The Premier would have the power to exclude any public authority from freedom of information without the approval of MPs under a proposed new law.

The draft Public Access to Information (PATI) bill which people have until the end of today to comment upon includes a section allowing the Premier to make regulations using the negative resolution process, which means they have to be published in the Official Gazette but don't have to go before Parliament.

The Royal Gazette, in its submission to the Cabinet Office on the PATI bill, is asking that the legislation be changed to the affirmative resolution process, which would require MPs to agree to any regulation excluding a public authority from FOI.

The issue is one of several cited as a concern by this newspaper in its submission on the proposed act.

We are also asking that the law be retroactive, that protection for whistleblowers be included and that a section excluding from release any information "relating to the deliberative processes of public bodies" be reviewed.

Taxpayers in Bermuda were first promised freedom of information legislation in 2003.

Such a transparency law is aimed at giving citizens the right to access information held by any publicly-funded body: a right enjoyed by millions of people in democracies around the world.

The Royal Gazette's A Right To Know: Giving People Power campaign was launched in January 2008 to press Government to fulfil its promise on PATI.

Premier Ewart Brown unveiled the draft bill on October 15 this year and said he hoped to table it in the House of Assembly during the current parliamentary session.

By the end of last week, 24 submissions had been made to Cabinet on the bill.

This newspaper will deliver its submission today, urging Government to study carefully a report drawn up by Article 19.

The global human rights organisation states that the bill ought to be retrospective and not just apply to information created after the date FOI becomes law, as is being proposed.

Our submission says: "We would urge that in the interests of real transparency, section 13 is struck from the final legislation and that all records of Government and all publicly funded bodies are open, regardless of the date.

"History helps us shape the future. We learn from our mistakes.

"Not allowing access to previous records shields those responsible for mistakes, leaving them unaccountable to the taxpayer and future generations cannot adequately learn from the mistakes of past generations."

@$:"The Royal Gazette makes clear in its submission that we welcome the introduction of the draft PATI bill and support the vast majority of the measure proposed.

"However, we also make clear that we feel the bill is fatally flawed by not making the legislation retroactive from the outset.

"We urge Cabinet and the House of Assembly to ensure this is changed in the final bill. And we remind the public that it is not too late to make a submission on the bill, which need not be long or detailed."

Some records would be exempt from PATI under the draft bill, for example if their disclosure could compromise national security.

In section 23 of the legislation, it says Government "may" release information if it deems that the public interest would be better served in doing so.

In our submission, we ask Government to replace the word "may" with "shall".

Other points we raise include:

• The need for a schedule of fees to accompany the bill — and the need for those fees to be affordable and subject to being waived for those who cannot make payment.

• A request for a code of practice regarding the administration of the legislation to be a statutory necessity for all public authorities.

• That a clearer definition of who decides whether to grant FOI requests be given. We ask that Ministers are excluded from determining the outcome of requests.

* The public has until the end of today (Monday) to make a submission on the draft PATI bill. Send your views to pati@gov.bm or deliver them in writing to the Cabinet Office.