The President of Tynwald has explained his decision to allow a minister to decline answering a question about school validation costs, citing the need to balance competing public interests.
The response followed a written question by Ramsey Lawrie Hooper, who sought clarity after an earlier query went unanswered.
In his reply, the Laurence Skelly stated: “With any decision of this kind there is a balance to be struck between on the one hand, the public interest in seeing how public money has been spent, and on the other, the public interest in avoiding prejudice to the financial interests of both Government and private sector suppliers.”
He emphasised that this tension predates the Freedom of Information Act 2015, which recognises such exemptions.
Since then, Minister Daphne Caine has since said the Etio reports are costing between £150,000 and £250,000 over the contract’s three year lifespan.
Impartiality
The President defended his impartiality, saying: “In a parliamentary context the balancing of these two competing public interests is a matter of political judgement. As President my duty is to maintain political impartiality.”
He added that without consensus among members, compelling disclosure would be inappropriate.
Mr. Hooper had tabled motions on the issue, including one for June 2025, which was not moved, and another for July, later withdrawn.
The President suggested such debates could resolve disputes: “In the absence of consensus a dispute of this kind can be resolved by way of motion and debate.”
On the lack of initial explanation, the President cited Standing Order 3.10(4), which allows but does not require reasons.
6 Comments