Review into the Proposed Amendments to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 - Ministerial response - 08 June 2010

Findings

Comments

1

The wording of proposed amendment one causes concern to the Sub-Panel in its current context.

It is noted that the independent legal opinion  did  not  identify  any  material legal  concerns  in  this  regard,  stating that  such  a  change  would  (in conjunction  with  other  provisions) "enhance the data protection regime in Jersey. It is, therefore, adding to human rights protection, which is welcomed, not limiting it". In the light of this, the appropriateness  of  the  proposal  is considered to be a matter of policy. The Minister  and  Commissioner  welcome the Sub-Panel's views.

2

The  Sub-Panel  acknowledges  that  a person  can  appeal  against  an information  notice  however,  is concerned that not everyone is aware of data protection. If the Commissioner has an increased power in its current format to issue anyone with a notice, the public need to be aware that there is an appeal process.

Noted. Whilst the rights of appeal are always  carefully  explained  to  the recipient  of  an  information  notice  in any  event  (in  accordance  with Article 43 of the 2005 Law), both the Minister  and  the  Commissioner  are mindful  of  the  need  to  raise  and maintain public awareness in all areas of data protection (subject to resource constraints).

3

The Sub-Panel is concerned that costs would  become  apparent  in  Jersey, although on a lesser scale, and these concerns  are  enhanced  further  after learning  that  the  Commissioner's Office consists of a very small team, particularly  with  the  possibility  of extending her remit.

Noted. It is the view of the Minister and the Commissioner that it is unlikely that the measure would have significant resource implications. There is a cogent argument that in a small jurisdiction it is  the  use  (and  not  the  existence)  of statutory powers which is likely to have resource implications. It is understood that  this  power  has  been  used  very sparingly  where  it  is  available.  The proposals are designed to improve the efficiency  and  resource  allocation. Whilst  details  have  been  provided regarding resource implications, further work can be considered to extrapolate the  number  of  times  such  a  power might be likely to be used.

4

The  Sub-Panel  acknowledges Guernsey's  decision  in  adopting  an amendment  which  increases  the Commissioner's  information  notice power because it has been focussed in one  particular  area –  The  European Communities  (implementation  of Council  Directive  on  Privacy  and Electronic  Communications) (Guernsey) Ordinance.

Noted.  The  Minister  and  the Commissioner  will  be  pleased  to consider  further  whether  this  is  an appropriate  route  to  pursue,  in  the context of resource constraints.

5

The Sub-Panel acknowledges that the UK  Act  applies  the  seven  years required  experience  and  accepts  that by  removing  it  from  the  Data Protection  (Jersey)  Law  2005,  could affect  confidence  levels  in  the Tribunal.

Noted.

6

The  Sub-Panel  is  interested  to  note that there appears to be a discrepancy between Articles 60 and 55. A person may be liable to 2 years' imprisonment under  Article 55,  but  a  person  may also be liable to 5 years' imprisonment under  Article 60.  Article 55  relates directly to an information notice whilst Article 60 may also potentially relate to an information notice.

Noted.

The proposed amendment to Article 55 (up to 2 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine) is consistent with the direction of policy in the UK.

Article 60 (up to 5 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine) is consistent with numerous other "false information" provisions within local legislation, e.g. –

Article 28(5) of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998,

Article 55(2) of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005,

Article 54(5) of the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002,

Article 38(3) of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996,

Article 71(3) of the Postal Services (Jersey) Law 2004 and

Article 89(3) of the Goods and Services Tax (Jersey) Law 2007.

A further review of penalties will be undertaken  prior  to  any  amendment being lodged.

7

In  comparison  to  the  UK,  the  Sub- Panel  has  found  that  a  "reasonable belief" Public interest test has not been added to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 under Article 55, to protect journalistic activity.

Noted.  The  Minister  and  the Commissioner  will  be  pleased  to consider  further  whether  this  is  an appropriate route to pursue.

8

Evidence suggests that increasing the penalty  to  2 years'  imprisonment  for unlawful  obtaining  would  act  as  a deterrent.  It  was  also  noted  that penalties  of  imprisonment  are incorporated  into  other  Jersey legislation  for  Data  Protection breaches.

Noted.

9

The  Sub-Panel  found  a  potential loophole regarding the amendment to include equipment found on premises, rather  than  other  material'  and Article 61  of  the  Data  Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 which refers to any documents and other material.

The Minister and Commissioner are not satisfied  that  there  is  a  potential loophole. There is no present intention to forfeit, destroy or erase equipment. There may be a need to forfeit, destroy or erase documents/ material.

10

The  Sub-Panel  noted  the  inequity between  Health  and  Social  Services and other businesses for subject access requests. It was also noted that Jersey should follow the EU Data Protection Directive  95/46EC  which  states  that data  should  be  supplied  without excessive  expense.  During  the transitional period when the fee was a maximum  of  £50  the  Health Department  used  their  discretion,  on what seemed to the Sub-Panel, a fair basis.

