Good morning everyone and it is very good to be here. I was in fact trying to make a discreet entrance and stand at the back so I could get the flavour of the event, but in fact, I think the cue was that when the Minister came into the room the interview stopped. So there we go – you've got me early and here. First of all, Ministers always have to make declarations of interests so there is no sense whatsoever that they are doing other than the proper thing as part of openness; it's part of accountability and so I should make my declaration of interest about my relationship with British Telecom.
Some years ago when I had a life – about three years or so ago before I became a Minister, we thought that life in Parliament was a bit sad with lots of work and not much fun. So we decided, those of us who actually like singing, would form the Parliament Choir. And because I am easily bullied I was told it was my job to go and form the Parliament Choir and be its Chairman. And that requires, of course, to actually get some support for doing so. So I went to British Telecom who became the sponsor of the Parliament Choir and we've got a wonderful concert taking place shortly. So I should declare my interests and although I am no longer Chairman of the Parliament Choir, I still enjoy going along and you ought to go along to their concerts as well. End of commercial!
Now then, what I would like to do is to address five topics:
The context of Freedom of Information.
Secondly, our vision for the way public authorities will need to act after January 2005 and the beforehand preparation.
Third, the extent to which we can learn from overseas experience.
And then fourthly, just so we just don't get too chin on the floor about it all, the benefits which will accrue to public authorities themselves from Freedom of Information.
And finally, a word about the roles and responsibilities of some of the key players.
Let me start then with just a bit about the context and why it matters. The Government, and I hope you are aware and it is obvious, has as its central goal, trying to deliver equality of opportunity to citizens in Britain. In other words anybody, irrespective of their background, their class, their race, their gender, has an opportunity in this society to fulfil the potential that is within them and, of course, the responsibilities themselves to seize that talent that is within them and put it to use. And then perhaps, what we see is, above all, our objective as a Government. That is why public service reform is so essential. Public service reform is not something that is only about technical efficiency, it's about trying to shake up public services and the way in which they are accessed and delivered in ways that actually delivers real change to an individual and gives them the opportunity to seize the potential that's within themselves – to have equality of opportunity. There is a further linkage in terms though of delivering equality of opportunity which is you can't have a healthy society unless there is also a healthy civil society. In other words unless, within localities, within communities, individuals have the capacity themselves to be able to shape events; to work together to change the world; to work together to campaign for change in their area; and to be part of the process of change and improvement in society at a local level.
That's where the linkage, of course, is in this agenda. You can't have an Act of Citizenship, you can't have democratic renewal unless you have Freedom of Information and access to information. And that's why, therefore, we see that this is an essential component, both of the modernisation of public services and of the mindset of public service politicians and public service officials. But it is also absolutely rooted in what we think is important in terms of democratic renewal. Take it up in more detail – it allows for, or should help serve to ensure that decisions can be scrutinised. And scrutinised not just by the politicians but by the people who really matter which is the public themselves. If that process works well, Freedom of Information should also help to build trust and credibility. For example, the Food Standards Agency has become more open and transparent. The way the Agency has been open about its work has led to a more mature debate about food safety than there was before. It was operating on the moral of sharing the information with the public – assume the public are not daft and can make their own judgements about risks and about how to interpret them.
Thirdly, there are benefits to the public bodies themselves, because if you need to find information for the public, then you will be able to find it better for yourself. But it is also not just about being a major driver for better Records Management, but it is also about shifting the mindset of a public body towards its responsibilities to the public, rather than just having an internal producer focus.
Let me make a second confession to add to the one about the choir. Many years ago I was a Director of Housing of a London Borough which was a very foolish thing to do – rather hard work. But we had the responsibility for managing some 40,000 homes – so there must have been some 100,000 people living in these homes. Now in the nature of things you often found that you've got a surveyor's report saying, "there has been a problem with this tower block. We don't think it's serious but there is a bit of a problem, it requires further investigational work, it requires some drilling". Now our traditional approach to that was "well best not frighten the horses – we don't want to upset people, let's get on and do all the investigations so we know what needs to happen". At that stage we would employ some people who were meant to be tenants' advocates who started, quite rightly, to say no, you are wrong, surely, if this information that you've got is about them, even though you don't know the right answer you should be sharing that information with the public. This was a debate taking place, how shall I admit it, 20 years or so ago, and that led to a shift in our thinking. If we knew something we couldn't adopt a paternalistic approach of saying, "I won't share this information with the public – this is easier for us to manage it if we don't". But rather, we have a duty to tell people about their homes and their lives and then to give them the information so that they can make a sensible decision themselves about that and be part of a process of debate about what needs to happen.
