A DEPUTY has been shocked to learn of an anticipated 33% increase within two years in States spending on consultants.
Mary Lowe, pictured, will ask departments to explain their spending plans during next week’s Budget debate.
She is too late to place an amendment but still wants action taken after she calculated that consultant fees, which totalled £1,698,983 in 2007, are budgeted to be £2,551,000 next year.
‘We’ve been told so many times in the States over the last year or two that we must stick to RPI or less, but consultant fees have gone up around 33%,’ said Deputy Lowe, who sits on the Scrutiny Committee.
‘How can we stand up and ask the public at large, plus the private sector, not to increase salaries above RPI because we’re trying to keep inflation under control, but have a prime example of the States almost paying lip service to the public by presenting these consultant fees.’
She said that spending on consultants should be going down, not up.
‘I accept that we are going to need them, but I don’t know why it’s proposed to go up so high - and it’s right across the board.’
She highlighted spending on consultant fees in areas like the Policy Council’s external affairs, which has gone from £192,551 in 2007 to £297,000 in 2009, or strategic and corporate, which has gone from £36,599 to £415,000.
‘I’m just amazed at some of these figures before us,’ said Deputy Lowe.
She has analysed the ‘blue book’ budget for the States for 2009 and produced a spreadsheet of the results, which has been sent out to other deputies.
As well as consultants fees it also addresses States grants, contracted out work and supplies and services.
Deputy Lowe is set to take the unusual move of voting against the blue book when it is debated.
- Deputy Lowe will be putting the analysis of States spending up on her website at www.marylowe.gg
Article posted on 18th November, 2008 - 1.00pm
.gif&contenttype=gif "Guernsey Museums & Galleries")
3 Article Comments
It would be interesting to know how many of these consultants were at university at the same time as our politicians that hired them. It would appear as though lots of mateychums tend to have their services hired by our elected. The strange thing is that if we actually get to hear about the finished reports themselves then we tend to ignore them? Whats the point then! More money down the drain. Something doesn’t add up thats for sure!
Report abuse
Mary Lowe?
Is she a bit slow off the mark?
Let me see. Get rid of the entire audit team, reduce numbers of staff in key places, try to run systems and process by people who are not qualified, and that means in order to do the work you still need people to do the work, hence the rise in consultancy fees.
The reason this is so high is that the States being as short sighted and dumb as it is let go the people that really mattered in the roles that were key.
When things need to be done they have to get in consultants as the locals / people in post can hardly tie their own shoe laces lets alone do the work.
Thing is, half the time, the contractors are probably ex-employees!
The other concern is the implication of ‘incentives’, i.e. we will give you some work, if you give us a back hander.
I seem to remember Mary being an advocate of cutting costs and reducing the number of civil servants - you cannot reduce numbers and provide even the most basic of services.
Report abuse
Well we don’t know how many ‘consultants’ are being employed and the reasons. It may well be that we have lost key staff and cannot replace them. It may also be that we have employed senior staff in key posts and then it turns out that they cannot cope - and they hire ‘consultants’ to do their work for them which means that the civil service are paying twice! Often these staff are also in receipt of extra allowances like housing and relocation packages which means that their disposable income is considerably higher than other (local) employees. No wonder local staff do not apply to work in these posts. I am sure that we do have the expertise on this island - but the civil service cannot compete against the private sector when it comes to employment packages. There has been some sabre rattling about the final pension salary scheme but that is the only good thing about working for the public sector (and employees contribute a high proportion). It is probably the main reason why the good staff who have been employed for a significant number of years do stay. I am certain that there are also senior staff cruising along not doing a lot and not making any decisions - but they are certainly outweighe, in my experience, by the hard working staff who really do want to make a difference.
There will always be some areas where a consultant is needed - but surely not half as much as has been used in the past few years? It would be interesting to know what these consultants are doing. Another aspect is that a lot of these consultants are coming from the UK where the culture is totally different and they are eroding the Guernsey way of life …… and not usually for the better. They are putting in layers and layers of bureaucracy when before, the job could (and was) done simply and effectively.
I hope that Mary Lowe makes public her findings. It will, I am certain, make interesting reading.
Report abuse