Breakdown of costs of FOI requests (FOI)

​Original ​Request 691252335

On the 13/01/25 ITV Channel TV News, an article was published on an interview with Deputy T. Binet concerning the alleged costs of producing responses to Freedom of Information requests.

A quote from this article runs

"When FOls first came in for the States, we were expecting 60 years; we're now getting 1,000. We've done a cost estimate, and it is costing the taxpayer about £1m [£1,000 per FOl].‘

Documentation required.

Documentation showing the calculations and assumptions relating to Deputy Tom Binet’s statement in the press concerning the cost associated with answering Freedom of Information requests. 

As a guide, can you break down this figure of £1m a year, showing how this cost is arrived at/achieved? Especially what proportion is money that is spent only due to FOI procedures and what is money that would be spent anyway, such as existing staff providing a response as part of their day-to-day wider role (and which wouldn't be saving if FOI regulations were changed).

Documentation showing how long it took to calculate the figures quoted by Deputy Binet, how many civil servants were involved and in what departments. 

Documentation showing why it was possible to calculate the figures quoted by Deputy Binet, but not for the October 2024 FOIR on the same subject.

Original Response

Calculations and assumptions on the costs relating to Deputy Tom Binet’s statement in the press concerning the cost associated with answering Freedom of Information requests is not held by the Government of Jersey in a reportable format. 

Ministers were verbally briefed on the various costs incurred, including central costs, departmental processing and approval costs, legal costs and regulatory costs. 

In addition, information is publicly available on the Government of Jersey Website via the links below. Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has also been applied.

Freedom of Information (FOI)

Use of Exemptions Policy Guidance.pdf​

About Freedom of Information (FOI)​

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. 

​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.  

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.

Internal Review Request 

I would like to appeal this response:

Even if the briefing was verbal, those conducting the briefing must have documentary evidence to back this up.

Who conducted the briefing (was it civil servants, I appreciate the names are confidential)?

And how can this information be exempt under Art 23, when it simply evidences a calculation?

Plus, where is the information to be found on the FOI website, when the response is it was only verbal and disclosure is exempt under Art 23?

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:

To confirm the application of Article 3, the panel requested searches to be conducted to ascertain that no correspondence within the scope of the request existed. 

The searches were completed and the panel agreed with the results and upheld the decision of Article 3 being applied.

However, for clarity it was agreed to release an extract of an email from Head of Ministerial Office: Paul Bradbury to Deputy Binet on 13th January 2025 at 13.50, which was provided in advance of his interview and used in his statement. The extract is detailed below:

* It is also 10 years since the Law was introduced and we need to learn the lesson from that time. In 2024, over 1,000 requests were received compared to 500 ten years ago; and the Law costs more than 1m a year to administer. Before the Law was introduced, it was estimated that 60 requests would be received. We need to better manage these costs and be mindful of adding more costs to our arm's length bodies.

In addition, it was agreed: 

The application of Article 23 was not appropriate in this instance as the information on the Government of Jersey website was referred to was general information relating to the exemptions that can be applied to Freedom of Information responses, and were not specific to this request, therefore the use of Article 23 was overturned. 

Article 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. 

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.