Scrutiny is calling for tougher Freedom of Information rules so public bodies can be forced to release information when an independent appeals panel orders them to.
The Scrutiny Management Committee wants Policy and Resources (P&R) to make two changes to Guernsey’s Freedom of Information Code, before it can push ahead with plans to make the panel’s decisions legally binding.
Unlike Jersey or the UK, Guernsey’s Freedom of Information Code is not legally binding, so the appeals panel doesn’t have any powers to compel the States or individual committees to do anything.
Deputy Andy Sloan, President of Scrutiny, said: “Freedom of Information is an important part of public accountability.
“But an appeals process is only meaningful if its decisions can be enforced.”
He said the panel could currently rule that information should be disclosed, but there was no effective way to make public bodies comply.
The panel’s decisions are not legally binding, meaning its findings can be ignored without an effective mechanism to compel disclosure.
Legal clarifications
Now Scrutiny wants to put the appeals process on a statutory footing, giving the panel’s decisions legal force without introducing a comprehensive statutory Freedom of Information regime.
But legal advice has identified two areas of the existing code that need clarifying first, the committee said.
One concerns how the public-interest test should be applied when deciding whether information should be released.
The other is the distinction between absolute exemptions and those subject to a public-interest test.
Responsibility for the code rests with P&R, so Scrutiny has referred the proposed changes to the committee.
Deputy Sloan said the changes should be limited and should not trigger a wider review of the Freedom of Information system.
“We have undertaken preparatory work, including consultation and the development of a proposed statutory framework, but the legal review has identified two areas of the existing Code that require clarification before we can proceed,” he said.
He added: “Responsibility for the Code rests with P&R, and we hope the committee will take this work forward promptly.”
Scrutiny will reconsider how to progress the proposed legal framework once the clarifications have been made.
Deputy Sloan said the aim was to ensure the public could have confidence in the appeals process.
“An independent appeals mechanism must be more than advisory to provide meaningful accountability,” he added.
