CoMIN committees, sub-committees and boards minutes

Summary

The requester asked for meeting dates and minutes since inception for three CoMIN committees: Justice, Legislative, and Operational Performance Board. The Cabinet Office responded with a partial disclosure, providing some information while withholding parts due to exemptions and the volume of records requiring consultation.

Key Facts

• The request was received on 2024-03-20 and the final outcome was issued on 2024-08-01.
• The response included 265 pages across 5 documents.
• The authority requested clarification on specific dates before processing the request.
• Processing was delayed multiple times due to the need to consult affected parties and the high volume of information.
• The outcome was classified as 'Some information sent but part exempt'.

Data Disclosed

• 2024-03-20
• 2024-08-01
• 265
• 5
• 2024-03-21
• 2024-04-16
• 2024-05-20
• 2024-05-21
• 2024-06-18
• 2024-06-21
• 2024-07-09
• 20 days

Exemptions Cited

• Qualified exemption applied requiring consultation with those who may be affected by disclosure

Original Request

For each of the following committees, sub-committees and boards of CoMIN provide: 1) the date each committee, sub-committees and board has met since inception of that committee, sub-committe and/or board; 2) the minutes from each meeting from the above. The Committees, sub-committees and boards in question: Justice Committee Legislative Committee Operational Performance Board On 21st March 2024, we wrote to you requesting clarification as follows: We write further to your request, received 20 March 2024, which states: " For each of the following committees, sub-committees and boards of CoMIN provide: 1) the date each committee, sub-committees and board has met since inception of that committee, sub-committe and/or board; 2) the minutes from each meeting from the above. The Committees, sub-committees and boards in question: In order to identify and locate the exact information that you are looking for for we need some further information and clarification from you. In particular, it would be helpful to know the exact dates that you require for each committee or board so that we can search for the information and narrow down the exact records and locate what you require. Please can we ask you: Justice Committee - please confirm dates? Legislative Committee - please confirm dates? Operational Performance Board - we have assumed this is meaning all dates of all meetings held? Please can you advise? On 21st March 2024 you provided the following clarification: Thank you for your email. I am after the date each board has met since its inception/creation. And then for each date the board(s) have met the minutes from those meetings. So, as an example, if the justice committee had met on the 4th, 9th and 12th of July for example. The fact those meetings occurred and the minutes of each of those meetings. I hope that helps.

Data Tables (19)

Full Response Text

#####

#####

#####

#####

#####

Government Office Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PN Telephone: (+44) 01624 686244
Website: www.gov.im/co

Our ref: 3758001 1 August 2024

Dear ###########

We write further to our partial disclosure of information on 9 July 2024, relating to your request, received 20 March 2024, which states:

"For each of the following committees, sub-committees and boards of CoMIN provide:

1) the date each committee, sub-committees and board has met since inception of that committee, sub-committe and/or board;

2) the minutes from each meeting from the above.

The Committees, sub-committees and boards in question:
Justice Committee
Legislative Committee
Operational Performance Board

On 21st March 2024, we wrote to you requesting clarification as follows:

We write further to your request, received 20 March 2024, which states:

"For each of the following committees, sub-committees and boards of CoMIN provide:

1) the date each committee, sub-committees and board has met since inception of that committee, sub-committee and/or board;

2) the minutes from each meeting from the above.

The Committees, sub-committees and boards in question:

In order to identify and locate the exact information that you are looking for for we need some further information and clarification from you.

In particular, it would be helpful to know the exact dates that you require for each committee or board so that we can search for the information and narrow down the exact records and locate what you require. Please can we ask you:

Justice Committee - please confirm dates?

Legislative Committee - please confirm dates?

Operational Performance Board - we have assumed this is meaning all dates of all meetings held?

Please can you advise?

On 21st March 2024 you provided the following clarification:

“Thank you for your email.

I am after the date each board has met since its inception/creation.

