To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what actions he has taken to improve public access to Government information. [9706]

The manifesto on which we were elected made it clear that we must rebuild the British people's trust in the way the Government work. Central to this is our commitment to more open government. We shall introduce freedom of information legislation to improve access to Government information. The need to improve access and accountability underpins our reform of the charter programme. We are actively pursuing developments in information technology to enhance and extend the ways in which people can obtain information on Government services.

We appreciate that it will take time to enact legislation. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend look at ways of bolstering the existing code of practice? For example, will he consider amending the usual practice of not disclosing legal advice to the Government? I am thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's recent refusal, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), to disclose his legal opinion on arms sales to Indonesia. It is difficult to see how any possible harm arising from such disclosure could outweigh the public's right to know.

We have already said that we shall try to examine the code of practice in a more liberal vein. Our priority is to press ahead with freedom of information legislation. That means that most of our resources have been involved in preparing that piece of legislation, not in overhauling the code.

In looking to improve public access to Government information, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider the role played by the Minister without Portfolio, who is allegedly responsible to the House through written questions only, notwithstanding the statement by the Leader of the House last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the Minister without Portfolio has refused to give details of journeys he has undertaken at public expense and details of meetings that he has undertaken on behalf of the Government—in fact, he has refused to give any details whatsoever? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister without Portfolio is becoming the Minister without accountability?

I cannot answer for the Minister without Portfolio. He answers written questions put to him by hon. Members and I understand that he has a slot in the time allocated to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in order to answer oral questions in the House regarding his responsibilities for the millennium dome.

While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assertions about more open government, will he instruct the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to encourage more open government in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to the Maryfield secretariat and the meetings of the Irish and British council?

I may have many powers, but I do not have the power to instruct my right hon. Friend. However, I am sure that she will take note of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how his plans to improve public access to Government information will be implemented in respect of the new joint consultative Cabinet Committee when the Prime Minister admitted yesterday in a written answer that he cannot yet set out its terms of reference? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that contributes to open government?

We have followed the practice of the previous Government in publishing information about the membership of the various Cabinet Committees and we shall continue to do so. We shall continue to give as much information as we possibly can.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to publish a freedom of information Bill. [9707]

I intend to publish a draft freedom of information Bill early in the new year, which will follow a consultative period after the freedom of information White Paper.

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend says that because we need a Bill with a definite timetable in this Session. I do not know why he does not take off the peg the Bill proposed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), now the Minister for Arts, which seemed pretty good to me. The important principle that he should bear in mind is not that it should be watered down but that it should be enforced by an independent commissioner rather than by a House of Commons Committee with a Government majority.

My hon. Friend has almost made the case for our not having legislation in this Session. We must get the legislation right. It is no use having a half-baked scheme. My hon. Friend has just raised one of the many issues on which it is right and proper that there should be debate, not only in the House but across the nation.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for freedom of information in respect of matters relating to Scotland. [9708]

Our proposed freedom of information Act would have application throughout the UK, but, on the assumption that the Scottish people will vote for a Scottish Parliament in September and that Parliament will approve the legislation, it will be for the Scottish Parliament itself to determine the approach of the Scottish Executive and Scottish public bodies to openness and freedom of information in areas of devolved competence.

In that case, who resolves differences of opinion between Westminster and Edinburgh?

There would, in effect, be two areas of jurisdiction, depending on whether the information in question related to a matter that is reserved or devolved. The law applying to reserved matters would be for Westminster and it would be for the Scottish Parliament to decide and legislate on the level of disclosure on devolved activities carried out in its name.

A moment or two ago, the right hon. Gentleman said he did not want to have anything to do with half-baked schemes. Is not this a classic example of a half-baked scheme? What will be the precise responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the House in this matter?

