Howard Davis Hall usage and rental income (2) (FOI)

​Request

Since Howard Davis Hall was re-opened as an events space in June 2022, how much total revenue has the States of Jersey made from hiring the property out as an 'event space' or otherwise?

On how many occasions has it been hired out as an event space or otherwise since it was re-opened? 

You'll notice in this JEP story that "the government expects it to raise £1 million in income over the next four years. 

Howard Davis Hall reopens as events space after refurb - Jersey Evening Post ​

It also said it would "be marketed outside Jersey to attract visitors." Can you tell me how much has been spent in marketing this outside Jersey and whether any figures exist on how many times it has been hired out - total - since 2022? 

I am aware that an FOI has already been submitted and rejected using Article 33. I do not consider this to be a fair decision as the *total* revenue made is not commercially sensitive - it would only be sensitive if you were to tell me how much each client had paid for the hire of the hall.

Response

Releasing the total value is considered to be commercially sensitive, therefore, Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and as such, a public interest and prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. 

When responding to requests of this nature, the Government of Jersey (“the Government”) has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would or would be likely to have upon the organisation and / or third parties. Whilst it may be in the public interest to understand the total revenue for openness and transparency, protecting the commercial interests of the Government is an essential component in controlling public finances, which in itself is in the public interest. 

It has been concluded that disclosing details of total revenue is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Government and / or the provider. This is due to the scheme currently being a ‘pilot’ scheme and therefore due for review. Releasing this information is likely to undermine this process. When considering the application of this exemption, it has been determined that whilst it is in the public interest to disclose information, this is outweighed by the necessity to limit any impact on the commercial interests of the Government and third parties in future contract negotiations, and as such, Article 33(b) has been applied.

Information regarding the number of events held in the hall is not held by the Government. Therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

There has been no Government funded marketing outside of Jersey. The Government does not hold information on any marketing undertaken by third party agents. Therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

Articles 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.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Internal Review Request 

I would like to appeal this, as I said, I do not believe article 33 applies here 

Internal Review Response 

This review has been completed by two senior Government of Jersey officers, who were not involved in the decision-making process related to the release of the information originally requested.

The original response has been reviewed and assessed to identify whether the exemption had been applied correctly. 

On review, the panel concluded that Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied correctly. Therefore, this information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Government and / or the provider.

The panel considered the public interest test in the original response together with the applicant’s comment, and the prejudice test. They similarly concluded that the balance of public interest was in favour of maintaining the exemption and not in favour of disclosure. 

It was noted that the public have a legitimate interest in understanding the revenue of the Government of Jersey, however protecting the commercial interests of the Government is also a public interest. This includes in this case, any pilot review assessments and options, which could be affected by the release of the total revenue.