FROM what is emerging out of Frossard House, the Policy Council has decided not to support freedom of information locally. Instead, it is to recommend promoting a policy of openness and the proactive release of material so FoI is simply not necessary.

When it is published officially, this will doubtless be presented as a pragmatic, low cost solution and one that avoids legislation and more bureaucracy.

On the face of it, it does. But will a ‘leave it to us’ approach provide the results islanders demand?

Looking at just two recent examples – the secret fish deal and the consultants’ report that had to be prised out of Public Services – the overwhelming culture within the States is to release as little as possible.

The reason, generally, is that politicians and officials do not like islanders to know too much. The more they do know, the more they are likely to ask questions and stir up trouble.

Just try asking the Education Department what steps it took to consult with parents on its decision to enforce its politically motivated new school uniform to get a flavour of the levels of evasion employed.

Civil servants, in particular, just like to work in peace and tranquillity in the background without interference.

‘Thank God you’re going,’ Stuart Falla was told by a senior official when he left office, ‘now we can get back to doing things the way we want…’

A joke? Certainly, but both appreciated the underlying truth.

So while freedom of information is based on an individual’s right to know, the starting point here is a knee-jerk ‘why on earth should they?’

PSD was deeply involved in the airport firefighter tribunal and the outcome which, in part, said documents produced at public expense should be made available to the public.

But when it had a consultant report on Petit Bot as a possible aggregate shipping point, the department’s immediate response was to sit on it.

What other reports has it commissioned in secret?

While the favoured FoI alternative of changing the culture here is laudable it is doomed to failure unless it is independently scrutinised – which ministers are keen to avoid.