Cardiff University criticised over consultant secrecy

Martin Shipton

Cardiff University has admitted that it doesn’t know how much it is spending overall on external consultants or hold a central record of what work they are doing.

Academic sources have described the lack of transparency as “outrageous” and a dirty little secret that needs to be exposed.

Last month Nation.Cymru reported how Cardiff University had spent more than £1m in the last year on a controversial consulting firm as part of its ongoing cuts programme.

The Nous Group consultancy has been dubbed “Nousferatu” by critics in higher education internationally for the allegedly vampiric way that it is “extracting the lifeblood from universities”.

The consultants have become influential players in higher education markets in the UK, Australia, and Canada where the advice they sell to universities has often involved stripping back the democratic governance of institutions by academics, centralising control in the hands of Vice Chancellors, and cutting staff and courses.

Figures released in line with the Freedom of Information Act show that Cardiff University paid £1,085,761.73 to Nous for “Capability Development” between June 2025 and May 2026; £243,679.45 on “Process Engineering Support” in June and July 2025, believed to include planning for the introduction of a contentious new timetabling system that led to chaos, with many students and staff not knowing where to go for lessons in September 2025; £419,036.85 on “targeted support” to help with the introduction of a system of “hybs” for administrative and professional services staff between November 2025 and January 2026; and £422,045 for ongoing “Transformation Support and Capability Development” between February and May 2026.

Nation.Cymru followed up the story by asking the university to disclose details of all contracts involving external consultants, including costs, that had been entered into since January 1 2025.

We have now received the following response: “The university confirms that it holds information on contracts involving external consultants. Our records are not held in a format that identifies the reason for their engagement with the university.

“To identify the details you have requested, we would need to review each individual record in order to contact individual schools and departments. They would then need to check their records to ascertain the exact nature of the engagement before we could collate this information. As we hold over 180 records and allow 10 minutes per record, this would take considerably more than 18 hours to provide the details requested.

“The university is not obliged to spend more than 18 hours (as set by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004) collating such information and accordingly the exemption provided by section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will apply.

“Furthermore, we are unable to provide contract information, as it is considered that this information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act entitled Commercial Interests. This section states: ‘43(2) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).’

“The information requested contains data that would give insight into the University’s activities that would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests. To disclose this information into the public domain would put the university at a commercial disadvantage by exposing its business model and key business information to competitors. Likewise, this would put the providers at a competitive disadvantage, with its own competitors during such a process. This would have the effect of distorting the market and give a clear advantage to those companies not subject to the FOI Act to exploit that information for their own competitive gain.

“Furthermore, sharing of commercially confidential information between competitors is normally prohibited under the Competition Act 1998 as this could have an adverse impact upon competition in that market.”

‘Outrageous’

A Cardiff University academic who spoke to us on condition they were not identified said: “Claiming commercial sensitivity as an excuse not to disclose this information is outrageous. The amounts spent on consultancies by universities across Wales and the UK is one of the sector’s dirty little secrets, and squarely in the public interest.

“But when it comes to tightening our belts it’s always academic and professional services staff that bear the brunt. Cardiff University is full of all sorts of experts who could be offering advice, so why are we spending so much on these corporate bloodsuckers?

“Hiding behind the time it would take to get the data together also raises serious questions. The fact there are over 180 records of consultancy fees which would take over 18 hours to collate suggests the university must be spending millions. Surely this would be better spent on keeping people in jobs.”

Medr

Another Cardiff University staff member who did not wish to be identified said: “The Welsh Government should compel publication of this information through individual university annual return to Medr [the Welsh Government’s higher education watchdog].

“Universities seem to be less open and transparent than any equivalent organisation, based on this response. Students should have a right to know what their fees are being spent on.’