31st report : Central Government's Use of Consultants

There's this report that criticises the public expenditure on consultancy. The one that the Public Accounts Committee published this week is a critique of the report on the Government's Use of Consultants that was published in November 2006. The committee took evidence from Mr John Oughton, Chief Exec of the Office of Government Commerce. He mentions accountability and some of what he says indicates the gaps that exist in accounting for consultants, so is pertinent to my research. For example,

• Q49 Annette Brooke: Can you just tell us a bit more about applying lessons across departments?.. What is it that is the barrier to sharing good practice and making progress on all fronts, as it were?


• Mr Oughton: The Chairman invited me to a reflective session at some stage before the end of March. One reflection now, if I may? There is still quite a strong resistance to ideas that come from elsewhere and this is not just a public sector issue, it is a private sector issue as well. Other people’s ideas are never treated as warmly as one’s own; that is just human nature. Breaking through those barriers and encouraging the sharing of good practice and the adoption of good practice is a big issue. It is slightly reinforced by the system of, and this is very much a personal view, accountability that we have here, where each department is accountable for its own delivery and feels, rightly, very strongly that it must do the best job it can. That rather discourages them from looking at other people’s ideas and other ways of undertaking business. ..

So this civil servant is talking about the public servant's accountability, yet the report says that:

"clients need consultants to show ownership and accountability to implement their work"

It seems to me again, that the MPs and media take away the requirement to account from the public servant client of the consultant and put the requirement on the consultant, despite the evidence that the public servant should account.

At Q127, Mr Oughton again refers to accountability of the accounting officers, not the consultant:

• My own view however is that the sense of accountability that accounting officers and those who report to them have actually means that it is really not in our style, it is not in our fashion to be putting the blame elsewhere. You may not believe this but the sense of accountability that we have, both in responding to the work that the NAO do and to the work of this Committee, is a real one. I do not try to push that off on others by saying I have taken advice from someone and I am going to disown that advice. If I have paid money to secure advice, then I stick by that.
  

Accountability came up again from Mr Williams in Q136. Government departments had been asked for progress reports, but two did not respond to the request. Mr Williams remarked:

• It would be interesting to know which the departments were, when it was and at what level there was any accountability in relation to this.

And although a footnote identifies the culprits, there is no explanation of accountability.

Finally, at Q142 from Mr Bacon compares the situation in the UK with the USA.

• What is wrong with and what is contrary to greater openness and accountability—and I accept the points you make about accountability—in having a more statutory Clinger-Cohen type approach? Why can you not go down that route?

I don't know about this Clinger-Cohen approach so must find out.