And then for each date the board(s) have met the minutes from those meetings.

So, as an example, if the justice committee had met on the 4th, 9th and 12th of July for example. The fact those meetings occurred and the minutes of each of those meetings.

I hope that helps."

On 16th April 2024, we wrote to you to advise that whilst we were considering your request, we required more time to process it. This was because we were considering whether a qualified exemption applied, which may prevent us from providing you with the information you have requested. We advised that in order to do this, the law states that we are allowed an extended period, beyond 20 days in which to respond. We advised that we would attempt to provide you with a response by 20 May 2024.

On 21/05/2024 we wrote to you again to advise that further to our previous email of 16 April 2024, we had been unable to respond by 20 May 2024 as intended, as we were still processing your request and needed more time to consult with those who may be affected by the disclosure of information.

Following receipt of a request for an update from yourself on 18 June 2024, we wrote to you on 21 June 2024 to advise that we required further time to work on the information you had requested. We advised that this was due to the volume of information that was to be processed. We also advised, that as had been explained in previous correspondence, the law states that we are allowed an extended period beyond the initial 20 days to respond in order for us to consult with others and fully consider the information.

On 9 July 2024 we provided you the details of the minutes of the Justice Sub- committee and advised that this constituted a partial release only, as further time was required to work on the information relating to the Legislation Sub Committee and Operational Performance Board.

Please note that this letter serves as response to the remaining aspects of your request and provides details of the minutes of the Legislation Sub-committee and the Operational Performance Board.

Our response to your request in respect of the Legislation Sub-committee and the Operational Performance Board is attached.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested because it is absolutely exempt under section 25 of the Act (absolutely exempt personal information). The reasons why that exemption applies are that: • The Cabinet Office is satisfied that the information amounts to personal data of which you are not the data subject; and • The Cabinet Office is satisfied that disclosure of the information would contravene one of the data protection principles as set out at Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation as it applies in the Isle of Man pursuant to the Data Protection (Application of GDPR) Order 2018, namely that The Cabinet Office can only disclose the information where it would be fair, lawful and meet one of the conditions for lawful processing in Article 6 and in this case, none of those conditions have been met.
While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some of the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 34(1)(a) and (b) of the Act as it is held by Cabinet Office and it relates to the formulation or development of Government policy and communication between ministers (including, in particular, the proceedings of the Council of Ministers or of any committee of the Council of Ministers).
As section 34, the Formulation of Policy, 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 disclosure: • Disclosure would provide some insight into the early stage of establishing a board policy, promoting good decision making by public bodies, ensuring standards of integrity are upheld. • Disclosure would provide insight into development of the board’s work, promoting openness. Factors in favour of withholding the information: • Preserves a safe space for free and frank deliberation on emerging policy, where consequences, benefits, risks, options, variables and scenarios are explored. Disclosure could inhibit natural, open and iterative discussion of this nature in future. • Options to progress a new policy are at an early stage and still subject to consultation with Departments and chief officers, as such the deliberation is formative and exploratory, lacking wider reflection and context. • Provision of a safe space for Ministerial discussion in relation to developing policy. • The authority needs a safe space in which to develop ideas or make decisions and develop policy including in sensitive areas; disclosure may inhibit future open discussion in similar circumstances.

In taking these factors into account the Cabinet Office determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance, some of the information held by Cabinet Office is exempt under section 35(b)(i) & (ii) and 35(c) of the Act, as disclosure would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public business.

As section 35, Conduct of Public Business, 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 disclosure of the information: • Disclosure would provide insight into the early stage of establishing a board and the workings of Government, promoting openness and transparency. • Disclosure may, to a limited extent, increase understanding of Government’s approach to the appraisal of options and provide insight into the workings of Government, promoting good decision making by public bodies.

