Freedom of Information Policies and Procedures

​​Request 858849242

This request concerns current recorded process information held by or for the Government of Jersey’s central FOI function / Central Information Governance Office.

Provide 1.

FOI allocation / ownership guidance

The current written policy, procedure, guidance, desk instruction, workflow document or equivalent recorded document that governs how an incoming FOI request is allocated to a lead Scheduled Public Authority, department or business area.

Please include any recorded criteria or instruction concerning:

• identifying the lead Scheduled Public Authority / department;

• consulting contributing departments;

• changing ownership after receipt;

• transferring or reassigning a request;

• handling requests where more than one authority or department may hold relevant information.

2.. Internal review / ownership-change guidance

The current written policy, procedure, guidance, desk instruction, workflow document or equivalent recorded document that governs how an internal review is handled where:

• another Scheduled Public Authority or department is later identified as holding relevant information;

• ownership of the request changes after the original response;

• a request is transferred, reallocated, linked, closed, replaced or treated as a fresh request;

• an internal review concerns search adequacy, ownership, scope, “not held” reasoning, or the handling of a transferred or reallocated request.

3. FOI case-management field list

The current data dictionary, field list, user guide, case-category guide, system guide or equivalent recorded document for the FOI case-management / logging system, limited to fields used to record:

• date received;

• lead Scheduled Public Authority / department;

• contributing Scheduled Public Authority / department;

• transfer / reassignment / ownership change;

• closure reason;

• internal review requested;

• internal review outcome;

• “not held” outcome;

• exempt / refused outcome;

• linked request, replacement request, revised request or new-request handling

Response

1.

The Cabinet Office does not hold any relevant data in this regard. Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

2. & 3.

The Freedom of Information Internal Review procedure can be found on the Gov.je website and can be accessed via the following link. Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to this information.

About Freedom of Information (FOI) and how to make a request​

The additional data requested relates to internal guidance and policy documentation. It should be noted that current practice is informed by internal guidance, established precedent, and previous practice; however, these arrangements are not currently set out within any formal policy document.

Formal policy documents are currently being developed and are therefore exempt from disclosure under Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Articles applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain 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 Test

Article 35 is a qualified exemption for information relating to the formulation or

Development of policy, requiring a Public Interest Test to determine whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The Scheduled Public Authority has considered arguments for and against disclosure as laid out below.

Arguments for Disclosure

There is a clear public interest in:

1. Transparency in public sector decision-making

Publishing information about how decisions will eventually be made could increase public confidence in the Government of Jersey procedures.

2. Promoting accountability

Disclosure could help the public understand the intended direction of policy and ensure that public authorities act consistently and in line with best practice.

3. Supporting public debate

There is public interest in ensuring that debates about the Government of Jersey Freedom of Information function can be fully informed.

These factors support transparency but must be balanced against the risks of releasing unfinished, unapproved, or incomplete material intended for internal use.

Arguments for Maintaining the Exemption

1. Disclosure would prejudice

The documents requested form part of an ongoing internal policy development process. Releasing them prematurely could • Misrepresent the final policy position • Lead to public confusion about procedures that are not yet accurate or complete • Undermine the integrity of internal discussions and expert consultation

2. Officials require a safe space to develop policy

Effective policy making relies on civil servants and subject matter experts being able to:

• Explore options freely • Challenge assumptions • Provide advice without concern that early drafts will be published

Releasing drafts would inhibit this process and could lower the quality of final policy.

Conclusion of Public Interest Test

While there is public interest in transparency, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that policy is developed thoroughly, safely, and without external pressure or misunderstanding arising from the release of incomplete material.

Releasing draft policies, criteria, or frameworks:

• Prejudice the effective formulation and development of policy 

• Risk public confusion 

• Undermine the quality and integrity of internal policy work

Therefore, the public interest in maintaining the exemption under Article 35 outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

The information is withheld under Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 – Formulation and Development of Policies.