New Year’s Day is traditionally a day for fresh starts and promises of changes in behaviour.

No matter how well-intentioned we are, we all know many of them won’t last beyond the end of January.

But this New Year’s Day did mark a radical change in the relationship between Government and the citizen – giving individuals for the first time the statutory right to see a huge amount of information held by Government departments and hundreds of public bodies.

And we know it will last because we have given the change the force of law.

The Freedom of Information Act means that you can ask to see material which has, until now, been kept hidden.

And unless release of this information falls within certain exemptions needed, for example, to protect national security, individual privacy or the effective working of government, you will be shown it.

It replaces the old idea of material being released on a ‘need to know basis’ with a new ‘right to know’.

The new Act applies to over 100,000 public bodies, including schools, hospitals, your local police force, councils and Government departments – and goes much further. The net has been cast wider than many similar acts in other countries.

It will lead to considerable amounts of the material behind Government and council decisions being shared with the public.

I believe it will lead not only to a better informed public, which is itself good for democracy, but also to better government.

By giving more power to the citizen, making decision-making more open and easily understood, it will make public bodies more accountable and lead to better decision making.

But as well as giving citizens the right to know more about policy that affects their lives, it also heralds an important change of culture.

For public bodies are already responding to the Act by releasing information they may not have published in the past.

It’s already clear that the Freedom of Information Act is not just about individuals prising out previously hidden material from a reluctant Government.

It’s about a more general shift to openness so that more and more information will be released to the widest possible audience unless there is a good reason to withhold it.

So the NHS website now contains information on the local rates of MRSA ‘superbug’ infections in each local hospital.

And early in 2005, the Department of Transport will publish extensive information on the location of speed cameras and ‘before and after’ casualty rates so people can judge for themselves whether they work.

But while this is a major change in the relations between state and citizen, it is not a free-for-all.

Information, rightly, won’t be released if it could harm national security or it contains private information about individuals.

And there will also be safeguards to protect effective Government – for example, so a full debate about policy options can take place within departments.

But even here any decision to withhold material can be taken to an independent watchdog, which can decide whether or not to order the public body to release it.

It is a bold move for any government to take.

Which is why no British Government before this one has followed the many countries which already have their own Freedom of Information Acts.

I am sure that it will lead to some uncomfortable times in the beginning for public bodies.

But I am equally convinced that, in the end, it will lead to better decisions and a better relationship between state and citizen.

And that’s a resolution which is worth keeping, not just for this year, but for good.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton.