Council of Ministers paper regarding Single Resident Record – Presentation for the creation of a Smart Service Framework

Summary

A request was made for a Council of Ministers paper regarding the 'Single Resident Record' and Smart Service Framework, but the Cabinet Office refused disclosure citing the formulation of government policy exemption.

Key Facts

• The requested document was considered by the Council of Ministers in July 2017.
• The Cabinet Office determined the information was in an 'infantile state' and subject to change.
• Disclosure was refused to protect the integrity of the policymaking process.
• The information is planned to be released to Tynwald in December 2017 as part of a feasibility study.
• The request was received on 7 August 2017 and the final outcome was upheld on 29 November 2017.

Data Disclosed

• 7 August 2017
• July 2017
• December 2017
• 29 November 2017
• Section 34(1)(b)(i)
• CAB000008

Exemptions Cited

• Section 34(1)(b)(i) - the formulation or development of government policy

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

1

REFERENCE NUMBER: CAB000008

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2015 (“the Act”) Thank you for your written application received into this office on 7 August 2017 requesting the following information:
“The Extract of Proceedings in the Council of Ministers Month of July 2017 states that a paper on the ‘Single Resident Record – Presentation of Technical Concept for the creation of a Smart Service Framework’ was considered. Please provide a copy of this paper.” Response to your request
While our aim is to provide information wherever possible, in this instance the information is exempt from disclosure as it is held by the Cabinet Office and it relates to the formulation or development of government policy.
Section 34(1)(b)(i) - the formulation or development of government policy
The purpose of this exemption is explained at paragraph 23 of the UK Information Commissioner’s guidance, in the following terms: “The purpose… is to protect the integrity of the policymaking process, and to prevent disclosures which would undermine this process and result in less robust, well considered or effective policies. In particular, it ensures a safe space to consider policy options in private.” Whilst the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply to the Isle of Man, the relevant exemption is drafted in such similar terms that UK guidance can be followed in this area. The full guidance document can be found by at the following link - specifically in this case see pages 14 (paragraph 51) and 16 (paragraph 54):
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1200/government-policy-foi-section-35- guidance.pdf
Formulation of policy is a qualified exemption, and is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large. Factors in favour of disclosing the information include:

Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Tel: (+44) 01624 686244 Fax: (+44) 01624 685710 Website www.gov.im/co
2

• To promote transparency of decision making in Government and increase public understanding of the policy in question, and enable public debate and scrutiny of both the policy itself and how it was arrived at • To scrutinise the actions of Government and be able to hold Government to account for its decision making • Giving confidence that Government has a plan in place to seek correct advice when tasked with important decisions that affect people’s rights Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption include: • The purpose of this exemption is to protect the confidentiality of early policy formulation and afford a safe space for the creation of such. The information requested was conceptual and is subject to change.
• The current position of the information is in its infantile state, therefore has yet to be truly considered and options or considerations given to allow a properly set out policy position and frame any debate • Disclosure of this information in a fully formed state is planned in the feasibility study which will be received by Tynwald in December and will therefore also be in the public domain.
In assessing the weight to be attributed to each of the factors in favour of disclosing the information and maintaining the exemption, the Cabinet Office believes that this new policy is in its very early stages. Any formulation of such a policy must be allowed to happen in a safe space and away from public scrutiny. Also that disclosure at this time would create misinformation, with assumptions being made and discussion of a technical concept that is likely to change over time. In taking all of these factors into account the Cabinet Office determines that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.  The severity of the impact of the prejudice that may be created from the misconceptions that may be formed from an under developed concept in its early stages  The current position of the information is in its infantile state, Council of Ministers were informed that the concept was subject to further development recognising that the details were still yet to be fully formed
 The fact that the information will be released to Tynwald in December Your right to request a review If you are unhappy with this response to your Freedom of Information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post to the FOI Co-ordinator, Cabinet Office, Government Office, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PN. An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website https://www.gov.im/foireview. If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact us and we will be happy to arrange for this.
Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded. 3

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to apply for a review of decisions by the Information Commissioner, for a decision on; 1) Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or
2) Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested. In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision.
More detailed information on your rights to review is on the Information Commissioner’s website at: https://www.inforights.im/ Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about Freedom of Information requests can be found at: www.gov.im/foi.

