`Foundations' Scheme (FOI)

Request

There was / is a scheme previously know as the "Foundations" scheme ("The Scheme") run by the SoJ as part of its social security service.

Please confirm:

A

Is the scheme still in existence and, if so,under what name?

B

Are the individuals supported under the scheme employed directly by the States of Jersey or are they employed through a recruitment agency & If employed by an agency what is the margin being charged by the agency?

C

How many individuals are employed (either directly by the States of Jersey or through an agency as mentioned in item A above) through the scheme?

Response

The Foundations scheme is still in existence, under the same name.

The individuals registered on the scheme are employed through a recruitment agency. Information regarding the margin being charged by the agency has been withheld in order to protect commercially sensitive information. In this respect Article 33 (b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law has been applied.

 22 individuals are currently on the scheme, on a part-time or full-time basis.

Article applied

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).

Article 33 (b) allows an authority to refuse a request for information where its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information). Whilst we accept that the public may have an interest in the value of Government of Jersey contracts, we believe releasing this information could affect any future procurement tendering processes.

Prejudice and Public Interest Test

If this information is in the public domain, when the department puts this contract out to tender next year, potential bidders could use this information as a benchmark and increase costs accordingly. This would be prejudicial to the department's negotiating position and in turn to the public, through an increase in public funds required to pay for this. If it increased markedly then the scheme may not be viable to continue, thereby prejudicing those who benefit from it. It would be likely (more than 50% chance) that this prejudice would occur if this information were disclosed, and therefore maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing this information.