Madam Presiding Officer
Thank you for granting me permission to deliver this statement, although I wish it were in very different circumstances.
Anyone who has followed the news over the last 48 hours will share the reaction we had at our committee meeting last week when the Chief Executive and Head of the Public Service outlined his draft findings of his MyGov investigation. It was, I understand, the same when he briefed States members on Monday. We knew that it would be bad. We knew that standards had fallen far short of what the public rightly expects, but the waste of public money revealed is absolutely staggering.
It is simply unacceptable that MyGov was allowed to continue for so long, consuming vast sums while delivering almost none of what was promised. It has, and will, rightly prompt anger and deep disappointment among Members, across the public service, and within the wider community. And it demands and we receive a response equal to the scale of that failure.
What is laid out in the report is not a technical failure or a one-off mistake, but a systemic failure, a prolonged breakdown in governance and accountability. It seems that despite warning signs being present, opportunities to intervene were missed, and governance arrangements became ever more complicated instead of more effective. Reporting – at a project, programme and political level – falsely reassured when it should have enabled effective challenge. Opportunities to pause, to reset properly, or to stop were missed. The programme carried on regardless.
More than £21 million was spent on a programme defined by high ambition and bold promises, but which ultimately failed to deliver. Money that was meant to transform services, invest in infrastructure, and improve value for money was instead absorbed by a programme that drifted, expanded, and contracted without sufficient ownership or scrutiny.
The Chief Executive’s report lays bare the reality of a programme which went wrong on multiple levels. Let there be no misunderstanding: while there is no evidence of malfeasance, this was a failure of leadership and accountability. Public money was spent without a firm enough link to delivery, performance was not clearly owned, and failure did not trigger timely consequences. The programme’s closure was the right decision, and I commend those who made it – albeit it came far too late.
There are simply too many serious concerns identified in this report to isolate or single out any one issue. The failures were systemic, interconnected, and repeated over time. Some of the findings are frankly astonishing: that a key supplier was embedded within the Programme Board overseeing its own work and repeatedly failed to deliver what was required; that staff, capable, committed individuals who cared deeply about their work and about this island, were marginalised for raising legitimate concerns.
The Policy & Resources Committee unequivocally supports the Chief Executive to lead the change that is required. His report is candid, uncomfortable, and necessary. The actions he has set out are not cosmetic fixes. They go to the heart of what went wrong and are focused on delivery, improvement and restoring confidence.
Clear ownership for projects. Fewer but more effective layers of governance diligently followed. A firm, uncompromising approach to procurement, backed by real and robust commercial discipline. Business cases which focus on what matters most. Professionalising how the public service approach and report on change and delivery. Clear separation between those delivering work and those charged with challenging it.Funding released only when delivery is proven. Reporting, internally and externally, that tells the unvarnished truth, fairly, accurately and transparently. Re-establishing ownership of our digital future, focusing on what matters most to the public and the organisation. A culture that listens to staff and acts swiftly and decisively on what it hears. And leadership accountability that applies at every level, including the most senior.
As a Committee, our expectation is clear: the actions which have been set out by the Chief Executive must be implemented in full. Progress must be visible and transparent, and accountability must be sustained over time. Only then can confidence be rebuilt, both within the organisation and with the community the public service serves. We expect some of these changes to be made within days. Others will necessarily take more time, but none will be deferred or diluted, and all will be accompanied by clear milestones, ownership, and reporting so that progress can be properly monitored and assured.
Later in this meeting we will be asked to prioritise the major projects that we will progress over the coming years. It is entirely understandable that Members and the public will question how we can do so in good faith when a serious question mark has been raised over the public service’s ability to deliver at scale. That is a legitimate concern, and it must be acknowledged openly.
But the answer cannot be to stop making decisions altogether, nor to retreat from change. We know there are things this island needs delivered. We need more homes built. We need infrastructure maintained and modernised. We need improvements in health, education, and the everyday services people rely on. Standing still is not an option, and inaction carries its own risks and costs for the community. Indeed inaction, being afraid of making difficult but necessary decisions, was at the heart of the MyGov failures.
We must not allow the failure of one programme, however serious, to tarnish the whole public service or to paralyse future decision‑making. MyGov represents a profoundly serious failure, but it does not define the dedication, capability, or daily commitment of the vast majority of those who work across the organisation. By being candid about where this programme fell short, we create the space to speak honestly, and with confidence, about both the organisation’s shortcomings and its successes.
The public service operates under sustained scrutiny, with criticism levelled daily, sometimes fairly, sometimes less so, and that scrutiny is an inherent part of serving the public. It is right that concerns are raised, challenge is applied, and performance is examined. But it is equally important that criticism is proportionate and informed, recognising both where the organisation must improve and where it continues to deliver effectively, often under significant pressure and constraint. What is needed is an honest and transparent conversation, grounded in substance rather than soundbites. This report is part of helping to reset that narrative. When things go wrong, the organisation will be open and upfront about it.
