TERRY DIGNAN: Searching for information the Government isn't keen for you to have requires perseverance. Yet often it takes too long for the truth to be revealed as in the case of the BSE crisis and the arms to Iraq scandal. But will Labour really shed light on the world of Whitehall, from where ministers run the country, through its Freedom of Information legislation? Here at Westminster,Labour is promising the right to know more about what's going on in our schools, hospitals and councils. But we won't be able to force government ministers to tell what they're really up to. In countries such as Ireland the public now has that power - Scotland is planning a similar law. It's left Labour MPs at Westminster complaining they're being asked to support a weak and watered down Freedom of Information Bill, ROBIN CORBETT MP: We should not treat electors with what I regard as that kind of contempt and that means that unless there is extremely good reason for not releasing information in these areas the presumption must be that it will all be out and available for the citizen to get hold of.. MIKE O'BRIEN MP: There's always going to be a tension between the, those who are Freedom of Information enthusiasts who want everything to be available and those on the other side of the argument who think that there are rights of privacy - many of your viewers will not want information held by Government about them to be available to a journalist, rights of company confidentiality, for example. DIGNAN: In Edinburgh, the Scottish Parliament will pass its own Freedom of Information law. It will apply to areas the Parliament controls, for example health and education. Westminster's law will affect the rest of the UK and in Scotland subjects not devolved to Edinburgh, such as social security. It's argued that the Scottish Parliament here in Edinburgh could put the Labour Government at Westminster to shame over freedom of information. That's because Jim Wallace, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland's coalition government, is promising really tough and radical freedom of information legislation. JIM WALLACE MSP: It's not our intention to put one over the Westminster Government or anything like that. It's to try and get a regime which is in tune with our approach in Scotland of a much more open, accessible Parliament. DIGNAN: Scotland and Westminster will each set different tests for turning down requests for copies of official documents. All that UK ministers will have to show is that harm or prejudice would be caused. In Scotland the prejudice would have to be substantial for ministers to say no. WALLACE: Public bodies in Scotland will have to establish that if they're going to withhold information that that, that the disclosure would have led to substantial prejudice occurring and even then, even if they say 'Yes, there is going to be substantial prejudice,' they've then got to apply the further test that even allowing for that is it still nevertheless in the public interest that that information should be disclosed. O'BRIEN: They propose a substantial prejudice test, we propose an ordinary prejudice test. What they say they mean by substantial prejudice is prejudice which is actual, real or of significant substance. We say that our prejudice test means actual, real or of substance. The only difference between the two definitions of what these phrases mean is the word significant and, quite honestly, I don't think the word significance has any great significance. DIGNAN: Ministers won't let you take a peek at the files held by Government departments if they want them kept secret. That will continue even though many Labour MPs want the release of factual information used by ministers in making policy. In Scotland this information will see the light of day WALLACE: It is our view that the factual information, to say the, the facts, figures which are there to inform policy, that that should come under the Freedom of Information regime and indeed it should be into the public domain. TONY WRIGHT MP: Take the whole string of measures announced in the Queen's Speech just recently. I mean, for each one of those, you know, whether you're talking about jury trials, or fur farming or transport safety or whatever, what you want to know is, on what basis has the Government decided to legislate? I mean, what is the, the information available to Government that has led it in this direction? In knowing that you can then evaluate the legislation. You don't have to take it from the word of ministers there are reasons why you do things. O'BRIEN: Some critics have said just because the legislation does not require Governments to disclose all the background information, therefore they will not. That is untrue. The Government has made it clear that we would intend that background information should be available and ministers are best, in the position, to decide when any information should not be able to be disclosed. DIGNAN: If you know what you're looking for but the minister at Westminster says you can't have the document, there'll be a right of appeal to an Information Commissioner. Under the bill, though, the Commissioner will only be able to recommend that the minister should re-consider. GILES RADICE MP: Because we have a particularly secretive sort of system, a secretive kind of government, I can see occasions on which civil servants and ministers might actually want to block the recommendations of