Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist (P131/2009): Ministerial Comment

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made on 7 September 2009 to approve ministerial comment to 'Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist' (P131/2009)

Decision Reference: MD-C-2009-0064
Decision Summary Title :	Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist. (P131/2009)		Date of Decision Summary:	7th September 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Research and Project Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist. (P131/2009) - Comments		Date of Written Report:	7th September 2009
Written Report Author:	Social Policy Advisor		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Comment on Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist.
Decision(s): The Chief Minister approved the comment to the proposition entitled, ‘Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist (P131/2009)’ and requested that it be presented to the States without delay.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Council of Ministers, at its meeting on 3rd September 2009 noted that the Chief Minister would present a comment explaining from the perspective of the States Employment Board the reason why the affected employee had been excluded for an extended period.
Resource Implications: There are no financial and resource implications.
Action required: For the Greffe to present to the States the comments paper for the States sitting on 8th September 2009.
Signature:		Position: Senator Terry Le Sueur Chief Minister
Date Signed: 7th September 2009		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Verita Investigation: Extension to cover exclusion of Consultant and Gynaecologist (P131/2009): Ministerial Comment

STATES OF JERSEY

VERITA INVESTIGATION: EXTENSION TO COVER EXCLUSION OF CONSULTANT OB STETRICIAN AND GYNAECOLOGIST (P.131/2009) – comments

Presented to the States on 8 th September 2009
by the Chief Minister

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

The Verita inquiry is primarily about patient safety and establishing the facts of the circumstances relating to the death of Nurse Elizabeth Rourke.

The management of the exclusion process regarding an employee in relation to that incident is a matter for the States Employment Board. It is not appropriate to divulge details of employment matters which should remain confidential between the employer and the employee while the matter is still under investigation.

The incident happened on 17 October 2006 and until the criminal proceedings were completed in January 2009, clear legal advice was given to the management of the department that all internal investigations should not be progressed so as not to impede the criminal proceedings. The hospital’s own internal investigation was therefore stopped upon these instructions from the Law Officers. On completion of the criminal proceedings in the Royal Court, it was deemed more appropriate to commission an external investigation into the death of Elizabeth Rourke and this is being undertaken by Verita .

Subsequent to the completion of the criminal proceedings an independent investigation, under the auspices of the Personal Misconduct procedure for Senior Doctors, was commissioned. This was being undertaken by an external consultant but was halted by a court injunction preventing any further work until completion of the Verita inquiry.

The significant delays in dealing with employment matters relate to legal proceedings, initially the criminal prosecution case and latterly a court injunction preventing the disciplinary investigation proceeding.

As Chairman of the States Employment Board, I have asked to be kept updated on developments regarding employment issues and I have been advised that the exclusion process was handled appropriately by Health Management, supported by the Senior HR Manager in accordance with the relevant disciplinary procedures and in conjunction with advice from the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS).

Given the length of time that has elapsed, the cost to the taxpayer and the understandable concern of States Members and the public, I have asked for an independent review to be carried out by an external competent person with relevant experience of dealing with health management, to assure the States Employment Board that the management of the exclusion process was initially carried out correctly and the ongoing review process has been done in line with due process. I expect this review to be completed within a matter of weeks once a suitably competent HR person has been appointed. Verita deal with health related issues rather than HR ones. I will report the main findings to Members but I will not be able to go into specific detail whilst there are ongoing investigations being carried out under the code of conduct for senior doctors and other matters are the subject of litigation.