MyGov should sharpen our judgment, not shut it down. It demands the most senior leaders in our public service to be more disciplined in what the organisation does, more realistic about capacity and capability, and more demanding about governance and accountability from the outset.
Crucially, this also strengthens political oversight. When priorities are clearly defined, reporting is timely and accurate, and accountability is properly owned, Members are better equipped to challenge, question, and intervene at the right time. Effective oversight relies on evidence, transparency, and confidence that issues will be identified and escalated early. This is how Members can properly discharge their responsibilities, and how the system is intended to function.
There is a wealth of expertise across the island, and it would be a mistake not to draw on it. Once again, the committee would like to acknowledge the considerable value added to date by its IT Adviser, Deputy Laine.The purpose of tapping into independent expertise is to add challenge, perspective and experience. We were hugely encouraged by the level of interest in the Digital & Technology Advisory Panel, which demonstrates a genuine willingness from our community to contribute at no cost to the taxpayer. Subject to the final steps in the appointment process led by Deputy Laine, the composition of the Panel will be announced imminently, and it will be meeting for the first time in the coming weeks.
We continue to seek Advisers to the Portfolio Board and welcome further applications and names being put forward – this is another opportunity to bring in independent voices to test assumptions and scrutinise plans.
The Chief Executive has committed to reporting publicly on progress against his actions and we know that he will do so with the same candour and honesty that he has shown in this report. The first update will come from the Chief Executive in July and I have no doubt that there will be tangible progress.
As we agreed as an Assembly back in January when debating the Government Work Plan, information will be regularly published on the organisation’s major projects. This will explain what these projects are aiming to achieve, what has been delivered, what is currently underway, and what comes next. This must include being open about where things may have not gone as planned and how this will be addressed.
In the summer, we will be reporting on the first year after our decision to terminate the relationship with Agilisys. That update will be open and honest about what we inherited, where progress has been maden – and there has been progress - and where further work is still required. It will set out what we have learned from bringing delivery back under our own control, how risks are now being managed, and how value for money is being assessed. Crucially, it will not shy away from areas where improvement is still needed.
A common theme running through my statement today has been accountability. That should come as no surprise, given the findings of the Chief Executive’s report. As elected Members, we are entitled to expect that well rewarded, senior roles within the public service come with clear responsibilities and real consequences.
That said, it is equally important to be clear about where responsibility for ensuring this sits. Matters relating to individual employees, discipline and performance are properly for the Chief Executive, in his role as Head of the Public Service. They are not matters for debate or determination within the States of Deliberation, and nor should they be. The Chief Executive has confirmed in his report that these matters are being dealt with and has provided the same assurance directly to Policy & Resources. That is enough.The cost of making change badly will cost us all much more.If we are to mitigate the risk of financial exposure to taxpayers, we also need to understand and respect the need to ensure that this accountability is delivered with the constraints of the protections afforded by contract, employment and data protection law.In short, to protect the public purse, we must resist the inevitable demands there will be in and outside this chamber for public tarring and feathering.
One practical step in support of enhanced accountability is greater openness about the Chief Executive’s own objectives. The Chief Executive has had clear objectives in place since autumn, reflecting an early priority of our Committee when we took office to ensure that this was the case. In light of the findings of the MyGov investigation, those existing objectives will now be reviewed to ensure they fully reflect both the failures and the actions to be taken. With the Chief Executive’s agreement, the updated objectives will then be published in the coming weeks, providing clarity about expectations, accountability, and how performance will be assessed.
I have previously raised concerns about the Revenue Service transformation, and the challenges in that area are already well known to Members. Different in detail, of course, but not unfamiliar in some of the themes. What the MyGov review identifies in terms of issues around scope, capacity, governance, reporting and challenge, are not confined to a single programme and to varying degrees, some of those same pressures and risks can be seen elsewhere, including in revenue services and the delivery of the Electronic Patient Record system.
The decade long Revenue Service Transformation Programme was formally closed in May 2025 after £24 million of investment. While new core systems were delivered, fundamental challenges remained. Work is now underway to stabilise and improve that position. Efforts are focused on completing outstanding functionality, resolving key integrations, and reducing reliance on manual workarounds that carry both operational risk and additional cost. Oversight arrangements have been strengthened, there is a clear line of accountability for progress and staff are fully involved. This is precisely the kind of practical, disciplined approach that the MyGov review reinforces, recognising where programmes have fallen short, being honest about what remains to be done, and applying stronger governance and challenge to ensure that future investment results in tangible, sustainable improvement.
Madam, to conclude.
The MyGov investigation lays bare a serious failure, but what matters most now is what we do with that truth. MyGov does not define the States of Guernsey, but it must define what we will no longer tolerate. If this failure leads to stronger leadership, clearer accountability, and better delivery across the public service, then some good will yet come from it. If it does not, then MyGov will have failed twice.
Madam, I am happy to answer Members’ questions.