The hon. Gentleman's point is covered. Other countries have similar situations. A situation similar to that which exists in the United States of America would apply where there is a central freedom of information Act and, in addition, different Acts relating to it in various states. The United States has two jurisdictions, as will Britain.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the method of recruitment of civil servants. [9709]

I have no such plans.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that among the many achievements of the previous Government was the reduction by 35 per cent. in the number of civil servants by natural wastage? Will he also confirm that the Government's plan to break up the United Kingdom and establish new Assemblies and Parliaments all over the place will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of civil servants—100 more for the Welsh Assembly and 500 more for the Scottish Parliament? Will he tell British taxpayers that those recruits will be obtained by closing the Scottish and Welsh Offices in London because they will not be needed any more?

I can assure the hon. Lady that there are no plans to have other than a unified civil service, that there are no plans afoot either to shed members of the various Departments—

They have to be shed.

The hon. Lady has to make up her mind whether she wants people to be sacked or retained to make the kind of contribution that we would expect them to make, as the majority of civil servants do. The hon. Lady referred to the previous Government. She knows that they managed to transfer 388,000 civil servants to agencies. We are concerned to maintain a professional civil service that is recruited on the basis of fair and open competition. That will apply to the recruitment of civil servants in the future, as it has in the past.

One civil servant, the Cabinet Secretary, is to retire at the end of this year. Will the Government look closely at the best methods of recruiting a new Cabinet Secretary, whether it be by the use of headhunters, by advertising or by the traditional method of appointing from within the civil service?

The recruitment of the new Cabinet Secretary is a matter for the civil service and the Prime Minister. We have no objection to using headhunters to advise us, in addition to open advertisements for jobs.

With reference to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he should have calculated how many civil servants will be retained in the Scottish Office as now is, and how many will be transferred to the departments that will be responsible to the Scottish Parliament? My hon. Friend would like to know what the numbers will be both ways. Surely the House is entitled to an answer.

The House will get the answer at the appropriate time when the calculations have been made.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to permit individuals to supply information to the Government electronically. [9710]

Information technology will revolutionise the way in which citizens relate to government. I am conscious of the success of the child benefit scheme promoted by my hon. Friend in Cambridgeshire. We intend to expand such imaginative schemes. It is a matter of great regret that the previous Government did not have the guts to pick up such projects and run with them.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and I am grateful for the interest that he has shown in the project that I pioneered in Cambridgeshire. If we look forward a little, there will be a time quite soon when people will expect to make their tax returns or even their benefit claims through information technology. It would be nice to know whether the Government have any plans to develop those areas.

Yes, indeed. One can look at information technology in three ways. First, we use it to modernise our Departments and make us more efficient. Secondly, we have tried to use it to provide information on public services. Thirdly, there is scope for the delivery of public services by electronic means. If the technology moves apace, as it has in the banking world, a large percentage of Government services could be dealt with by electronic means in the near future. One or two pilot schemes are in operation and we hope to put them into full service within the next two years.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to reform the programme of charters. [9711]

As we announced in June, we are relaunching the programme as part of our wider initiative to improve government. We have already begun a series of visits and meetings to discuss with ordinary people—both users and service providers—how we can make the programme more meaningful and help to ensure the delivery of better public services.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the failures of the Conservative Government's citizens charter programme was that it was essentially a top-down process without any involvement from local people at local level? Will he outline his plans to ensure that real people have real discussions about what those standards mean and that they have real, enforceable rights?

Real focus groups.

We intend to introduce a people's panel, which will, indeed, use focus groups. It will also use citizens juries, deliberative polling and telephone interviews. We want to find out what ordinary people want, not what the self-appointed great and good want. The previous Government—that lot over there, who do not use public transport and who use private education and private health care—told others what they ought to have rather than giving them what they wanted.

As the Government claim that their priorities are education, education, education, can we now look forward to a seriously enforceable contract with schools obliging them to deliver something that the public really need and want? Education must be one of the last remaining sectors in which there is an implied contract with the public but absolutely no obligation on schools to deliver.

