I'm delighted to be here this evening, at this conference which has brought the Freedom of Information community together.
Freedom of information is vital for the public, and for the people's priorities. It is not something that only those of us in this room care about.
The Prime Minister said on May 6 that the Government would be listening, and learning: FOI requests from the public - their interests, their problems, their requests - give us a strong indication of what people want us to listen to.
This conference and others like it is an important part of that. For the last three years, this conference - organised so well by the Constitution Unit at University College London - has gathered together a great many of the key players in FOI in this country.
This event has become an annual fixture, gathering together practitioners, academics, journalists and regulators, and combining this with valuable insight from FOI jurisdictions overseas. I believe that this conference makes a very important contribution to FOI, and I congratulate Robert Hazell on its organisation.
When I last spoke at some length about Freedom of Information - at the end of January - the real effects of FOI were just beginning to emerge following its implementation on January 1.
We had prepared for implementation. But none of us knew exactly how the first few months would go in practice.
Today - six months in - we have a clearer picture of what has taken place. We have real experience from which we can draw. Real experience to shape how the way forward.
So what I want to do tonight is three things:
Let me focus first on what has happened so far.
On 1 January 2005, a new chapter in openness began. Over the first half of this year, citizens have been using their new statutory right of access to information. Using their right to request information from public bodies about the issues that matter to them.
This is a constitutional change of great significance. Since 1997, we have been engaged in a wide-ranging project to bring citizens and state closer together. To strengthen the connection between citizen and the state. Freedom of Information sits right at the heart of that agenda.
A presumption of openness has been created. Putting citizens on a level playing field with the institutions that serve them. Raising the quality, accuracy and completeness of public debate. Bringing government closer to the people. Greater transparency. Greater accountability. Greater engagement. A radical and permanent change in the relationship between citizen and his or her government.
Where others talked about Freedom of Information, we have actually delivered it. For others, Freedom of Information was something that was fashionable to flirt with in opposition, but something to shy away from once in government. I believe we can say that we have delivered on our promise of a full statutory - and enforceable - right to know.
It was a bold step to take. But the right thing to do.
People across the country are able to access information as never before. Information about their local environment. Information about their local communities and services. For the first time, people have had the right in law to ask their local schools, hospitals, police forces and local authorities for information about a whole range of issues.
And both locally and nationally, a large amount of new, valuable and interesting information has come out.
Local communities have seen information released about proposals for building new roads. About the amount of money raised through parking fines. About the removal of graffiti from public places. About the sale of council-owned sports fields. About the number of complaints about noise coming from individual pubs and bars. About the closure of bus lanes. About risk assessment of cycle lanes in city centres.
Freedom of Information has even managed to enter into the territory of Egon Ronay and the Michelin star, publishing a series of less than complimentary hygiene inspection reports for some top London restaurants. FOI is no doubt coming to a restaurant near you soon.
In each case - and in many different ways - Freedom of Information has brought government closer to the people.
With FOI in place, citizens are better placed to exercise choice. Now it is possible to find out whether the house you are about to purchase is situated in an area that has received a flurry of complaints about a noisy bar or pub, or whether it is safer to cycle to work by one route rather than another.
FOI has brought decision making under the spotlight as never before. Why does my local council plan to build a new bypass in a particular area? How much is my local council spending on keeping our roads maintained? How much is it spending on keeping graffiti out of public places? Citizens can now hold public authorities - and Ministers - to account for the decisions that matter to individuals and communities.
And so FOI is making an impact locally, but it is also shining a light on the work of central government. Thousands of information requests have been answered. In some cases, new and ground-breaking information - never previously released - has been provided.
Information about salaries of senior government officials. Information about the commercial viability of a second runway at Stansted airport. Unpublished focus group opinions on EU enlargement. Information about sites that were earmarked for nuclear waste storage in the 1980s.
Most significantly of all, we published the details of individual subsidies paid to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy - never previously published by any UK government. A hugely important release that has received widespread credit from the media and academics.
In every case - both locally and nationally - Freedom of Information has been unlocking doors. Providing information about how taxpayers' money is spent. De-mystifying complex and sometimes little understood policies such as EU enlargement and the Common Agricultural Policy. Providing the context for better informed public debate on the choices facing us.
The first few months have been challenging for public authorities. Volumes of requests have been high. There were fears that public bodies would not be able to cope with the demands of Freedom of Information.
Public authorities are taking their responsibilities seriously. Inevitably, not everything has run entirely to plan, but I believe that in the main they are coping well and should take considerable pride in the progress that is being made right across the public sector.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of you here today, from public bodies right across the country whose efforts have made such a difference to the successful implementation of the Act. Your hard work and dedication is a key factor in driving this shift to greater openness. You are central to the success of Freedom of Information, and you should be proud of your contribution to this hugely important process of reform. There is nowhere I go, where Freedom of Information disclosures, at the local, regional or national level, have not contributed to debate.
