James, thank you very much for that introduction, and thank you very much for this invitation. I am genuinely delighted to be here tonight to talk about Freedom of Information, and this government's commitment to Freedom of Information.
In his speech to the Labour Party Conference last October, the Prime Minister identified Freedom of Information as one of the lasting achievements of this Government. I share his view that it is one of the lasting achievements of this Government. And I am proud to be leading for the Government on the issue of Freedom of Information.
This evening is, as James has said, my first opportunity as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, to give you my views on Freedom of Information - and to set out our plans as a government for making Freedom of Information a success in practice.
At present, Freedom of Information occupies a niche market. There is a select band of cognoscenti who understand and live and breathe its complexities and I can see many of them in this room today. And I take my hat, or my wig, off to you, for all the work you have done over the years to ensure that something has happened.
So I won't bore you with a long explanation of why Freedom of Information matters. But I do want to say why it matters to this Government, and why it matters to me. And I want to seek to explain why Freedom of Information is a central component of the constitutional reform programme that this government has embarked upon.
It was, of course, as James has said, a long time coming. A commitment to Freedom of Information first appeared in a Labour Manifesto 30 years ago and it only reached the statute book after a long, dedicated campaign - by many of you - over the 26 years that followed that original commitment. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and, in particular, to the contribution of Maurice Frankel in relation to ensuring that it actually happened. It was your endeavour that pushed forward the cause of greater access, even at a time, or at times, when the prospects for success looked at their bleakest. It would be fair to say that the succession of statutes which have progressively widened access, sector by sector, are your battle honours.
Why do I think the cause has been worth fighting for?
Three reasons, which are worth saying.
Without openness we cannot hope to encourage greater participation in our democratic life.
And without openness we cannot hope to build public confidence in the way that we are governed.
And without confidence we cannot develop the credibility and effectiveness of public authorities, both in Whitehall and beyond. We need that credibility to persuade the public of the need for progressive change and reform.
These objectives - greater democratic engagement; greater confidence in government; greater credibility and effectiveness - lie at the heart of our constitutional reform programme. They are not transient targets that we have invented on a whim. We have pursued them since 1997 and they inform the ambitious reform agenda we are currently pursuing.
And to my mind these should not be objectives which are particular to one political party. All parties I believe have reason to be concerned about falling participation in political life - seen in declining turnout or in shrinking party membership. All parties have reason to address the long-term decline in trust in politicians.
Confidence is a complex issue; there is no silver bullet solution here. This will be a long haul - but we cannot afford to fail. Constitutional reform is not a solution in itself. But I feel sure that it can contribute to a solution. It is our ambition to remodel the way we are governed. To make the state more responsive to citizens. To make it credible in the eyes of 21st century citizens. To provide clarity where there is confusion or outdated custom. And to show citizens how government works - and to show them how decisions are taken. To make it more and more difficult for people to claim that government is remote, secretive, or sinister.
So I am proud that this Government was the first to bring forward Freedom of Information legislation. Proud that we are willing to trust the people by subjecting ourselves to a statutory access regime. Proud of the work my Department is doing to lead on Freedom of Information and to ensure that public authorities are ready to respond to implementation.
Before I turn to the introduction of full access rights, I want to say a word about the terms in which the Freedom of Information Act is cast. I know, and James has referred to it, that some of you here had reservations about some features of the legislation. Indeed, from my own involvement with the Bill in its parliamentary stages, I remember Maurice Frankel's critique all too clearly, on a whole range of issues relating to the Bill. And some of you have suggested that we should now move to modify the Act now.
I understand why you make those suggestions. But I want to explain why we are not about to bring forward amending legislation.
Our Act was a bold and determined response to generations of secrecy. A challenge to a culture which was deeply ingrained in all too many parts of the public sector. And we cast our net widely: more than 100,000 public authorities are subject to the Act. That scope is probably without precedent internationally. If we can implement this legislation successfully right across the public sector - and I am confident that we can - then we will have secured a prize which many thought was unattainable. A change in culture. A real delivery of openness.
So let us get this legislation into force first; let us make a success of the job we began in 1997. And then we can have a debate about improvements. But I don't want us to go back now to the debates we had when the Bill was in Parliament. Nor do I want us to divert energy away from the implementation task we now have in hand. We must strain every sinew to make a success of the new rights which come into force in January.
Where do we stand now in implementing the Act? Well, the first observation I make is that implementation is already well under way. Full access rights may not come into force until next January, but significant parts of the Act are already in force.
The great majority of the public sector now have publication schemes in place. Schemes which proactively release information to the public. Schemes whose quality is independently tested by the Information Commissioner. If you have not already done so, I invite you to look at some of the websites. Look, for example, at the schemes set up by the police forces; look at what the Department for International Development has achieved. Look at the work the NHS has done to prepare for the Act. These are public authorities which are choosing to be open, choosing to show the way for others. I applaud them and encourage others to follow their example.
