Staff Recruitment and Retention (R.35/2025): Executive Response (R.35/2025 Res) – comments

STATES OF JERSEY

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION (R.35/2025 RES): EXECUTIVE RESPONSE – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 26th June 2025 by the Public Accounts Committee

STATES GREFFE

2025  R.35 Res.

Com.

REPORT

COMMENTS

The  Public Accounts  Committee  (PAC)  presented  the  Executive Response to the Comptroller and Auditor General's (C&AG) report Staff Recruitment and Retention' on 14th May 2025. Usually, the PAC would present its comments on the Executive Response alongside the response itself, however, given the nature of the report, and its relevance to work being undertaken by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel (CSSP), it was deemed important to present it immediately at the time of receipt. The PAC has given further consideration to the Executive Response since presenting it, and has agreed to present the following comments:

Workforce Planning

The following was set out by the Government in respect of the improvement plan not committing to any specific actions in relation to individual departments but to include activity to strengthen support for departments in sequencing and delivering service and workforce plans:

Chief Officers are responsible for ensuring that the resources of departments are used economically, efficiently, and effectively and organisational design should be a matter of business as usual for all departments. For this reason, this improvement plan does not commit to any specific actions in respect of individual departments but does include activity to strengthen the support available to departments in sequencing and delivering service and workforce plans. Chief Officers will be reminded of the requirement to maintain service delivery models, which then link into a robust workforce plan, ensuring that skills shortages are noted at an early stage to enable relevant focused delivery of specific training and / or focused recruitment.1

It is the view of the PAC that this is not an acceptable rationale given the fundamental shift in workforce planning that is required to be implemented to future proof the workforce. The view that this is seen as business as usual' is also not accepted by the PAC, as evidence found within the C&AG's report does not show that an assessment for the future has been carried out which, it should be noted, is something that was highlighted during interviews conducted by the Jersey Audit Office as part of this review.  The  PAC  would,  therefore,  consider  that  this  rationale  be  revisited  and reprioritised by the Government to ensure that the correct planning for individual departments is carried out as intended by the recommendations of the C&AG.

Recommendation 2

1 Executive Response – Staff Recruitment and Retention (R.35/2025)

The PAC is surprised to note that the risk profile for this recommendation is stated as low given that workforce plans and future proofing the workforce are a critical plank of future Government Plans and budgets. Furthermore, the C&AG report outlined that whilst departments have all made a start in developing workforce plans, no department currently has a full workforce plan with numbers and timescales and how it intends to train and develop scarce skills. It was highlighted by the C&AG report that Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) was the furthest away from achieving a full workforce plan and, given the budgetary constraints and concerns already existing within the department in respect of locum and agency staff, this is a critical element to be implemented to ensure heath and care services are being effectively delivered.

It is also the view of the PAC that workforce plans are not the exclusive domain of People Services, and individual departments will need to specify their own needs and areas to be addressed with People Services as a support and enabling function. The PAC would expect a greater level of risk to be placed on the non-implementation of this recommendation and the suggestion that no further action is required at this time is of significant concern.

Recommendation Four

Once again, the PAC is surprised to note the risk profile for this recommendation is set at low. Noting the risk of non-implementation within the Executive Response outlines risks to service delivery and the fact that workforce plans are not fully implemented (as outlined in the comments on recommendation two), the PAC is also concerned to note that not further actions are being considered at this time. It is the PAC's view that the strategic objective of delivering a future proofed, well-equipped workforce has been missed entirely. The PAC would also suggest that consideration is given to how the increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) affects current roles and ensuring staff have a clear path to upskilling and retraining.

The PAC would also like to see evidence that People Services are challenging timelines for implementation of workforce strategies within the departments. Finally, the PAC would like to reiterate its point that workforce plans should be a primary objective for all Accountable Officers and not the domain of People Services.

Recommendation Five

The PAC notes the commitment in place in respect of this recommendation and that People Services are already working to improve processes and compliance in this area.

However, questions remain in relation to records being maintained by the Talent and Resourcing Team in respect of senior posts as defined by the Jersey Appointments Commission (JAC). The PAC notes that there has been a lot of activity undertaken in this area, and this was identified by the C&AG during the fieldwork of the report. As such, the PAC would like further clarification and assurance over what has been implemented to date in terms of guidance, templates and checklists and whether the new central record facility includes HCS. It shall be writing to the Chief People Officer to ascertain this information.

Recommendation Six

Once again, the PAC notes that the risk profile for this recommendation has been set as low. It would suggest that ensuring the guidelines are followed and clarified if there is any doubt is vitally important to ensure the robustness of processes. The PAC will follow up on this point further to gather evidence and assurance of the review of training being undertaken and information regarding the JAC guidance is included and correct.

