Premier Ewart Brown insisted yesterday that Government had not done a U-turn on freedom of information after telling MPs he supported the proposed law being retroactive.

He told a press conference outside the House of Assembly: "I wouldn't call it a turnabout. This is groundbreaking legislation. It's very important to get it as right as we can in the first instance.

"There was never a strongly held view with respect to the issue of retroactivity. We feel that retroactivity is fine with us as long as you are looking to go back to the Sea Venture."

In a statement to the House of Assembly, he said the draft Public Access to Information (PATI) bill — first unveiled on October 15 — would be revised by the Attorney General's Chambers after Cabinet considers a recommendation that it apply to all government-held records, regardless of their creation date.

At the press conference, Dr. Brown criticised Opposition MP John Barritt, who he said had suggested PATI could be used to find out the invitation list for the Queen's recent state dinner on the Island.

The Premier said PATI ought not to be abused and used to fuel "frivolous" allegations as that could bring Government to a standstill. He added: "We have never been against retroactivity. We just don't want retroactivity to be used as a means of stymying Government."

The public consultation on PATI resulted in 437 submissions to the Cabinet Office, including one from The Royal Gazette, as part of our A Right To Know: Giving People Power campaign.

Dr. Brown would not comment yesterday on whether other changes would be made to the draft bill — such as ensuring that the Minister responsible for PATI has to get MPs' approval before excluding public authorities from the law.

"There are many ideas and suggestions and criticisms in these submissions and we are going to take them into account," he said. "What we have to be careful of is scare tactics."

The Premier is proposed to be the Minister responsible for PATI. But Dr. Brown said: "This system has to go beyond me and beyond any single Premier. This is something that has to last for a long time."

Mr. Barritt, the United Bermuda Party's spokesman on legislative and public administration reform, welcomed the news that the law looked likely to be retroactive but questioned why that wasn't included in the draft bill.

"I react with some caution," he said. "Why wasn't it in there in the first place, especially when it is contrary to expected and acknowledged international best practice?"

He said his party still wanted to see the negative resolution process — the means by which the Premier could make regulations to exclude public authorities without asking Parliament — written out of the legislation.

And he said it was important that the Information Commissioner be responsible directly to the Legislature and that whistle-blower protection be included.

Michael Fahy, from Bermuda Democratic Alliance, said it was "great news" that PATI would be retroactive. "I'm thrilled," he said. "I think that's exactly what's required, though it begs the question as to why it wasn't done in the first place. The issue is how quickly can the records be put in a state so that the information can be truly accessed."

He agreed that the section relating to negative resolution ought to be removed and that whistle-blower protection should be added.

Lawyer Timothy Marshall, who made a submission to the Cabinet Office, said: "It was wrong in the first place for the people in charge of the draft legislation to try and lock down the past records of Government.

"Let's not forget that the draft must have been approved by the Minister responsible before it was released to the general public for comment. Presumably, the Minister responsible, but for the public outcry, was quite happy to limit access to historic records. It was an untenable position to take in the first place and contrary to the overwhelming position that other countries have taken."

He added: "The press and the many Bermudians who spoke out against this situation are the ones who should be thanked for ensuring that common sense prevailed."

Local transparency campaigner Michael Hardy said: "This is great news and I applaud the Government for agreeing to a retroactive PATI Act. I would now like to see them reduce the list of exemptions and insert the 'show harm' clause in all those that remain."