COVID Response and Recovery Interim Report - Ministerial Response

Findings

Comments

1

The Channel Islands Pandemic Influenza Preparedness  Strategy  provides  a strategic  framework  in  relation  to  a pandemic. It has not been updated for several years despite an exercise being conducted in November 2019.

The Pandemic Influenza Strategic Response Plan had  been  under  review  by  HCS  officers throughout 2019. The output of the review was to be  the  Channel  Islands  Strategic  Pandemic   Influenza Plan.  The Exercise in November 2019 was part of the final validation of the plan from which learning points would be taken in order to finalise it ahead of publication.  Learning points and plan amendments were submitted to the Jersey Resilience Forum for approval on 11 February 2020; at this meeting, further areas were identified, and  final  amendments  requested.  Thereafter, expertise and other capacity was directed to the response  to  the  COVID-19  public  health emergency  and  the  learning  from  COVID-19 needs to be taken into account in the revised plan.

2

The evidence gathered confirms that the COVID-19

Strategy and COVID-19 Winter Strategy (the  COVID-  19  Strategies)  were produced as where we are now' public health  plans  which  both  acknowledge that  if  new  evidence  arose  to  change strategy,  a  further  update  and explanation  would  be  produced.  The

In  the  context  of  a  fast-moving  pandemic emergency, Ministers have utilised a number of methods  of  communicating  developments  in strategy.  The  Winter  Strategy  update  was essential in setting a framework for the expected escalation  in  suppression  responses  over  the winter  period.   As  case  notification  and  test positivity  declined  in  January  2021,  Ministers have  been  able  to  communicate  strategic

Findings

Comments

Winter Strategy confirmed that it was a minimum  three-month  Strategy (November to January) and possibly to the end of March 2021.

intentions  in  the  form  of  the  Reconnection Roadmap which has been continually updated in

the light of scientific advice.

3

There  appears  to  be  no  alignment between the COVID-19 Strategies and the Channel Islands Pandemic Strategy.

While  the  Channel  Islands  Strategic  Pandemic Influenza Plan was not enacted at the time the

World Health Organization declared the SARS-

CoV-2  virus  a  public  health  emergency  of

international  concern,  the  overarching  response

adopted in Jersey throughout 2020 was broadly in

line with it.  Of note would be the similarities

between the overall assumptions and intent of the

strategic public health response in Jersey and those

set out in paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6 and sections 5

and  6  of  the  CI  plan.  It  is  also  recognised

internationally  that  COVID-19  has  required  a

different and varied approach to many pandemic

plans in existence.

4

The Government knew as early as July that mandatory face covering may have been  required  in  the  winter,  or  if infection rates grew.

This finding is a reflection of contributions to a discussion held at STAC. At the time, mandation was considered as a potential step, but a further

part of the discussion concerned the need to focus on influencing citizen behaviour on a voluntary basis.

5

A proposition to introduce  regulations concerning  mandatory  face  covering took at least 54 working days to produce following  Scientific  and  Technology Advisory  Cell  agreement  on  their necessity.

STAC are an advisory cell and not a decision- making  committee.  It  is  more  appropriate  to consider the time taken by Government to prepare and  enact  legislation  from  the  point  Ministers received advice and acted upon that advice. In this

case, the relevant meeting of Ministers was 16 September.  In addition, the advice of STAC in relation to masks was, as a prior step, to more strongly  encourage  their  voluntary  use  within indoor public places.  

This  advice  was  the  subject  of  consultation primarily with the retail industry, culminating in strong guidance on 26 October to wear masks in specified  premises  and  workplaces.  It  was necessary  for  Ministers  to  consider  the effectiveness  of  this  voluntary  step  prior  to mandation being implemented.

Findings

Comments

6

The Chief Minister has confirmed that the  Emergency  Powers  and  Planning (Jersey) Law 1990 needs to be reviewed.

