Freedom of Information Act not front and centre

SOMETIMES it pays handsomely to look 26 miles to the south-east and see how things are being done.

Freedom of information is something that Jersey has got a grip on – and some very simple changes to how Guernsey's code is treated would result in vast improvements and, crucially, elevate it in the eyes of the public.

It feels very much unloved and forgotten in Guernsey, off the political landscape since the vote in 2013, marked off as a tick in the 'to do' column.

It is not done.

There was the usual scaremongering from the critics when the code was put in place – that the States would be bombarded with requests and drown under the weight of them, that it was not hiding anything anyway and so on.

None of those statements rang true.

Equally, the way the code has been treated hardly encourages its use – it is not front and centre like it should be.

The code was deficient, particularly its appeals system, but not terrible.

Treated in the right way, it should be driving how the States handles information proactively without it having to be pulled like a bad tooth.

But it is being undermined by a lack of resources, or simply a lack of education among the staff who have to deal with the requests, and the politicians who oversee this.

The lack of resources is why none of the follow-up reports have been done, and is no doubt why no statistics are readily available, why requests and the answers aren't published, why the list of commissioned reports is a year out of date.

In Jersey, the FoI section has a link from the front page of its website.

That takes you to a wealth of information – and crucially, a list of requests and responses.

Uploading this information is a simple change that Guernsey could make, especially given this is the public sector which wants to make the States website something of a one-stop shop for islanders' needs.

It will also demonstrate handsomely what the States will and what it will not release and lead to comparisons with good practice from elsewhere.

For example, the leap to the commercially-sensitive information defence has been a default position in Guernsey, but is less so in the UK where the public interest test is applied in a much clearer way.

In itself this can become a driver for change – just like setting up an independent appeals mechanism would be. Publishing reasons behind why appeals have or have not been successful from a person one step removed from the States can boost good practice and confidence in the whole system.

More than a decade ahead in its thinking on this issue, Jersey has moved from a code to a full-blown law, and of course its associated cost.

But in doing so Jersey showed it was not enough to simply have administrative guidelines in place that can be ignored.

There is some contradiction in the stance that data protection needs to be legislated for, but what can be seen as another part of the package – and one that would drive good culture in the public sector at a time when reform is under way – does not.

Jersey handled 691 requests in the first year of FoI, 2015, and 736 in 2016.

The vast majority came from individuals, 70%, with the media coming in at 22%.

Guernsey does not publish its figures, but anecdotally the suspicion would be the numbers would be a fraction of what Jersey is dealing with.

Already this year Jersey has published the response to four requests.

It has revealed how much has been spent on personal development courses for States members over the last five years – more than £17,000.

A new law to tackle abandoned vehicles on private land will be published in late 2017.

There were questions about the headmaster at Victoria College and about cases in the courts that were less successful.

Jersey's FoI law is a living, breathing tool for the public – Guernsey's code wheezes in comparison.

Press our politicians about this issue now and they will no doubt make positive noises about openness and transparency, or at least they should, given they all managed to campaign on these issues back at the start of the year.

But then ask them to prioritise resources on this rather than other issues and things become much more tricky, hence the lack of progress since 2013.

At the very least this States needs to re-engage and make a conscious decision about what it is, or is not, going to do and why, rather than just hoping no one notices.

That kind of debate is the very least the public can expect and in itself will serve to remind people that the code is there and there for them to use.