ANALYSIS:MINISTERIAL ADVISERS have rarely been out of the news in recent months. Controversies about their pay have fuelled a not uncommon belief that adviser roles exist merely to provide jobs for party hacks. The current Government and its predecessors are to blame.
They have broken their own guidelines on pay. They have been woefully lacking in transparency – information on advisers, such as comprehensive CVs and job descriptions, is not normally made available on departmental websites. And they have not infrequently allowed ministers to appoint people with little experience and expertise directly relevant to departmental functions.
All of this has eroded public confidence. Better rules on appointments, responsibilities and pay are needed not only for reasons of probity, but also to allow expert advisers greater input into policy-making.
In many peer countries and at the EU’s heart in Brussels, those who wield executive power have teams of advisers (often known by the French term cabinet). This system makes for better formulation and more effective implementation of policy.
Trust in the system of ministerial advisers must first be established. Most important in achieving that is independent vetting. A small committee of, say, three people would be adequate. It could be empowered with a veto over nominees. In short order, ministers, fearful of a humiliating rebuff, would no longer nominate people without demonstrable expertise. Independent vetting would stop – and be seen to stop – party loyalists being slotted into high-paying jobs on the basis of affiliation alone.
Along with publication of comprehensive information on CVs and job descriptions, also needed is a code of conduct specific to advisers and the supervision by the vetting committee of “decontamination periods” during which departed advisers cannot work for private organisations in sectors over which they have had influence.
With such structures in place, governments would be on firmer ground adopting a cabinet system. There are good reasons for doing so.
The state provides a widening range of services, many of which require knowledge of a vast evidence base. Governments are obliged to regulate swathes of citizens’ activities and interactions. All of this has increased the demands on ministers’ time. Add the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle, and, increasingly, superhuman powers are needed to be an effective minister.
The problem is particularly acute in Ireland. Here, holders of executive office are less focused on ministerial duties than in other European countries. Not only are ministers simultaneously parliamentarians but the demands of a near-unique electoral system mean they are obliged to spend a disproportionate amount of time on local issues and on fighting off internal party rivals in their constituencies.
To see how a team of advisers could improve the quality of Irish governance, consider a minister entering a department after being appointed. Often the minister has limited knowledge of his/her brief, particularly if he/she did not shadow it in opposition. If a reform-minded minister faces an excessively cautious or complacent coterie of senior civil servants, pushing an agenda can be like wading through treacle.
A cabinet of advisers balances the relationship between ministers and civil servants and helps the minister progress through the treacle. The problem is even more acute for ministers who are less inclined to drive an agenda. They can be easy meat for experienced civil servants, quickly being turned into little more than mouthpieces for the established bureaucrats’ position.
Another benefit of external advisers is the fresh thinking and expertise they can bring to the heart of decision making. Again, this is needed in Ireland where an excessive bias towards generalists and a dearth of specialists is a recognised weakness of the policy-making bureaucracy. Outsiders also work to counteract the tendency towards bureaucratic groupthink, the unwelcome flip-side of the strong teamwork and collegiality that characterise many departments.
The mire in which this State finds itself is a result, in no small part, of the failings of those in charge to question, challenge, formulate and implement. In today’s fast-paced international environment, crashes become inevitable if ministers are not focused, alert, willing to question established ways and prepared to act decisively when action is needed. Drifting along – a characteristic, if not the characteristic of Irish governance – is to invite disaster.
Strengthening ministers’ capacity to evaluate, decide and act is essential to stop the drift. Strong teams of advisers around ministers can help achieve that.
Dan O’Brien is Economics Editor