This amendment to Standing Orders makes a small but significant change
This seems a very small piece of legislation, but what it means is that, contrary to the UK Government, Jersey Hansard will now be subject to a degree of censorship.
At present Standing Order 160 requires the Greffier to prepare a written transcript ('Hansard') of all States meetings and to include the full text of questions and answers and all public business in the transcript. Standing Order 170(4) then requires the Greffier to publish this full transcript on the States Assembly website.
If this amendment is adopted the Presiding Officer will be given a new power to direct that any name that he or she has determined is in breach of Standing Order 104(2)(i) be omitted from the transcript. The power is very narrowly drawn to cover names only and does not permit the omission of any other unparliamentary or disorderly words. PPC considers that this is an appropriate balance between the need to protect individuals and the need to produce an accurate transcript of the proceedings. The new power does not, of course, affect the transmission on the radio of the words spoken and does not interfere with the important privilege of members to speak freely as they see fit in the Assembly. It should be stressed that use of a name is only in breach of Standing Order 104(2)(i) if its use was unnecessary and not of direct relevance to the business being discussed.
This seems a very small piece of legislation, but what it means is that, contrary to the UK Government, Jersey Hansard will now be subject to a degree of censorship.
At present Standing Order 160 requires the Greffier to prepare a written transcript ('Hansard') of all States meetings and to include the full text of questions and answers and all public business in the transcript. Standing Order 170(4) then requires the Greffier to publish this full transcript on the States Assembly website.
If this amendment is adopted the Presiding Officer will be given a new power to direct that any name that he or she has determined is in breach of Standing Order 104(2)(i) be omitted from the transcript. The power is very narrowly drawn to cover names only and does not permit the omission of any other unparliamentary or disorderly words. PPC considers that this is an appropriate balance between the need to protect individuals and the need to produce an accurate transcript of the proceedings. The new power does not, of course, affect the transmission on the radio of the words spoken and does not interfere with the important privilege of members to speak freely as they see fit in the Assembly. It should be stressed that use of a name is only in breach of Standing Order 104(2)(i) if its use was unnecessary and not of direct relevance to the business being discussed.
The proposed process will be an open and transparent one as the second part of these proposals, which makes an amendment to Standing Order 160, will require a note in the transcript showing where the presiding officer has directed that a name be omitted. In this way any person reading the transcript will be able to see exactly what happened during the exchanges in the Assembly.
This means that at least we can see when a name has been omitted from the transcript. Although I would say that the one case in recent months, that of the current director of education, was most definitely of direct relevance to the business being discussed, which was whether officials under investigation by the police should be suspended - indeed Roy le Hérissier, who raised the subject, admitted as much, even if it was Stuart Syvret who named names.
If such a case fell under the category of "unnecessary and not of direct relevance", and clearly the legislation is designed for expressly this purpose, it would seem that the judgment of the "presiding officer" may not be so narrowly drawn.
Of course, as it covers names only, a simple expedient would be to mention the position held by the individual concerned as well, which would not come under the remit of the legislation, and as senior officers - such as the current director of education- are listed on the States website, would effectively negate any action taken by removing a name. I mention this, not as an argument for doing so, but just to illustrate how hard it is to conceal data by just concealing one link in a chain, but leaving the rest intact.
This means that at least we can see when a name has been omitted from the transcript. Although I would say that the one case in recent months, that of the current director of education, was most definitely of direct relevance to the business being discussed, which was whether officials under investigation by the police should be suspended - indeed Roy le Hérissier, who raised the subject, admitted as much, even if it was Stuart Syvret who named names.
If such a case fell under the category of "unnecessary and not of direct relevance", and clearly the legislation is designed for expressly this purpose, it would seem that the judgment of the "presiding officer" may not be so narrowly drawn.
Of course, as it covers names only, a simple expedient would be to mention the position held by the individual concerned as well, which would not come under the remit of the legislation, and as senior officers - such as the current director of education- are listed on the States website, would effectively negate any action taken by removing a name. I mention this, not as an argument for doing so, but just to illustrate how hard it is to conceal data by just concealing one link in a chain, but leaving the rest intact.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment