Recent events in Britain have demonstrated the dangers of ministerial, as distinct from governmental, public relations. The infighting between Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown's PR man, Charlie Whelan, contributed to the departure of both from the government team - even though the Guardian made it clear Whelan was not the source for their story about Mandelson's house loan from the former Paymaster-General, Geoffrey Robinson.
We in Ireland have not experienced a political debacle of the type or magnitude of that which has hit the British government during the past couple of weeks. However, I suspect that in the case of some recent Irish governments the employment by some ministers of what have effectively been personal public relations officers may have created some unhelpful tensions, which could ultimately carry the risk of undermining Cabinet responsibility.
I have always favoured the employment by ministers of chefs de cabinet on the continental European model - or special advisers as they used to be called here, before they were rechristened programme managers by the government that came to power in 1992.
But the role I have seen for such appointees involves no relationship with the media or the public: it is rather one of assisting ministers to operate effectively at Cabinet level, as well as helping to give a political impetus to the implementation of the Government's programme at civil service level.
Such an expert adviser - whether he or she is called special adviser, chef de cabinet or programme manager - also has another potentially important role, viz. to steer the Government's programme through the legislative process, keeping up pressure on the civil servants and on the Attorney-General's Office and that of the parliamentary draughtsman.
More generally, such appointees provide a supplementary level of general co-ordination of government policy - a role for which the departmentalised civil service is imperfectly equipped.
It is, however, important that such appointees to posts as special advisers or programme managers be genuine experts, well qualified to undertake this kind of work, and not just friends of ministers, brought in to give him or her moral support.
I am particularly doubtful about a proliferation of appointments to ministerial private offices, because the more such appointments are made, the more the temptation for idle hands to dabble in matters best left alone: in particular, public relations on behalf of their minister.
A curse of modern governments is the over-preoccupation of many politicians with their "image" - a preoccupation sometimes indulged at the expense of the job they are supposed to be doing. And when this overflows into competitive self-promotion by ministers, the consequences for the cohesion of a government can be serious. But even worse may be the impact of an over-loyal, over-enthusiastic adviser, who may be tempted to boost his or her minister's image so blatantly as to damage that minister in the eyes of his or her colleagues and to weaken the cohesion of the government.
In our system, the task of looking after the presentation of the activities of the Government is undertaken by the Government Press Secretary, who in the case of what has become our normal coalition-type government will be assisted by a colleague or colleagues appointed by the leader(s) of the other party or parties in government.
Much will depend upon the cohesion of this Government Press Office team - on the willingness of the members of the team to work for the Government, rather than for the parties which compose it.
In the present and the immediately preceding Government this system seems to have worked well, despite the fact that both may have suffered to some degree from ministerial self-promotion.
But this Government suffers from the disadvantage of not employing the structured system of programme managers, which worked so effectively in the case of its two predecessors. And the Tanaiste, Mary Harney, may well be regretting her decision to abolish the Office of the Tanaiste, an innovation which proved of great value to the Rainbow Coalition.
More generally, the overall efficiency of our process of government has improved greatly over recent decades, and the Strategic Management Initiative should deliver even further improvements in the period ahead. A reform of the higher level promotion system that John Boland and I introduced almost 15 years ago has had a visible impact on the quality of our higher civil servants.
We created a system, known as TLAC (The Top Level Appointments Committee) under which the Secretaries of the Taoiseach's and Public Service departments and of two other rotating departments interview candidates for Secretary and Assistant Secretary posts, and recommend a single name to the relevant minister.
Whereas, in the past, civil servants chosen for these posts almost invariably came from their own departments, promotions by merit through TLAC, especially to the secretary grade, tended to come from other departments, thus introducing into the higher level of the Civil Service a badly-needed, long-overdue and very valuable element of inter-departmental mobility.
Unfortunately, the effect of this reform was significantly diluted by a change in the appointment system for departmental secretaries - although not in that for Assistant Secretaries - that was made by Charles Haughey after the change of government in 1987.
Instead of one name being put forward for secretary posts, three have since been offered - and as one of these is normally that of an Assistant Secretary in the department involved, and as ministers almost invariably choose this internal candidate, mobility at secretary level has almost disappeared. This diminution of mobility may be partly mitigated by the fact that some of the internal candidates appointed to the secretary post are Assistant Secretaries who were appointed to that grade from another department and who thus have external experience. Nevertheless, a reform that Bertie Ahern might usefully consider would be the restoration of the single nomination to secretary positions.
The enhanced mobility this would secure at the top level would be of long-term benefit to our system of government.
In the meantime, there remain serious problems in certain departments that none of our governments has yet succeeded in eradicating.
Thus, the Department of Agriculture is currently in the news because of its extraordinary performance in relation to the beef industry. The most charitable construction one can place on its behaviour is massive incompetence.
For its part, although the Department of Justice has had some good ministers, its performance in relation to issues such as prisons and refugees, to name but two areas, suggests that even the best of ministers has made little impact on it.
In the Department of Health there are problems between senior officials that have recently been aired in the courts.
For their part the Revenue Commissioners have failed to maintain public confidence in their capacity to carry out their task with visible even-handedness as between rich and less-well-off. They would, of course, contest such a comment and, in relation to the issue of tax evasion would, no doubt, claim lack of support on tax evasion from politicians and from officials in the Department of Finance - both of whom seem to have been over-fearful of "frightening away" capital by strict enforcement of the law. But these factors can excuse only part of the commissioners' failures of recent times.
Some of these developments, together with other reported cases of maladministration that appear to have had no negative consequences for those involved, seem to me to raise a question about the adequacy of the present disciplinary arrangements within the public service.
Given what appears to be an absence of adequate self-policing within that service, and the necessary constraints on disciplinary action being undertaken by their political chiefs, do we perhaps need some kind of Inspector-General to investigate, and where appropriate penalise, cases of gross maladministration? Such an innovation may now be required if we are to avoid a deterioration in previously high standards of performance within the public service.