Communications regarding removal of Bailiff (FOI)

Request

Please release all emails between, Deputy Tadier, Deputy Renouf, Deputy Mezec, Deputy Moore, Deputy Coles and Constable Jehan (and any other Deputies or Constables on the email chain) regarding a proposed proposition to remove the Bailiff from the States Assembly, please also include all forwarded emails and replies.

Response

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 relates to information held by Scheduled Public Authorities. 

Any correspondence sent to or received by individual States Members, including States Members holding Ministerial Office but otherwise receiving or sending correspondence as States Members and not for the purposes of discharging their ministerial responsibilities, falls outside the definition of a Scheduled Public Authority. 

Any such requested correspondence was processed by Deputy Tadier, Deputy Renouf, Deputy Mezec, Deputy Moore, Deputy Coles and Constable Jehan (and any other Deputies or Constables on the email chain) in their capacity as a States Member. 

The requested information is therefore not held by the Government of Jersey.  Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Article applied 

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Internal Review Request 

We believe the information requested can be released and that the scheduled authority argument doesn’t apply. 

So please review the decision not to release the information

Internal Review Response 

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. 

They have been asked to review all relevant documentation as provided, with the understanding that additional information may be requested during the review process, and confirm: 

i) Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii) Was the information supplied appropriately 

iii) Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied. 

Having considered the above points, the internal review concluded that the request is directed to individuals, namely States Members, who do not fall within the scope of the Law. 

In a matter such as this, where the information relates to issues that are not government business, any information held by individuals who are both Ministers and States Members is held by them in their capacity as a States Member. 

Where an individual States Member is also a Minister, they have the ability to be discharge duties as States Members outside of their Ministerial roles. That is a core element of a parliamentary democracy. 

It cannot be the case that any information held by States Members for the purposes of being a States Member, where they are also a Minister, is within the scope of the Law. To conclude so would place some States Members in a different position to other States Members when conducting their duties as a States Member. 

Any information held by States Members who are not Ministers is also outside the scope of the Law.