Commitment to openness in question

While this freedom of information battle concerns exchanges over the Syrian refugee programme, both sides know that it is not so much the content as the principle of openness and transparency and particularly when that applies which is at stake here.

The tribunal which ruled unanimously that the correspondence should be released was clear that not only did it not contain anything that had not been stated publicly, but it would not harm relations and frankness of exchanges going forward because any other requests would be treated on a case by case basis. So while there was a public interest in this information being released, that would not always apply.

For the States this case is a concern. It does not believe the UK’s Freedom of Information Act is being applied correctly, arguing that the exchange should be treated as being between states and confidential. That could bring down the drawbridge on release because the public interest test is harder.

A joint letter with Jersey and the Isle of Man also raises Brexit and the fear that robust exchanges that have happened there could make it into the public domain.

Authorities are fighting hard to protect a cosy arrangement under which they are not subject to scrutiny. For all the public announcements of a belief in openness, there are many things that the government does not want the public to see.

Some of that will be valid, but a lot of the time, as this scenario shows, once independent eyes make a judgement, that is not the case.

This all also highlights the importance of having a freedom of information regime that is backed by a proper appeal process that is outside the political arena. If this had happened in Guernsey, an exemption would have been relied on, and any appeal against that would have ended at the feet of deputies who do not want the information coming out.

That is simply not right.