Factors in favour of withholding the information: • Withholding the information preserves a safe space for early discussion a new board’s remit, role and purpose. Disclosure could inhibit future open and honest exchange of views at a formative stage in the evolution of a new, high level body. • Sensitive options and comparisons are explored in advance of any specific approach being adopted. Disclosure could deter an inclination to express views and raise questions in such discussions going forward (“the chilling effect”). • Disclosure would be likely to inhibit the ability of Public Authority staff and others to express themselves openly, honestly and completely, or to explore extreme options when providing advice or giving their views as part of the deliberation process. • Disclosure would be likely to inhibit free and frank exchange of views in relation to an evolving approach to performance reporting in its initial stages, whilst a range of options are under consideration. • Disclosure will provide information relating to discussions that are exploratory in nature, relating to an evolving piece of work. As the matter in question is still live, Cabinet Office reasonably seeks to preserve a safe space for this iterative process.

In taking these factors into account the Cabinet Office determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information

Please quote the reference number 3758001 in any future communications.

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.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I 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.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to 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 right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at 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.
I will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely

CONFIDENTIAL Council of Ministers’ Sub-Committee on Justice Thursday 11 May 2023, 4pm, King Orry Room
Present: Hon J P Poole-Wilson MHK, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs (Chair); Hon A J Allison MKH, Minister for Treasury; Mrs S Maltby MHK; Mr W Wannenburgh, His Majesty’s Attorney General; Mrs E Smith, His Majesty’s Solicitor General; Mr D Davies, Chief Officer, DHA; Mr C Cowley, Interim Chief Registrar, General Registry; Ms V McLauchlan, Director of Social Security, Treasury; Ms K Hemsley, Director of Policy and Reform, Cabinet Office and Ms Martina Jay, Legal Aid Certifying Officer, Treasury

Notes taken by: , Council of Ministers’ Administration Manager Apologies: Hon K A Lord-Brennan MHK, Minister for Cabinet Office; Mrs C Barks, Deputy Chief Officer, DHA and Christine Clucas, Deputy Director – Change, Treasury

Minute Number Item Action 001/2023

002/2023

Conflicts of Interest The Minister, DHA noted that she was a member of the Constitutional, Legal and Justice Affairs Committee of Tynwald which recommended that the Wooler review take place.

The Committee noted that His Majesty’s Attorney General (on whose role the review reports) is in attendance.

Introductions Following introductions, Ms Hemsley undertook to provide the Sub-Committee with draft Terms of Reference for the previous iteration of the Sub-Committee

CO 003/2023 Report in to the Role of the Attorney General The sub-Committee noted that: • Council of Ministers has seen the Report and is broadly supportive of its content and recommendations • Tynwald is required to view the Report and provide approval for the recommendations. Further engagement may be required • Some of the recommendations are operational and/or more straightforward to achieve. Others require larger scale reform and/or legislative change • Some of the decisions in the Report will affect Officers (within the Attorney General’s Chamber) and as such

CONFIDENTIAL the Report is confidential and must not be shared beyond the Committee • Although Council initially agreed to table a response for the July 2023 sitting of Tynwald, the Chair of the Committee noted the constitutional impact aspects of the Report are likely to have, and suggested that the response could be delayed until the October 2023 sitting if significant policy work is required • Submission dates (for the Register of Business) will need to be agreed with the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office • Tynwald has twice previously expressed a view on prosecutions – this should be incorporated in to the response to the Wooler Report

The Sub-Committee considered the draft response and noted amendments as required.

The Sub-Committee noted that some of the recommendations will fall to the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

Action: Arrange a meeting between the Chair of the Sub- Committee, the Chief Officer, DHA and the Constitutional, Legal and Justice Affairs Committee of Tynwald to explore recommendations relating to Tynwald and engage the view of the Committee.

CO 004/2023 Legal Aid The Minister, Treasury queried whether the Legal Aid Committee or the Sub-Committee on Justice is best place to bring forward Legal Aid Reform to T

[Response truncated — full text is 370,348 characters]