In deciding how best we should implement the Act we have sought to learn from the experience of those who have been down the road before us. And there is now a wealth of experience from which to draw: with more than 40 jurisdictions already having FOI legislation.
Some of the lessons from abroad are sobering. Implementation has been beset by three problems in other parts of the world. A lack of leadership. Inadequate support for those who are administering access requests. And a failure to realise that Freedom of Information implementation is not an event: it is a process which demands long-term commitment.
I am determined that we in this country will avoid these mistakes. What are we going to do to avoid them? I'll take each in turn.
My Department, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, has successful FOI implementation as one of its principal objectives. The strengthening of our democracy is one of the core purposes of my Department. We are providing clear and emphatic leadership across Whitehall in relation to FOI. Geoff Filkin and I will provide the political leadership that is needed. And we are supported by a team of officials whose job is to drive implementation forward and to support public authorities in preparing for January 2005. And I can assure you that myself and Geoff and those Officials in the Department have the commitment that is necessary to provide that leadership.
We will not be passive in our role. Where, for example, we see scope in raising the standard for Whitehall publication schemes, we will take it. And we will listen to what the public wants. For example, there may be an opportunity to extend access to the public records held by the National Archives. In considering this issue, I would want to listen to the views of the researchers themselves.
We are, of course, not alone in this work. I also want to acknowledge the advocacy and educational work undertaken by the Information Commissioner, who is wholly independent of government. Richard Thomas and his colleagues have done particularly important work in the broader public sector, whereas my team have focussed their efforts on central government.
In testing whether an Freedom of Information regime is meeting its objectives, it is no good making a judgement on the basis of the statute alone. The most elegant and liberal legislation would be valueless unless supported by an administration that creates records systematically, retrieves them efficiently, and then provides them promptly. And so Freedom of Information administrators are critical to the success of this Act. They must be trained and supported. Their own public authorities have responsibilities here, but so does my department.
We will foster Freedom of Information networks to share best practice, and to disseminate case law and training. The first networks are in place, and others will follow. I foresee a need for continuing support for these networks from my department. We are about to supply these networks the first wave of guidance on the Act - guidance which has been developed by officials and by experts from outside government. And we will seek to update that guidance as case-law develops, as it most certainly will.
Could I turn now to the long-term challenge of Freedom of Information. 1 January next year is not the end of implementation - it is the start. Now that is easily said but what do I mean by that in practice?
First of all, we will not know in January or February whether Freedom of Information has ‘worked'. Indeed I don't expect us to have a clear picture of the progress that we've made for many months. Some of the changes that Freedom of Information will bring will inevitably be gradual. It is over the medium to long-term that we should evaluate Freedom of Information's success. How are we going to do that?
We will monitor central government's performance: how is it dealing with requests? How often are people asking departments to reconsider? Are more people using their new rights? And how is government responding?
And we will also want to know how Freedom of Information is influencing the public's attitude toward government. Do the public think we are becoming more secretive, or less? Do they feel government is becoming more transparent, more trustworthy?
We will not have meaningful answers to these questions in the short-term. We will have to be patient. But I believe that the old culture, the paternalistic culture, the need-to-know culture, will be eroded. We most certainly want it to be.
What does that mean for us in government - and what does it mean for the public debate around Freedom of Information?
Well, it puts us in government under a clear obligation to stick with Freedom of Information long-term. If we withdraw support for the Act; if we fail to support the Freedom of Information administrators across government; or if we fail to publicise people's rights then Freedom of Information will run into difficulties. And that puts my Department, in particular, under an obligation. We cannot move on to the next policy priority in 2005 and hope that Freedom of Information will run itself. It will not. My Department has a responsibility, and a challenge. The responsibility is to ensure that the Act is implemented properly; and its challenge is to provide the leadership necessary to deliver that information and to bring about a change in culture.
We will use the exemptions where it is appropriate and in the public interest to do so. To do otherwise would be to fail to protect national security, privacy or any of the other interests which are properly set out in the Act. But the exemptions are there as exceptions to our new access regime - the first ever comprehensive statutory access regime this country has had.
Ministers and officials do not blanch at the release of information which may cause us some embarrassment, but which is legitimately accessible under Freedom of Information. The shoe will pinch from time to time. And that is no bad thing.
Some Freedom of Information releases will bring with them disobliging headlines for the government. But each and every release will contribute, day by day, towards our long-term vision of a more transparent government, in which the people feel greater confidence.
That is a vision to which we are committed. I am proud to be part of a Government, which has made the people's right to know a reality; no longer an aspiration but the way that we do things now. I know that there is still much to do before these new rights make a difference to people's lives. But I am utterly committed, as is the whole of my Department, to making that happen.
Thank you very much.