Government of Jersey

Our Hospital Political Oversight Group meeting minutes and meetings between Professor Handa and clinicians (FOI)

Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Government of Jersey and published on 18 February 2022.
Prepared internally, no external costs.

Request

Political Oversight Group meeting minutes (FOI) - 13 July 2022.

I notice that in that meeting it was stated that the minutes from the meetings on 25 March and 15 April would be circulated for approval at a meeting later that month.

Normal good practice is for any meeting to start with the approval of the previous meeting so that anything incorrect can be identified whilst it is fresh in people's memories and corrected in good time. In the private sector this would certainly be the case and poor record keeping would not only be frowned upon by shareholders but the record keeper would very probably be replaced by someone able to record the proceedings accurately and speedily. All that is needed is a recording and a competent secretary to transcribe. The shareholders for the States of Jersey are the taxpayers and it is they that you are answerable to.

Might I please therefore enquire as to why this procedure is not followed on meetings of all Government departments and civil servants meetings?

May I also ask why a response dated 29 November only includes minutes up to the 13 July? That is four months.

Can I please have all subsequent minutes please?

Please provide minutes of all one on one meetings between Ashok Handa and the clinicians at the hospital, names of those invited to attend such one on one meetings and names of those who actually did attend such a meeting?

Can you also please provide information on how Prof Handa has ensured that no clinicians were missed during the consultation period?

If any clinicians were missed for whatever reason, when is Professor Handa scheduled to meet with them?

Response

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

The approved minutes for subsequent Our Hospital Political Oversight Group (POG) meetings up to and including 1 October 2021 are attached. Any subsequent meeting minutes will be awaiting approval.

Our Hospital POG minutes

For clarification, one-to-one discussions are provided as an opportunity for input from those Clinicians unable to attend their Clinical User Group and therefore are considered the same. They were covered in a previous Freedom of Information response, which related to 'all meetings with Clinicians'.

Meetings between Professor Ashok Handa and the clinicians (FOI)

This in turn, references a previous Freedom of Information request:

Our Hospital Clinical User Group (FOI)

Sections A and D of the above response deals with names of Clinicians and minutes. As the information is accessible by other means, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

For ease of reference, the previous Freedom of Information responses linked above provided the below information:

A
The names and positions of who is in this group?
There are a number different Clinical User Groups which are informal discussion groups that are not part of the formal governance arrangements for the Our Hospital Project. These discussion groups have an open invitation to each department for any of their clinical staff to attend. It is the choice of individual clinicians if they wish to attend and to provide input. These discussions provide a forum for open and frank discussion, where staff have an expectation of a level of anonymity. Therefore, article 25 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to maintain that anonymity.

D
Copies of minutes of all meetings?
As these are iterative discussion forums, they are not recorded via formal minutes. Therefore Article 3, meaning of 'information held by public authority' of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. However, the outputs are taken by the Design and Delivery Partner to inform the evolving design.

E and F

With reference to questions E and F, the information is publicly available on www.gov.je in response to a previous Freedom of Information request. As the information is accessible by other means, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Meetings between Professor Ashok Handa and the clinicians (FOI)

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.

Note

Article 23 is an absolute exemption, and therefore does not require a public interest test.

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.

Note

Article 25 is an absolute exemption, and therefore does not require a public interest test. However, it is noted that minimal personal information has been redacted within the minutes, such redactions limited to the names and roles of less senior members of staff.

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).

Public interest test

Article 33 (b) is a prejudice-based exemption. That means that in order to engage this exemption there must be a likelihood that disclosure would cause prejudice to the interest that the exemption protects. In addition, this is a qualified exemption and consideration must be given to the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) considers that the sections of the minutes redacted under Article 33 could prejudice the commercial interests of the Government of Jersey and/or third parties. There may be public interest in the commercial information however it was considered that this is outweighed by the potential for commercial and/or financial damage.

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 SPA has redacted certain information within the minutes 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 an ongoing situation. 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.