Recommendation Seven

The PAC notes that the recommendation is agreed and is stated as already being in place, which the PAC will follow up on to ascertain what that constitutes in practice. The PAC has recalled the previous report by the C&AG Use of Consultants' which established that there were numerous examples of interims who had been in post for long periods with limited evidence of reviews having taken place. The PAC is of the view that this recommendation calls for further rigour to be put into the review of interims and for there  to  be  a  better  line  of  sight  for  the  Executive  Leadership  Team  and  States Employment Board (SEB) on interim appointments. The PAC will be addressing this in further follow up work.

Recommendation Eight

The PAC welcomes the acceptance of this recommendation and the improvement actions that are intended to be undertaken to achieve implementation. It would reiterate its comments in respect of recommendation seven and that this recommendation applies as much to the SEB as it does to the departments and Chief Officers.

Recommendation Nine

The PAC notes this recommendation is agreed; however, it does not agree with the rationale presented, the risk profile assigned, or the fact that no action is required at this time. It is well documented that the Government of Jersey has had numerous Chief Executive appointments since 2018. The PAC would draw attention to the following information  provided  within  the  C&AG's  report  about  the  costs  incurred  by Government in relation to the recruitment of a Chief Executive Officer since 2017.2

Noting that over £360,000 has been spent since 2017 on recruitment costs associated with the Chief Executive Officer position (excluding severance payments), the PAC is concerned  that  assigning  a  low  risk  profile  to  this  recommendation  significantly underestimates the risks to the organisation in terms of cost and value for money. The Government of Jersey will need to ensure that it gets the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive correct and, given the current Chief Executive is on a fixed term contract until the end of 2026, there is limited time remaining to ensure a process is undertaken that mitigates the risks effectively. The PAC would like to understand what the timescale is for starting recruitment and what advice has been provided by the Jersey Appointments Commission and Chief People Officer in this regard.

2 Staff-Recruitment-and-Retention.pdf

It was noted in a recent hearing between the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel (CSSP) and Chief Minister on recruitment and retention (which the Chair of PAC was co-opted for given the crossover between this report and the work of CSSP) that the following comments were made by the Chief Minister in relation to appointing a new permanent Chief Executive:

Deputy J. Renouf :

What I wanted to ask is, Chief Minister, can you confirm whether there is a strategy for the permanent position of permanent Chief Executive Officer, the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive Officer?

The Chief Minister:

Shortly, I think, Andrew will become our longest-serving Chief Officer for the last 3 or 4 and we are very keen to get some stability and continuity in the role. That is at the heart of the work on succession planning that the Chief Executive is currently leading on at the moment. That is after a good study of the internal talent. Because one thing I think we have omitted to do in the past is look closely at who we have got in the system and bring them through. To reiterate the Chief Exec's point earlier, we are working on that now, on the Chief Executive's succession planning scheme. We will leave for the next Government a succession plan in place for them to decide upon. [3]

The PAC notes the work is being undertaken; however, it would state there is still no clarity over the timescale for undertaking this work, and it would expect to have further evidence of the proposed plan for appointing a permanent Chief Executive. Without this, the PAC is concerned that considerable risk remains in appointing a permanent

Chief Executive. As such, the PAC will be requesting the succession plans that are being developed to gain further assurance over this area.

Recommendation Ten

The PAC notes that this recommendation is agreed and that it is already in place. Within the improvement theme, it is noted that the HCJ website will be updated by the end of quarter two 2025 with this information. The PAC notes that this information is now on the website, however, it would like further assurance over why this required additional time to be uploaded when it had already been in place for other departments.

Recommendation Eleven

It is the view of the PAC that not agreeing this recommendation highlights an acceptance on the part of Government that an inconsistency in the application of this policy is a tolerable risk. The provision of accommodation for key workers requires a robust and fair approach to mitigate against the very concerns raised by Government over the non- implementation of this recommendation. The PAC understands from the work done by the C&AG that this issue was a particular matter of contention, with the current policy creating a perception of favorable treatment. Noting that Chief Officers can make exemptions creates further concerns around the equitable administration of the policy. The PAC requires evidence of where these exemptions are agreed and moderated to ensure fairness and affordability. The principle made within the recommendation is incredibly important, and the PAC would urge Government to revisit this response and review the level of risk associated with not taking forward this recommendation.

