By Colin Lever
JERSEY’S government is the second-highest employer on the Island (9,940-strong in June 2025), behind finance.
On average, its employees’ salaries (£66,550 pa) are second in size only to those in finance (£68,640 pa).
In five years, the department’s numbers have swelled by 21.5% compared with the private sector at 3.1%. There is a concern that these numbers are unsustainable. The worry from the general public is that frontline services, teachers, nurses, police etcetera will bear the brunt of any cuts. Ninety‑five percent of every school’s budget goes on staffing. Cut this and you reduce the quality of education. But, then again, CYPES has just created a new layer of management within education.
One of the concerns from outsiders looking in, is that government departments are top-heavy with administrators.
An FoI in 2024 revealed that just 36% of staff at CYPES were teachers, with 25% administrative, civil servants. Out of 319 staff in the Chief Operating Office, there are 40 consultants, 21 advisers, 24 leads and 37 managers.
At the time of writing, the health department has an executive leadership team (nine); a senior leadership team (ten); and 43 heads of departments. Add to the list an advisory board and six committees and one begins to see where some of the health budget is leaking.
Would a private business/company be as top-heavy with so many well-paid administrators? So many departments have assistant heads. Assistant chief executives, assistant head teachers, assistant ministers. Who do they assist? Their boss or the staff beneath them? Are they a tier of management that is not needed? It is only by carrying out a thorough root-and-branch review that excess fat can be trimmed. But then who would wield the knife?
Experts are quick to throw brickbats at the civil service without much consideration as to cause and effect. How much are they expecting to save? £10 million? £100 million. Perhaps they should look at the £200 million-plus capital lost via government procurement before they talk about axing jobs and services.
Within any business, there is a critical mass. Above and below the inflective, work tends towards inefficiency. If cuts are made to management and that work still needs to be carried out, then someone else must take the strain. This is why administration duties within frontline staff (nurses, police and teachers etc) gets in the way of them doing the job that is expected of them.
The question is whether some of the administration is necessary. Are the policies and procedures vital and who decides this?
What jobs put quantity before quality of service? Frontline staff are given targets to meet. They are micromanaged, monitored and scrutinised ad nauseam. Staff absences and complaints of in-house bullying are commonplace. The very act of ensuring staff are “on target” requires needless amounts of extra paperwork, data collection and analysis.
Trusting a workforce, empowering staff, requires none of this circus. Better still, it motivates staff to go beyond what they are contracted to do.
Above a certain tier of management, the targets cease, performance assessments fade.
Appraisals may occur but, in all truth, they are just paper-pushing exercises. Failure is an option. Sackings at management level within the civil service are as rare as hens’ teeth. It is the norm to ease out the unwanted by moving them sideways or to send some of them away with a lump sum, rewarding their very failure. Exit packages for last year amount to over £1.2 million.
The civil service is generally a closed shop when it comes to scrutiny. There is talk of a trust triangle, linking the civil service, with elected representatives and the public. Does it exist?
The Treasury Minister talks of having to “cut the mushrooming of headcount in the civil service”, yet under her governance, some members of the executive leadership team got eye-watering rises of around 30% in 2024/25. Their excuse? We need to pay the “going rate” to attract the right talent. Is that not the same for nurses, doctors and teachers etc? That is why we have a shortage of frontline staff. And they wonder why there is voter apathy. The hypocrisy is there for all to see.
Elected members are generally not experts in the fields they are assigned to. Some may have ideas but without a collective manifesto, trying to impose their opinions on the establishment is bound to end in tears.
In many respects, being a minister is about managing the status quo, a figurehead for policy that is dictated by civil servants. These are the experts. They know the subject matter; they are aware of the pitfalls. How would you feel if an interloper strolls in off the street and starts dictating how you should work?
Civil servants are expected to be impartial, but are they? Charlie Parker was a political appointment, given a mandate to streamline Jersey’s civil service. In his three years in charge, the numbers in government swelled by 1,100 (source: Statistics Jersey). More worryingly is the lasting effect his management style has had on the mindset of the present civil service. Old habits die hard. The civil service is, by nature, risk-averse. The clamour for a social contract, the development of community wealth-building and social enterprise, all noble causes, may founder on the rocks of civil service obduracy.
Lobbyists complain of too much bureaucracy and too much red tape, but supporters would argue that they are a necessary inconvenience to safeguard and to provide equity.
Islanders need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Without such checks and balances those who shout loudest and those with the deepest pockets will have the greatest influence. It would be tantamount to a fifth column, riding roughshod over the Island’s democracy. For those who advocate drastic cuts in government bureaucracy, be careful what you wish for.
Colin Lever is a retired teacher and education specialist, SEND consultant, and commentator on educational and community issues. He also contributes musically to Repair Cafés and charity events and is currently writing and producing a comedy sitcom podcast.
