Another speech on data protection. This one regarding an amendment I managed to get the Committee for Home Affairs to make regarding the exposure of Deputies, acting in a capacity outside of a Committee role.
I should like to thank HMC and President for listening to my concerns which has resulted in the amendment as set out in paragraph 2, which isn’t about Sark. When I read the Law, some parts of the 265 pages in more detail than others I have to admit, it became apparent to me that there was a discrepancy that, if not dealt with could be an issue for States Members. Under clause 74, whilst Douzaines may be protected and other public officials, as would be Members acting through a Committee, there would be no protection for Members acting in their capacity more generally as a People’s Deputy.
It is a sad reality that Deputies are exposed to those who may not be grateful for the input they provide, particularly if the answer they receive may not be want they want to hear and seek recourse against them even if a Deputy has been acting in good faith. As such, Deputies can be placed in a vulnerable position.
It was on the back of that concern that I contacted the HMC and CHA. Whilst I would have preferred the changes to be in the primary legislation, I can understand why enabling changes through an Ordinance makes sense, albeit not the purest method.
I thank the President for confirming that the relevant Ordinance will be in place before the Law goes live next year.
One anomaly that arose from the conversation was that apparently, States Members are not considered to hold a public office. I was advised that this was because we were self-employed but I don’t think that can be quite right as we hold a public position elected by the People and I find it hard to undertand what can be more public than that. Under the definition of public office on p195, it would appear we are not included as our functions are not specifically assigned by an enactment.
Of course, our roles are not defined at all. Something I hope SACC could work on once it has got the referendum out the way. Indeed, I think it may be opportune to do so then, and I would suggest it is something that would be more pressing should a form of IWV be approved, perish the thought.
On a final note, as the Committee for Health and Social Care says in its policy letter, which I hope is debated in December, health intelligence is crucial to a sustainable model of care. It is the means by which we can ensure we get the care where it is needed, when it is needed.
Within a health and care setting there is no contradiction between ensuring services rigorously protect the confidentiality of personal information whilst also proactively sharing information to optimise the care delivered and patient safety. This sharing of information is vital to provide a seamless, integrated service. I have previously been in exchange with the President of Home Affairs on this matter and welcome her commitment to working together to ensure this concept is developed further through legislation.
So, Sir I do support the amendment and will support the amended Law, although, as I have said when we discussed the policy letter, I have real concerns about it, not about what it stands for in terms of data protection, but the minefield of compliance that it is going to generate and the paranoia likely to arise on anything to do with the holding of data, as well as the subsequent cost. From my point of view we now need to focus our attention on the positive use of data to make informed decisions, something that we know is currently sadly lacking.