Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Information Governance Operating Model with Calligo (FOI)

Information Governance Operating Model with Calligo (FOI)

Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Government of Jersey and published on 08 May 2024.
Prepared internally, no external costs.


Request

Table 1 of "Consultants: Reporting on their use by the Government of Jersey (P.59/2019) – Report of the Chief Minister – June to December 2022" - available at:

r.30-2024.pdf (gov.je)

refers to the "Information Governance Operating Model" project, in respect of which Calligo Limited was the supplier.

The report indicates that £175,000 to £200,00 of public funds was spent on this project.

Please provide:

A

A copy of the terms of engagement with Calligo.

B

A list of all the documents and artefacts produced as part of the Information Governance Operating Model project (including, without limitation, (a) any guides (b) any artefacts that are an addendum of the privacy framework).

Response

A

A copy of the terms of engagement with Calligo governing the Information Governance Operating Model is attached (Caligo Standard terms and conditions_Redacted).

Certain individuals’ names have been redacted in reliance on Article 25 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

In addition, certain limited information has been redacted, either in reliance on Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, because of formulation and development of proposed policy by the Authority, and /or in accordance with Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 because it is considered that the disclosure of the same would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Authority.

Calligo Standard terms and conditions for Services_Redacted.pdf

B

The delivery of the artefacts (which formed one part of the wider operating model workstream, alongside the delivery of certain PowerBI dashboards), principally involved the receipt of certain artefacts and documents from Calligo. The pro-forma artefacts received remain the confidential information and intellectual property of Calligo. 

Below is a list of the documents and artefacts produced as part of the Information Governance Operating Model project. 

SectionArtefact / Task Name
DPIA Process
DPIA Guidelines
DPIA Amendment Form
DPIA Screener Template for Surveys and Consultations
DPIA Screener Template Guidelines for Surveys and Consultations
Breach ProcessPersonal Data Breach Procedure
Breach Review & Rectification Procedure
Breach Register
Data Subject Notification Procedure
JOIC breach notification procedure
DSRs & DSARsDSR policy
SAR Guidelines
Central DSAR procedure
Departmental DSAR Procedure
ComplaintsData Protection Complaints policy
JOIC Complaints policy (inc comms process)
ToolkitFAQs
Review all pages on toolkit
How to submit a SAR
Supplier ManagementExternal DPA Template
External DSA Template
MiscellaneousRetention Schedules
'How-to's' on Retention Schedules

​​Articles 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.

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).

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 Tests

Articles 33 and Article 35 are each qualified exemptions. That means that consideration must be given to the public interest in maintaining the exemption. 

In addition, Article 33 is a prejudice-based exemption which means that in order to engage such exemption there must be a likelihood that disclosure would cause prejudice to the interest that the exemption protects.  

It is noted that the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner’s guidance reflects that when considering a prejudice-based exemption three criteria must be met: 

a. Firstly, the actual harm which the SPA alleges would, or would be likely, to occur if the withheld information was disclosed has to relate to the applicable interests within the relevant exemption;

b. Secondly, the SPA must be able to demonstrate that some causal relationship exists between the potential disclosure of the withheld information and the prejudice which the exemption is designed to protect. Furthermore, the resultant prejudice which is alleged must be real, actual or of substance; and

c. Thirdly, it is necessary to establish whether the level of likelihood of prejudice being relied upon by the SPA is met – i.e., disclosure ‘would be likely’ to result in prejudice, or disclosure ‘would’ result in prejudice.

With respect to fee cost breakdowns, the overall cost of the works has been disclosed to the public, however a more detailed breakdown of costs and the timing of different payments which may be acceptable to both parties is considered commercially sensitive. It is additionally considered that the release of this granular level of information could affect future contracting negotiations and potentially disadvantage either the Authority or Calligo.  It is considered that government should have the capacity to retain some discretion as regards the split of any payment it agrees with its suppliers in order to secure the best value for taxpayers and that the release of more detailed costs information would be likely to cause prejudice to the Government and or Calligo.

With respect to other redacted information (primarily being redaction made to the service schedule), the  Authority considers that when seeking to engage advisers to produce policies and procedures which can be adapted for use by various Government Departments to drive consistency and other improvements in its service delivery, that it is important for it to be able to contextualise the scope of such engagement in a way which enables the Authority to highlight any concerns it may then have and/or improvements to then existing practices which it considers might be beneficial, to better enable the scope of engagement activity to address these issues, without undue concern that such information would, only shortly thereafter, be made public particularly in circumstances where although the engagement has finished some ongoing internal governance work may be continuing. 

Further that an inability to do the same would prejudice government’s ability to engage its advisers in a meaningful and cost-effective way.​

Back to top
rating button