Communications between Revenue Jersey and HMRC regarding pension flexibility from January 2015

​​Request 722586291​

Please provide information on communications between Revenue Jersey and HMRC in the UK regarding the proposed implementation of Pension Flexibility from January 2015, in particular as to whether an Approved Drawdown Contract was a Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme. 

Response

Email searches were run on the account of the Technical Assistant Comptroller and all correspondence in scope was reviewed.

Email Attachment - Redacted.pdf​

Correspondence was withheld in accordance with Article 26 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as communications with HMRC were undertaken in confidence. In addition, Article 35 - Policy Under Development - of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 – has been applied. 

The remaining email extract was redacted in accordance with Article 25 – Personal Information - of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

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 26 - Information supplied in confidence 

Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a) it was obtained by the scheduled public authority from another person (including another public authority); and

(b) the disclosure of the information to the public by the scheduled public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.

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 

Article 35 is a qualified exemption and, as such, the Government of Jersey has conducted a prejudice test as required by law.

The Government of Jersey has made an assessment on whether in all of the circumstances the public interest in disclosing the information would be outweighed by the prejudice that would be likely if it were disclosed.

Once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished. However, the use of the exemption can continue to be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

In applying this article, 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 work is being undertaken

• 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, law and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy and legal development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the development process

• the need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of development

• release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy and law away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately

• premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. 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.

Therefore, having considered the public interest, the Government of Jersey has concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result.​​​

Internal Review Request

With respect there is a definite Public Interest in understanding the nature of Approved Drawdown Contracts and their eligibility to be registered as QROPS with HMRC in the UK. Many Jersey Taxpayers have relied upon representations made to the Jersey Pension Industry that ADCs can be registered as QROPS. If this is not the case then many Jersey residents will be facing Tax charges in the UK on ineligible transfers out of a Pension scheme. This may lead to significant litigation between taxpayers and the Jersey pension industry and might severely damage Jersey 's International competitiveness. 

We therefore request you reconsider the matter and under Public Interest measures disclose the information requested.

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? 

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that due to the breadth of the correspondence under consideration, Article16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 would be more appropriately applied to this request. 

It was therefore agreed that the original decision be overturned and that Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 be applied. 

​Article applied 

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost excessive

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.