Interview Panel Members (FOI)

Original Request 

A

Can you please tell me who was on the interview panel for Hilary Lucas, Health Modernisation & Interim Group Managing Director HCS? 

With regard to the first role

B

Where & when was the Modernisation role advertised?

C

How many people were shortlisted?

D

Who was on the shortlisting panel?

E

Please provide a CV of this person's experience during the last 10 years. 

With regard to the role as Interim Group Managing Director

F

Who was on the interview panel for this post?

G

Where & when was it advertised?

H

How many people were shortlisted?

I

Who was on the shortlisting panel?

J

What date will Mr Sainsbury be returning to his post? 

Original Response 

A

Chief Nurse – Rose Naylor

HR Director – Darren Skinner 

B

The post was advertised via a Government of Jersey approved interim search agency in October 2019. 

C

Three. 

D

As per Response A. 

E

A Curriculum Vitae is personal information, and in order to protect the privacy of the individual, Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. 

F

This was an interim position and no interview was held. 

G, H and I

Not applicable. 

J

Rob Sainsbury is currently on an acting up secondment into the role of Director General of Children, Young People, Education and Skills until September 2022. 

Article Applied

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.

Internal Review Request

The Freedom of Information (FOI) request relating to the two roles occupied by Hilary Lucas was received by Health and Community Services (HCS) on 03 March 2022. A response was provided to the applicant on 14 April 2022.

The response answered a number of questions relating to Hilary Lucas's recruitment by Health and Community Services, including:

Question E - Please provide a CV of this person's experience during the last 10 years

In order to respond to this request, HCS applied Article 25: Personal Information, stating:

Question E - A Curriculum Vitae is personal information, and in order to protect the privacy of the individual, Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Following receipt of the FOI response, the applicant requested an Internal Review on 22 April 2022 querying the use of Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. The applicant advised that "As I have repeatedly explained to you, this is not a request for the private information on a CV, it is a request for the work experience of these individuals which should include the places they have worked and positions held."

Internal Review Response

Health and Community Services had recently reviewed four previous responses to Freedom of Information requests due to the same Absolute Exemption of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 having been applied to similar questions asked in relation to other Health and Community Services employees. Therefore, it was felt appropriate to respond by applying the same principles.  The output of the Internal Review will determine:

• the Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 has been properly applied and whether the information requested genuinely falls within the exemption(s) cited
• there were any other options available in order to respond to the request
• it is possible to provide you with any further information, and

In line with the principles applied when responding to the previous Internal Reviews on the same matter, an outcome of the internal review will state whether:

• the original decision is upheld, or
• the original decision is reversed in part or in full, or
• the original decision is modified
  

Has the exemption been properly applied

The exemption cited was Article 25: Personal Information - Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, which states:

(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.

As the applicant was not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018, Article 25  (2)(a) is relevant in this case.

Personal data for the purpose of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 is defined as:

Article 2: Personal data and data subject

(1) Personal data means any data relating to a data subject.

(2) A data subject is an identified or identifiable, natural, living person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to (but not limited to) an identifier such as –

(a) a name, an identification number or location data;

(b) an online identifier; or

(c) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the person. 

As a Curriculum Vitae (CV) is provided by a prospective employee at the time of recruitment as a precis of their suitability to meet the eligibility criteria for a role, the information contained therein, identifies and relates to them as an individual and is therefore 'personal data'.

In reviewing whether a CV is 'personal data', and having reviewed the definitions as stated in the relevant legislation, it was agreed that the application of Article 25: personal information was appropriate in this case.

Were there any other options available

Article 12 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 places a duty on Scheduled Public Authorities to make reasonable efforts to provide sufficient advice and assistance to applicants. Whilst agreeing that the use of Article 25 was appropriate, we also reviewed whether:

• there were any other options available when responding to this FOI request
• it is in the legitimate interest of the applicant (and subsequently the wider public) to disclose the 'personal information' irrespective of the impact on the privacy of the employee.

Other options

The request specifically stated that the applicant wished to see a CV of the previous 10 years of experience. Freedom of Information legislation is clear that it is designed to enable transparency and accountability in relation to 'information held' by a Scheduled Public Authority:

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.

Subsequently, there is no requirement to create information or manipulate information for the purpose of responding to an FOI request. HCS does not hold a 'CV' for the employee that outlines this information in the manner in which it has been requested and therefore the information is not held by the Scheduled Public Authority. Consequently, Article 3 could have been applied to the original request.

Legitimate interest

Freedom of Information legislation is designed to further the aim of greater openness and transparency by enabling ready access to public information. Whilst it has been established that the CV of an employee is personal information, the Internal Review considered whether the public interest in employees of HCS being in roles that are closely aligned with their skills, expertise and experience outweighed the employee's right to privacy.

The original response advised that the process for recruiting to the initial position (modernisation) was via an advertisement with a Government of Jersey approved interim search agency, and that an interview for the position took place. Suitability to the role was stress-tested via the interview which was undertaken by the HCS HR Director and the Chief Nurse.  This is suitable when filling an interim position. 

It is acknowledged that the senior level of the employee (the data subject), means that their employment and attributable skills are under scrutiny as they will be making strategic and operational decisions for HCS which will impact and effect key services.

When responding to requests of this nature, HCS has to balance the public interest with the impact on privacy that responding to the request may have on the employee.

HCS is concerned that the requests of this nature are an attempt to undermine the employee publicly and that further requests may cause the employee distress and impact their wellbeing.

What's more, HCS received five associated requests for similar information relating to other employees at the same time, and there is a concern that this is an attempt to unfairly undermine the Executive leadership of the department.

Therefore, the Article 25 (personal information) exemption was appropriately applied as there was no significant public interest in providing information.

Is it possible to provide you with any further information

HCS does not hold a 'CV' for the employee that outlines this information in the manner in which it has been requested and therefore the information is not held by the Scheduled Public Authority.

Outcome

In applying the Article 25 (personal information) to Question 5, HCS appropriately applied an absolute exemption in order to protect the privacy of an individual. The original decision is therefore upheld.

The internal review also reviewed other exemptions that may have been applied. Had the use of Article 3 (information not held) been considered, the outcome will have remained the same, in that no information would have been disclosed as the information is not held.