The Policy & Resources Committee, which yesterday pledged to tackle rising consultancy costs as it announced the States Budget for 2026, has revealed the figures in response to questions from Deputy David Goy, who said he was unimpressed with the figures and concerned about the implications.
‘Many people are rightfully questioning how their tax money is being spent, especially when we hear the States is “running low” and are considering hitting everyone with GST,’ the new deputy said.
‘Before GST is even considered, the States must first prove it’s not wasting our taxes, close every loophole for the wealthy, and exhaust all other options, such as securing foreign investment. Regrettably, I have low confidence that these prerequisites will be met.’
P&R said that it had spent £25.6m. on business consultancy and £21.3m. on ICT, much of that to former contracted clients Agilisys, between 2020 and the end of last year.
It also spent £13.6m. on research, £2.8m. on legal matters, £2.1m. on employment issues and £1.3m. on finance consultancy. In total it spent £63.3m. over that period, £44m. of it outside the island.
These costs covered external parties providing individuals and teams to support projects and ‘business as usual’, including project managers and business analysts.
Deputy Goy wanted detailed information which P&R resisted on a number of grounds, including legal issues, commercial sensitivity and data protection, though the committee said that it was keen to show transparency in the use of consultants and that policies were in place to ensure that the States secured value for money.
It said the detail requested would be disproportionate to source and collect.
Deputy Goy said he wanted to know not just how much, but also who the consultants were, where they were based, what they were paid for, how much each were paid, and whether the work paid for was ultimately delivered, so that each individual case could be justified.
He said that only the first question was properly answered.
‘The rest were answered either very vaguely or broadly, to the point that they’re useless for the purpose I asked them,’ he said.
‘We deserve greater transparency on public spending... but it looks like we’re not going to get it.’
P&R said that arrangements with consultants included appropriate safeguards to ensure that payments were made only in exchange for clearly defined deliverables, which might be linked to time sheets or specific outputs, including the delivery of a report.
‘Regardless of the structure, payments will only be authorised when officers are satisfied that the States has received the contracted service to the standard expected,’ it said.
‘Finally, while the new Policy & Resources Committee recognises the value of consultancy where necessary, it has already challenged the need for specific engagements where it has been satisfied that satisfactory internal expertise or evidence exists to enable a sufficiently informed decision, and will continue to do so.’
Deputy Goy acknowledged that the committee had pledged to cut spending on consultants in the Budget, published yesterday. It said there would be ‘a renewed emphasis on internal problem-solving rather than relying on external consultants to validate known issues’.
‘I’m not surprised at all,’ he said.
‘This is why I asked those questions in the first place.’
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.