Policy and operational discussions to create law drafting instructions for a new Civil Contingencies law are under way. The Emergencies Council

have received an initial briefing.

7

Ministers and Government Officers have been  granted  significant  additional responsibilities during the crisis and are accountable for decisions made.

During the pandemic, Ministers have continued to hold the same portfolios with the same attendant ministerial responsibilities as they had before

the pandemic, such as for public health, health care, the economy, and education.

Where  the  powers  of  the  Minister  have  been enhanced  to  support  our  pandemic  response, including  in  relation  to  gatherings,  business

opening,  etc,  this  has  taken  place  within  the context  of  normal  constitutional  arrangements. Notably, the Assembly have debated and granted the powers and hold the individual Ministers to account in the Assembly for the exercise of those powers (including through the Scrutiny process).

8

The  accountability  of  Government Officers  and  Ministers in  a  schematic format has not been publicly updated to align to the COVID-19 Strategies.

Aside  from  non-Covid  changes,  ministerial responsibilities  and  accountabilities  remain  as they were before the pandemic. In saying this,

additional  mechanisms  have  been  created  to enhance governance and coordination during the pandemic,  notably,  the  Competent  Authorities Minister group, and various means of coordinating action and responses. This was explained in the Covid-19 Strategy published and presented to the Assembly in June 2020. A public schematic of those structures can also be published to assist.

9

The Scientific and Technology Advisory Cell's  (S.T.A.C)  remit  is  to  provide scientific  and  technical  advice  to Ministers and Government Officers. It is not responsible for leading Government strategy which remains the responsibility of Ministers, supported by Government Officers.

This is reflected in the STAC Terms of Reference published on gov.je, as

below.

1.  Purpose

1. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell (STAC)  provides  a  common  source  of  health, scientific and technical advice to Government and Gold Commanders during emergencies.

2. STAC provides a safe space to debate live

Findings

Comments

issues and ensures that advice is provided in a timely  and  co-ordinated  way,  based  on  best available  information.  This  helps  ensure  that policy/operational  advice  and  decisions  made during  emergencies  are  informed  by  health, scientific and technical expertise.

Decision makers will assess a range of advice and evidence presented to them, including that from STAC, combined with their own experience and judgement to make decisions during emergencies.

10

Transparency  in  relation  to  S.T.A.C minutes  has  not  been  adequate.  The minutes were not made available to the public by Government and a proposition had to be brought forward to the States Assembly  to  prompt  this  action. Although these are now being published, there  is  a  significant  time  delay.  For

example, the minutes for September to December  were  published  in  mid- January.

This finding is subjective. STAC has released minutes  in  accordance  with  its  Terms  of Reference, as below, and has arguably released minutes early, given that the emergency is not yet over.

5.7   The  STAC  executive  support  acts  as  the

  information  manager  for  all  STAC  products,   storing, circulating and publishing them as and   when  appropriate.  Non-disclosure  agreements

may  be  required  in  relation  to  commercial  or official documents. Advice is published as soon as it  is  reasonably  practicable  to  do  so,  whilst upholding the safe space to debate live issues. It is

likely that the policy development, security and/or personal information FOI exemptions may apply and this may mean that some information needs to be redacted or omitted before any publication. The timing  of any publication will also need to be considered, with the most appropriate timing often being after the emergency is over.

11

Advice given through S.T.A.C was not always  followed  by  Ministers  and without further transparency of decision- making  bodies  (Council  of  Ministers, Competent Authorities and Emergency Council) it will remain unclear on what basis decisions were made.

As per the STAC Terms of Reference (see above), decision makers should assess a range of advice

and  evidence,  including  that  from  STAC, combined  with  their  own  experience  and

judgement to make decisions.

Scientific  advisers  cannot  make  policy judgements  for  politicians  to  simply  "follow". Ministers make decisions through weighing up a range  of  social,  economic  and  other  factors, alongside operational and other considerations.

Findings

Comments

12

The  Government  of  Jersey  has conducted tracking to gauge the success of communications of its policies.