Such a change undoubtedly made for slightly more complicated government but it certainly made the better government, because, in a sense, one is not treating the public as foolish or subject to some great paternalistic authority. So that was my own bit of reflection on the process of Freedom of Information and helping to shift the mindset of public bodies in terms of how we related to the public.
Turning back then to the specifics of what we have got to prepare for by January 2005.
By then we hope to see five key changes taking place in all our public authorities.
First, Freedom of Information will not merely affect a small number of Record Managers and Co-ordinators. It will affect everybody who contributes to the decisions taken by public authorities. In other words it will pervade the organisation. This means that all staff will need to be aware of their obligations, and of the new rights which citizens will and should enjoy to find out the reasons why decisions are taken.
Second, related to this is the need for staff throughout public authorities to be trained. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 – rightly in my view – requires that all requests for disclosure are dealt with within 20 days (unless there is a question of public interest to determine). Public authorities will need clear procedures, with staff trained to use them. It would be too late to put those in place by the second of January – we have to prepare now.
Third, public authorities will, if they have not already done so, need to get their records in order. They will also need to have systems – including electronic systems – in order to manage and access their data. This area is particularly relevant to this conference, and I will say a little more about it later.
Fourthly, in terms of the vision, each public authority will need to have an Information Champion at senior level. We don't make such changes without leadership from the top. Leadership from the top needs to signal this is not "oh my God, another burden we've got to do", but is part of a vision for a different relationship with the public, part of our vision of public service reform. In other words, it is part of the mainstream agenda – rather than seen as marginal.
And last, but by no means least, the Government wants to see a real change of culture, which I think is already underway. The change is, from a system in which citizens are told only that which public authorities think they need to know, but rather are treated as mature and able to have any information they want.
Turning next then to lessons from abroad. This may sound like a really challenging agenda. But other countries have been down this path before us, and have reaped the benefits. Other Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have had Freedom of Information for many years. In the EU, Sweden and the Netherlands, together with Ireland, have implemented similar reforms. And Freedom of Information is increasingly seen as one of the guarantors of good government internationally with an increasing range of countries wishing to implement it as a way of buttressing and guaranteeing their democratic systems. Estonia and Mexico, for example, have recently illustrated that by putting it into their domestic legislation.
What can we learn from overseas? First, it is not easy, as you will know, to estimate the volume of requests, and authorities are well advised to prepare themselves for a range of high and low scenarios. Also, and this probably comes as no surprise, Freedom of Information can expose serious shortcomings in the way that records have been kept. More fundamentally, the change tends only to be successful, if the culture of openness is embedded in organisational behaviour. If it is skin-deep, it will not work. It needs to be part of a philosophy – a shift of perspective of Government and how it behaves.
But on the bright side, we know that listening helps. It may sound obvious but Government, whether at central or local level, which doesn't have the ability to listen, as well as to communicate, will not work. One of my reflections as a Minister is that periodically we just have to get out into the real world away from the comfortable office, to get your feet on the ground, and when you are there to actually, in a sense, just shut up and listen to what people tell you. Otherwise, you lose touch with the realities of life. You also lose touch with what I might call a moral imperative for change. It is only when you see people eyeball to eyeball that it reminds you that it matters and that therefore we have to redouble our efforts to make some of our goals work. And clearly Freedom of Information is part of the culture of giving information so you can then have a more informed dialogue with the citizens we serve.
Next, openness isn't something utterly new or strange even in Britain. Local Government started from a position of greater public openness relative to other public bodies. Legislation going back to the 1960s has required an increasing range of meetings and other decision-taking to be accessible to the public and nothing has broken as a consequence.
Next, the Data Protection Act 1998 has given us all a right to know, as well it should, what information is held about us on computer, and on some paper files. This will be broadened out to include all paper files held by public authorities after the Freedom of Information Act comes into force.
