Correspondence related to PFAS contamination

Request 716037126

Dear FOI Officer,

Under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, I am requesting a copy of any correspondence (letters, emails, memos, or meeting minutes) dated 10 July 2022 between the Chief Minister and/or Deputy Chief Minister, and any of the following officials:

• Chief Executive or Group Director of Infrastructure & Environment (e.g. Andy Scate)

• Minister for Treasury or senior Treasury officers (e.g. Richard Bell)

• Senior officers in Regulation or Public Health (e.g. Catherine Madden)

The correspondence should relate to:

• PFAS contamination, the airport plume area, or borehole water

• Water rates, waivers, credits, or support for residents within contaminated zones

If this document is withheld, please confirm:

1. The grounds for any exemption applied

2. Whether a redacted or summarised version can be released in the public interest

Response

A letter sent from certain outgoing Ministers to one or more of the Government officials named in the FOI request, during the request period, has been withheld on the basis that it relates to Article 35 (formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) law 2011. 

That correspondence reflecting, the signatories views (as at the date of such letter) of certain steps which Government officials might take, in relation to the payment of water rates for properties with borehole water affected by PFAS in the plume area. These matters remain a live issue.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Article applied

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

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 discussions and testing 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.  

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information 

• In order to best develop policy and be in a position to provide advice to Ministers, Ministers and officials need a safe space in which such free and frank discussions over potential policy can take place.

• Whilst the development of policy exemption is a class based exemption, the need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.

• It is considered that the release of the Letter (either in its entirety or on a redacted basis) without comprehensive interpretation / discussion of the same, could impact the general public and lead to misinterpretation and misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

• As such a disclosure of this type of information at this stage in proceedings would be likely to hamper and harm the policy–making process, not only in relation to this subject area, but potentially in respect of future policy development across a wider departmental business.

Considering all relevant matters including but not limited to the above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure of this policy development documentation must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation. 

It should also be noted that 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 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.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.​​