The  communications  directorate  monitors traditional and social media sentiment on a daily

basis  and  advises  Ministers  and  senior  policy officials on a weekly basis in Ministerials'.

For Public Health, there is a dedicated weekly meeting for communications with senior officials alongside  a  twice-weekly  kanban'  project management meeting where comms is fed-in.

During the respond phase of the pandemic, there was  a  daily  meeting  to  feed  back  sentiment, behaviour  change  and  outcomes  from  the communications.

13

The Government has not carried out a review  of  islanders'  views  on implemented COVID-19 policy.

A review of Islanders' views on the COVID-19 public health policies was carried out during the

second wave of the pandemic in November 2020. The insight work included a closed online forum for young people aged 16-21 and as well as focus groups with the wider population, to determine Islanders' understanding and opinion of public health guidance. A separate piece of work was also undertaken to understand how Islanders' feel about the COVID-19 vaccination. The findings from  the  insight  were  adopted  in  forward communication.

14

Beyond  31st  December  2020  all COVID-19 costs relevant to public funds are  accounted  for  in  the  Government plan 2021-24.

The approved Government Plan includes £87.277

million for the Covid programme, as well as a Covid-19 Contingency of £40 million within the

General Reserve.

In addition to the Government Plan allocations, MD-TR-2021-0013 identified that £71 million of additional  Covid-related  expenditure  approvals made by the Minister were unspent at the end of 2020. £50 million was allowed to remain within the  consolidated  fund  to  reduce  any  potential borrowing in 2021 (in accordance with a decision of the States Assembly). £21 million was made available to the Covid reserve (within the General Reserve) by that Ministerial Decision. A further

Findings

Comments

£6.2 million was made available in the same way by MD- TR-2021-0017.

15

In  2020  the  COVID-19  costs  were accounted on a case by case basis and no budgeting or forecasts have appeared in any COVID-19 Strategies.

R.89/2020 Government Plan 2020-23: Six-month

progress review included forecasts of expenditure to the end of 2020.

The  Minister's  published  policy  (R.96/2020 COVID-19: Financial Policy of the Minister for Treasury and Resources) included a Summary of funding approved by the Minister. It also included a section on "Expected expenditure to the end of 2020".  At  all  times  anticipated  requests  for additional  funding  were  monitored  against available resources to meet those requests.

The Panel was advised on a weekly basis of the amount remaining in the General Reserve to meet further requests and had regular briefing meetings with  the  Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources (weekly for much of 2020, moving to fortnightly as the volume of decisions decreased).

Agreed.

16

The  COVID-19  financial  policy (R.96/2020)  was  set  out  to  the  31st December  2020  but  Draft  Public Finances (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations  202-  P.28/2020  was  time limited to the 30th September 2020. The evidence would suggest that the Minister for  Treasury  and  Resources  has implemented strategic aims as set out in R.96/2020 when deciding to enact the Public  Finance  Law  2019  emergency powers.

17

The  evidence  would  suggest  that  all COVID-19 related requests for funding provided to the Minister for Treasury and Resources,  whether  successful  or otherwise, have not been reporting to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on a monthly basis.

The Panel's report does not provide any evidence for this statement. In the absence of such evidence it is difficult to respond to the point made.

The Panel was advised on a weekly basis of the amount remaining in the General Reserve to meet

further requests, and had regular briefing meetings with  the  Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources (weekly for much of 2020, moving to fortnightly as the volume of decisions decreased).

Findings

Comments

18

The evidence collected in the COVID-19 financial  policy  (R.96/2020)  suggests there has been a change in the allocation process from the General Resources for COVID-19 expenditure when a request is for £100,000 or less.

The Panel's report does not provide any evidence for this statement. In the absence of such evidence it is difficult to respond to the point made.

