Guernsey Press

Freedom of information code agreed in States

STATES members have agreed to improve the openness and transparency of government with an independent appeals process to support current practices on releasing information.

Published
Last updated
Deputy Simon Fairclough speaking with Deputy Lester Queripel. (Picture by Cassidy Jones, 29669248)

They voted for a shift to a ‘freedom of information code’, although eight deputies wanted to go further with full freedom of information introduced, irrespective of concerns about extra costs.

Scrutiny Management president Yvonne Burford said the proposal agreed was a pragmatic, middle-ground option.

‘When I stood for this position, I emphasised the need to build trust between government and the people it serves. Openness and transparency are key to that, and as such in many ways I do not mind desperately which of the first two options are approved today. Both will be a significant improvement over what we have now.’

Deputy Simon Fairclough, a member of Scrutiny Management, led the charge for a full freedom of information law, which exists in Jersey, the Isle of Man, and the UK.

The policy letter had estimated this would have set-up costs of up to £2.68m., and running costs of up to £900,000 each year, although Deputy Fairclough thought those figures were ‘wide of the mark’.

He said a proper law was the hallmark of democracy and the cultural default setting of the States needed to change.

‘That tired old mantra of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” has been wheeled out already this political term, it’s nearly replaced “kicking the can down the road”. Well here’s another one, “if it is broke, then do fix it”,’ he said.

‘There are too many reports that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds which are unpublished or redacted.’

When the access to information code was first introduced in Guernsey there were only approximately 15 requests made to the States per year. That has now risen to about 60.

Deputy Aidan Matthews agreed that a freedom of information law would bring a change of mindset, so that more information was put into the public domain.

‘We shouldn’t really be looking at the requests themselves, we should be looking at the change in culture that can be brought about by having a freedom of information law in place.That is the only way that we can foster an open government with transparency and democracy. Speaking as a taxpayer, we’re talking about the costs of bringing this in. As a taxpayer my first thought is that this is my information, this is information that has been paid for by the taxpayer. We should be able to provide that to people as they request it.’

Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller made the point that even as a deputy she had experienced problems trying to get hold of details within her departments. She thought that better use should be made of digital technology in order to reduce the cost of accessing information.

Deputy Steve Falla was concerned that moving to full Freedom of Information could be opening a Pandora’s box, likening it to a restaurant receiving no complaints about food and service, then creating a complaints box.

The proposition for a full information law was supported by deputies Fairclough, Matthews, Liam McKenna, Carl Meerveld, Lester Queripel, Tina Bury, John Gollop and Chris Le Tissier. The middle-ground option was supported by all members, except Deputy Al Brouard.