GDPR

This is the speech I made in the States when we debated the introduction of GDPR. This is for anyone who thinks government is too big and there are too many civil servants.

Sir, before I go any further I should like to point out up front that I will be voting for this policy letter. If we are to continue to be an international financial centre, we have little choice. From that opening Members may guess that what I am about to say is not exactly going to be without criticism over what we are about to embark on by passing this policy letter.

Now, outside the financial services sector this subject has hardly stimulated much debate in any media outlet. Not really surprising, it is the latest in a long history of seemingly innocuous policy letters covering changes we have to bring in if we are to continue to be able to provide services internationally. Now what I have to say isn’t in any way a criticism of the work undertaken by the Committee for Home Affairs. In fact I feel sorry for them because they have had no choice but to bring this policy letter to us today. And it is written well and clearly sets out the direction we have to go in. However, the fact is this policy letter and the eventual legislation will have a profound impact on both government and business here. 

Ironically it also demonstrates why those who voted for Brexit to get rid of what they saw as unnecessary laws foisted on us by the EU were completely misguided. We are not even part of the EU but, if we want to trade with that august body, we are going to have to follow their rules.

And what it means is more cost, more bureaucracy and for what overriding benefit? Well I’ll deal with the latter point last.

Let’s look at cost and bureaucracy for a start. 

Aside from the fact that drafting on the GDPR is going to have to take precedence due to its complexity and the deadline for compliance, the ongoing requirements of this legislation, will indisputably increase the cost of government. Here I can say that unequivocally from a Health and Social Care perspective, the impact will be to require more back-office staff. It will go nowhere to improve patient care. 

The public are constantly attacking the States of Guernsey for the number of staff it employs and the cost of them. However, we need to take a long hard look at what those jobs are and why we have them. On the one hand there has been a huge growth industry in the number of independent statutory officials created over the last 10 years, which have grown and grown as outside pressures from the EU and elsewhere have increased their empires. Health and Safety, Trading Standards, Environment Health are perhaps the more obvious, but there are plenty more tribunals, panels and advisory groups out there which are funded by the States. They all cost and that cost is passed on to both businesses and individuals. We really have to ask ourselves whether we have gone too far for a population of 63,000. Has it grown out of all proportion to its benefit? Each statutory official with its own premises and staff. I fully accept that in some areas, the work undertaken really adds value to the Guernsey public, but I’m sure that is not the case everywhere and everytime.

Now I have to say that I have lot of respect for the DPC who conducts her work pragmatically and constructively.  However, It’s obvious from this policy letter that it will require an increase in the size of the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. We are told, that’s ok as the Commissioner can be self-funding through generating its own income. What that actually means in reality is an increase in the cost of doing business. And that is an increase in cost for all business whether or not it trades with the EU and for whom the legislation will not benefit them one iota.

So, there must be a benefit from this surely? Well, from an economic opportunity it seems the greatest, according to the policy letter is in creating a well-regulated, compliant jurisdiction. That is not an opportunity unless no one else is doing it of course. It’s certainly not a USP. However, I guess the biggest benefit, albeit one that is likely to result in an increased cost, is the strengthening of rights of data subjects. That has to be a good thing especially where people have the right to access their data without having to pay for the right to do so. 

Sir, as I said at the beginning of this speech, I will support this policy letter, because we have not choice. However, I do so rather reluctantly as all I can see is more bureaucracy and red tape, with little additional benefit over and above the legislation we have in place for the vast majority of businesses on the Island. 

The irony of us supporting this policy letter should not be lost here. Many candidates in the last election stood on a campaign to reduce the size of the States. Many spoke about how it was full of pen pushers, what did they do? We should focus on frontline staff. Well today Members we are voting to increase that paybill and on back-office staff as well. It is as simple as that. Which just goes to show how much easier it is to be outside government looking in than inside government and trying to make a difference.