Amendments crucial to give information regime teeth, by Nick Mann

IF EVER there was an example of political bluster, it was the Policy Council's response to calls for independent oversight of the freedom of information regime.

Its answer to a simple question managed to use hundreds of words when a few would have done – and veered off into answering things not even asked.

It seems at the moment that the council is so fearful of not getting a new regime in place that it has watered things down too much – and is now trying to bamboozle its way through and hope no one really notices.

It is like some kind of card trickster diverting the eye.

Deputy Chris Green has taken up the challenge of ensuring there are some teeth to the new information regime by placing an amendment for a report on whether there is a need for some form of independent appeal when a request for information is turned down.

It is the only way the new regime will have credibility because without it there will always, whether unfairly or not, be the whiff of the States looking after itself when not releasing information.

This is, we know, the first step on the road – a road that others have already travelled.

Indeed, Guernsey is one of the last Western democracies to put in place an access regime.

The Isle of Man and Jersey have long since done so, as recognised by the Policy Council in answering Deputy Green's questions about independent oversight.

Of course, the blustering Policy Council failed to make clear in its answers that both jurisdictions do have an independent appeals process. Independent, that is, in the way most people on the street would understand it – staffed by individuals with no connection to the government.

Late in the day, the Policy Council now says the administrative decisions appeal panel 'may' deal with complaints against a department for not releasing information.

Not only are there no guarantees, it is not a wholly independent process – and certainly not one designed with this process in mind.

No worries, the Policy Council tells us, we may look at this some time in the future.

Well, do worry. It took from October 2010 to get as far as we have – and the report was meant to be done by December 2011.

Another amendment to the Policy report also seeks to add some depth to the proposals, which are to be debated in the States next week.

Deputy Peter Gillson does not see the logic in the new regime covering documents created only after it is put in place – in many ways, you cannot blame him.

It is like transparency-lite, again the easy option, to say that openness only begins from July 2013.

Decisions taken in recent years are still very much affecting the island and how it operates and should be open to the same level of scrutiny as what the States provides now.

Ministers will no doubt again argue about resources to fulfil any requests – and the public can counter with a justified question about why it is so hard to track down the information in the first place.

The amendment would also force the Policy Council to report back with a year's-worth of data on how the new code has operated, including information on the requests that have been refused – Jersey has an annual reporting regime in place already.

Deputy Gillson also favours following the UK with a rule whereby States documents would generally be automatically released after 30 years.

There will always be some who question whether a new regime based on the presumption of release is needed.

They tend to ask the question: 'what is it you think we are not telling you?'

And each time that is asked, the best example to go back to is the GCSE results scandal.

Education refused time and again to release results that could be compared with those of England and Wales. When it finally relented, it opened a hornet's nest that led to targeted improvements in some schools.

There are plenty of other examples too – why, for example, was it so difficult to get information about cancer rates that has been part of a report into the Channel Islands when Jersey published and Guernsey stalled?

How about the Policy Council refusing to release information about the number and costs of payouts and gagging clauses it has used in the last few years?

This came last week on the eve of the information debate with the explanation it would take too much time to find out.

Take that at face value and it is another demonstration of why the new regime is needed because it will act as a driver for better information gathering and record keeping.

We know it took the Policy Council days to compile a list and cost of the chief minister's travel when they were asked by Deputy Mary Lowe – and to casual observers, that would seem like a simple request.

There is still a very simple argument in batting down those who warn about the costs of a new regime – and that is if the States had a proper free flow of information in the first place, these would be minimal.

So any regime is better than no regime at all. But not only does it need to start with some teeth in the first place, it needs to be subject to regular scrutiny as to just how effective it has been because this is the only way to push change.

That is what the two amendments seek to do.

The Policy Council is always keen to talk about evolution – which has the risk of putting the brakes on things before they have even begun.