Freedom of Information delays concern regulator
The office which manages Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to Jersey's public bodies said it had observed "delays, excessive redactions and concerns over misuse of exemptions".
Information Commissioner Paul Vane said: "While many public bodies have made significant strides in responding efficiently and proactively publishing information, challenges remain."
An FOI is a formal request for information made to a public authority. There were 1,292 received by the Jersey office in 2024, up from1,046 in 2023, said its annual report.
There were also 12 appeals, which was described in the report as an "unprecedented" number.
More news stories for Jersey
Listen to the latest news for Jersey
The office said there were usually an average of "one or two" appeals a year.
It would be reviewing whether this was due to "excessive redactions" and "misuse of exemptions", it added.
Mr Vane said: "We have observed instances of delays, excessive redactions, and concerns over misuse of exemptions
"We are liaising with the Government of Jersey's Central Information Governance Office to understand more about such delays and how, as the regulator, our office could support."
The BBC has contacted the government for comment.
Follow BBC Jersey on X and Facebook. Send your story ideas to channel.islands@bbc.co.uk.
Organisations urged to get data protection right
Government of Jersey
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Billionaire takes on Heathrow with plan for cut-price expansion
A billionaire hotel entrepreneur is spearheading a rival proposal to expand Heathrow, as he vows to deliver the project more cheaply than the airport would. Surinder Arora is drawing up plans for the project after Mike Kane, the aviation minister, said last week that the Government was open to alternative bids to build a third runway. As one of the biggest landowners at Heathrow through his eponymous property empire, Mr Arora has teamed up with US engineering giant Bechtel to forge ahead with his development bid. 'The Government has asked for submissions this summer and we will be there,' he told The Telegraph. Mr Arora welcomed the comments from Mr Kane, who has confirmed that ministers had 'asked for Heathrow or a third party' to present alternative runway proposals. 'It's exactly what we've been asking for,' said Mr Arora, who previously led a rival expansion bid in 2018. 'We have said previously that we could do Heathrow between 32pc and 34pc cheaper,' he said. 'Obviously, times have moved on, but I think we will look to push on that. 'We can deliver the whole thing, and without a shadow of a doubt, we'd build it cheaper than Heathrow Airport Limited. 'This will give the airlines and passengers the chance to make a choice.' Mr Arora signalled that he has already enlisted hundreds of consultants to work on the project, which could include plans for a shorter third runway. However, he has vowed to listen to what airlines want before submitting his proposal. The possibility of a shorter airstrip at Heathrow has emerged as a potential alternative to the airport's more ambitious plans, which some claim could cost up to £ a runway could both slash costs and shave years off the project's completion date by removing the need to divert the M25, Britain's busiest motorway, under the new strip. Like Mr Arora, Heathrow is also working on a proposal. But this is expected to include plans for a full-length runway. While that blueprint is enshrined in an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) adopted by Parliament in 2018, estimated costs are understood to have swelled from £14bn at 2014 prices to between £42bn and £63bn. A truncated runway would impose limits on the planes able to use it, but would nevertheless find favour with airlines that have pushed back against paying for the pricier option. The boss of one major carrier, speaking at the IATA industry gathering in Delhi last week, said the latest costing for the full-scale plan would require what he called an 'eye-watering' increase in ticket prices of between £75 to £100. Sir Tim Clark, head of Emirates, the world's biggest long-haul airline, said at the same event that he was against diverting the M25 and would back a shorter runway 'for landing purposes or single-aisle aircraft, anything to declutter what's there'. Heathrow Reimagined, a campaign group that includes British Airways (BA) and Virgin Atlantic, said it 'welcomes competition and alternative proposals designed to increase capacity at the airport more efficiently'. BA, which operates about half of the flights at Heathrow, declined to specify its favoured option but said 'a solution should consider the airport boundaries, runway length, total project cost and the impact on consumers.' Willie Walsh, the former chief of parent group IAG, said in 2017 that spanning the motorway would add unnecessary cost and complexity. 'Airlines were never consulted on the runway length and they can operate perfectly well from a slightly shorter runway,' he said. According to stipulations in the ANPS, Heathrow's third runway should have a length of 'at least 3,500m' that would be able to handle 260,000 extra flights or more each year. However, a strip measuring 3.2km could accommodate 90pc of flights, according to the boss of a UK airline speaking at the same event in India, who described the prospect of diverting the M25 as 'scary'. Heathrow's northern runway stretches for 3.9km, making it the longest active landing airstrip in the UK, while the southern one measures almost 3.7km. Reports in March suggested that Heathrow itself was looking seriously at modifying its pending submission to the Government to feature a shorter runway in order to cut costs. However, Heathrow chief Thomas Woldbye denied that it was the case, saying that he intended to deliver the longer runway specified and that ripping up the busiest two-mile stretch of the M25 could not be avoided. What remains unclear is how much weight the Government will give to reducing delivery costs versus the extra time in planning that a radical alternative to the previous proposals might require. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, said in January she wanted to see 'spades in the ground' on the project before the next general election and the start of flights by 2035. Departing from the requirements of the ANPS could mean that the planning process would be lengthier. The outcome of a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) review of Heathrow's mechanism for charging airlines in the context of the third runway will also be of fundamental importance. Heathrow Reimagined is pressing ministers to abandon rules under which money spent on the airport can be charged directly to airlines through increased fees. While those fees are regulated by the CAA, carriers say the system provides no incentive for Heathrow to wring efficiencies from infrastructure projects. In his comments, reported in the London Standard, Mr Kane declined to say if Heathrow shareholders, airlines or passengers should foot the bill. Meanwhile, a Labour insider said Mr Kane's comments were intended to convey a willingness to introduce competition into the runway process, rather than a pledge to do so. However, it appears the ball may already be rolling. 'Heathrow is a huge business, and competition is a good thing,' said Mr Arora. 'We're not here to slow or delay things. We will do whatever is necessary.' The Department for Transport said that while Heathrow Airport had previously been deemed the only credible party able to deliver the runway project in its entirety, it remains open-minded and will treat other proposals fairly. A spokesman said: 'There is no live planning application for Heathrow expansion at present, but when plans come forward, we will ensure any expansion is assessed against the Government's legal, carbon and environmental obligations.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Julian Harris: Is Sorry the Hardest Word for UK Chancellors?
By Nearly three years on, the Tories have apologized for their disastrous mini-budget that put sterling into freefall and forced the Bank of England to prop up government debt. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said today that the party 'put at risk the very stability which Conservatives had always said must be carefully protected' during Liz Truss's brief and calamitous spell as prime minister in the autumn of 2022. In a speech at the Royal Society of Arts, trailed in some media last night, Stride admitted that regaining credibility 'will take time. And it also requires contrition.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Real risk Rachel Reeves's spending review will be about the departments that have lost out
"It's a big deal for this government," says Simon Case. "It's the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto. "This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: 'This is what we're about'." As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021. On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government's priorities for the next three years. But it's unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it's really about. Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments. Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash - setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire. This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government's priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called "challenge panels" of independent experts. It's clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS - with a boost of up to £30bn expected - and to increase defence spending. On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding "£86bn boost" to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment. We're told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return. But the headline figure is misleading. . That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it's a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated. Read More: Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for "the most we've ever spent per pupil in our school system". I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift - but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of , and the promised uplift in teachers' pay. In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners. We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions - but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze. We've heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government's crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils. The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she's sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects. That's why we've seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she's spending on regional transport projects. The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we'll hear more in the coming days. But there's a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out - and the promises which could slip as a result.
