Subject Access Requests received by People and Corporate Services (FOI)

Request

A

How many Subject Access Requests (SARs) has People Services received?

B

On how many occasions has People Services rejected SARs using legislative exemptions, and in particular s48 DPL (Jersey) or any earlier exemption?

C

Does People Services issue information right notices to data subjects advising data subjects of rights?

D

How is People Services legally qualified/entitled to avail itself of any SAR exemption and in particular s48 DPL (J) concerning investigations and prejudice to investigations?

E

How many investigations has People Services commissioned concerning states employees?

F

How many investigations have People Services using external to Jersey investigators and on what criteria?

G

And at what cost and when?

H

On how many occasions has People Services appointed a staff member as both case information officer for SARs, and investigation commissioning officer controlling the investigation and controlling the flow of information to data subjects ?

I

On how many occasions have people services staff members acted as data controllers , case information officers for SARs , and as financial negotiators for People Services?

J

How does People Services monitor and review any conflict of interest?

K

Is People Services role statistically evidenced as defending the States Employment Board?

L

Please can I have sight of the HR lounge report follow up?

M

In particular on how many occasions has People Services instructed ( UK based) CMP investigations , by that name or by previous iteration , or [redacted] or [redacted]?

N

Do People Services maintain ongoing file review logs of decisions made for compliance with data protection legislation?

O

Given the cross border nature of instructing external investigations how does People Services ensure compliance with data protection legislation in Jersey and the UK?

P

On how many occasions has People Services carried out a high risk data impact assessment?

Q

Has People Services ever been audited by the JOIC?

R

On how many occasions has People Services been sanctioned by the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner (JOIC)?

Response

A

Since the logging of SARs centrally by the SAR team in May 2018, there have been 60 SARS allocated and completed by People and Corporate Services.

B

This information is not held in recorded form. To provide an answer to the request would require extraction and manipulation of data to produce new information.

A Scheduled Public Authority is not required to manipulate and create new data sets. It has been estimated that the cost of extracting the data would exceed the cost limit provisions set out in the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

C

The Government of Jersey publishes a Privacy Policy. Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Human Resources Department's privacy policy

D

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 gives a right to request information that is held in recorded form, unless exempt. This aspect of the request poses a question rather than seeking information held in recorded form. In any event, this information is not held.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

E

People and Corporate Services do not commission investigations.

F

The information held about external investigations would require manipulation. The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 does not require a Scheduled Public Authority to manipulate data in order to provide a response.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

G

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 does not require a Scheduled Public Authority to manipulate data in order to provide a response.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

H

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 does not require a Scheduled Public Authority to manipulate data in order to provide a response.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies as this information is not held.

I

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 does not require a Scheduled Public Authority to manipulate data in order to provide a response.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies as this information is not held.

J

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 gives a right to request information that is held in recorded form, unless exempt. This aspect of the request poses a question rather than seeking information held in recorded form.

K

This aspect of this request poses a question and is not a request for information held in recorded form. In any event, this information is not held, the States Employment Board is an independent body.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

L

Please see link to the most recent HR Lounge report which is available in the public domain.

HR Lounge Report  

Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

M

It has been concluded that the information, as requested, is not held in the form requested. To answer the request, the data would need to be extracted from various sources and manipulated. The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 does not require a Scheduled Public Authority to manipulate data in order to provide a response.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

N

The Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 does not specifically require organisations to maintain ongoing file review logs in order to demonstrate compliance. This information is not held.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

O

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 provides a right to request information that is held in recorded form.

This aspect of this request poses the question as to ‘how’ People Services demonstrates compliance with data protection legislation, this is not a request for information held in recorded form. In any event, this information is not held.

P

People Services do not keep a central log and therefore this information is not held.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

Q

No.

R

Since 2020 when a central JOIC log was established, there have been two determination notices issued to People and Corporate Services by the JOIC.

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 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

Internal Review Request

Please will you review your decision.

(a)

The answers were clearly wrong when initially issued and remain so.

For example under the Data Protection Law Jersey there are a host of duties clearly expressed around recording and reviewing decisions to be taken by data controllers.

(b)

I also disagree with your time / cost exemption . If a mere 60 (Subject Access Requests (SARs) have been received it is a relatively quick matter to ask the data controllers in a circular email how may of them have exercised exemptions and on what grounds.

(c)

The basis of my application is not frivolous or repetitious . It is my reasonable belief based on specific evidence and Court judgement that People Services have misused exemptions on a wider spread basis than is currently known.

(d)

The initial Freedom of Information response , inter alia around question R was clearly wrong.

Internal Review Response

This review has been completed by two senior staff members of the Government of Jersey, independent of the original decision-making process.

The points raised in the Internal Review request have been considered individually below.

(a)

The internal reviewers are satisfied with the veracity of the original response.

For example, the reviewers are satisfied that the information requested in part B is not held in recorded form (and is not required to be under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 ).

(b)

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) 2011 Law does not require a Scheduled Public Authority to create data for a response such as emailing staff members to collect data, so this remains exempt under Article 3 and the response remains the same.

This information is not held in recorded form. To provide an answer to the request would require extraction and manipulation of data to produce new information.

A Scheduled Public Authority is not required to manipulate and create new data sets, but to provide the requester with information it holds and that has been specifically requested. In any event the reviewers are satisfied that the estimated cost of extracting the data would exceed the cost limit provisions set out in the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

(c) 

The reviewers are unable to relate this comment to any specific part of the original response and therefore are not in a position to consider this challenge.

(d) 

The department handling your request apologised for issuing a response prematurely, however it was recalled very quickly (within two hours) and you were made aware that an updated version would be provided and not to rely on the previous version. The updated version was correct.

The internal reviewers considered that the application of the Article 3 exemption was appropriate and therefore maintain the original response is accurate.