Skip to main content

Letter - CEO to PAC re Quarterly Public Hearing Additional Follow Up Matters - 9 April 2025

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

Government of Jersey Union Street

St Helier JE2 3DN

Deputy I Gardiner  

Chair of Public Accounts Committee

Via Email

9th April 2025

Dear Deputy Gardiner

Public Accounts Committee – Follow up matters

Thank you for your letter dated 21 March 2025. Please find responses to the Committee's questions below.

  1. What analysis, if any, has been done to assess the correct size of the public service to meet future needs for front line services for Islanders?

To say that the size of any public service is correct' is a subjective statement. However, Statistics  Jersey  published  information  about  Government  employment,  revenue  and expenditure in 2024 that includes benchmarks of the size of the public service as a percentage of total employment compared to other jurisdictions and identifies that the size of the Jersey public  service  is  not  inconsistent  with the comparators  used.  Nevertheless,  as  you  will appreciate, Ministers are focused on curbing growth and ensuring the public sector is as efficient as possible, and this will remain a live issue.

Our strategic workforce plans have also enabled us to look forward towards a three-to-five-year time horizon; this remains under continuous review and iteration. In relation to the two biggest departments  providing  front  line  services,  student  forecasting  based  on  demographic projections  has  been  undertaken  within  CYPES,  which  will  inform  the  future  workforce needs. HCJ also has workforce plans in place which are being refreshed to ensure appropriate levels of staff are available to deliver safe, high-quality care to patients and service users, including for new hospital facilities. This element of workforce planning will be integrated with finance activity and performance plans.

  1. How were decisions made about roles that needed to be removed, and can we be provided with the associated business cases/rationales?

As the Chief Minister has said in the Assembly, every department needs to look at their staffing structures and headcount to make sure they are appropriately sized, doing what any good organisation should do and keeping these structures under continuous review.

In relation to the Director of Education and Group Director, Economy roles outlined later in the question:

The CYPES initial business case is being updated as referenced in response to question 2(a) below. We therefore propose to provide you with a revised business case when the current structure review has concluded.

The business case in relation to changes within the Economy Department is appended to this letter and shared with the Committee in confidence.

  1. What consideration was given to the removal of specific roles (i.e. Director of Education or Group Director, Economy) and what analysis was done to demonstrate that these roles were no longer required in the long-term?  

The removal of the Director of Education role is part of a change to the CYPES leadership operating model between central functions and schools to increase the responsibility of Head Teachers. This will enhance accountability, streamline operations, foster collaboration, and ultimately improve services for Islanders. The removal of the role will also support the department to align roles and responsibilities with Ministerial priorities.

In a similar way, the removal of Group Director, Economy has resulted in more direct alignment of senior officials with political responsibilities of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development and will support efficient deployment of resources within the department.

  1. Could you please explain how not having a Director of Education feeds into the long- term planning and vision for the Government? By way of example, how do you ensure the Education service is as well managed without this strategic role?

The responsibility for this role currently sits with the Interim Chief Officer for CYPES, with the delegation of certain functions made to the Education Leadership Team. Two head teachers, one from the primary phase and one for the secondary phase have just started a 6 month part time secondment in the Education Team. They will look at structures and ways of working between the central team and schools with the aim of improving services to support schools.

This work will inform a future structure of the Department and senior leadership team, to be completed later this year. My letter dated 10 March 2025 references how specific responsibilities of this role are being managed within the Education structure.

  1. How can you demonstrate that the removal of roles to date will administer a more effective and efficient service to the public and provide value for money?

The removed roles will deliver recurrent savings. In addition, the business cases outline a qualitative assessment about how departments will be more effective following the removal of roles. The exercise in removing roles, consistent with the Council of Ministers priority to curb the growth in public spendings, has also obliged departments to consider their staff spend within departmental expenditure limits and drive improvement and productivity.

  1. Were any redundancies made because the posts did not deliver their targets or outcomes?

No, these posts were not removed because of concerns with targets or outcomes.

  1. There have been seven Tier 1, and Tier 2 roles removed from the organisation since you have been in post. How has this affected the risk profile of the organisation and how have any risks been mitigated?

The risk profile of the organisation has not changed notably due to the removal of these roles. Any significant risk would be escalated from departmental level and recorded on the corporate risk register in accordance with the Government of Jersey's Risk Management Strategy – which has not occurred.

  1. Thank you for providing the break down of the cost of the communications team supporting the various departments. We note this information has been provided in confidence on the basis that the information could lead to individuals being identified and breach data protection personal information. Whilst this is understood, the PAC would suggest that the information is in the public interest and should be published. We would welcome if you could reconsider and find a format to share this information publicly.

The Government of Jersey has a duty of care to protect the personal information of individuals including  its  personnel.  Therefore,  information  that  could  identify  individuals'  personal information will not be shared publicly. However, information has been shared on a confidential basis  and  has  been  published  on  an  aggregate  basis  in  this  and  the  response  to  the Committee's previous letter.

  1. We also note from the appended structure chart that there are additional roles within the central team. Please could you provide the total cost of the entire communications structure and indicate the grades for all of the roles within the structure. We would also be grateful if you could provide the total cost for the communications structure during 2024.

The total cost for communications roles comprising the Communications Directorate and Department roles in 2024 was circa £3.4m and in 2025 is anticipated to be circa £2.4m, a total reduction of circa £1m. This reduction includes the £528,000 recurrent savings arising through redundancies in the central team referred to in my previous letter.

Department roles are not part of the Communications Directorate. These roles are subject to the relevant department's decisions on how to support the delivery of public services.

A table of grades of all roles within the overall structure is included below. In order to mitigate the risk that publishing the information in full could identify individuals' personal information, grades have been grouped. I have shared the full detail with the Committee in confidence.

 

Area

Nearest FTE

CS Grades

Communications Directorate

17

1 x Tier 2

6 x Gd 12-14 10 x Gd 7-10

Communications  roles  in departments  (CYPES,  HCJ, SOJP, I&E, Public Health) and SoJP

11

7 x Gd 11-12 4 x Gd 7-10

  1. Noting from your letter that you do not have a mandate for significant organisational change, the PAC would appreciate your view on what you think the optimal structure of the civil service should be.

Given the mandate that I have in terms of organisational structure, it would not be appropriate to outline any vision for a novel structure for the public service without prior agreement from the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. However, I fully agree with the principles of delivering balanced budgets to support long-term sustainability through curbing growth in the public sector and redirecting monies saved to those areas where it is most needed.

  1. Please can you confirm why eight recommendations arising from the C&AG report Deployment  of  Staff Resources  in  Health and  Community  Services'  remain  open, despite the latest target date for implementation of all recommendations in the Executive Response being quarter two 2024?

Four of the eight recommendations have been marked as closed by Health and Care Jersey during Q1 2025. An update will be available for the Committee in the regular quarterly report.

Yours sincerely

Andrew McLaughlin

Chief Executive and Head of the Public Service

D +44 (0)1534 440129

E andrew.mclaughlin@gov.je