KEY PROPOSALS IN THE WHITE PAPER ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION-- To give people a right to see almost all official information, unless it would be against the public interest or harm one or more of the following specified interests: national security, defence and international relations; law enforcement; personal privacy; commercial confidentiality; the safety of the individual, the public and the environment; information supplied in confidence to public authorities-- To appoint an independent Information Commissioner to police the Freedom of Information Act and handle appeals.

The Commissioner would be answerable to the courts, not to ministers, and would have wide-ranging powers, including the power to order the release of information.-- The Act would cover government departments and agencies, local councils and public bodies, quangos, nationalised industries, public corporations, the National Health Service, courts and tribunals, the police and police autho rities, the armed forces, schools, further education colleges and universities and public service broadcasters, as well as some private organisations carrying out duties on behalf of government and privatised utilities.-- It would not cover Parliament, whose deliberations are already on the public record, and the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters and the Special Forces (SAS and SBS).-- 'Gateway' provisions -- basic tests of reasonableness for applications for information -- and disclosure decisions, based on harm tests applying to the specified interests mentioned above, are intended to provide an uncomplicated and user-friendly system.-- The only exclusions from a Freedom of Information Act would be: information about sensitive security and intelligence matters, the personnel files of government employees, information whose disclosure could undermine crime prevention or the bringing of prosecutions and information normally protected by legal professional privilege.It is difficult not to be cynical when considering the implications of a Freedom of Information Act.

Prospective information-seekers should doubt promises that there will not be significant catches.

However, the freedom of information white paper proposal published last month by David Clark, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, have been acknowledged by leading lawyers to be some of the most radical to exist.Both the scope of the proposed laws and the suggestions for their administration have been widely hailed as a significant step forward for civil liberties in this country.To begin with, the proposals extend well beyond the usual confines of central government.

Mr Clark expects effectively to unlock filing cabinets across the whole public sector, thereby providing access to local councils and public bodies, quangos, nationalised industries, the National Health Service, courts and tribunals, the police and police authorities, universities and colleges of further education and public service broadcasters.

There will also be access to certain private organisations carrying out duties on behalf of government and the privatised utilities.That means individuals will suddenly be able to obtain information contained on Department of Social Security files, Inland Revenue files and college files.

It will be possible to become informed on water companies' disconnection policies, or plans to close down a local hospital.

This will also significantly increase the accountability of the government, which will be compelled to supply the relevant facts and the rationale behind policy making.Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, points out that this increased access to information will have a marked effect, for example, on health and safety cases.

Previously, the results of surveys conducted following asbestos-related deaths have not been published, and this would no longer be allowed.Similarly, reports of investigations into fatal accidents would have to be made public.

On such occasions, lawyers would find their work significantly reduced, because access to vital records would no longer need to be legally enforced.However, despite the government's decision to expose certain records to the glare of public attention, there is the loaded proviso that confidentiality will be preserved 'where disclosure would be against the public interest'.

In the main, these conditions appear reasonable.

David Hooper, a leading libel lawyer, and a partner with London firm Biddle & Co, points out that the exemptions are fewer than those in other countries such as Australia and Canada.

However, some of the subtext is more complicated.

Mr Frankel demonstrates that, although the public would be allowed to find out about the administration of the police, it would not be able to find information about the highly contentious topic of deaths-in-custody.

Non-national security work, such as the investigation of major social security fraud would also be protected from public scrutiny.Much of the effectiveness of a Freedom of Information Act would obviously depend on its interpretation.

The wording of the white paper proposals contains a number of nebulous conditions for refusal to disclose information.Factors such as the 'technical feasibility of meeting the request' would need to be taken into account, as would discretionary cost thresholds relating to the provision of information.' An independent Information Commissioner, and not ministers, would be given final veto over the decisions of the appeals body chosen to deal with such points of contention.Geoffrey Bindman, a senior partner of Bindman & Partners, warns that 'how the commissioner interprets the exclusions' will become a key factor governing appeals for information.

He also foresees that much will depend on the severity of the burden placed on the government to disclose information by the individual appointed to be commissioner.However, Mr Frankel welcomes the proposed system, because individuals will not have to go to court to enforce their right to information.

He claims that the commissioner -- who will have the power of a court to order disclosure -- will be a more 'user-friendly' option.The effects of the Act will come most speedily to public attention through the press.

Mark Stephens, a senior partner at London firm Stephens Innocent, predicts that a major area of case law will be developed through applications made by journalists for information to support their stories.

He cites developments in the US where the media and civil liberties organisations have been at the forefront of the campaign to bring previously undisclosed information to light.A question as yet unanswered by the white paper proposals is: once the public bodies have released the information, how far do they have to go to make sure the public knows about this data? An active investigative press, combined with relevant pressures from civil rights organisations, should ensure that this will not become a problem.Mr Bindman says that under a Freedom of Information Act, it would be difficult to see how there could be a repetition, for example, of the conviction of Jeremy Warner -- now city and business editor of The Independent -- for refusing to disclose the source of a series of stories he wrote on the Department of Trade and Industry in the late '80s.

At the time he was convicted for contempt of court.

Now, Mr Bindman says: 'If the information which Warner disclosed could have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, it is hard to see how the issue of who his source was could be relevant.'However, Clive Ponting, the civil servant who leaked an Ministry of Defence memo arguing that the government had covered up the sinking of the Belgrano, would still be taken to court under a Freedom of Information Act, even though he was acquitted at the time.It is still unclear exactly how areas relating to the Official Secrets Act (1989), such as defence, international relations, and national security, will be dealt with.

However, according to Mr Frankel, the proposed standard of proof requ ired to show substantial damage, which would then prevent information disclosure, would be reduced to a much lower level for these more sensitive issues.There is little doubt that the white paper proposals represent significant progress in acknowledging the public's right to know.

But much will depend on the willingness of the government to enforce the procedures as honestly and as thoroughly as it can.

In Mr Clark's introduction to his proposals heralds the suggestions for a Freedom of Information Act as 'central to a mature democracy.' Now is the time for Labour to prove that the UK truly is not a nanny state.WHITE PAPER PROPOSALS FOR PROCESSING A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACCESS APPEAL(This diagram cannot be reproduced on the database.

It has therefore been omitted.

Please see the original.)