Commissioners and might feel they could get away with it. I think they need to be told that they can't really get away with it. DIGNAN: They can't get away with it in Dublin. Here ministers in Ireland's capital city can be compelled to hand over documents by the Irish Information Commissioner. Ireland's freedom of information legislation came into effect last year and many Labour MPs in Britain want to emulate it. In recent months members of the UK Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh have been looking closely at the impact of the legislation passed here by the Dail, Ireland's Parliament. Labour MPs at Westminster have been so impressed by the Irish experience that a hundred and fifty of them have called on Jack Straw to give the British Information Commissioner powers similar to those held by Ireland's Commissioner. Kevin Murphy wields his power from an office a stone's throw from the Dail. As Irish Information Commissioner he believes it's crucial he's able to do more than just make recommendations to ministers to release documents. MURPHY: I've no doubt that lots of decisions I've made, if I was just recommending, they probably wouldn't accept. I think there is a positive approach to freedom of information in the Irish public service, but I mean the real test of commitment comes when some very embarrassing information is going to be released, either embarrassing to the minister or embarrassing to the department or, or the, the public servants, and, and they're the ones where, you know, the power of making a binding decision is the all-important factor. CORBETT: A minister in a government of any party shortly before what looks like being a very close general election, let's say, is going to say, 'We must not on any account release this because it might damage our chances of winning the election.' That is perfectly understandable in a political world and wholly improper in a democracy and I want the Information Commissioner to have the authority to order the release of information where it is refused. DIGNAN: The Irish Commissioner can also order ministers at the Dail to release the background factual information they use in policymaking. The use of this power is said to be changing attitudes in Dublin. MURPHY: The old culture was that nothing was releasable unless it was authorised to be released. Now I think it's beginning to, to change and it's early days yet It's beginning to change into well, let's get as much information as we can into the public domain. O'BRIEN: Our traditions here in the UK are somewhat different. We've decided to strike perhaps a different balance between the, the needs for individual privacy, commercial confidentiality and, and proper running of government as against the, the interests of freedom of information. DIGNAN: In Edinburgh the Scottish executive has decided to go further than the UK Government but not as far as Ireland's. Scotland's Information Commissioner will be able to compel ministers to hand over all but the most sensitive papers. WALLACE: We took the view that in trying to strike a balance which did tend more significantly towards openness then to give that, to give the Commissioner that extra power to require disclosure was one which, you know, we in the Scottish executive thought was appropriate. DIGNAN: By the time work is completed on a permanent home for the Scottish Parliament, Scotland's voters may find they've got more access to official information than the rest of the UK population. Does that mean Westminster's Labour Government will come under pressure to liberalise its own right to know legislation? CORBETT: Well, the straight-faced answer on that is that this is what devolution is about and different parts of the United Kingdom are perfectly entitled to come to different conclusions on the same topic. The reality, however, is not as simple as that. The reality is that if the Scottish Parliament does things substantially differently in a much more open way from the United Kingdom Parliament, I think this Government's going to end up with egg on its face. DIGNAN: The hunt continues for signs of an unwillingness to reveal Whitehall's secrets, to the irritation of ministers. O'BRIEN: Some of our critics have almost indulged, it seems to me, in the old arguments of angels dancing on a pinhead. They're trying to find very tiny technical reasons why this won't be adequate for them. Well what I'm saying is, is that many of the changes we're proposing are enormous changes. They will bring this Government into a greater degree of openness in Britain than we've ever seen before. WRIGHT: This is a chance for Parliament to ensure that it gets the kind of Freedom of Information Bill that it wants. That's what the issue's about. And I think the, you know, the issue's about what it does for the party battle - much less important. That's a roundabout way of saying, yes, I think we do have a serious argument to be had here. I think Labour MPs have got a good way to go before being convinced that the Home Secretary has yet moved far enough. DIGNAN: Shedding light on the corridors of power is what freedom of information is meant to be about. It's happening in Ireland. It's being promised in Scotland. It's what many Labour MPs at Westminster want. Ministers say they've struck the correct balance between the right to privacy and the right to official information. In the months ahead critics of the Bill say they hope to prove them wrong.