A considerable amount of information has been disclosed. But, just as importantly, we have been responsible too. Open. But responsible.
We always said that good government is open government, but that good government is effective government too. That means striking a balance. And I believe that the right balance is being struck.
Striving to achieve open government, yes - but not at the expense of effective government and our ability to get on with the job we were elected to do. We are making progress to ever more open government. But equally, we still have - and must continue to safeguard - effective government.
And ultimately, this Freedom of Information Act that we have implemented contains the right and proper safeguards. This legislation has real teeth. It is fully enforceable. The final balance between disclosure and retention is struck by the independent Information Commissioner and the independent Information Tribunal. There are real and tough consequences for non-compliance.
Decisions will steadily emerge from the Information Commissioner over the months and years to come, and public bodies everywhere will need to watch early case law carefully. In the light of these rulings we will want to update our guidance. And we will all be able to assess more precisely whether - in practice - the right balance is being struck.
I have focussed in some detail on the experience of Freedom of Information both locally and nationally since 1 January 2005. The experience across the whole public sector is positive. But inevitably, there is always a particular focus on how central government is responding to the challenges of FOI.
Central government should aim to set an example to the rest of the public sector in pursuit of greater openness. We should aim to lead the way in making the information we release available to the widest possible audience. In listening and engaging with our stakeholders to enhance our own customer service. In working with each other - amongst practitioners, lawyers, and policy officials - to share best practice and reach common solutions. In the quality of service we provide to applicants. In the volume of information that we make available pro-actively, before it is even requested. In the contribution we make to enhancing the quality and completeness of public debate.
That is the leadership role of central government. Customers. Delivery. Public awareness. These are the areas where success matters most. These are the factors that will provide the truest indication of whether Freedom of Information is working.
We will shortly see some initial signs of how far. We said we would publish statistics on Freedom of Information requests. We will shortly be doing that, with figures on FOI in central government and associated bodies.
I can't today prefigure those statistics in detail. But I can say that they will, I believe, indicate some directions of travel.
First, it is clear that people have been using the Act. I am delighted that so many people are exercising their new rights of access to information. It is clear that there is significant public enthusiasm for accessing information - and we also know that many, many more requests have been made to local authorities and local service providers.
Second, central government is being open in its approach. In the majority of cases, the outcome is indeed disclosure. The truest test of whether this legislation is working, and whether the cultural change has begun is here. Fears that the need-to-know culture would still triumph, that departments would operate with an instinctive reaction of secrecy have not been realised.
Of course, there are occasions where - since exemptions reasonably apply - only partial disclosure may be granted. I doubt that any reasonable person would expect full disclosure - regardless, for example, of national security considerations or risk to international relations.
But, quite simply, our experience to date is that most information requests result in the disclosure of some or all of the information requested. Since 1 January, central government alone has released nearly 10,000 pieces of information in response to FOI requests. Thousands of requests have been received, and thousands of pieces of information have been given out.
Third, we are meeting the administrative challenges. There will always be room for improvement - and the early climate of requests has been particularly challenging - but we have a strong platform on which we can build.
Inevitably, there is some variation from organisation to organisation. That's what we expected, and it tends to reflect the different things each organisation does. Work is in hand across Whitehall to continue to improve.
My department has delivered the necessary guidance and advice to support practitioners in their work. And the extensive training of Freedom of Information practitioners and other staff in the build-up to January 1st 2005 has ensured that there is high awareness of officials' responsibilities across departments.
In a number of cases, departments have needed additional time to consider whether the public interest lies in favour of disclosure or retention. Whilst this may involve a longer wait for some requests, this reflects our dual responsibilities under the Act. A duty to disclose - but also a duty to consider the public interest factors thoroughly and scrupulously. And in many cases such extensions work in favour of disclosure. In many cases - such as the disclosure of details of subsidies paid under the Common Agricultural Policy I mentioned earlier - additional time considering the public interest leads to a positive outcome.
Of course, some organisations will respond faster than others to a change as dramatic as Freedom of Information. Some organisations will always be better positioned to cope with the high volumes and complexity of requests that we have seen. But, equally, it is clear that there is great commitment to getting Freedom of Information right and - as I will set out later - we are focussed on ratcheting up the level of customer service.
Fourth, our impression is that departments are being responsible in their application of the fees policy. Wherever possible, information is being made available free of charge. Central government departments are charging for information in very few cases. That is the right approach.
However - just as importantly - the fees regime allows public bodies to safeguard their own effectiveness, allowing a charge to be made in those cases where the cost of gathering and collating information exceeds the appropriate limit.
