Getting value for money from Aubyn Hill, et al

Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:14 AM

LATEST NEWS:

Editorials

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The issue of value for money for services provided by usually well-paid individuals and institutions has become topical, following the disclosure that almost $30 million had been paid to Mr Aubyn Hill's firm to handle the sale of the state-owned sugar companies.

The fee, which we regard as exorbitant, was so strongly defended by the minister of agriculture that the public was given the impression that it was out of order to question why so much.

We regard it as the constitutional right of the public and the duty of this newspaper to know how money from the public purse is being spent at any and at all times. On this matter, there is absolutely no equivocation.

Let us get one thing straight: If a job requires a world-class professional, then whatever the location of residence, nationality or gender, the cost of these services must be related to the going rate in the global marketplace. We never envy any professional the remuneration they deserve and can command. But we maintain that paying global market rates must be based on sound judgement about the type and quality of skills and their availability, especially given the state of our economy.

In the case of the divestment of the sugar companies, we are not convinced that other suitably qualified locally resident Jamaicans who are available at local rates could not be identified and engaged. This was the case in numerous, far more complicated negotiations in bauxite, energy, finance, utilities and infrastructure. Of course, if Dr Christopher Tufton, the agriculture minister, can show otherwise, we would be happy to eat our words.

Value for money, we insist, must be related to the accomplishment of agreed goals on agreed timelines. Usually the fees are related in some way to the final outcome. If not, there is no incentive to complete the deal. Negotiations and deal-making are task work, not hourly paid work. To date, the sugar divestment deliverables have been late and incomplete. Meanwhile, there is an open chequebook.

And let us also be clear, the value for money question cannot be dismissed by citing academic qualifications and previous work experience. It is deliverables and results that are the real test of value for money.

The prolonging of the negotiation process has not enhanced Jamaica's position, nor is it strengthening the Government of Jamaica's leverage in the negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Delay can be a viable negotiating strategy, but its use must be weighed against weakening one's position as the circumstances deteriorate.

Here is another case in which we ask about the value for money. The negotiations with the IMF are being led by another high-priced "banker" whose remuneration, we are assured, is reputed to be more than his counterparts in the rich industrial countries.

The issue of value relates to institutions as well as individuals. For example, the People's National Party forum on crime boasts a former prime minister with a garrison constituency, a former finance minister and a former investment banker as spokespersons on national security.

Is the banker value for money when neither of the former national security ministers, K D Knight and Dr Peter Phillips, will be speaking?

Should user fees at public health facilities be reinstated?
	Yes
	No

View Results
Results published weekly in Sunday Finance

Username:
Password: