INFORMATION minister, Colin Campbell, last week found it difficult to convince fellow parliamentarians that the proposed Access to Information legislation would not permit the concealment of security related information, on the guise that such disclosure would prejudice national security.

Clause 14 (a) of the Access to Information Bill states: “Official documents are exempt from disclosure if … the disclosure thereof would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice Jamaica’s security, defence or international relations.”

The Bill further provides for the appointment of an ‘access to information officer’ in each public body with the responsibility to determine what documents should be deemed ‘exempt’ from public disclosure.

But Campbell, who heads the parliamentary committee that is reviewing the Bill, fears that functionaries in the national security ministry and its agencies who are steeped in the culture of secrecy, may deny information to the public on the grounds of prejudicing national security, when, in fact, it’s not so.

Said Campbell: “When you leave matters like that so wide. Are you leaving it to the access to information officer in a public authority … (to decide), or should the legislation provide some guidelines?

“The objective of this administration is to provide access (to information). It is not to (provide the opportunity) for people to deny (access),” added the information minister.

But other legislators disagreed with the information minister’s suggestion to define national security in the Bill.

“I want to urge you to be careful. A balance must be maintained,” argued government member, Fitz Jackson.

“National security is such a sensitive (matter) that you don’t want to tilt it too much on the side where you (may) have to repair (any damage done),” he said.

Jackson noted that the legislation provided an avenue for members of the public to contest or appeal decisions of the relevant public officer to exempt documents from disclosure.

He added: “I don’t… think the legislation is going to absolutely capture all … that you want. Some of this could develop through administrative practice.”

Jackson’s colleagues, Canute Brown and Senator Alfred Rattray argued that national security was too broad an item to attempt to define it.

But Campbell countered by pointing out that the Interception of Communication Bill, recently passed by the House, prescribed what constituted national security.

In that legislation the ‘interest of national security’ is construed as including, but not limited to, “the protection of Jamaica from threats of espionage, sabotage, terrorism or subversion.”

Both legislation, Campbell noted, were informed by the same report prepared by a committee of parliament in the 1990s.

“We are to be careful that the clauses (in the Bill) are meeting the objective of open government,” Campbell said, “and that we are not having clauses which defeat the objective…we are trying to achieve.”

In his remarks Opposition member, Mike Henry, sought clarification on Campbell’s position, while underscoring the need for the public to gain confidence in government.

A few weeks ago Gordon Wells, a distinguished former public servant, who prepared a report in the mid-1990s that proposed the enactment of an access to information legislation, urged Campbell’s committee to adopt a gradual approach to transforming the bureaucracy from a culture of secrecy to openness.

This approach, Wells argued, would allow public officials the opportunity to get accustomed to the changes. He suggested that the Access to Information legislation could be upgraded over time, similar to Jackson’s view that administrative practice could refine the legislation over time.

The culture of secrecy in the public sector is fed by the 19th Century Official Secrets Act by which public servants are sworn to abide.

And the Patterson Administration intends to operate it simultaneously with the proposed Access to Information legislation, at least for some time.

However, several governmental and non-governmental organisations have pointed to the necessity to harmonise the provisions of both legislation or to repeal, in the part or whole, the older statute.

Among the organisations expressing concern were the Statistical Institute of Jamaica, the National Environmental and Planning Agency and the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ).

“The Act does not clearly state that it supersedes the Official Secrets Act. It should do so,” Donna Ortega, PAJ President, urged in a written submission to legislators last week.

Against this background of secrecy, Campbell implored committee members to be bold, rather than cautious, in shaping the Access to Information Act.

“This piece of legislation is new ground … we are moving away from secrecy to openness,” he said.

“The joint select committee, therefore, has very weighty matters to deal with as to what is the regime that we are providing for the public to access information,” he added. “This is our open salvo. How far are we going to go?”

Campbell rested his case after receiving assurance from the legal draughtsmen that the impending regulations to the Act could be the means of enumerating the national security matters that should attract exempt status.