But it is clear that the fees regime is being applied responsibly and reasonably. Mindful of the duty of public authorities to openness. And mindful of public authorities' duty to their continued effectiveness.
So, the early impression - after these first six months - is that, both locally and nationally, Freedom of Information is properly up and running, and properly in place.
We always cautioned against a rush to call success or failure within the first six months or even the first year. We have always maintained that Freedom of Information is not a quick fix, but a process of change that - with strong leadership - can gain greater and greater momentum over time.
We have made a strong start. There is a great deal more to do. But we will continue with our commitment: and we are committed to FOI - not just for now, but for the long-term.
In my final remarks, I want to say something about how this Government intends to maintain the momentum of these first few months of Freedom of Information - now and in the future.
Freedom of Information will only work properly if this momentum is maintained. All the evidence from overseas suggests that, where Freedom of Information is not given the continued support, guidance and training that it deserves, the cultural change stagnates. We accept that lesson.
Our challenge is to offer people the opportunity to obtain information, to be informed and involved in the decisions that, as citizens, affect their lives. How will we achieve this in practice?
First, we will continue to be innovative and pro-active in identifying how greater openness can be achieved. Our commitment to Freedom of Information goes far beyond simply waiting for requests for information to come in and then providing information. Freedom of Information is about much more than simply providing people with a tool to prise information out of public bodies.
So - today - I am delighted to publish a report setting out the steps we are taking to repeal a number of provisions in other legislation that prohibit disclosure of information. Steps that will bring more information within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act - such as information whose disclosure was previously prohibited under the Health and Safety at Work Act or the Clean Air Act.
This has been an ambitious project. The review has examined over 400 statutory
provisions which were identified as potential bars to disclosure.
Of these, 116 have been repealed during the review and are no longer bars.
120 were found not to be prohibitions on disclosure under FOI. The Government
is committed to repealing, amending or time-limiting a further 72 bars.
It is likely that more bars to disclosure will be considered for repeal in the future. No other overseas jurisdiction has undertaken a review of this kind on the scale that we have here. For this Government - it is not enough simply to leave the statute on the shelf. This project gives a clear demonstration of our commitment to pushing the boundaries of openness.
Second, we will look to develop further a community of highly qualified, expert practitioners. Where other jurisdictions have allowed training to lapse, we will ensure that - in this country - those at the sharp end have the necessary skills and support to make an ever greater success of Freedom of Information.
Getting Freedom of Information right matters. We have a duty to provide the highest standard of customer service to those requesting information. This will only happen if frontline staff are given the right training and guidance that their hard work merits. My Department is committed to providing the necessary leadership and support.
Third, we will continue to build networks. Sharing best practice at every level - which overseas experience has shown to be so important. Between policy officials, practitioners, lawyers and communications officials. Within central government, we are refining our own practitioner networks to ensure they meet the needs of live running of the legislation. Maintaining both networks of departmental champions and Freedom of Information practitioners alike.
And I urge those elsewhere in the public sector to form such networks. Ensuring that the difficulties, the challenges and the successes of Freedom of Information that are common to all public authorities are fully shared, fully discussed, and fully known about.
Finally, we must continue to listen to our users. At its simplest, Freedom of Information is for everyone - not just politicians and journalists. We must seek to understand the experience of the public in using the Act. Do they get the information they want? What is their experience of using the Act? What solutions can be implemented within our own processes to ensure that Freedom of Information is respected as an effective, user-friendly and valuable source of information. In all these areas, breaking down barriers with all our users, we can seek to improve our own performance.
Since 1 January 2005, I believe we have taken considerable steps towards our goal of more open government.
Public authorities have risen to the challenge. A large amount of information has been made available across the country. Information that simply would not have been made available without a statutory right to know.
We are not complacent. We are committed to the long-term cultural change on which we embarked when the Act was passed in 2000. Government commitment. Training and support. Political will. Engaging with users. Innovation in identifying opportunities for greater openness. Seeking the highest quality of customer service.
Information is power, and greater access to official information is the route to a stronger, more transparent relationship between citizen and government. Increasing scrutiny and dialogue. Reflecting on the concerns of stakeholders. Widening discussion. Explaining decisions. De-mystifying government. Improving the quality of decisions. Bringing government closer to the citizen.
These first months have been challenging. But they have been invaluable. I'm pleased with the progress that we have made towards these objectives. But we do need to do more.
On 1 January 2005, we made a firm and lasting commitment to openness.
There will be no going back to the old days of the "need-to-know" culture.
The right to know is here - and here to stay.
Our job is to secure and sustain that right - and to listen to what people are saying they want to know.