Correspondence regarding Samarès and Plemont wards (FOI)

Request

A

Please provide all email correspondence between the dates of 3 January and 19 January 2022 that may include any of the words "Samares", "Samarès", "rehabilitation", "rehab", "Plemont", "Plemont Ward", "Care Model", "JCM", "stroke", for the Council of Ministers. To be clear, that is to say:

• Senator John Le Fondré
• Deputy Richard Renouf
• Senator Lyndon Farnham
• Senator Ian Gorst
• Deputy Gregory Guida
  
• Deputy Russell Labey
• Deputy John Young
• Deputy Gregory Guida
• Deputy Scott Wickenden
• Deputy Kevin Lewis
• Deputy Carolyn Labey
• Deputy Judy Martin
• Deputy Susie Pinel
  

B

Please conduct a search for the same time period and words for correspondence between Deputy Richard Renouf and any of the following individuals: Caroline Landon, Patrick Armstrong, Rose Naylor, Rob Sainsbury, Paul Martin, Cathy Keir, Dirk Danino-Forsyth. Added to this, please also search the words "Rob" and "Rob Sainsbury".

C

Please also conduct a search for the same time period and words in (1) for correspondence between Senator John Le Fondré and any of the following individuals: Caroline Landon, Patrick Armstrong, Rose Naylor, Rob Sainsbury, Paul Martin, Cathy Keir, Dirk Danino-Forsyth. As above, please also search the words "Rob" and "Rob Sainsbury".

Response

A

Searches were undertaken on the accounts of Senator John Le Fondré and Richard Renouf for all other accounts listed with all keywords requested.

To undertake any further searches would exceed the cost limit provisions allowed under Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 and the 12.5 hours limit allowed under regulation 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014.

B

All searches have been undertaken as requested and relevant emails have been extracted and are attached.

C

All searches have been undertaken as requested and relevant emails have been extracted and are attached. 

Redactions have been applied in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) and Article 35 (Formulation and Development of Policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Duplicates, and emails that are entirely exempt, have been removed.

Search results A, B and C

 email correspondence 1

 email correspondence 2

 email correspondence 3

 email correspondence 4

 email correspondence 5

 email correspondence 6

 email correspondence 7

 email correspondence 8

 email correspondence 9

 email correspondence 10

Articles applied

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost excessive

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – (a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and (b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public interest test

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) has redacted certain information within the emails as it relates to the formulation and development of policy and procedure by the public authority.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption, which means that a public interest test has to be undertaken to examine the circumstances of the case and decide whether, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Although there is a need for transparency, accountability, financial and good decision making by public authorities this information relates to a live matter. The SPA – and indeed good government, requires Ministers to be provided with full, frank advice from officials about the possible impact of proposed policy, and for Ministers and officials to be able to discuss and test those proposed policies in a comprehensive way.

The following considerations were taken into account:

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions have taken place
• disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• in order to best develop policy, Officers and Ministers need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place. The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy. Sharing views is important to ensure that all relevant considerations are taken into account in developing and implementing policy. Disclosure at a time when these views are still being considered would negatively impact the Department's ability to fully consider the information
• the need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy
• release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate in areas where future options have yet to be finalised. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately
• disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback in future. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider Departmental business.

Taking into account the various factors, the SPA decided in favour of withholding the redacted information.