1

That

Freedom of Information Request No.: CAB000008 Internal Review: IRCAB001 I refer to your request of 11 October 2017 for an internal review to be conducted with regards to our response to the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”) request as above.
The response you received dated 6 October 2017 explained that the information requested is held by the Cabinet Office and that it was withholding the same under Section 34 (1)(b)(i) – Formulation of Policy. The response set out the public interest arguments in relation to, and provided a link to UK guidance on, this exemption. To summarise the argument put forward for this review, with regard to the Single Resident Record, is that the Council of Ministers (“Council”) had agreed that a Smart Service Framework be used as the technical approach, i.e. a policy decision had been made, and therefore the engagement of this exemption is incorrect. However, this is not the case. The information released into the public domain, and which is referred to in the review request as the Council minute, is the “Extract of Proceedings in the Council of Ministers” for the month of July 2017. This is the publically available published summary of decisions based on the minutes of Council and therefore does not necessarily convey details of either the paper submitted, the discussions held or the detailed recommendations upon which a decision is made. In this case the paper sought support from Council for the recommendations that a Smart Service Framework concept be further developed to be submitted to the December 2017 sitting of Tynwald as part of the feasibility study. A report on this has now been presented to Council and since has been submitted to Tynwald for debate in the December sitting, meaning that this information will be in the public domain imminently.
I can confirm that this review has now been completed, based on information provided in the original response, by an independent officer who was not involved with the original request, correspondence or associated documents. The application of the exemption has been reconsidered and the public interest arguments for and against disclosure have been carried out independently.
The findings for and against maintaining the exemption are set out below. Section 34 (1)(b)(i) - Formulation or Development of Government Policy The response stated that the exemption at section 34 (1)(b)(i) applies to the information requested because the information relates to the formulation of government policy. The reviewer does agree that this exemption is engaged and that the information does relate to the formulation and development of government policy.

Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Tel: (+44) 01624 686244 Fax: (+44) 01624 685710 Website www.gov.im/co

2

 The reviewer was satisfied that factors in favour of disclosure had been identified, these being:  Promotion of transparency of decision making  Scrutiny of the actions of Government and being accountable for its decision making  Giving confidence that Government has a plan to seek correct advice These are important factors as decisions made by Government may have a significant impact on the lives of its citizens and there is a public interest in openness, transparency and accountability especially on subjects that may initiate significant public debate. This will help the public to have a better understanding of the approach of government. The reviewing officer was satisfied that the public interest arguments against disclosure were correctly identified in the response. However, the review has identified further public interest arguments to support maintaining the exemption, which are provided below.
(a) Effective policy making requires that Government Ministers are able to consider options and recommendations made in confidence by officers and that their ability to discuss matters affecting the public fully and freely is not compromised. To do so would be to limit free discussion. This is especially important when a policy is at its early stage of formulation, as is the case with the Single Resident Record. The public interest in allowing this to happen by having a safe space where matters can be discussed, free from exposure to public view and debate, is imperative.
(b) Importantly, officers need to be able to provide options, risks, etc. to the Council of Ministers without the risk of disclosure, whilst the policy is being formulated. The Council of Ministers can then undertake rigorous assessments which apply to the information being considered. If officers are not able to do so it would be likely to inhibit this free and frank discussion and so prejudice the policy development process. This would undermine the very strong public interest in government policy decisions being based on the fullest and most open sharing of advice and information. Because the formulation and concept of the Single Resident Record policy is in its early stages and subject to ongoing development and change the Council of Ministers need to be kept informed of progress of the project. The paper submitted to the Council of Ministers concerned the technical concept and the feasibility study, which will more fully outline the recommended option, is currently being undertaken and will be submitted to Tynwald for consideration in December 2017, at which time it will be in the public domain.
(c) Disclosure of any information about the formulation of this policy at such an early stage may result in public debate which can make it difficult for Ministers to consider the options objectively, especially at a point where they are awaiting more information to make fully informed decisions. It may also inhibit the provision of free and frank discussions between officers which can damage the quality of advice provided which can affect the process. The Internal Reviewer confirms that in considering the arguments in favour of disclosure, those arguments as stated in the original response are still applicable. When considering the additional public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption and those stated in the original response, the Internal Reviewer is satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

3

Section 34 (1)(b)(ii) – Communications between Ministers (including, in particular, the proceedings of the Council of Minister or of any committee of the Council of Ministers) In this instance the information is also exempt from disclosure under the above section as the information is held by a Government Department and relates to the proceedings of the Council of Ministers. As this section is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large. Factors in favour of disclosing the information include:  Transparency about the actions taken by Ministers, how they communicate and how they reach decisions Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption include:  Protection of a “safe space” where Ministers can have free and frank discussions  Disclosure of papers for discussion by Ministers may inhibit such discussions. This in turn may affect the quality of debate, especially of collective decision making, which may lead to poorer decisions being made.  Ministers are answerable for the decisions taken, not for how such decisions are made. In assessing the weight to be attributed to each of the factors in favour of disclosing the information and maintaining the exemption, the Cabinet Office has taken the following into consideration:  the subject, content and sensitivity of the paper for consideration by Council  the need for Ministers to be able to discuss such papers freely, frankly and objectively  the need to protect ministerial unity and effectiveness In taking all of these factors into account the Cabinet Office has determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. Section 35 (b) (i) & (ii) – Conduct of Public Business
The Internal Reviewer has also identified that in this instance the information is exempt under the above section, as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the work of the Council of Ministers and inhibit free and frank discussions.
The purpose of the exemption is to protect the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. If the information is disclosed th

[Response truncated — full text is 18,004 characters]