Next, in relation to Environmental Information, a similar system to that under the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 1993.
And both within the NHS and in Central Government, openness codes dating from the mid-1990s have given citizens increasing rights to find out the reasons why decisions are taken. Seen in this light, the Freedom of Information Act is not such a radical departure as some may think, but rather the latest step in a transformation of our society from one based on secrecy, to one based on openness.
So what do we need to do both in central Government itself and in other public bodies to meet the challenge.
Well, first, they can reap the full benefits of publication schemes. The more information which authorities place regularly in the public domain, whether through paper publications or through websites, the easier Freedom of Information becomes, and the more responsive they will be to the demands of their clients and customers.
Next, I would urge all public authorities to start planning now. I gather there was a little bit of "oh my God it's all a bit difficult" in early discussions. Well we have had a fair amount of warning that this was coming. Parliament is not very quick at passing legislation as you will know. We have now got 18 months before the date – even if we had only 18 months, some other countries have actually implemented Freedom of Information in that time period. So most places will not be starting from a standing start. If you are starting from a standing start I think the message is "well don't moan about it being difficult". This will not change the Act and it is necessary to redouble your efforts, get stronger and the central leadership needs to drive it forward. So if it hasn't really started it is urgent now to get one's planning and one's leadership embedded within the organisation.
Thirdly, I think that every organisation benefits from identifying a Champion for Freedom of Information at a pretty senior level in the organisation. This is not something that one wants to make a mess of. It is relevant to wider agendas and therefore you need somebody at a very senior level in the organisation who says "yes, I am responsible in ensuring that this authority actually makes it work".
There are good examples of that already. A fair number of public bodies are already ahead of the game and let me give you some examples. In central government some departments have started publishing the minutes of their management board meetings. A sure cure for insomnia I would have said, but let me pass on from that. The Police, whose publication schemes will come into effect at the end of this month, have been particularly effective in planning for Freedom of Information. They have had senior ownership through the Association of Chief Police Officers and used project management techniques to ensure a systematic approach with agreed common goals for shared benefits. They have learnt from other countries – not least by visiting police forces in Australia and talking to authorities in Ireland. I always notice how learning from experience in Australia is more popular in public services in Britain in the winter months than visiting northern Norway in winter – have you noticed that? I am not sure I can understand why!
Nevertheless I am being flippant and it is sensible to learn from others and to actually pick up from their successes and mistakes. And they have learned the benefits of this approach. The benefits of doing this well. In a sense, I think I have articulated that already. It is a spur not only to better management of information but more importantly better management of knowledge and information.
It is also a spur to better internal communications and also helps spur part of the process of change in one's relationship with one's public. The Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I am sure you are all word perfect in saying this now, what is the role of Constitutional Affairs in all of this? Our role is essentially, to provide leadership to central Government but also to the wider public sector and we have already, I think, had about 10 regional workshops. Over the next 18 months we will be working to raise awareness of the requirements of the Act to create and develop networks to assist with training and to provide a model action plans for implementation.
For Central Government, we will also be producing guidance on the way that the various exemptions to the Act are to be applied.
Another task, and one of particular relevance to today, is the leadership we can offer on systems. Again, there are lessons to be learnt from abroad. It is very much part of our role to ensure that public authorities in the United Kingdom can take full advantage of the work done in other jurisdictions in developing systems both for managing records, and managing requests for information. Clearly there will be a demand for IT support to assist organisations in discharging their new responsibilities effectively, and I see it as very much as part of our role to assist both public authorities and IT suppliers in developing solutions between them without the Department itself doing it.
So how do the authorities achieve success? I think really we need to emphasise the four key steps.
First, exploit help with others.
Second, minimise uncertainty by listening to stakeholders, clients, and customers. Engage and involve them wherever possible in the process of preparing for implementation.
Third, and as I have signalled, nominate an Information Champion who is responsible for making it work.
And finally, take control by starting to plan now. But really, finally, I think I would go back to the start. We will not get public services right unless we have a different attitude to the public which is to see that they have a right to information, to involve them in decisions and to seek to use a better understanding of what the main value – what matters to them – to shape our public services in ways that are more appropriate to them and more personal.
Thank you all very much.