AN EXCHANGE in the Assembly yesterday about the secrecy surrounding the settlement of the fish dispute is an indication of how far government has to go in embracing the concept of openness.

While the thrust involved the constitution committee saying investigating such things was not its responsibility and the Crown Officers supporting that view, the real issue was missed.

Who actually felt it acceptable to conclude an agreement in a way that prevents the taxpayer from knowing how their money has been spent?

That is the underlying question and the question that deputies should be pressing to have answered.

The confidentiality clause that prevents disclosure of the settlement is not automatic: someone had to apply for it. Was it the Law Officers and, if so, who instructed them to apply for it? Was the Policy Council or a minister given the opportunity to question that move?

The likelihood is that Interfish Wirons Ltd, which was actioning the States of Guernsey, had little interest in whether there was a gag or not and so clearly would not resist its imposition.

That makes it even more important for the Assembly to be told – without breaking any legal clauses – who asked for the gag and why.

As things stand, this island’s attempt to introduce a fishing limit has been a disaster, made it look inept and wasted who knows how much public money. While other jurisdictions have successfully achieved protection for their fishermen, Guernsey has blown it spectacularly and no one has been held to account.

In that context, the gag is supremely useful. No need to answer who felt that side-stepping the Privy Council and not enacting primary legislation was a good idea, no requirement to disclose rampant legal costs or whether any compensation has been paid.

If the Policy Council cared about accountability and transparency, it would be setting a lead in this by taking the initiative.

It should instruct its legal team to apply to the court to have the gagging order removed by consent.

When it does not, islanders will have their confirmation that this is indeed state-sponsored secrecy.