The States has an extremely poor track record on many things, from delivering major projects, IT and data protection, to handling backlogs in the tax office and population management.
But when deputies, journalists, and the public ask legitimate questions about any of them, the ‘answers’ are often slow to arrive, incomplete… and in some cases non-existent.
Express has a track record of asking tough questions and getting responses that, let’s just say, aren’t what we were hoping for.
So, the fact that Deputy Andy Sloan’s Scrutiny Management Committee is calling for tougher FOI rules is music to our ears.
This is not just about getting an answer when the States would rather not give one.
A proper FOI law should give people a legal right to request information, clear rules on when it can be withheld, and an independent appeals process with the power to make disclosure happen.
But a proper, legally binding FOI law must be the first step towards a greater commitment from the States to transparency, not the end of transparency.
The rules on how Rule 14 questions from deputies and questions from journalists are treated need beefing up too.
Rule 14s – questions from deputies – are supposed to be answered within 15 days, but the question is whether the rules provide enough protection when answers are late, incomplete or fail to address what was actually asked.
Likewise, our FOI about journalists’ questions revealed that States Communications – the States’ PR desk – does have some internal targets for how quickly it answers questions from the media.
But there is no statutory requirement for them to meet those targets and no accountability if they don’t – or when the departments or deputies they’re responding on behalf of refuse to fully answer our questions.
Transparency is vital to a healthy democracy – it cannot be optional.
We get it: If we screwed up as often and as catastrophically as our elected deputies and taxpayer-funded civil servants seem to, we would rather not be asked questions about it either.
But a healthy democracy needs deputies, journalists, and the public to be able to ask questions and to get honest, timely, and complete answers – warts and all.
Yes, it’s embarrassing when things have gone wrong, but you don’t learn any lessons by sweeping things under a rug.
To help get some data on the issue we put in a Freedom of Information request at the start of September about how FOIs work.
Nearly 40 working days later, we’re still waiting for an answer – nearly double the allowed time. (However, we did eventually receive answers to two other FOIs we put in at the same time, about Rule 14 questions and questions from journalists – which we shall be publishing articles on soon)
This isn’t an exception, it’s part of a pattern which has been going on for years.
P&R’s refusal to publish its GST modelling, or even to share the Excel formulas used, is a highly visible example of the States getting annoyed and intransigent when anyone who’s not in the inner circle dares to ask tough questions.
The modelling was infallible, we were told.
But then, we were also told that the PEH extension would be delivered on time and budget and that MyGov was a great use of taxpayers’ money.
Scrutiny is vital so we can prevent multi-million-pound disasters like these – and many others – happening again.
And scrutiny means deputies, journalists, and the public being able to get honest answers to tough questions.
This week deputies will ask for up to £22m to centralise Children’s Services into a single “hub”.
Without robust scrutiny, how can the public have confidence they’ll stick to the budget or that the project is even needed in the first place?
It’s tempting to default to the well-worn saying, ‘Worst States ever’, but the reality is the lack of transparency from our government predates this assembly and the individuals involved.
In 2021, deputies rejected a proposal to introduce a full FOI law and instead opted to strengthen the existing system with an independent appeals panel.
The compromise was presented as a quicker, cheaper way forward.
But the panel was left without the power to compel the States to follow its decisions, the very weakness Scrutiny is now trying to address.
Many deputies – and Guernsey’s only political party – called for greater government transparency in their manifestos, while the Head of the Civil Service called for “warts and all transparency” at a Chamber of Commerce talk earlier this year.
And rightly so.
Deputy Rob Curgenven gave his “full support” to Scrutiny’s proposals, saying: “Far too often it feels as though getting answers is a battle in itself. That needs to change.”
But actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the States and individual committees demonstrate anything but a steadfast commitment to transparency.
Take E&I’s response to Deputy Ross Le Brun’s Rule 14 questions about transport, an issue he successfully ran on at this year’s by-election.
The committee took the unprecedented decision to publish the amount of time it took to respond, something that had never happened before in the history of Rule 14s.
E&I President Deputy Adrian Gabriel claimed the committee wasn’t trying to “discourage” Deputy Le Brun’s questions, but the implication was clearly spelled out – Deputy Le Brun was taking civil servants’ time away from the ‘real’ work.
But transparency is part of the ‘real’ work of a healthy, western democracy.
As a journalist, I’m used to getting outraged responses from deputies and civil servants to what I – and many of our readers – consider perfectly legitimate questions on everything from “Why didn’t you disclose your partner’s directorship of X company?” to “Why did it take over a week to close a bathing pool that had human excrement in it?”
How dare I ask such outrageous questions?
The States doesn’t like answering questions that make it look bad.
On a human level that’s understandable – who would?
We’re sure it would rather we just published the good news stories it puts out about teddy bear fostering and artists visiting the Bailiwick.
But if the States doesn’t want so many news stories that make it look bad the answer is to screw up less, not to refuse to properly answer questions.
Whatever your views on GST, last month’s tax debate undoubtedly damaged many people’s confidence in our democracy.
Giving Guernsey a real FOI law with teeth – like Jersey and the UK both have – won’t undo that damage overnight.
But it would be a step in the right direction and a chance for the Assembly to demonstrate that our deputies are prepared to pay more than just lip service to transparency.
And if the States is serious about rebuilding public trust, it should not stop there.
The public should not have to fight for basic answers from the government elected to represent them.
Introducing a robust FOI law with “teeth” is vital, but perhaps it’s time for Guernsey to look at a comprehensive transparency law that covers FOIs, Rule 14s and media enquiries.
If it wants to repair Guernsey’s damaged democracy, transparency is where the States must start.
