The bill would create a public right to information held by public authorities, subject to a series of exemptions. Some exemptions apply only where disclosure would 'prejudice' particular interests, such as defence or international relations. But others are drafted in sweeping terms to protect entire classes of information even if the particular disclosure would not cause harm.

These class exemptions could conceal information about safety problems, allow the facts behind government decisions to be withheld and permit almost any embarrassing information to be suppressed.

These and related concerns were expressed by every speaker at Commons report stage. In two days of debate, no MP from any side endorsed the Government's approach.

Similar concerns were expressed by a House of Lords select committee chaired by Lord Archer of Sandwell [1998-99, HL 97] and the Commons Public Administration select committee [1998-99, HC 570] (though these relate to an earlier draft of the bill).

The facts underlying policy decisions

A gigantic class exemption protects all information which 'relates to the formulation or development of government policy' [clause 33(1)(a)]. This is not limited to civil service advice, where the case for protection is clear.

All information relating to policy, including the facts underlying decisions, could be withheld. Ministers would be able to suppress unpublished research, statistics, opinion polls, costings, descriptions of the scale of a problem, or scientific advice on possible health hazards. They would not even have to admit whether such information exists.

Most FOI laws exclude factual information from the equivalent exemption, as does the UK's current openness code. Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, told Lord Archer's select committee that he had satisfied himself that background material could be separated from advice so as to allow disclosure.

But the Home Secretary rejected amendments to exclude 'factual information' from the exemption, claiming the term could not be defined. In fact it already appears in the bill [clause 13(5)]!

The 'effective conduct of public affairs'

A catch-all exemption gives authorities a free hand to withhold almost any information, without scrutiny, by asserting that in the 'reasonable opinion' of a 'qualified person' (a minister or official), disclosure would 'prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs' [clause 34(2)(c)]. This term is not defined and could mean anything. The authority, not the Information Commissioner who will enforce the bill, would decide if this exemption applied.

According to Home Office minister Mike O'Brien, "The Government consider that only a qualified person can have a full understanding of the issues involved in the decision-making processes of a public authorityƒwe do not consider that it would be right for the prejudice caused by that sort of information to be determined by the Commissioner".

Almost any unwelcome request could be blocked by this objectionable exemption.

Safety information

A class exemption protects information obtained during inspections or investigations by authorities with the power to prosecute, including the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the Railway Inspectorate, Environmental Health Officers and Trading Standards Officers [clause 28(1)].

The exemption is not limited to information which might prejudice legal proceedings, when the case for exemption is self-evident. It applies indiscriminately to all information, including that obtained during routine inspections which find no offence, or even after any trial is over.

There would be no right to know about problems like BNFL's falsification of nuclear quality control data, abattoirs that fail to comply with BSE rules, trains that ignore warning signals, dealers who sell dangerous cars or caterers responsible for food poisoning incidents. Not only possible hazards, but the actions of safety bodies, could be concealed. The only chance of access would be under the bill's 'public interest' test. It is inappropriate to have to rely upon this in these circumstances.

The HSE's Director General has said this degree of protection is excessive, and the HSE would be satisfied with an exemption for information which could prejudice investigations or legal proceedings. Yet the government refuses to limit the exemption in this way.

Public interest disclosure

The bill allows the Commissioner to order disclosure of exempt information where there is an overriding public interest [clause 13]. Though welcome in itself, this test provides the only basis for access to vast amounts of information covered by the class exemptions. Instead of requiring the authority to show that disclosure would cause harm, the applicant would have to show an overriding interest in openness, even where the information itself is innocuous.

Ministers and local authorities will have the right to veto the Commissioner's rulings on disclosure in the public interest [clause 52]. Ministers say that it would be 'profoundly undemocratic' for the Commissioner to compel a minister to disclose. The Home Secretary has now agreed to limit the use of the veto to cabinet ministers acting with their colleagues' support. However, the existence and scope of this veto remains a matter of concern.

The bill needs fundamental improvement if it is to be at all effective.