To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Slow progress of necessary law
Share this:
From Jennifer Bridge.
VIRTUALLY all of what might be called Western modern-style democracies have a freedom of information law in place, yet all we have in Jersey is an unenforceable code, which is no more than an administrative guideline.
There was a depressing familiarity to the report on the progress of the proposed Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law by Ben Quérée (JEP, 18 May).
The Council of Ministers have asked for a review of the proposed costs of implementing a freedom of information law in Jersey, a classic stalling tactic lifted straight out of the script of ‘Yes Minister’.
I would wager that if the Privileges and Procedures Committee acquiesce and spend time and money on further research, the Council of Ministers will challenge the figures. Nothing will be gained and we, the public, will be no nearer having a legal right to government information.
This is, in fact, a non-issue, as cost does not have to be set in stone in the main body of the law (where changes require Privy Council approval), but can be dealt with in the regulations where, in the light of experience, adjustments can be made which can have a direct bearing on cost.
The key issue is that there must be a balance. Evidently, if the costs to the public are too high, they will prohibit their effective use of the law.
The fact is, ministers are already required to ensure they have appropriate information management systems in place. If ministers say there will be extra costs, I would suggest these will arise from a failure to meet the standards of records management required by the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 and the Public Records (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.
If their houses are in order, they will have no problem complying with a new freedom of information law.
Over 50 countries worldwide have established a law. Jersey wants to be known as a mature democracy with an international personality, yet our government does not afford us a legal right to government information.
And before anyone puts pen to paper questioning the effectiveness of a freedom of information law, let me remind them of how the UK Parliamentary expenses scandal was brought to the fore by the dogged use of the UK freedom of information law by the journalist and freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke.
Related
Most read this week...
More from the JEP
Chief Minister: 2025 consultancy spend figures “will be published before the pre-election period”
Colts show promise despite Worthing defeat
War prompts US hedge fund to explore shifting Dubai staff to Jersey
Calls for minister to move faster on pedestrian crossing project