It has been billed as a game changer in the drive towards more open government.
But, in practice, users of the new Freedom of Information Act – which will be introduced in phases from February next year – will see little change from the voluntary code of practice that preceded it.
The big difference is that FoI enshrines in law the right to access information about public bodies.
However, the new Act will have greater restrictions than the old Code.
It does not, for example, apply retrospectively beyond the start of the current administration in October 2011.
But the old voluntary code is being retained to cover requests that fall outside FoI’s scope.
Isle of Man Newspapers has been the biggest user of the code, which has been in place since 1996.
We have sought information on a wide variety of topics, including Tynwald members’ pensions, farmers’ subsidies, government top earners, the biggest benefit claims, the salaries of airport baggage handlers and hospital porters, and the even cost of providing drinking water to government offices.
Invariably in recent years, our requests have elicited the information required – and in good time.
Our most recent request asked government departments to provide attendance records for each of their political members for 12 months up to the end of June his year.
The information supplied to us showed that all members actually have very good attendance records – those absent have good reason, either because of health issues or clashes with other meetings.
There was no such 100 per cent record when we first tested the efficacy of the voluntary code back in 2005 – at a time when demands were growing for the introduction statutory FoI.
Under the headline ‘Is island being kept in the dark?’, our sister newspaper the Examiner published the responses to a dozen inquiries submitted under the Voluntary Code for Access to Government Information.
Topics ranged from Manx Electricity Authority loans, tourism grants, the Governor’s expenses, release of a report into allegations of bugging at police HQ and even claims of a mystery aircraft crash on Snaefell.
Just three government departments or boards provided all the information we required. One provided part of the information we asked for and two more said the information we required did not exist.
Four further requests were turned down, with two of those quoting the code for the reason why disclosure was not possible.
Among the exemptions from the code quoted in the responses were ‘unreasonable diversion of resources’, privacy and pending legal proceedings.
Things have improved since then – perhaps the pending introduction of FoI made government officials think twice about finding reasons not to disclose information under the code.
Or, as cynics might point out, the departments concerned may have felt it was in their interests to disclose the requested information.
The Department of Infrastructure, for example, revealed following an access to information request that one baggage handler at the airport earned just under £44,000 last year, including overtime.
There was outcry from the unions when we revealed, following another inquiry under the code, this time to the Department of Health and Social Care, that the highest-paid hospital porter took home £44,000 including shift allowances in 2013-14.
But it was another request under the code that provoked the biggest controversy of all last year– when we found that a Tynwald member was still not paying towards his pension, two and a half years after voluntary contributions were brought in.
A political whodunnit, or whonotdunnit, ensued which finally ended with Douglas North MHK John Houghton coming forward as the MHK who had not been paying. He insisted, however, it was all a misunderstanding and he had no idea he wasn’t contributing.
Another access to government information request, this time to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, confirmed that two Tynwald members received payments under the Countryside Care Scheme.
But the DEFA refused to reveal the names of individual recipients or the amounts involved claiming that would be counter to the code’s clauses on individual privacy, commercial confidentiality and data protection.
The two members concerned, however, confirmed the payments.
Health and Social Care Minister and Middle MHK Howard Quayle confirmed he was a director of a company that received ‘significantly less’ than the proposed £50,000 cap in CCS payments. Glenfaba MHK David Anderson said he was a director of Anderson Farms Ltd and CCS payments were an ‘integral part’ of the support for the company.
Both insisted they had declared their interest in the members’ register.
A request to the social security division last year confirmed that 15 families receive £26,000 or more a year in benefits – and would have had their payments cut if the UK’s £500 a week cap was introduced here.
If that cap was set at £400 a week, 61 claimants would see their handouts reduced, we reported.
In 2009, we reported that government departments, boards and offices spent a total of just under £75,000 in one year on cooled drinking water.
So, how will the picture change, if at all, after the FoI Act comes into force from February?
Initially it will apply only to the Cabinet Office and the DEFA before it is rolled out across other government departments and boards.
While it will not apply retrospectively before the start of the current administration in October 2011, it could mean information is disclosed for the first time about Council of Ministers’ proceedings, subject to exemptions.
All CoMin proceedings are currently confidential by law.
There are a range of exemptions to protect legitimate confidentiality. These are of two types: ‘absolute’ and ‘qualified’ exemptions. The latter may be relied on if the public interest is best served by non-disclosure.
Data Protection Supervisor Iain McDonald has been appointed as independent Information Commissioner who will oversee the operation of the Act.
If a public body refuses to provide the information requested, he can review that decision and has the power to issue enforcement notices.
Introduction of FoI is sure to result in a flurry of requests from residents making the most of their new legal right to know.
But when the situation settles down, it will be interesting to see if any more information emerges that could not have been released under the old system.
Those convinced the lid will be lifted on supposed scandal and corruption in the corridors of power – more imagined than real – may be left a little disappointed.