Official Government records are not just bedtime reading for politicians and journalists, historians and librarians. They are a crucial component of our national memory and identity. They are our lessons.

Their accurate and detailed preservation allows future Governments to learn from past mistakes. It also enables a well-informed people to hold those who govern them to account.

We rightly expect public bodies to be diligent in their record-keeping and to make those records available to the public, in whose name they were created.

Harold Wilson's Government reduced the standard time after which official records should be released to the public from 50 years to 30. Now, in an age when so much information can be accessed almost instantaneously, this 30-year rule looks archaic.

Gordon Brown commissioned a review of it – and most respondents, including myself, favoured a significant reduction. The head of the review, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, recommended cutting the time by half.

The Government has promised to accept the recommendations of this review, which is a big, important step. But there is still a lot to do. The experiences of Canada and New Zealand, two decades ahead of us in freeing up information, show that greater openness increases both Government accountability and democratic engagement. Both are in desperate need of revival in Britain.

In 2000, the Freedom of Information Act made it possible for anyone to call for information held by public authorities to be made available.

Enshrining that right has been a considerable advance for freedom and openness, and there have been some blows to Government- attempted cover-ups, such as over the infamous release of an early copy of the dodgy dossier on Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction, for example.

But the Act has not resulted in the free flow of information many of us had hoped for. Our country still operates one of the least liberal access regimes in the western world. A culture of secrecy still exists. And that has been all too apparent recently with the Government blocking the release of Cabinet papers from 2003 about the invasion of Iraq.

Generally, information requests are still dogged by delays, and too many releases of information are incomplete or else refused on grounds of cost.

Yet, given the contribution freedom of information has made to democracy and democratic involvement, the £25 million spent on it annually by central Government is money well spent.

But the Act desperately needs strengthening. The independent Information Commissioner, whose role is to promote access to official information and protect personal information, should be given greater powers and resources to inspect whether all levels of Government are adhering to the Act and to punish those who are not.

Unnecessary exceptions to the Act should be removed and further exceptions resisted, such as the scandalous attempt to exempt MPs' expenses. The rest of the UK should be brought in line with Scotland, where exemptions have to pass a higher test of "substantial harm" to public interests, rather than "prejudice to".

Policy advice to Ministers should not be exempt. The public have a right to know not only what path the people representing them chose, but also those they rejected.

Requests should not be limited in number, and cost limits should be set at levels where the cost of answering the request substantially outweighs the public interest in the requested information.

B eyond freedom of information, the Dacre review raises a number of issues beyond when records are released to the public. Conscientious civil servants have an ethical and professional duty to keep detailed records and I do not see why they should not be reminded of this obligation in the civil service code that outlines their values.

In return, we should respect their right to anonymity and every effort must be made to take out their names from documents when they are made publicly available.

The Government should clarify whether special advisers are duty- bound to keep full records and whether they are exempt from freedom of information legislation – I believe the answers should be yes and no respectively.

Similarly, the Radcliffe rules, which govern the publication of memoirs by former advisers, Ministers and civil servants, need to be radically overhauled.

The world of information is changing. Almost the entire business of Government is now conducted digitally. This presents a completely new challenge. How do you store the huge amount of electronic information produced by Whitehall every day, and is it worth keeping?

Are we just throwing this new information en masse into what Paul Dacre calls a "digital landfill", which will be of no use to future generations?

We need to develop a system to decide what digital content is worth preserving for our children, make it searchable, and store it safely. This is the most pressing information challenge we face, but it will put further pressure on the national archives and their hardworking staff.

Any further changes to freedom of information procedures must be accompanied by appropriate funding for this most valuable national resource. I believe information should be as free as possible; that people have a right to know what our Government is doing; and that there is a duty to maintain accurate historical records for future generations.

The Dacre review's recommendation to reduce the 30-year rule to 15 years is a significant and welcome step in the fight for further transparency. But much more needs to be done. Fifteen years should be the last resort and proactive publication should become the norm – records should be put into the public domain as soon as their sensitivity allows.

The time for secrecy in government is over. It is time to treat the British people with trust.