Special Advisers Functions and Value for Money

Going Forward

Its been covered here already regarding the apparent croneyism in the appointing of special advisers who have no particular experience relevant to the departments to which they have been seconded, but is any information publicly available as to:

1. What particular areas of public policy in each department have they been asked to provide advice about, and what is the breadth of the advice proffered?

2. What is the impact, if any, of the advice they have given, either in terms of savings to the state, but also in terms of whether the advice given is educated, appropriate, and correct and it's cost (e.g. taxes) directly or indirectly to the taxpayer?

3. How is "value for money" determined re the salary of each advisor?

4. Have any provisions been made to ensure that those who provide incorrect advice, if accepted and implemented do not sail in to the sunset with golden handshakes?

These sort of questions must be answered in order to curb the perception of croneyism and also to prevent the current administration blaming any future debacles on the "advice" they received.

It is obvious that many in the cabinet are not technically qualified for the posts they hold, and that external advice may occasionally be required, however with the size of the public service, surely correct advice is available "in house" or is it the case that those requiring "special advisors" do not trust the "in house" advice?

Second opinions may be extremely valuable, and can help in "seeing the wood for the trees" but the Ministers involved are asking a lot of the public to accept both the breaching of salary levels and the apparent unsuitability of some of the advisors to the posts they have landed.

Dirk Gently

This subject is one of my biggest gripes about the political system. "advisors", consultancy and PR firms being so involved in policy. It's hard not to look at it as institutionalised cronyism. How are advisors to ministers even appointed, whats the vetting process involved?

In the case of consultancy firms, who exactly are they working on behalf of, the state or their own clients interests. It's a grey area to say the least. I view them as hired mercanaries who's interests are in gathering fees, whether that be from the tax payer or from private clients wishing to influence public policy. Apologies to any genuine consultants who are industry specific experts and do offer good advice. I feel a lot of the big consultant firms are experts in spin and message control moreso than sound policy advisors though. If an idea is sound it should stand up to debate without the need for deflection and spin.

A lot has to do with the quality of politician we elect though and how we as a society tend to choose local chancers rather than able politicians capable of critical thinking. Lets face it, the pot hole fixers are out of their depth at national level and need all the advice they can get, with consultancy firms only too willing to guide them along the process for large chunks of tax payers money as a fee. The abilty of these firms to control message and influence traditional media is also frightening, easily getting opinion pieces printed in papers and "independant" experts onto tv debate shows. Politicians have been reduced to wind up dolls, pull the string and listen to the 10 pre-recorded PR statements designed to answer any question without saying anything at all.

There is also the fear of responsibility in decision making which makes it more desirable to outsource policy so as to deflect blame essentially when things dont work out. A recent example would be Dublin city council (biggest provider of public waste collection in the state) who felt it neccessary to ask a consultancy firm to advise them on the waste market. In fairness there was a handful of private companies capable of taking on the contract yet dub city felt they couldn't carry out a public tender process and hired a firm to come back and tell them to award the contract to company with a less than impressive history when it comes to service and operating former public services. Still, wasn't the councils fault, they hired a proffessional consultantcy firm to advise them on their own industry so the councils not to blame right? You would think in the public service where it is difficult to get fired more people would be willing to stick there neck out and make a decision though. No reason at all why that privatisation process should not have been handled internally by the council themselves. They are the experts, not some outside research company.

conflicts of interest, how do you know if there is one? how do you know the company you hire to advice you doesn't have clients who hired that same company to influence public policy in their favour? Most PR/consultant firms are littered with political hacks working to promote private corporate clients. To say the lines are blurry on conflicts of interest is an understatement.
As for value for money, I genuinely dont know how they (government) measure that, if they do at all.

It's something thats here to stay though. Our political "system" is ripe for spin doctors and "advisors" to dictate policy. Until we start electing people of substance and create a more open and accountable Dail system where ideas are actually debated on merit rather than a whip system with show debates and predetermained outcomes there will always be more than a wiff of cronyism in the air.

edit: just noticed the OP's user name, a phrase which accounts for 50% of my dislike for PR talk. we are where we are though I suppose.

Going Forward

Regarding consultants, is this a welcome development or does it raise questions of ethics regarding possible future conflicts of interest, as in "having a foot in the door"-

High profile consultancy firms working pro bono in the Department of Agriculture:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0623/1224299456235.html

I await Ernst and Young's offer of future pro bono services to DCC after bagging a handy 250,000E from the council to come up with Greyhound from a very short shortlist.

BTW, I wonder have EY ever done previous work for Greyhound????