Noted.  The  Minister  is  minded  to accept a generic cap of £50 in relation to  all  subject  access  requests  in  line with the Directive.

11

The Sub-Panel accepts that there may be  an  issue  of  inequality  between charities  being  exempt  from  the notification fee, and small businesses.

Whilst  the  Minister  is  open-minded regarding funding options in the future, an  exemption  for  small  businesses would have a significant impact upon resources.

12

Evidence  from  the  Public  Hearings suggested that there is a low level of awareness of Data Protection.

The Minister and the Commissioner are mindful  of  the  need  to  raise  and maintain public awareness in all areas of data protection (subject to resource constraints).  It  should  be  noted  that obligations  regarding  compliance  sit with the Data Controller as well as the Commissioner's office having a role in raising awareness. Notwithstanding the pressure of work in respect of existing complaints  files,  extensive  public education  work  has  been  undertaken prior to and since the commencement of the 2005 Law.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The  Sub-Panel  would strongly recommend that the Commissioner  reconsiders the  wording  and  format  of the  draft  legislation  for amendment  one  as  it currently stands.

T&R

Accept

The  Minister  and  the Commissioner will be pleased to reflect further.

Q1 2011

2

The  Sub-Panel  recommends that  the  public  are  made more  aware  of  the  Data Protection Tribunal, and that it is more accessible to the public  if  an  increase  in power is to be adopted.

T&R

Accept

The  Commissioner  will continue  to  seek  to  raise awareness, subject to resource constraints.

Q1 2011

3

The  Sub-Panel  suggest additional research is carried out  into  the  manpower  and financial  costs  of  the proposed  amendments, which has been conducted in the UK.

T&R

Accept

The  Minister  and  the Commissioner will be pleased to consider the scope of work in  addition  to  that  already undertaken.

Q1 2011

4

The Sub-Panel recommends that  Jersey  explores  the possibility  of  adopting  a Privacy  and  Electronic Communication Regulation.

T&R

Accept

The  Minister  and  the Commissioner will be pleased to consider further whether this is  an  appropriate  route  to pursue,  in  the  context  of resource constraints.

2011

5

The Sub-Panel recommends that  the  7 years'  required experience for the President of  the  Tribunal  should remain however, a degree of discretion  should  be allowed. It also suggests that the Law should provide, in addition  to  discretion,  that whilst the person must be a locally qualified lawyer, the 7 years' experience need not be  as  a  locally  qualified lawyer.

T&R

Accept

Noted. The Minister welcomes the Sub-Panel's proposals and will  be  pleased  to  consider further.

Q1 2011

6

The  Sub-Panel  recommend that penalties for all breaches are  clarified  before  an amendment  to  increase  the maximum  penalty  for offences under Article 55 is lodged.

T&R

Accept

Noted.  A  further  review  of penalties  will  be  undertaken prior to any amendment being lodged.

Q1 2011

7

It  is  strongly  recommended that Jersey should follow the UK  precedent  by  adding  a "reasonable  belief"  public interest test to Article 55 of the Law.

T&R

---

Noted. The Minister welcomes the Sub-Panel's proposals and will  be  pleased  to  reflect further.

2011

8

The  Sub-Panel  recommend that there should be a public awareness  campaign  to address changes in the Data Protection  Law.  This  could be  beneficial  because  it could work in favour of the deterrence  factor  carried with  some  of  the amendments.

T&R

Accept

Noted. The Minister welcomes the Sub-Panel's proposals and will  be  pleased  to  reflect further.

Q1 2011

9

The  Sub-Panel  recommend that the word "equipment" is included  in  Article 61  to avoid  any  potential discrepancies in a Court of Law.  Furthermore,  it recommends  that  the  Law should be revisited to ensure there are no other incidences of potential loopholes.

T&R

Reject

The  Minister  is  not  satisfied that  there  is  a  potential loophole. There is no present intention to forfeit, destroy or erase equipment. There may be a  need  to  forfeit,  destroy  or erase documents/material.

n/a

10

The Sub-Panel suggests that the maximum fee of £50 for subject  access  requests should be charged across the board.  It  further  suggests that this should remain on a discretionary basis.

T&R

Accept

The  Minister  is  minded  to propose a generic cap of £50 in relation  to  all  subject  access requests.

n/a

11

The  Sub-Panel  considers charities being exempt from the  notification  fee  as acceptable,  however recommends  that  this  is reviewed  in  the  context  of small businesses.

T&R

Reject

Whilst  the  Minister  is  open- minded  regarding  funding options  in  the  future,  an exemption for small businesses would  have  a  significant impact upon resources.

n/a

12

The Panel recommends that if  the  amendments  were  to be  adopted,  in  particular amendment one, the general public  and  businesses  need to be fully aware so that they can comply with the Law.

T&R

Accept

The  Commissioner  will continue  to  seek  to  raise awareness, subject to resource constraints.

Q1 2011