Public Sector Reform and Policy Reform

The Eddie Molloy piece is damning.

One specific response: personnel functions should not be in DoF. A US style Office of Personnel Management with a mandate for strategy could do a lot.

@MC
Agree absolutely about whistleblower protection. I think I managed to help get whistleblower protection in the Nama legislation after lobblying FG & L several times. However, what is really needed is univeral whistleblower protections covering the entire public sector instead of the ongoing patchwork approach. I think Pat Rabittee has proposed something like this. Whistleblowers have helped expose some of the most signifcant scandals in recent years. Maybe, that’s why so many feet are being dragged.

Perhaps if the press stopped trying to blame the Minister of the day for every departmental scandal there would be more support for whistleblowers!

@All
Our entire government needs drastic reform and Opus DoF needs special attention. Like AIB knowing that Haughey was living on borrowed money but never thinking of mentioning it to the public, the DoF must have known there were major problems but they kept quiet, keeping all their complaints secret. That makes them deeply culpable for our collapse. From now on the public service must serve the public. They are our employees – not the government’s (who are also our employees). We badly need comprehensive whistleblower legislation across society.

@Brian J Goggin
Fully agreed. Of all countries we are especially in need of maximum transparency.

@Niall Dunne

That’s a recipe for rule by oligarchy. Far better to have pay that is genuinely competitive with the private sector – which we appear to have – together with similar levels of accountability. People always bring up Singapore where senior government officers and civil servants are paid up to and over $1mm a year, but it seems to me that the culture of efficacy and leadership there (civil liberties concerns granted) makes it a bit of an anomaly.

surely a useful dail/public sector reform would be the following

in situations where a financial calamity/huge waste of money occurs by an entity under a minister and the minister relies on the defence that “i relied on the best available advice”

then in situations where the advice actually contradicts the minister then that contradictory advice should be published by the govt dept and either

i) the relevant minister should be called to account by the Public Accounts committee or

ii) by the dail itself

@ Oliver Vandt

Thanks, I must read up on Mr Hunt.

That would be the Brendan Tuohy associated with the Eircom privatisation, right?

Enough said.

The biggest reform needed in the public service is mobility between the public and private sector. Once in the public sector one is severely disincentivised from moving into the private sector. I know there is good people in the public sector some of which could be make a great contribution in the private sector. Have we ever seen apublic sector employee on dragons den? That pension gives them too much to lose.
Similarly private sector workers are excluded from applying for many jobs in the public sector. To me this should be illegal as any citizen should have the right to apply for any public service job. It is anti-competitive.
If people moved freely between both sectors then both would benefit from the experience gained.
The public sector should be an equal opportunities employer.

This would also nulify the current divisions.

A suggestion I heard recently (at a public forum, so might have been a couple of people, I can’t remember which) suggested that a partial solution would be to make it essentially illegal for any member of the Oireachteas, or their staff, or anyone connected with them, to engage in any purely local matter. No following up on a constituent’s medical card. No messing with zoning or planning. No leaning on the county engineer. No interfering in minor Garda investigations, for instance.

The idea would be to separate local from national and force all members of the Oireachteas (TDs and Senators) to engage on national policy making, legislation, etc., rather than being super-councillors or high powered social workers.

Hopefully that would put more focus from the parliament onto policy making. It’s not a solution for any internal Civil Service issues, but at least additional parliamentary focus on policy making might help.

Such a rule would take careful drafting, but should be possible.

I’m sure that various proposals have been looked at and discussed in public before, perhaps at the TCD conference last June. Anyway, a thought.

In my view civil service reform is key to reform of policy making in Ireland. The old generalist recruitment model, whereby non specialists and recruited into the civil service after school or university and they move around the civil service during their careers is no longer appropriate in view of the increasingly complex nature of policy making. This is one of the key reasons for the over reliance on quangos, private sector consultants etc for policy advice. Civil service recruitment arrangements should be reformed to facilitate the recruitment of trained economists, social policy analysts etc directly to the mainstream civil service rather than to quangos. Specialists of this type could then design ongoing policy monitoring systems rather than relying solely on poor quality ex post policy and programme evaluation as is the case currently.