The hon. Gentleman will know that an increasing number of the 645 charter mark holders are schools. There are 944 applications in the pipeline, including many from schools that see the benefits of obtaining charter marks and assessing their ability to deliver a wider service in their communities.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce freedom of information legislation. [9713]

I plan to publish a draft freedom of information Bill in the new year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people will welcome the prospect of genuine freedom of information legislation? Will he ensure that that legislation covers all aspects of the work of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry so that it will be possible to find out the true cost of the Trident nuclear missile system and the true amount of the subsidy provided for the arms industry and arms exports? Past Governments have consistently refused to reveal the real cost of the arms industry to our economy.

It is important for us to consult as widely as possible on freedom of information legislation, but I warn my hon. Friend that there will have to be exemptions—as there are in every freedom of information Act anywhere in the world. There are issues affecting the security of our nation, and others, on which we cannot provide information freely and fully.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his White Paper on freedom of information. [9715]

As the House will know, I had originally hoped to be able to publish a freedom of information White Paper before the summer recess, but I am afraid that that simply has not proved possible.

May we have an assurance that the White Paper will end, once and for all, the scandal whereby MI5, MI6 and certain Departments—particularly the Ministry of Defence—have for years been allowed to behave like secret societies, to such an extent that people in this country have had to resort to United States freedom of information legislation to find out what is happening here?

I think that the new freedom of information legislation will change the culture of politics in Whitehall. It will introduce the presumption that information will be available to individuals unless there are good reasons for it not to be. We will, of course, study examples in the United States and other countries along with Westminster models to get the balance right, so that the individual can have as much freedom as possible without harming our country's interests.

Will the Minister stiffen up that rather mealy-mouthed answer? Some Opposition Members—and, I hope, some Labour Members—actually believe that certain areas of national security should remain secret and should not be wide open to people who might undermine our society. Before some hon. Members turn that into a joke, let me remind the House that we are fighting terrorism in one part of the United Kingdom. That is not a joke.

The hon. Gentleman ought to have listened a little more attentively. I made it clear that nothing would be revealed if it affected the security of our nation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the wake of the Scott report, which revealed a disturbing culture of secrecy and endemic dissembling as being endemic in our system of government, freedom of information legislation became an integral part of the Prime Minister's agenda of restoring trust with the British people? If that is true, will my right hon. Friend, with the Prime Minister's full authority, root out any resistance to freedom of information legislation wherever it lies in the Government?

I will certainly do that. I passionately believe in the legislation: it will do a great deal to restore trust between the citizens of Britain and us the Government.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his proposals for a food standards agency. [9716]

The Government propose to publish a White Paper in the autumn and intend to introduce legislation to establish a food standards agency as soon as legislative time allows. The legislation will be based on the excellent work of Professor James to which there have been more than 650 responses in a consultative exercise that was launched by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will today make a statement on the responses received to Professor James's report on an agency and on measures being taken in the interim to improve food safety arrangements.

May I take it that it will be two or three years before the agency is up and running? In the meantime, what are the Government and the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that the safety of British food is properly communicated? In particular, what is he doing about the many Labour-controlled local education authorities that are still banning the use of beef in school meals despite the fact that the Minister and his colleagues rightly declare that British beef is safe?

The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the scandalous state into which the Conservative Government brought the reputation of British food. I chair the Cabinet Committee that is overseeing the situation. We have put in place interim arrangements to rectify the situation and we think that they will be able to deal with any food incidents that occur. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has brought together all his civil servants who deal with food under one management chain, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will soon make further announcements on how he intends to reorganise his Department to deal more effectively with food safety. I concede that the Government have a terrible legacy from the Conservatives, but the Labour Government will put it right.

Can the Chancellor be more specific about the timetable? He has acknowledged that there will be a period for consultation on the White Paper and that that will be followed by legislation. It is likely that the new agency will not be in operation until April 2000. In the meantime, the situation is deteriorating. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that that is a legacy from the previous regime, but there is a crisis of confidence in food safety in the United Kingdom now and worry about the import of substandard food—notably beef—from other countries. I press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what action plan he and his colleagues have now to improve confidence in British food because lack of confidence, which is surely unjustified and perhaps irrational, nevertheless exists.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. A great deal of the public's lack of confidence in British food is unjustified because it and some of the standards that apply to it are very high. Some Opposition Members shared our pleasure when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food achieved success in Brussels to ensure that the standards that apply in abattoirs and to beef coming to Britain are the same as those that apply in Britain. We have put in place new, interim measures to bring together the scientists and food experts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health under a unified chain of command to try to ensure that they can respond more effectively. Further suggestions and improvements will be announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the proposed arrangements for consulting focus groups. [9717]

We are currently considering ways of consulting and involving ordinary people more in decisions about the delivery of public services. Ideas are at an early stage and I am therefore unable to give estimated costs, but costs to my Department would be met from within existing budgets.

Under what parliamentary vote would the Minister be spending that money?

It would be the vote accorded to the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service).

Will the Minister consider arranging for a focus group to be brought together in Somerset so that he can find out whether among ordinary people, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy described them earlier, he can find one person who agrees that Somerset county council should be meeting today to reduce its local government expenditure, cutting teachers' jobs and reducing social services as a result of Government diktat, rather than following the expressed wishes of the people through the ballot box?

I would not dream of commenting on the decisions made by Somerset county council, but I will certainly consider Somerset as a potential venue for one of the focus groups that we shall convene in order to find out what people think of the public services on offer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to the cynicism of Opposition Members, the real purpose of focus groups is to improve legislation and policy by finding out what people really think about what the Government are doing? Is not that the way forward for a Government who want to listen and to understand what people have to say? Are not focus groups, far from being the joke that the Opposition seem to think they are, a way forward for the Government which will be welcomed by most people?

I agree that focus groups are one tool which we can use to find out what people want—rather than do as the previous Government did and tell people what they ought to have. It is a bit rich for a Conservative Member to criticise a party with an overwhelming mandate that wants to rebuild the bond of trust with the people.

I was interested to hear the Minister refer earlier to the people's panel. Does he agree that there is already a people's panel and that this is it? Why does he need another?

When we produce our White Paper on better government, we shall talk about accountability, accessibility, responsiveness, efficiency and open government. Parliamentary accountability will be a key element in that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's White Paper on freedom of information. [9718]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

When my right hon. Friend hears Conservative Members praying in aid the nation's security as a way of objecting to the freedom of information legislation that he proposes, does it occur to him that that is Toryspeak for "Please don't reveal the files from the past 18 years"? They must be thinking of items such as Westland, guns to Iraq and some of the peculiar activities of some of the deep forces in the security forces during the industrial relations disputes of years past.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary for us to have full disclosure and to abandon the absurd and undemocratic 30-year rule on the disclosure of public records? Should not we have transparency of government with regard not only to the Tories' stewardship over the past 18 years but to future Governments, too? Will my right hon. Friend end the 30-year rule—an action which would make for a more democratic society in which records were disclosed early?

I am actively examining the 30-year rule with a great deal of sympathy for the idea of deciding how we can relax it. There are massive cost and resource implications, and although I hope that we can make progress it may have to take place incrementally.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in the White Paper the rule that stops one Government seeing the files of another? Was it not rather difficult for the previous Government to justify the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia when the decision was made under the previous Labour Administration, a few years after the invasion of East Timor? Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish the advice that was given, with special reference to the ambassador in Indonesia who seemed to think that it was a good idea for the Indonesians to invade East Timor? Let us have it all out in the open.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The agreement that files from outgoing Governments be closed is a long-standing convention of the House and of government, and it would be inadvisable to change it. If we do relax the 30-year rule, it is more likely that the information that he seeks will be made available. That goes without saying.