Tynwald President defends decision to block school review cost question

Skelly acknowledges public interest in disclosure, but says withholding the figure was justified

The President of Tynwald has defended his decision to allow the education minister to withhold information about the cost of a major review into the Island’s schools.

Laurence Skelly says there was a “legitimate public interest” in not answering a written question from Ramsey MHK Lawrie Hooper, who had asked for the total cost of the school validation programme being undertaken by Etio between 2023 and 2026.

In a detailed written statement, Mr Skelly acknowledged the competing principles at stake, stating:

“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 added that while he recognised there was public interest in disclosing the information, he also believed the opposite was true – and said his decision was ultimately guided by the absence of political consensus:

“It being clear that consensus did not exist on where the balance lay, I took the view that it would not be appropriate for me to seek to compel disclosure of the information, acting on behalf of a single Member.”

The question, tabled earlier this year by Mr Hooper, sought to uncover how much had been spent on the external validation of Manx schools, a process being led by Etio across three stages, the first of which was published in April.

The review offered system-wide recommendations for improvement but government refuses to publish the reports in full, warning it could ‘damage staff morale’.

Education Minister Daphne Caine asked to be excused from answering, citing risks to future contract negotiations. President Skelly granted the exemption under Standing Order 3.10, saying it was “not appropriate” to compel disclosure given the context.

Mr Hooper described the ruling as “absolutely unbelievable” and had sought a full explanation from the President.

In his response, Mr Skelly pointed out that parliamentary mechanisms were available to challenge the decision through motion and debate – noting that Mr Hooper had initially tabled such motions for both the content and cost of the validation programme, but later chose not to move either.

Explaining why he did not immediately publish his reasoning, Mr Skelly added:

“To give reasons could undermine my impartiality because it could be perceived as my taking sides in that debate.”

The Freedom of Information Act 2015 allows for exemptions in cases where disclosure may prejudice commercial or financial interests, though it remains a qualified exemption subject to public interest tests.

The Department of Education, Sport and Culture has since revealed the cost-range of the Etio reviews at between £150,000 and £250,000.