The  Minister's  published  Procedures  for

allocations from the Reserve (R.80/2020) make clear that, for both Covid-related and non-Covid- related  requests,  where  "a  request is made  for £100,000 or less, or where the Minister is satisfied that there is an urgent need to provide funding in the public interest, an allocation may be made by the  Minister  on  the  recommendation  of  the Treasurer". This does not represent a change from the  previous  published  procedures  (R.23/2020) which stated that where "a request is made for

£100,000 or less, or where the Minister is satisfied that there is an urgent need to provide funding in the public interest, an allocation may be made by the  Minister  on  the  recommendation  of  the Treasurer".

19

The evidence would suggest that where COVID-19  funding  has  been  drawn down and remains unspent at the end of the financial year, it will return to the Reserve, unless  otherwise allocated  or repurposed by the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

The evidence would also suggest that if unspent  balances  are  required  for  the same purpose in the following year, the Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources may approve a Ministerial Decision in the  subsequent  year  to  reissue  the funding  without  a  need  to  repeat  the funding  application  and  assessment process. By its nature amounts allocated to the Reserve may remain unspent and can be returned to the Consolidated Fund at the end of a financial year, depending on the financial position.

Correct.

MD-TR-2021-0013 identified that £71 million of additional  Covid-related  expenditure  approvals made by the Minister were unspent at the end of 2020.

£50  million  was  allowed to  remain  within  the

consolidated  fund  to  reduce  any  potential

borrowing in 2021 (in accordance with a decision

of the States Assembly). £21 million was made

available to the Covid reserve (within the General R£6e.s2ermveil)l ionby wthaas t mMaidneistaevraiaillabDlee ciins itohen. sAamfeurwthaeyr

by MD-TR-2021-0017.

Ano t tahellocdaatteioonfsphreapdabrienegn tahpisprroveespodnbyse (tAheprMil i2n0ist21e)r rprfeulenavdtiiionngugshlytao s abpueprenn sovepaellndoct abusftuendidninieng s2021s cfaromsfeors.   eAss20de2dnt0 itiiaolananaidrl

connectivity, the Co-funded Payroll Scheme and Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing on the

basis of new business cases received.

Findings

Comments

Any  re-designation  of  Covid-related  funding within  the  approved  Government  Plan  would require  a  public  decision  of  the  Minister  for Treasury and Resources under the Public Finances Law. If that funding is not spent or re- designated it will remain within the consolidated fund unless the Minister agrees to make it available in 2022 (in the same way that she did at the end of 2020).

20

A multitude of communication measures have  been  put  in  place  "to  explain, empower,  inform  and  sign-  post" islanders and businesses on the current level of the pandemic and steps being taken by Government and Ministers.

Agreed. For example, from March to December 2020  we  delivered  49  Press  Conferences. In addition, last year we achieved an overall growth in social media followers of 69,119 and received approximately  5.6m  video  views  across  our

platforms.   Some  of  this  increase  in  digital engagement  is  undoubtedly  a  result  of  the Pandemic.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The Chief Minister should provide  clarity  on  the timeline  for  a  revised Channel Islands Pandemic Strategy  to  the  States Assembly.  This  is  vitally important  to  ensure  that provision  of  effective foresight  and  scenario modelling to identify risks, opportunities and solutions have  been  included  to enable planning during this pandemic and future crises and that strategic and long- term planning is delivered to  a  high  standard throughout a crisis.

CM

Neither accept nor

reject

There is commitment to completing the revised  Channel  Islands  Pandemic Strategy  as  soon  as  practicable. However, this requires each jurisdiction in the coming months to consider their response to the pandemic, recognising the different  strategies  of  suppress  and elimination  were  adopted.  This  will include lessons learnt, the management of  risk  and  solutions  implemented  to identify good practice which will inform strategic planning in the future. This will include what learning is available in both the local and wider contexts.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

2

Alignment  between  the COVID-19 Strategies and

the  Channel  Islands

Pandemic  Strategy should  be  clarified  by the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister should provide  further  clarity when updating COVID-19 Strategies  "where  we  are now"  public  health  plan. Consideration  should  be given  as  to  the  use  of terminology  across  the Channel Islands Pandemic Strategy and the COVID- 19 Strategies. For example, references to the first and

second  wave  should  be regularised.

