Prisoners on Standard IEP and Enhanced IEP

​​​​​​​​​Request 727693611

How many prisoners at HMP La Moye are on Standard IEP and how much are they paid per week? How many are on Enhanced IEP and how much do they earn per week?
Please list all the roles/ job titles currently at HMP La Moye.
How many prisoners are on pay bands A, B, C and D and how many hours do each of those bands require the inmate to work per week?​
How much does the prison deduct from inmate's wages for electricity and TV? Please provide figures for each of the past five years.
I understand that there is a spreadsheet on the prison intranet that lists the cots of all items for sale to prisoners. I would like a copy of that list please.
Does La Moye Prison still source its fruit from Lucas Bros Farm Shop? How much does an item of fruit cost to prisoners and how much is it purchased for by the prison? Please provide a full list of fruit avaliable and the cost of each item.
How much profit does the prison make per year from the sale of goods to prisoners? Please provide figures for each of the last five years.
How much are prisoners charged to make a video call?
How much are prisoners charged for one first class stamp? 

Response 

As of the 15/07/25: 

26 prisoners were on Standard IEP

148 prisoners were on Enhanced IEP ​

Please see attached table for pay and roles / titles.

Freedom of Information response 727693611 - Attachment 1.pdf​

The States of Jersey Prison Service (SoJPS) does not have pay bands A, B, C and D. Prisoners are expected to work at least 5 out of 7 days. The AM session is 3 hours 10 minutes, and the PM session is 2 hours and 10 minutes. 

£2 is deducted weekly for electricity and TV. The cost of £2 has not increased for 5 years. 

Please see attached list of items for sale. ​

​Freedom of Information response 727693611 - Attachment 2.pdf

Lucas Bros does not provide the fruit order to the prison. 

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) has concluded that the disclosure of costs of items to purchase and costs to prisoners would be likely to prejudice commercial interests, therefore Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. The disclosure would also be likely to prejudice the financial interests of the States of Jersey, therefore Article 34 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. The disclosure would also be likely to prejudice audit functions and therefore Article 37 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law has been applied. 

In line with the Public Finance Manual requirement, the SoJPS do not make a profit from the sale of goods to prisoners. 

The charge of £9.50 for a Purple Visit (video) is generally paid for by the person making the call. However, in certain circumstances the prison will fund the visit e.g. for financial difficulties / foreign nationals who do not get physical visits. 

Prisoners are charged the same as the public for their stamps: Local £0.80, UK £1.35, Europe £2.30 and Rest of World £3. 

Articles 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 is a qualified exemption and as such, a public interest and prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. 

When responding to requests of this nature, the SPA has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties. Whilst it may be in the public interest to understand the costs of items purchased by the prison and the cost to prisoners, protecting the commercial interests of the Government is an essential component in controlling public finances, which in itself is in the public interest. 

It has been concluded that disclosing cost details is likely to prejudice the commercial

interests of the Government and / or the provider. When considering the application of this

exemption, it has been determined that whilst it is in the public interest to disclose

information, this is outweighed by the necessity to limit any impact on the commercial

interests of the Government and third parties. The likely prejudice includes: 

• Harm to the competitive position of the prison or its suppliers.

• Revealing pricing could allow competitors or suppliers to manipulate the market, potentially increasing costs for the government or disrupting procurement processes.

• Disclosure could undermine the SoJPS' ability to negotiate favourable terms in future. 

As such, Article 33 has been applied. 

Article 34 - The economy 

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice – 

(a)     the economic interests of Jersey; or

(b)     the financial interests of the States of Jersey. 

Public Interest Test 

Article 34 is a qualified exemption and as such, a public interest and prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. 

When responding to requests of this nature, the SPA has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties. Whilst it may be in the public interest to understand the costs of items purchased by the prison and the cost to prisoners, protecting the economy is an essential aspect of Government, which in itself is in the public interest. 

It has been concluded that disclosing cost details is likely to prejudice the economy. When

considering the application of this exemption, it has been determined that whilst it is in the

public interest to disclose information, this is outweighed by the necessity to limit any impact

on the economy. 

The likely prejudice includes:

• As the SoJPS' pricing is linked to Jersey's broader economic strategy (e.g., pricing for public Finance manual, infrastructure, or investment incentives), disclosure could distort the market and impact economic stability.

• Competitors or businesses could exploit disclosed prices to pressure government contracts or demand lower fees, impacting the financial interests of the Government of Jersey.

• If pricing influences public-sector procurement, revealing it could lead to higher costs for taxpayers due to suppliers adjusting their bids based on disclosed rates.

• As such, Article 34 has been applied. 

Article 37 - Audit functions 

(1)     Information is qualified exempt information –

(a)     if it is held by a scheduled public authority mentioned in paragraph (2); and

(b)     if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise of any of the authority's functions in relation to a matter mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (b).

(2)     A scheduled public authority referred to in paragraph (1) is a scheduled public authority that has functions in relation to –

(a)     the audit of the accounts of another public authority; or

(b)     the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which another public authority uses its resources in discharging its functions.

(3)     Information is also qualified exempt information –

(a)     if it is held by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and

(b)     if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise of any of his or her functions. 

Public Interest Test 

Article 37 is a qualified exemption and as such, a public interest and prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. 

When responding to requests of this nature, the SPA has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties. Whilst it may be in the public interest to understand the costs of items purchased by the prison and the cost to prisoners, protecting audit functions, in itself is in the public interest as this allows for independent assessments. 

It has been concluded that disclosing cost details is likely to prejudice audit functions. When

considering the application of this exemption, it has been determined that whilst it is in the

public interest to disclose information, this is outweighed by the necessity to limit any impact

on the effectiveness of these functions. 

The likely prejudice includes:

• The price list is part of an ongoing financial audit or efficiency review, disclosure could prejudice the auditing process by influencing stakeholders before findings are finalised.

• Premature disclosure of financial details could lead to misinterpretation of the department's spending or resource allocation, potentially leading to unjustified public concern or market reactions.

• If the information is used by the Comptroller and Auditor General to assess efficiency, releasing it could compromise their ability to conduct an independent and impartial review
  

As such, Article 37 has been applied.​