PFOS blood testing correspondence (FOI)

Request

Please provide all email correspondence between the Chief Minister, the Environment Minister and officials on 2 February 2022 in relation to PFOS blood testing and from the Chief Minister to the Deputy Chief Minister (including officials) in July 2022.

Response 

Searches were undertaken on the email accounts of Deputy John Young and Senator John Le Fondre for emails on 22nd February 2022 and the email account of Deputy Kristina Moore in July 2022. 

The attachments have been redacted in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Duplicates, and emails that are entirely exempt, have been removed.

Correspondence has also been withheld under Article 35 (Formulation and Development of Policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.  

Relevant emails are provided in the attached PDF together with any attachments.

Emails.pdf

Patient Information Sheet - PFOS Testing.pdf

Eligible Islanders invited to test for PFOS press notice.pdf

GP guidance - PFOS Testing for Affected Residents.pdf

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 2005.

(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 2005; 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.

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 Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) has redacted certain information within the correspondence 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 must 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.
• Disclosure may show the confluence or divergence of advice given to decision makers, which would assist the public in understanding public sector decision making and the basis upon which decisions are made. 

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.