CM

Neither accept nor

reject

As for recommendation 1, learning and refining  plans  and  arrangements  for future  pandemics  will  be  a  priority

throughout 2021 but, at this stage, it is not possible to determine the extent to which a unified Channel Islands approach will benefit  the  objectives  of  both jurisdictions.  Equally, the experience of the  SARS-CoV-2  pandemic  has  been such  that  a  range  of  assumptions  and intentions in extant and draft plans alike will be reviewed.

3

During  the  pandemic forward  thinking  and concurrent  activity  is required. The Government should produce COVID-19 legislation, even in a draft form,  as  a  matter  of priority,  especially  when advised  that  introduction would be beneficial.

CM

Accept

Work  is  underway  to  develop  a  new public health law to provide improved public  health  protection  emergency powers which may be used in a variety of public health emergency contexts. This would  provide  for  a  more  flexible framework  for  action,  avoiding potentially nugatory action on a specific disease,  whilst  also  providing  an efficient mechanism in the context of the current pandemic.

In the meantime, draft legislation will continue to be developed as promptly as possible, once there is clear advice that this will be needed, and Ministers have decided that drafting should proceed.

4

The  review  of  the Emergency  Powers  and Planning  (Jersey)  Law 1990 should be prioritised

CM

Neither accept nor

Subject to the progression through the present  Pandemic,  officers  will  focus efforts to provide a clear timescale for

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

and a timetable confirmed to  the Assembly,  as it  is important  to  ensure  that provision  of  effective foresight  and  scenario modelling to identify risks, opportunities and solutions has  been  included  to enable  planning  for  this pandemic and future crises and that strategic and long- term planning is delivered to  a  high  standard throughout a crisis.

reject

policy  development,  law  drafting, Assembly and Privy Council processes so  that  the  Chief  Minister  is  able  to update the Assembly.

5

The Chief Minister should consider the accountability and  control  measures which  are  in  place  in relation to decision making for Ministers and Officers. Any  areas  of  risk  in relation  to  decision- making  should  be identified and the need for additional measures should be  considered  to  support good  decision-making practices and limit exposed risk  during  the  pandemic and any future crisis.

CM

Accept

Governance  matters  are  always  under review, and a review of protocols around decisions will be undertaken as part of the work above.

6

The Chief Minister should ensure  that  an  updated Command  and  Control Schematic is prepared and made publicly available as the  current  published version does not  align to that which is described in the COVID-19 Strategies.

CM

Accept

In  line  with  the  responses  to recommendations 1 and 2, a debriefing and  learning  process  will  take  place during  2021,  subject to the continued progress of the Pandemic. The outcome will  be  a  refined  set  of  plans  and supporting arrangements for the response to future pandemic crises.  Part of this, in line  with  wider  crisis  management arrangements,  will  be  a  crisis management structure, building on the existing good practice that was deployed during  the  pandemic,  as  well  as  the

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

learning identified.

Please see response to finding 8.

7

Terms should be  updated for  each  decision-making group  (Council  of Ministers,  Competent Authority  Ministers, Emergency  Council, Scientific and Technology Advisory  Cell  and subgroups)  to reflect  that minutes will be placed into the  public  domain  within two weeks of the meeting

taking  place.  This  being effective for the remainder

of  the  COVID-19 pandemic and  subsequent pandemics.

CoM

Reject

The STAC minutes are published as soon as  practical.  Most members of STAC have  significant  mainstream responsibilities,  including  medical  and clinical  duties  to  patients.  Timing  of publication reflects these commitments, including  the  provision  of  direct  care services for Islanders.

