of a Minister to interfere with an independent neutral civil servant and tell him how to do his job.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he say a little more about the progress of the inquiry? He knows that I would not for a moment doubt his personal integrity, but is he completely satisfied that no ministerial colleague was involved in the leak last week?
Dr. Clark:
My permanent secretary, whom I requested to look into the leak, is doing so, and is conducting a wide range of interviews. He has done that, and is still doing the work. It would be premature for me at this stage to give any disclosure of what conclusion he has come to. It would certainly be wrong for me to interfere in any way with his inquiries.
"are a commercial matter for BNFL."--[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 156.]
Can my right hon. Friend say who is correct?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |