Misplaced secrecy a stumbling block to effective government

A RELUCTANCE to trust the public with information has become something of a hallmark of this States.

This trait was thrust back into the spotlight during debate last week in two important, if diverse, issues.

First up we had the Public Services minister on his feet to answer questions on the herbicide glyphosate.

His mood was no doubt not helped by being unwell, but he was somewhat prickly when pressed on the subject.

So why was he in this situation in the first place?

Guernsey Water had, quite correctly, told the public that glyphosate was in local streams.

But it did not say, and then refused to say under questioning, which ones, how much was present or what the safe levels were, or when testing took place.

Why? Presumably on some misplaced notion that it would worry the public too much.

Thanks to Deputy David De Lisle's questions we now know which streams have had glyphosate detected in them, which, given how common its use is, and how much of the island is a water catchment area, is most of them.

We also know that testing took place for the first time in October, although not when, so there was a time lag between that and the public knowing.

There was still some unnecessary fudging in the answers, because while Deputy Ogier gave a range of the levels recorded, he did not attribute numbers to individual streams. That information has now come out following further questions by this newspaper, which also revealed, somewhat embarrassingly, that the figures read out had a misplaced decimal point in them.

Deputy Ogier rightly took the opportunity to say that drinking water was safe.

And that clearly is important, but here are the buts.

Firstly, there must be a cost in the treatment process for dealing with this.

Most importantly though, this is not just an issue about drinking water.

What about the water used on crops, for animals, drawn from boreholes?

When Deputy Ogier was pressed on these later points and any testing he complained that these were detailed, technical questions and should have been asked in advance.

Perhaps, but they were obvious questions, ones that had been posed before, and ones that should have been answered when the very first announcement was made anyway.

Should we be worried about glyphosate?

Well, we shouldn't be disinterested, that's for sure.

As always with this type of thing, there are differing views on whether it causes cancer, for instance.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said in March that glyphosate is 'probably carcinogenic to humans', while environmental groups have been calling for a ban.

The European Food Safety Authority, which advises European Union policymakers, said in November that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer.

The amounts detected in Guernsey streams are traces – said to be around the equivalent of isolating three seconds in a century.

Public Services and Guernsey Water want us to trust them – the best way of achieving that is to have an open debate with all the information in the public domain.

Then we had the revelations during the reciprocal health agreement debate that ministers were in talks with the UK about trying to avoid paying an extra £3.5m. every year for off-island treatment.

Health and Social Services minister Paul Luxon was visibly angry that the information had been dropped into debate by Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher as he made the case for reinstating an agreement.

The NHS, under significant pressure to cut costs and raise revenues, wants to target people gaining access to treatment who do not contribute through the tax system, so has put in place a surcharge for non-UK and non-EU citizens for secondary care.

That directive was made in March and widely reported on nationally.

It will – inadvertently, it is argued – capture the Crown Dependencies.

Consultation has also begun on a surcharge for all non-UK and non-EU citizens using primary care services too, which could, given the lack of a reciprocal health agreement, be an expensive problem for those people who forget to or cannot get travel insurance with suitable health cover.

Politicians are always keen to keep their cards close to their chest, but it isn't clear exactly what the problem is with the public knowing these talks are happening. If anything, it is great to see ministers actively working for the good of the taxpayer.

The information was key to Deputy Kuttelwascher's argument too.

Ministers in particular thought the debate was a waste of time because they had clear indications from the UK that it would not agree to a new reciprocal health agreement.

They had never shared that information with the wider States, or indeed the public, which again is misplaced secrecy.

Had they done so, not only would the danger of managing expectations among the populace been avoided from the outset, the debate probably would have been as well because the requete signatories quickly began falling away on hearing that.

Another example of where openness would have led to a swifter and better-understood outcome.

Off the record...

Some red faces at Commerce and Employment last week.

When debating whether to reinstate the reciprocal health agreement, its minister Kevin Stewart confidently told States members that the Visit Guernsey website carried information about the lack of a deal and what it meant.

Except.

States members quickly got out their iPads to have a quick check and couldn't find anything.

The minister later had to apologise – it seems the information had 'fallen off' in the switch over to the new States website.

Other things to have 'fallen off' seem to include States members' declaration of interests – we'd be grateful if anyone can uncover where they've gone.

Buckets were back out in the States chamber on Tuesday.

Not because everyone was nauseous at the thought of yet another debate on deputies' pay but because the roof was leaking, leading to water dripping down the wall in one corner.

Bizarrely, some experienced reporters remember a similar thing happening exactly four years ago.

So keen on politics is one of the people being relied on by the States to help promote the electoral roll sign-up campaign that they are now intending to stand.

A nice electioneering platform if you can get it, some might say.

A handy little guide is now available for prospective election candidates. Among the lesser known titbits of information is that you have to be 20 years or over to stand, presumably because all those people who are old enough (16) to be allowed to vote and pay taxes aren't old enough to decide how those taxes should be spent.