As  to  the  minutes  of  ministerial meetings, it is important that Ministers can have full and frank discussions in private, as part of good decision-making. In  saying  that,  communications  that explain  the  decisions  and  direction  of Ministers is crucial, so that the public are able to be part of an effective pandemic response, and understand legislation and guidance, and so that the government can be  held  to  account effectively.  This already takes place.

As above.

8

Political decisions must be made;  however, transparency  is  needed, and  it  must  be  made abundantly  clear  what advice  a  policy  is  based upon.  The  Government should  with  immediate effect  stipulate  this  and publish the relevant advice when  communicating policies.

CoM

Reject

9

The  Government  should with  immediate  effect share  exempted  minutes with  relevant  scrutiny panels for bodies such as

CoM

Reject

As above. This position was subject to some  debate  between  Council  of Ministers  and  the  Chairman's Committee of the day and this agreement

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

S.T.A.C.,  Council  of Ministers,  Competent Authorities  Ministers  and Emergencies  Council. Minutes should be shared with  scrutiny  in  a confidential  manner  once agreed  by  the  relevant body, legal efficacy of not doing so to date should be given.

was  recognised  by  Ministers  and Scrutiny in the relevant protocols.

10

Decision  making  bodies such  as  the  Council  of Ministers,  Competent Authorities  Ministers  and Emergencies  Council should  always  follow advise  of  the  S.T.A.C., publicly  identify  where decisions differ from that advice  and  clarify  why decisions  have  differed from  that  advice,  with immediate effect.

CoM

Reject

Scientific advisers cannot make policy judgements  for  politicians  to  simply "follow". Ministers are required to make decisions through weighing up a range of social,  economic  and  other  factors, alongside  operational  and  other considerations.

As per the STAC Terms of Reference, decision makers should assess a range of advice and evidence, including that from STAC,  combined  with  their  own experience  and  judgement  to  make decisions.

11

The Chief Minister should immediately  survey islanders  to  gauge  their perceptions of the COVID- 19  response  and  ongoing strategy in order to better inform  decision-making and  policy  development. This should be done in an independent  fashion  and the  results  released publicly  upon  their creation.

CM

Neither accept nor

reject

Insight work to determine the views of Islanders has taken place throughout the pandemic.  This  has  included  focus groups, online forums with young people and online questionnaires. The work was carried out by 4Insight – a Jersey-based global professional insight and research agency.

12

The Minister for Treasury and Resources should give greater consideration as to

MTR

Accept in part

(first

Covid  expenditure,  as  with  all expenditure,  is  monitored  actively throughout  the  year.  The  Principal

Already in place

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

the  processes  and procedures  regarding  the allocation, draw down and unspent  monies  against COVID-19  expenditure and  whether  these  reflect the  fluid  nature  of  the pandemic and appropriate accountability.  The evidence  would  also suggest  that  the  Minister for  Treasury  and Resources  has  not provided  the  information required to the  Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on a monthly basis.

sen- tence)

Accountable  Officer  has  designated Accountable  Officers  for  individual elements  within  the  Government  Plan allocation  of  £87.277  million.  Any additional  allocations  from  the  Covid Reserve  will  have  clearly  designated Accountable Officer.

The Panel's report does not provide any evidence for the statement in the second sentence of the recommendation. In the absence of such evidence it is difficult to respond to the point made.

The Panel was advised on a weekly basis of the amount remaining in the General Reserve to meet further requests and had regular  briefing  meetings  with  the Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources (weekly for much of 2020, moving to fortnightly as the volume of decisions decreased).

13

The Chief Minister should update  the  COVID-19 communication strategy to consider  and  ensure  that communication  meets defined objectives aligned to  the  core  pandemic strategy.

CM

Accept

The communications plans for each stage of the reconnection plan are aligned to the public health objectives approved by STAC and Ministers.

It  is  the  good  understanding  of  the guidance  by  Islanders,  and  their subsequent behaviour, that has got Jersey to such a favourable position.

This is already ongoing at

each stage of the reconn- ection