FoI is a better way

AN ATTEMPT by the BBC to shed additional light on the reasons for the withdrawal of the cheaper tender to build the PEH clinical block was in part rejected as being prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom.

In what many will regard as an extreme argument, the UK's Information Commissioner held that disclosure of a note of a telephone conversation seen by the Wales Audit Office could damage relations between the UK and another state, Guernsey.

The reason, it said, is that the island would be less likely to contract with British public sector entities if information provided in confidence was released.

In terms of economic harm, it's hardly on the same scale as the BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia alleged corruption probe that was dropped, also on national interest grounds, but the principle is clear.

The outcome is doubly interesting locally because it confirms that the FoI provisions apply to Channel Islanders seeking information from public bodies in the UK.

Issues arise only where some or all of that information has been supplied by a third party such as the States of Guernsey and no overwhelming public interest argument in favour of disclosure can be mounted.

In turn, however, that would leave the States having to justify refusing to publish material that would be released as a matter of course in the UK, which claims ultimately to be responsible for this island's good government and thus a role model for the Bailiwick.

It has been claimed locally that an FoI equivalent is not needed but the difficulty, for instance, in getting believable answers on the management of Education would suggest otherwise.

Cost has also been cited but even on a pro rata basis with the UK, that would still work out at less than £25,000 a year.

Considering it cost the taxpayer £40,000 for very little in the way of direct information in the Robinson review of Education, islanders would consider it to be one of the States' better spends.