WHAT happened in the States yesterday is the clearest proof to date that Freedom of Information is an essential ingredient of an open and transparent democracy and not something this island can any longer afford to be without.

The reason, vividly illustrated by the Policy Council ministers, is that States members say one thing in private and quite another in public.

Secure in the secrecy of their Frossard House committee room, the 11 ministers were resolutely opposed to an amendment calling for meaningful action on FoI. What a filthy, troublesome, unnecessary encumbrance on our ability to do what we like, they chorused.

But when it came to a public vote in the Assembly, the cover-up ministers were quickly outed: Social Security’s Mark Dorey, Health’s Hunter Adam, Public Services’s Bernard Flouquet, Environment’s Peter Sirett and Commerce and Employment’s Carla McNulty Bauer.

But that was five out of 11, too few to carry the council’s earlier private vote against the FoI motion. So who changed their mind when it was clear that the electorate would find out? That, of course, is a secret and this blatant pursuit of self-protection behind closed doors is what makes opposition to openness and transparency look so grubby.

Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant but how many other questionable Policy Council decisions have been reached simply because no one would find out about them?

Much guff will be peddled between now and the council’s report back to the States but there are some inescapable truths that not even light-shy ministers can escape.

The first is that all information in the public sector should be freely available unless its withholding is capable of justification by an independent and fair-minded third party.

The second is that bringing in a FoI system need not be costly. A simple resolution followed by establishing someone of standing, perhaps the existing Data Protection commissioner, to rule on disputed requests would be an excellent first step.

Thereafter, the court of public opinion on rejected requests for information would quickly highlight what sort of transparency islanders expect.

And avoiding accountability for their actions is exactly what ministers sought to achieve by their first, secret, vote.