Crowcroft backs JEP over secret pay-outs

Friday 30th December 2011, 2:59PM GMT.

St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft, who recently took over the Privileges and Procedures Committee,

A TOUGH overhaul of States secrecy rules has been proposed after the JEP’s requests for information about ‘golden handshakes’ to departing civil servants was rejected because it would mean an ‘unwarranted invasion of their privacy’.

The new head of the States reform committee has backed the JEP and says that details about the payouts – rumoured to be as high as £500,000 – should be in the public domain.

St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft, who recently took over the Privileges and Procedures Committee, which has responsibility for the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information, said that he would propose a review to the committee.

‘This is the kind of information that the public have a right to know,’ he said. ‘Given that the committee has responsibility for bringing forward Freedom of Information legislation it would seem appropriate to me that the committee examines whether the law has not left too many “get out clauses” for a government that does not want to open and accountable.

‘But it’s clearly something that I will have to put to the committee to see if they agree with me.’

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.

1
the thin wallet

December 30, 2011 at 3:29 pm

good luck simon, hope the others think of us taxpayer who funded the golden hand shake , from our shrinking pockets .

Report abuse
2
bella

December 30, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Good for you Simon

Report abuse
3
gino risoli

December 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm

well done Simon

Report abuse
4
James

December 30, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Well if I was working for the States I wouldn’t be too keen on my pay being made public. Perhaps Simon should think about this and maybe reflect on the behaviour of some of the unregulated bloggers who had similar information on a person that came to work here after a gloden handshake in the UK that they made public and then subsequently left?

Report abuse
- Proud Jerseyman
  
  January 1, 2012 at 2:22 am
  
  Hear hear!
  
  The ‘unregulated bloggers’ you mention seek only to cause mischief and embarrassment and are a disgrace to Jersey.
  
  One urges our leaders to take decisive action forthwith to rein in their traitorous activities to better protect the island’s cherished reputation abroad as a free, open and tolerant community.
  
  Proud Jerseyman
  
  Report abuse
  - What?
    
    January 4, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    
    Sorry? you want the States to clamp down on free speech to prove how free, open and tolerant we are? Am I missing something here? Surely if anything is an embarrassment and a disgrace to Jersey it’s the culture of near paranoid secrecy that shrouds everything that the States do and lead to suspicion and mistrust among the rest of us proud Jerseymen and women, normally very well founded in my experience. If the public pay you then the public have a right to know how much you get paid so that we can judge whether or not you are worth. Surely? Unless of course you are paid way too much and are really bad at what you do….
    
    Report abuse
- Northern Light
  
  January 3, 2012 at 10:55 am
  
  “James” It is not their pay that is being disclosed. It is their bonus/pay off, even if they have messed up they still get one.
  
  Report abuse
5
John Manley

December 30, 2011 at 8:05 pm

Well done Crowcroft. All present and past States’ members, including Mr Crowcroft must remember that they are public servants, paid by the tax and ratepayer, as are the police, and as such cannot hide behind any privacy procedure cooked up by their fellow members. All handouts are for public knowledge as they are part of the public domain.

Report abuse
6
Realist

December 30, 2011 at 10:40 pm

The public also has a right to know about the political appointment of someone, whom failed to be elected in the last elections,now nominee head of the States quango, the Jersey Consumer Council and already making press statements on their behalf.Examination of secrecy, through the the Privileges and Procedures Committee, charged with “responsibility for the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information”, seems selective when it accedes to popularist demands to publish details of its civil servants’ pay off remuneration, but remains silent, when it is asked questions about the States Assembly’s “behind closed doors” appointment of a non States member to head the JCC,funded with taxpayers money.I would hope that Simon Crowcroft will now address this,as he is best placed to do so.

Report abuse
7
Mark

December 31, 2011 at 8:42 am

A typically short-sighted, headline grabbing, ‘Crowcroftism’. Good is taken as a holist reform of the States of Jersey, an agenda for transparent government, an agenda for freedom of all information, but I suspect not. We have a Treasury Minister on the CoM who is commonly disliked by the public, was not wanted by the Chief Minister, but was elected by a secret ballot of States Members; a vote for the disrespect for all our local politicians.

If Simon Crowcroft readsm this blog, as I suspect he does; get to grips with freedom of information and you will gain many voters. This is a big ‘if’ as it would mean casting asides years of secretive Jersey government.

I truly hope I am proved wrong and Jersey this is set for an era of open government.

Report abuse
8
Zoro

December 31, 2011 at 7:06 pm

Please join me and email the other members of priviledges and procedures to let them know your views which will help Simon…as this is an outright injustice on the people of Jersey..all states members e mails are in the front of the phone book………

Report abuse
9
the future

January 4, 2012 at 4:43 am

Sitting discussing this with friends in India, it seems any payment made to a government employee that is not in the public domain is automatically considered to be a bribe here. I suppose they are much more in touch with their corruption in India.

Report abuse
10
Mike

January 4, 2012 at 1:11 pm

If the point of principle here is that it is taxpayers’ (our) money so we have a right to know what an employee gets which supercedes their right to privacy, then surely every single remuneration of every single States’ employee should be made public? If that’s the way we want to go, so be it, but I don’t agree that we should discriminate here by picking on either a well paid employee or an individual settlement in the event of a departure. Either our right to know is greater than an individual’s right to privacy or it isn’t – that is the real debate here.

Report abuse
11
NIB

January 4, 2012 at 10:39 pm

…Perhaps the good folk of Jersey might like to consider the introduction of a new tax designed to catch these overpaid civil servants who appear to be double dipping into the public purse for all it’s worth. In harmony with GST. the rate could be adjusted every so often by public vote and suggest we call it GGT for short or more gratifyingly, the ‘Greedy Git Tax’!!

Report abuse