Civil service recruitment arrangements should be reformed to facilitate the recruitment of trained economists, social policy analysts etc directly to the mainstream civil service rather than to quangos. Specialists of this type […]

This provision already exists (specialists such as e.g. librarians are already recruited as ‘analogous grades’).

Even before I was mentioned in the dispatches I was tempted to throw in my tuppence worth here, but I find I have been excellently and comprehensively pre-empted by the revered Chinese shade, Zhou_enlai, whose extended comment addresses most of the key issues and presents appropriate and feasible recommendations. The documents, to which Philip Lane referred in the initial post, focus on organisational and precedural change. This, of course, is required, but Zhou, quite rightly imo, highlights the prior requirement for institutional change and reform of the system of democratic governance. In the absence of this change and reform, any organisational or procedural changes will take place in a vacuum and, as result, may fall prey to the law of unintended consequences or even be counter-productive.

Despite the catalogue of failings Eddie Molloy highlighted in his IT piece, it serves no useful purpose to demonise officials in the DoF – or in any other department. Despite the power and influence they exercise, senior officials in these departments are just as much trapped in a dysfunctional system as are ordinary citizens.

To Zhou’s sensible suggestions and recommendations I would add my oft-repeated call for an effective separation of the legislature and the executive and a correponding increase in the powers and resources of the legislature. The “tyranny of faction” and the power of the whips needs to be broken so that Oireachtas Committees are selected, empowered and resourced both to scrutinise and to initiate policy proposals. Obviously governments should have the primary responsibility for initiating policy proposals, but, in addition to organisational change and a greater focus on policy-related specialisms, I would suggest that certain personnel resources dealing with policy design and implementation in all government departments should be separated with some continuing to support the functions of government and others providing resources to Oireachtas Committees.

In this way, all policy proposals, whether initiated by government or by the Oireachtas would be developed with proper openness, scrutiny and transparency. Public officials, whether serving government or the Oireachtas, would have the freedom to support or contest specific policy proposals and to advise, in an open manner, government ministers or members of the Oireachtas, as the case may be.

As to the more ticklish problem of effecting a real separation of the legislature and the executive, I think there is such a deep popular affection for the current voting system of PR-STV in multi-seat constituencies and for the ability to elect directly potential ministers that any proposed solution must take these as a given. I still believe that ministers, once appointed, should relinquish their seats in the Oireachtas. To prevent initiating a rash of by-elections I think all parties should nominates alternate candidates – this would be a variation of the list system – so that, should a newly elected representative be appointed as a minister, the alternate next in line would take the vacated seat.

Of course, I am fully aware, that, in light of the unfolding of the largely self-inflicted economic and financial disasters, consideration of these matters will be considered a dispensable luxury by most people, but I remain convinced that the future viability and prosperity of the state is dependent on these matters being tackled as a matter of urgency.

@George

“Its very difficult for technical specialists to force their way any where near the top in the civil service ….”

This seems to me to be a massive problem. You have addressed the position of Economists but it is across the board. One would be forgiven for thinking that specialists had been wiped out in the Public Service because they get in the way of “projects” by pointing out flaws.

It also seems to be much easier to get promoted if as a generalist, one is not governed by professional standards and fundamental disciplinary laws. One will then always be seen as positive, forward looking etc. whereas those of us who must obey the laws of Physics, Economics, Psychology etc. can be a tad negative about crap projects by times.

Separation is anathema in Ireland whether it be NI from the Republic, politicians from the spoils of office, Legislature from the executive, nepotism, cronyism and kickbacks from the appointments process. If you clean up the Civil Service the spoils of office move to the Public Service and if that is cleaned up it moves to the Quangos. There is no end to what the lengths the Irish politicians are capable of going. The cure is to set three competing tiers with independent revenue producing powers. Then they will squabble in public over the available revenue pie. National against Provinces against Municipalities, charges of waste, irresponsibilty, wrong doing will ensure transparency. As they say in Sicily you set a gangster to catch a gangster. You also have to ask yourself why in the eighty years after the British left that Irish voters have not seen fit to vote out shysters. My bet is it will take another three generations to implement honest and competent government.