Where to draw the line on freedom of information?

SMALL steps on a very long path, but steps nonetheless.

At the end of last week the Policy Council signalled its intent to move towards open government by publishing an independent discussion paper on information.

In doing so, it passed the first test – it would be ironic if this paper had been hidden in someone's desk at Frossard House while the council worked on its Billet report, as usually happens.

Cast your mind back to 2008 and you may remember some fine words on openness and transparency – funny how elections do that. It has taken a few jolts to even get things this far so that the topic should be debated by the States just before the end of this term.

There is much for freedom of information campaigners to work on, because if taken on in its current form this report might lead to plenty of window dressing.

Shaping the debate at this stage will be crucial – the public might just get one shot to get the building blocks right.

The paper was written by FoI expert Belinda Crowe and contains a three-year plan to move towards open government – only then would it be time to consider legislation that would, with some natural exemptions, guarantee the public's right to know.

Some of these early steps are practical – at the moment not even the public sector has a handle on what information it holds, let alone how to get hold of it, and indeed what the public wants to know or how to publish it.

This type of preparation is a necessary stride, even down to simple steps such as using an accessible website.

It will be key to get an agreed States-wide strategy on what information is routinely published – and one that is not watered down to save embarrassment or inconvenience.

Where that line in the sand is drawn will be one of the prime measures of success – there is an honest debate to be had about just what the public interest test is.

In the UK and elsewhere where FoI has been established for some time, it spans any body which receives public funding – if the States is serious it will ensure any initial strategy includes bodies such as the Office of Utility Regulation, Guernsey Electricity and Guernsey Post, as well as the judiciary. All use public money, all should be fully accountable.

The report proposes a central individual or team to take charge of communications.

There was talk of something similar a few years ago that led to nothing – still each department or committee paddles its own canoe to a lesser or greater success.

This team would presumably be responsible for ensuring departments or committees stick to the agreed policy – but what recourse at this early stage if there was disagreement on what was released, from either the States side or the public's?

For a strategy to have any real bite or credence, there needs to be, even at an early stage, some independent oversight – someone to rule in one direction or the other and with reasons.

This is not explicitly touched on in the paper and will be too easy for deputies to skirt over.

A wealth of information is published routinely in other jurisdictions.

Want to know what the average sentence for a particular offence is in England? It's published.

Want to know what percentage of students at a particular school passed their GCSE in English? It's published.

Want to know how much a public authority spends on its bin collections?

With all those examples no-one had to put in a request to get the information and there was no time-consuming administration involved in getting it – which is what critics of FoI so often point to.

Good practice and a cultural shift can clearly go a long way, just not all the way.

Everyone knows that the MPs' expenses scandal was partly uncovered using the FoI law, but there are endless examples of bad practice uncovered by journalists and the public alike – one recent example was dramatic under-reporting of crime by police forces.

Can Guernsey just stand still on this subject?

No. Consider Environment's refusal to answer Guernsey Press questions, Education's refusal to release full GCSE data and the Policy Council's silence over the fish compensation deal, although arguably in the latter case a FOI law would not get the information released.

And that is just the last couple of months.

Cast your mind back. What about the cost of the airport runway refurbishment – remember it started at £10m. – why were so many people kept in the dark for so long?

Would a strong FoI regime lead to the curious uncovering things much earlier?

All very public examples of bad and inconsistent practice that has done a disservice to the public.

FoI does not mean a free for all, there are and always will be things that should not be released.

But there is much that should be that is not.

The discussion paper also aims to build on the public's direct access to information by recommending people have access to Scrutiny and other committee meetings.

This might just be the kick that the scrutiny function of the States needs to improve accountability – just see how well it can work elsewhere.

Few with an interest in the UK political scheme would have missed the likes of Tony Blair's appearance at the Chilcot inquiry or Rupert Murdoch at the phone hacking investigation – all hearings with seats for the public and broadcast live online or available later to replay through a website – perhaps another step that could have been included in a States strategy.

The paper also states that a Hansard system is needed – something that is already in the pipeline, as detailed in the States Strategic Plan debate.

So, there is a chink of light, finally.

But pressure needs to be applied to ensure that the door is not just opened a crack, but thrown as wide open as it can be.