Questions raised in States Assembly re ferry contract (FOI)

Original ​Request 692404912

Deputy Morel was not able to answer questions raised by Deputy Tadier the last States Assembly Meeting.

So I would ask the following questions:

1. How much was paid as ferry contingency costs/payments in 2024 and who received this money?

2. How much was paid and contracted to pay as ferry contingency costs/payments in 2025 and who received this money?

I assume that the recipient of the above was FDDS but it should be confirmed.

On the basis that Deputy Tadier asked these questions, it must be in the public interest to know the answers. Furthermore the Deputy should not have asked the question if the information is commercially sensitive, so I would expect a detailed answer.

Original Response

1. Several contracts were executed during 2023 and 2024 between the Government of Jersey and States of Guernsey with DFDS A/S for the provision of contingency ferry services. Payments were made under those contracts to DFDS A/S against the fulfilment of their contractual obligations, including the onward charter of vessels owned by third parties where applicable. 

The sums paid are commercially sensitive and therefore Article 33 of the Freedom of Information Jersey (Law) 2011 has been applied.

2. A contract was executed between the Government of Jersey and DFDS A/S for the provision of contingency ferry services. Payments will be made under this contract to DFDS A/S against the fulfilment of their contractual obligations, including the onward charter of vessels owned by third parties where applicable. 

The sums paid are commercially sensitive and therefore Article 33 of the Freedom of Information Jersey (Law) 2011 has been applied

Article applied

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) of the Freedom of Information Law allows an authority to refuse a request for information where its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

​Whilst it is accepted that the public may have an interest in the requested information, it is considered that releasing this information could affect the commercial interests of the suppliers and the Government of Jersey.

​Internal Review Request

Dear Sirs

I request that the above FOI request is sent for review.  The questions raised by Deputy Tadier in the Assembly were perfectly reasonable and in the public interest.  It is likely that if Deputy Morel had been properly prepared he would have provided this financial information.  If the information was so commercially sensitive, why didn't Deputy Morel say so in his responses?  He did not do so, which suggests he would have provided the information if it was to hand.  A figure of £500,000 per month and £4,300,000 was mentioned during this exchange although the exact context was not clear.  On this basis it is clear that this information is in the public domain so it is a matter of public interest that we should be provided with this information in detail.

It is not commercially sensitive information regarding payments during 2025 which is widely known in that the contacting party was at that time with DFDS.  Deputy Morel confirmed that both Jersey and Guernsey contributed equally to the contingency vessel costs in 2024 until the end of that year or thereabouts. 

I look forward to receiving a more detailed response.

Kind regards

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law. ​ 

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:  

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.      

Further questions if above is a yes:   

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed? (supply audit if possible) 

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately (supply evidence if possible) 

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied? (supply supporting documents re the test if possible) 

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. N/A

4.Yes

Conclusions of the review panel – it may be that the original decision is upheld, reversed or modified

The panel have reviewed the original response and have upheld the original decision of the SPA and concluded that the articles applied were done so correctly.