This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Lodged au Greffe on 16th March 2011 by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour
STATES GREFFE
2011 Price code: A P.41
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
to request the Chief Minister to present to the States before 30th June 2011 an Implementation Plan to ensure that the Draft Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 201- (P.39/2011) is fully implemented by the end of 2015.
DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR
Page - 2
P.41/2011
REPORT
Freedom of Information was one of the key checks and balances required to make the Government of Jersey more responsive and because of the need to counter the perception that Jersey was seen as a secretive jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was thought and is strongly argued in P.39/2011 (paragraphs 2.5 – 2.14 of the Report) that a Code is no longer sufficient. The force of law is needed.
The gestation of this draft Law has been long and it seems ironic that just as it gets near the finishing post, the PPC should have disowned responsibility for implementation on the grounds that: "The Committee has no jurisdiction over the executive function of the States of Jersey". It may lack jurisdiction, but it can certainly bring influence to bear and, indeed, one would have expected it to be pushing mightily, given the numerous delays that have dogged this Law. Some of which are thought to lie with agencies of the Executive who have no real enthusiasm for it.
Indeed, these agencies must be heartened by the onset of the recession, which gives them a further apparently disinterested reason to delay implementation.
The matter must not be allowed to hang as seems to be the stance adopted in paragraph 2.55 of the Report in P.39/2011.
Proposal
I am proposing a reasonably lengthy lead-in period, preceded by the laying of an Implementation Plan by the States which, if approved, should provide impetus to the process.
Given the suspiciously long process of development, it is remiss of PPC to "pass over" responsibility at this point without ensuring a robust handover process is in place. The timeframe I have proposed takes account of the difficult economic situation, but ensures the matter is not buried.
Financial and manpower implications
The production of an Implementation Plan by the Chief Minister's Department should not require additional resources.
Page - 3
P.41/2011