Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Employment of a temporary Risk and Governance Consultant (FOI)

Employment of a temporary Risk and Governance Consultant (FOI)

Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Government of Jersey and published on 16 August 2019.
Prepared internally, no external costs.


I write with a request for further information relating to the use of a Senior Nurse engaged in a consultancy position within Health and Community Services (HCS) in the area of risk and governance (referred to in a previous Freedom of Information (FOI) response published on 9 July at the following link).

Senior Nurse Recruitment (FOI)

In the answer to Written Question 303/2019 (Deputy Le Hegarat to the Minister for Health and Social Services, regarding the appointment of the interim consultant to work on Risk and Governance) it is stated: 'This is a consultancy role to provide expertise and support for a limited period given the current level of risk being carried by the department. The consultant will also assist the organisation with implementation of appropriate measures to manage and reduce risk and improve governance.'

Previous statements to the Health Scrutiny Panel (10 June 2019) suggest the engagement of the consultant was a direct response to the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) report of 2018, on the topic of Governance in the Health System.

In the C&AG's report on Health Governance in 2018, comment is made on the previous use of consultants to advise on changes to the governance system, as follows:

'2.16 The identification of key weaknesses is helpful and largely consistent with the findings of this review. However, I am of the view that the consultants were not used effectively:

  • there was no documented assessment of the adequacy of the existing governance arrangements

  • there was no report from the consultants to the States assessing alternatives against agreed criteria

  • there was a lack of clarity as to the respective roles of the consultants and management. The consultants prepared a report supporting the proposed solution and that formed the basis of the proposition to the States. However, that report did not bear the name of the consultancy firm

  • there was insufficient transparency in the decision making process: it is not possible from the available documentation to see how management, with the support of the advice of consultants, evaluated alternatives against any objective criteria and developed a proposed solution; and

  • it is not clear how HSSD management proposed to address the underlying findings of the consultants.'

Recommendation 4 (R4) in the C&AG Report States: 'Ensure that consultancy reviews leading to proposals for change include documented evaluations of alternatives against agreed criteria.' In the HCS Response to the C&AG Report ('Governance Fit for the Future' - October 2018), the specific response to R4 states: 'Further consultancy advice should not be required on governance arrangements.'

States of Jersey Financial Directions 5.1 and 5.6 also relate to the engagement of consultants - 5.1 states that all engagements over > £25k in value should be subject to a tender process with at least 3 quotes.

Financial Direction 5.6 states that for any engagement of a consultant with contract value >£25k there should be a nominated Responsible Officer , formal engagement plan, tender assessment process, terms of reference, outcome monitoring plan and post-engagement review. Additional check are placed on contracts >£50k in value.

As the role in question has clearly been defined in previous responses as a 'consultancy role' (and it has also been stated previously there is no Job Description so therefore it cannot be considered an employed role), please provide:


The job title of the Responsible Officer for the consultancy engagement, as per Financial Direction 5.6


The engagement plan and terms of reference.


The expected total cost of the engagement (primarily is it expected to be within the £25 to £50k band or total >£50k including ancillary costs such as transport and accommodation, in which case additional measures will be required for monitoring as per Financial Direction 5.6).


The P.59 document relating to the role, which was submitted to the States Employment Board for approval of the rate to be paid


The date at which an exemption for Financial Direction 5.1 was signed, and the job title of the Accountable Officer who signed this (there must be a signed exemption as it is already known from previous disclosures that no tender process was followed and the role was given to an acquaintance of the Director General). Please also provide the justification given on the signed exemption.


The date at which an exemption was signed by the States Treasurer as per Financial Direction 5.6 if the processes identified in Financial Direction 5.6 were also not followed. Please also provide the justification given on this signed exemption.


Any and all correspondence between HCS Officers and / or Ministers within the Health Department which justifies the change in position from October 2018, when it was stated in 'Governance fit for the future' that 'further consultancy advice should not be required on governance arrangements' to the position in April 2019 when it was apparently so urgent to recruit a consultant that all Financial Directions appear to have been waived.


Confirmation as to whether the individual concerned is working in the Island on a non-resident business license, or as a Licensed Employee or some other status allowing them to carry out work in the Island



The Responsible Officer for the engagement is the Director General of the Health and community Services Department (HCS). However, Financial Direction 5.6 does not apply to this engagement. FD 5.6 1.3 provides “The engagement of temporary or agency staff (including interims) brought in to cover vacant posts or workflow peaks are not covered by this Financial Direction).”


The engagement plan and terms of reference for the Interim Governance and Performance Manager are set out within the relevant contract for service. This details the aims and expectations of the role.

In order to protect the privacy of individuals, any further details of the contract for service are exempt from release under Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.


The cost of the engagement has been publically released as follows: “Charlotte Hall, a former Chief Nurse in the NHS, has been engaged through HCS following approval from the States’ Employment Board, under a ‘contract for services’ agreement for two weeks per month, over a six-month period, at a day rate of £750. The Government pays for her accommodation and return flights to the UK, in line with the normal travel and accommodation policy for contract and interim workers.

“Since May, she has been working with Health and Community Services to strengthen HCS’s arrangements around risk and governance, in response to the C&AG’s report, called “Governance arrangements for Health and Social Care” which was published in September 2018. She is also supporting the Chief Nurse with her portfolio of work while the Department implements the new organisational structure for Health and Community Services.”

Further information in relation to ancillary costs has recently been published within the following Freedom of Information response:

Temporary Health and Community Services appointments (FOI)


The P.59 is attached below:

P59 - Risk and Governance Consultant HCS - Redacted 

Personal signatures have been redacted in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.


This information is not held.


Financial Direction 5.6 does not apply. Please refer to response 'A' above.


There are no emails that relate to a change in position.

HCS specified in its response to the C&AG Report that, in relation to Recommendation 4, 'further consultancy advice should not be required on governance arrangements’.

It is important to clarify that the engagement of the interim consultant is not in response to Recommendation 4 of the C&AG report.

The engagement of the consultant has been made in order to address Recommendation 1 (R1) which requires HCS to ‘Ensure that effective over-arching structures are in place to manage health and social care provision.’ In order to address the actions ‘A full review of all structures, roles and responsibilities is being undertaken as part of implementing the target operating model within HCS.’


The Interim Governance and Performance Manager is working on a non-residential business licence.

Articles applied

Article 23 Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

Article 25 Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1) (a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.

Back to top
rating button