Has Jersey got this one wrong?
WHY, I was challenged the other day, don’t you write anything cheerful? Try thinking of us for a change. Since ‘us’ was the normally chirpy crew who go through the copy folk like me produce and then dress it on a page so it looks presentable and easy to read, the comments were the hack equivalent of friendly fire.
So I’m now in a quandary. There are so many topics ‘out there’ to pick up on – Education’s long-awaited report, waste charges, transforming health provision in the islands and Economic Development’s investment and growth vision, before we touch on relative and in-work poverty. Yes, we’re spoilt for column choice.
Except that they’re all significant, heavyweight topics and not likely to generate the light relief requested by my in-house critics.
Instead, then, we’ll go off-piste when it comes to the political agenda and instead look at something that has the potential to be very good news for the island, enables us to indulge in a spot of Jersey-bashing (always a winner) and also to explain a surprise high-level government resignation.
Doing so comes with a twinge of regret, however, because while we’re used to our crapaud cousins jagging off on their own – think aircraft registry – this has the potential to be even more damaging for them.
Anyway, enough of the scene-setting. Today we’re mostly discussing the shock departure of Emma Martins as the pan-island Data Protection Commissioner.
I did a double take when I heard the news. Not because I’m more than averagely geeky, but because earlier this year I worked on a 3,000-word magazine piece with her about the unprecedented levels of cooperation and collaboration between the islands on something called the General Data Protection Regulation.
From May next year, this form of directive hits new levels. EU rules are changing to reflect the importance and value of data – tax adviser Appleby and its global clients have learned that the hard way. And the changes will also give you and I more say over how information about us is stored, used and processed.
Because it’s such a seismic shift, the idea was to have the two islands introducing their own specific, but essentially identical, legislation aimed at securing the benefits inherent in the new EU rules – get it right, take it seriously, have effective and proportionate data protection measures in place and data processors will want to do business here, goes the thinking.
So for one of the key architects of that approach to be walking out months before the big bang launch just didn’t make any sense.
The reason she has, I can reveal, is because Jersey’s gone mad. Not literally of course, but they have parted company from the cheek-by-jowl approach agreed at outset.
As the official announcement put it, ‘While Guernsey and Jersey are working to the same May 2018 deadline, the islands are at different stages of the necessary preparation. As such, the States of Guernsey has decided to develop its own regulatory framework, with the creation of a Guernsey Data Protection Commissioner post.’
That means we’re carrying on with Plan A while our former partners are doing something different. Crazy, eh?
Why? That’s less easy to pin down. Guernsey’s law will be principle-based, requiring organisations to comply with the law but leaving it to the business to decide how to do so.
Jersey, on the other hand, now appears to have backed a more technical approach to compliance: do x, y and z to conform.
Neither island supported regulatory arbitrage – enabling firms to capitalise on loopholes in regulatory systems to get around unfavourable restrictions – but Guernsey clearly thinks its approach is best, provides flexibility and reflects widespread industry consultation on the optimum way forward.
I gather too that the other island was dragging its feet over the whole introduction of the new GDPR regime and, after getting a briefing from the frustrated officials who’ve spent months on this, the relevant Guernsey politicians boldly pulled the plug.
Hence the official reference to the islands being at difference stages.
Forget the dry nature of data protection for a moment, because this is pretty significant stuff.
After months, even years, of work, we’ve parted company from Jersey on this. The belief is that the Guernsey approach is better and, more importantly, will lead to significant economic benefits.
Introduce an appropriate regulatory approach and ‘trusted jurisdiction’ status should do for Guernsey’s ability to handle and process data what a similar pragmatic regulatory process has done for eGaming here via the Alderney Gambling Control Commission.
Yes, you could say Guernsey’s States are taking a risk. But it’s a calculated one, based on earlier work approved by the Assembly, and it represents an entrepreneurial decision at a time when government’s accused of shuffling along, being feeble and doing nothing.
How big a sea change is also reflected by this island effectively ending the pan-island approach to data protection, which was created in 2011, and reverting to having its own commissioner.
With this backdrop, it’s easy to see Ms Martins’ resignation for what it is – triggered by Jersey’s behaviour and a belief that they’ve simply got it wrong, while Guernsey’s right.
Who said data protection was boring?
SINCE we’re off-piste this week, I gather there’s some debate ‘up north’ over exactly how independent the advice was that led to the States agreeing to close L’Ancresse East kiosk (shameful!) and remove part of the redundant anti-tank wall at the top of the beach there.
The reason is that Greg Guthrie, the flood risk and coastal management specialist for Royal HaskoningDHV who advised the Environment and Infrastructure Committee, is a pretty active green campaigner.
In fact, he stood, unsuccessfully, as the Green Party’s candidate for North West Cambridgeshire in this year’s UK General Election.
As he says, ‘I have worked for the last 30 years with local communities throughout the country, and internationally, working with people, listening to their concerns and understanding their needs, principally in the areas of flood risk and coastal management.’
He did so ‘to develop real lasting solutions to some very complex problems and difficult problems, dealing with the immediate issues but often having to face the challenges of climate change’.
As he puts it, ‘I believe there has to be a different way, a positive way based on strong, resilient and inclusive local economies, where there is a need for individual and societal responsibility, sharing problems and sharing the benefits. This is my challenge and our challenge.’
So, goes the thinking, was the E&I board receiving engineering or political advice?
Make of it what you will as I offer two thoughts: Firstly, don’t underestimate the depth of feeling in certain areas that the States has made a terribly bad decision that simply has to be rescinded.
Secondly, those of us who met Mr Guthrie on site in August had no doubt that it was his professional opinion the wall had to go.
Not that everyone agreed with him, of course.
