Reducing headcount can be right — but only if it’s done with process, purpose, and humanity.
First published in the Jersey Evening Post 2025-1218
Cutting Agency Staff Isn’t as Simple as It Sounds
Every Government Plan debate brings familiar refrains about “cutting headcount” and “getting rid of agency staff.” This year is no exception. Facing a tight fiscal outlook, Ministers – led by the Health Minister, Deputy Tom Binet – have rightly focused attention on the cost of temporary and contract workers. The argument is intuitively appealing: if the public service is spending millions on people who are not permanent employees, then surely ending those contracts will save money.
I have been on both sides of this equation. I have hired contract staff when services were short of essential skills, and I have also been hired as a contractor to deliver time-bound pieces of work. That experience has taught me that while reducing reliance on agency labour is desirable, it is rarely straightforward – and if handled clumsily, it can cause more damage than it prevents.
Why agency staff exist at all
Agency and contract staff exist because they meet real needs. They provide flexibility when services are under pressure, bring in specialist expertise for defined projects, and keep essential services running when recruitment lags behind demand. Jersey’s size compounds the problem: the island’s labour market is small, and specialist roles – particularly in health, digital transformation, and construction – are hard to fill.
Over the past two years, steady progress has been made in reducing both the number and cost of agency and temporary staff across government, particularly in Health and Community Services. Deputy Binet has cited early success in tightening approval processes, consolidating agency frameworks, and improving recruitment pipelines. Those efforts deserve recognition. They show that reform is already under way – but also that further savings depend not just on determination but on doing things in the right order, with the right safeguards.
Cutting all agency contracts overnight would leave gaps that could not be filled quickly or safely. In healthcare, for instance, that could mean closing beds or reducing theatre sessions. In education, it could mean larger class sizes or lost specialist support. In government administration, it could mean delaying reforms that are meant to make the system more efficient in the first place.
So, while reducing temporary staff costs is the right ambition, it needs to be done with discipline, sequencing, and humanity.
The illusion of easy savings
Agency and contract costs appear high because they are visible. A permanent employee’s costs are spread across budgets – salary, pension, leave, training – while an agency invoice arrives as a single large figure. Yet sometimes that invoice represents value for money. When a project is completed on time and on budget, a contractor may cost less overall than a permanent team still in post years later.
The real challenge is not simply that we spend too much on temporary staff. It is that we often fail to define precisely what we are buying. Too many contracts are based on process rather than outcome: paying for attendance, not delivery.
Deliverables, not duration
When I commissioned a piece of work, I learned that clarity was everything. A contract should set out exactly what is to be delivered, when, at what cost, and to what quality standard. Payment should follow only after those conditions are met. “No delivery, no payment” is a simple principle, but it forces discipline into the system. In the transition as agency posts are reduced, the process should begin with those currently working without a written set of deliverables.
It also restores fairness. Contractors deserve to know what success looks like. Managers deserve protection against paying for work that hasn’t been delivered. And taxpayers deserve assurance that public money buys tangible results, not open-ended process.
The human dimension
Behind every “contract” is a person. Many agency workers are not opportunists but professionals who fill vital gaps – nurses, therapists, social workers, IT engineers, and finance specialists – often moving from one short-term role to the next. They pay rent here, shop here, and help keep essential services running.
When cost-cutting translates into abrupt terminations, it not only affects those individuals but also demoralises permanent staff who see valued colleagues treated as expendable. A public service should never lose sight of its duty to act with decency, even under fiscal pressure. Structured exits, clear communication, and fair remediation periods protect both sides. Where performance is weak, managers should have tools to intervene early, set improvement plans, and, if necessary, discontinue contracts in a lawful and transparent way.
From headcount to value
Reducing expenditure through “headcount control” is not the same as improving efficiency. True reform shifts focus from the number of people employed to the value they create. That requires changing behaviours, not just cancelling contracts.
When managers are trained to specify deliverables, authorise payments only for achieved outcomes, and report non-performance transparently, costs come down naturally because inefficiency is no longer rewarded. Equally, high-performing contractors stay longer because they deliver results.
The real prize is not fewer people but smarter contracts – relationships defined by purpose, accountability, and measurable outcomes. That shift is already beginning in parts of government, and it deserves to be sustained.
A culture of accountability
To get there, managers need confidence and consistency. Too often, fear of process leads to inertia: contracts are extended because no one is quite sure how to end them. Termination should follow failure to deliver, not arbitrary targets. Oversight must scale with risk. Larger contracts should face greater scrutiny from directors and committees. These checks don’t slow progress; they safeguard it.
The Health Minister’s instinct to scrutinise temporary staffing is right. But scrutiny should distinguish between necessary flexibility and avoidable dependency. The first is a management tool; the second a failure of planning.
Process and humanity
Public debate often reduces complex workforce issues to slogans: “get rid of agency staff,” “cut the back office,” “trim the fat.” The reality is that behind each cost line are people, processes, and dependencies built up over years. Change must be deliberate and fair if it is to be sustainable.
As Jersey enters another round of fiscal tightening, the temptation will be to cut quickly. My challenge is to cut smartly. By enforcing clear deliverables, fair oversight, and humane process, the Government can reduce costs without hollowing out capacity.
Agency and contract staff will always have a place in small systems like ours. The task is not to eliminate them but to use them wisely – with precision, respect, and purpose.
Only then can we claim not just to have spent less, but to have achieved more.