The most recent annual National Risk Assessment, published by the Taoiseach’s office last September, outlined “the 24 strategic economic, geopolitical, societal, environmental and technological risks facing Ireland”. All the scary ones are there, from pandemics to terrorism and “the introduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers in a tit-for tat manner” that will inhibit trade and investment.
But never mentioned in this annual monitor is the most consequential risk of all: an underlying vulnerability which, if not urgently addressed, greatly heightens all other risks – namely, a condition of the public service aptly dubbed “implementation deficit disorder”.
In an opinion piece recently published in these pages, Patrick Honohan, the former Governor of the Central Bank who steadied the ship following the 2006-08 crisis, wrote: “The issue is not so much what the aims of public policy should be, or even how we go about achieving them, the shortfall has been in delivery”.
At a time when little short of a unified national government will be needed to implement unpopular policies, like increasing taxes and cutting services and social supports, the recent Dáil speaking rights row has gravely compromised the authority and focus that the Government will need to confront a raft of clear and immanent risks to economic and social progress.
Distressing news about Elton John and Madonna. We don’t get too many cask-strength feuds any more
Grand Tour star Crista Alfaiate: ‘Portuguese cinema has this beautiful heritage – the sense of freedom’
John Wilson: Two wines well worth a few more euros
Breda O'Brien: How is a school with €8,000 supposed to pay €10,000 worth of bills?
In this fraught situation, it becomes imperative that senior civil servants step up to the plate. “Increasingly, though,” wrote Prof Honohan, “public officials seem to limit their purview to ensuring compliance with process (as well as keeping their minister out of controversy)”. He urges them “to be prepared to embrace a more thorough leadership in ensuring that long-term government objectives are effectively achieved”.
A chainsaw is being used to cut alleged public service waste and inefficiency in the US, and a scalpel in the UK. Nothing so drastic is needed here, though a zero-based “Bord Snip”-type reset is long overdue. Cuts and savings, however, will not address the “lethargy of an administrative state that underperforms and costs too much” decried in another column by Gerard Howlin.
There are two complementary elements to the public service reform agenda: the managerial discipline, technocratic competence and mindset of senior officials; and the dysfunctional structures and culture in which they have thrived for decades and to which they have become acclimatised.
The most basic management discipline – ie, setting specific objectives and being held personally accountable for delivery, with consequences arising, as per the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure and Reform (DPER)’s definition of accountability – is resisted in significant parts of the public service. I am aware of senior officials who refused point-blank to adopt these elementary management practices.
Technocratic weaknesses are evident in costly property and IT project overruns, financial mismanagement exposed annually by the C&AG or billion-euro compensation schemes for earlier regulatory failings in the construction industry. A consequence of encouraging officials to move around to acquire generalist skills is the over-reliance on costly external consultants. You need at least a small cadre of relevant internal specialists to competently hire and oversee external consultant support: consider the national children’s hospital fiasco, for example.
[ When only wealthy fathers take paternity leave, something is brokenOpens in new window ]
The grade structure of the Civil Service, with 15 layers piled on top of the executive officer rank, is reminiscent of the bureaucratic pyramid of the Indian railways in the 1920s. Ubiquitous, fingertip information and reliable decision-support algorithms enable radical delayering of steep hierarchies. Flatter structures would speed up decision-making and harness the full potential of our highly educated public servants.
Another structural weakness is that while vertical hierarchical structures are strong, horizontal structures of accountability are hopelessly ineffective, for example in delivering integrated services to vulnerable children. Appointing a head of the Civil Service would help in this regard and contribute to other reforms.
The 2006 OECD Review of the Irish public service, entitled Towards an Integrated Public Service, recommended that public service values be restated and a sustained programme undertaken to instil these values in the hearts and minds of public servants. It never happened. Without an explicit programme, people imbibe the prevailing culture through the “hidden curriculum” of nod and wink, with the result that there is very patchy adherence to noble-sounding published values like “keep accountability and transparency at the heart of our job . . . efficiency and value for money . . . always serve the public interest”. For example, there are countless examples of disregard for public money; collusion with ministers in employing spin rather than transparency; the use of deep pockets, endless patience and anonymity to frustrate and crush citizens seeking justice or truth from the State; going along to get along rather than speaking truth to power; and impunity rather than accountability.
Finally, the character and sense of identity of officials are critical. Their answer to a question posed by a DPER paper on accountability in 2014 is decisive: “How far should public servants rely on their professionalism and sense of personal morality, or should they simply follow the instructions of their political masters?”
Dr Maurice Hayes, an eminent public servant, provided a guide to what the answer ought to be. In a speech at NUIG in 2013, he characterised the Civil Service as the “fifth estate” and, as such, “a distinctive, indispensable institution that performs a vital balancing role in the machinery of democracy . . . capable of acting as a brake on autocracy and as a bulwark against mad and bad politics”.
In these dangerous times, we need senior public servants to identify themselves with this calling and “be prepared to embrace a more thorough leadership.”
Dr Eddie Molloy has provided independent consultant support to most government departments and numerous State bodies, as well as the private sector, for more than four decades