During the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel public hearing (which Deputy Gardiner was co-opted for) on staff recruitment and retention, the Chief Minister gave the following commitment to reviewing the arrangement:

Deputy I. Gardiner :

But  if  somebody  does  receive,  somebody  does  not  receive,  we  are  talking  about inconsistency with allocation. The recommendation interestingly enough ... this is kind of: what is your view, Chief Minister? Recommendation 11 from the C. & A.G. is to ensure that consistent policy applies for Government provision of accommodation and this  recommendation  was  not  agreed.  I  mean  I  am  not  entirely  sure  why  this recommendation  does  not  seem  to  be  important  that  consistent  policy  applies  to accommodation provision for new recruits.

The Chief Minister:

I think one of the things we are looking at and we are recognising when we look at regeneration plans for the future is the need for better quality, more consistency among our state of providing staff accommodation. That is something we are going to have to address into the future. Without the recommendation and seeing the rationale and the context, I cannot explain.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Would  you  review  the  executive  response  to  C.  &  A.G.  report  regarding  the accommodation? It is recommendation 11.

The Chief Minister:

Recommendation 11. We will have a look at that. [4]

The PAC notes the commitment of the Chief Minister to review the Executive Response and would expect to see an updated response in due course following this review.

Recommendation Sixteen

The PAC notes that this recommendation is agreed, however, there is insufficient resource to prioritise action at this time. It would suggest that, by not prioritising action at this time, the there is a risk that joined-up delivery may not be happening in practice. Cross fertilisation of training and development would benefit Government (especially within services such as HCJ) and this response could be taken to imply that savings and benefits cannot be found from a joined-up approach. Government should reconsider the priority of this recommendation and examine further ways that it can create joined-up training and development opportunities across the organisation. This in turn will help to drive savings, efficiencies, and value for money.

Recommendation Eighteen

The rationale for not implementing this recommendation is that it is largely mitigated through existing provision and the financial requirements to implement it are assessed as not being proportionate to the risk currently. Whilst this is understood by the PAC, it would suggest that there are several cost-effective ways in which to do this through current systems that could be undertaken without incurring additional expenditure. The PAC would like to have further assurance from Government over the intention to implement this recommendation. The PAC shall, therefore, be questioning further the assessment that was undertaken in response to this recommendation and whether further avenues can be explored within existing resources.

Recommendation Twenty

The PAC notes that the implementation of the standard policy and procedure for exit interviews was done after the fieldwork had been undertaken by the C&AG for this review. Whilst it is positive that a standard process has been implemented, the PAC would note that the point made within the recommendation is two-fold. Firstly, it is important to ensure that exit interviews are undertaken, but secondly it is worth noting that many employees wanted to take part in them out of fear of reprisal or future opportunities  being  affected.  The  PAC  will  seek  further  assurance  over  the implementation of the exit interview process and that this is being done as a matter of course and that it truly encourages leavers to share the reasons that they have for leaving the organisation or department.

Conclusion

Overall, the PAC has concerns arising from this Executive Response which it believes the Government should either revisit or provide further assurance over. The key points raised by the PAC are as follows:

• A low-risk rating has been assigned to several recommendations which the PAC believes warrant a higher risk rating given their importance to the overall

effectiveness of the organisation. It will be questioning the Government further about the risk levels and requesting further assurance as to how they will be implemented in practice to ensure risks are mitigated.

• It appears that many of the recommendations do not have any actions assigned to them at this time, despite Government agreeing with the recommendations themselves. This does not provide certainty over timescales for implementation and  creates  further  concern  as  to  how  the  recommendations  will  be implemented  in  practice.  These  responses  should  be  revisited  by  the Government of Jersey and updated where required.

• Recruitment to the position of Chief Executives has incurred costs of over £360,000 (excluding severance packages) since 2017. Given this considerable sum spent on numerous recruitments, it is concerning to the PAC that the Government does not have a firm recruitment strategy in place given the current Chief  Executive  is  on  a  fixed  term  contract  until  the  end  of  2026.  The Government of Jersey must ensure without fail that a strategy is drawn up immediately to mitigate against the risk of further spending in this area.

There appears to be a view from Government that many of the recommendations of the C&AG have been implemented through subsequent actions since the publication of the report. Whilst this may be the case, the PAC will seek additional assurance as to the effectiveness of the implementation of these recommendations. It shall, therefore, be conducting further work to question officials on these developments during 2025. Furthermore, the actions agreed to within the action plan range up to July 2026 for implementation, which does not appear to be ambitious.

[3] Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel – Public Hearing with the Chief Minister – 27th May 2025

[4] Public Hearing – Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel – Chief Minister – 27th May 2025