Economic Development’s Delivery Plan for 2023 - Cannabis (2) (FOI)

​Request

In its response to FOI [number redacted], the States was asked to provide a copy of the framework and communication plan alluded to in the following comment by the Minister for EDTSC in the following comment on 8 February 2021:

“An Economic Development Framework for Cannabis Investment in Jersey is under development which is anticipated to be completed in Q2 with an associated communication plan that will specify the roles and responsibilities of the various associated agencies."
In refusing the request, the States cited Article 35. I do not believe this is valid as the framework and communication plan was complete more than three years ago. Therefore I would like to request a copy of it.
If it has not been completed, then I would like to know why.
Also in the response to this FOI, the States said:
"The first phase of policy development work effectively began with the commissioning of specialist advice in February. This work is complete and will be used as a reference to inform phase two of the long-term policy that will be finalised in 2024."
Has it been finalised and, if so, what is it?

Response

This information remains exempt Under Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Following the change in government, the new Common Strategic Priorities set out in May 2024, and a change in personnel later in the year, work to finalise the strategy has  slowed and is not complete.

Article applied

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

Article 35 is a qualified exemption and, as such, the Government of Jersey has conducted a prejudice test as required by law.

The Government of Jersey has made an assessment on whether in all of the circumstances the public interest in disclosing the information would be outweighed by the prejudice that would be likely if it were disclosed.

Once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished. However, the use of the exemption can continue to be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

In applying this article, 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 work is being undertaken

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, law and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy and legal development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the development process

the need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of development

release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy and law away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately

premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. 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.

Therefore, having considered the public interest, the Government of Jersey has concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result.​​