The two day discussion on public service efficiency at the Dail Committee on Finance and General Affairs last week represented a useful starting point in an important debate. The public sector pay; bill, at £4.6 billion per year with pension costs, now accounts for almost a third of current Government spending. And, notwithstanding the praiseworthy efforts of individual civil servants, there is a growing view that the public service is poorly organised and not responsive to change.
The ambitious vision outlined by the Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, to the committee, of a user friendly, cost efficient public service - in which civil servants are more autonomous and more directly accountable is one which the average taxpayer will happily endorse. But the difficulties standing in the way of root and branch reform of the public service should not be underestimated. The commitment to radical change within some sections of the public sector is uneven: the Minister of State with overall responsibility for the current Strategic Management Initiative, Ms Avril Doyle, reported last week that, while some departments are keen and enthusiastic, there are others who "don't want to know . . . and who have hardly submitted their strategic plans".
On past evidence, the genuine commitment of the politicians themselves to public service reform is also open to question. This administration is not the first to promise a brave new world for the public service. Radical change has been promised by successive governments since the Devlin Report in 1969 and the White Paper, Serving the Country Better, in 1985. Despite this, the structures and ethos of the public service have changed little since the foundation of the State.
Part of the problem is that few government ministers Mr Bruton is a welcome exception have shown any real interest in public service reform. A section of the 1924 Ministers and Secretaries Act, which makes ministers responsible for even the most routine aspects of their departmental affairs, has also inhibited progress. This section may suit an individual minister who wants to claim the credit for every spending decision in his/her department. But it must also act as a barrier to individual flair and initiative.
As the Fianna Fail leader, Mr Ahern, told the committee, changes in the Act must form a central part of any reform package. Mr Bruton's promise that ministers would no longer be responsible to the Dail for everything that happens in their department is a welcome statement of intent. But it is important that the line between policy formulation and policy implementation must not be blurred. There is a clear need to make civil servants more directly accountable, but they must not be held responsible for essentially political decisions, a regrettable practice which surfaced during the Beef Tribunal and the Galmoy mining controversy.
That said, there are good grounds for optimism that the ongoing management review will bring much needed reform to the public service. There is a healthy level of all party agreement on what is required a courteous, efficient and accountable public service in which risk taking is rewarded. And in many respects the Government is pushing an open door. To their great credit, the public service unions themselves are also pushing strongly for change. As part of the ongoing management review, a committee of secretaries of departments will shortly report to Government setting out proposals for a programme of reform and renewal in the public service. The hope must be that Mr Bruton, a long time proponent of radical change, will seize the opportunity and usher in nothing short of a revolution in the culture and working methods of the public service.