The success of the public service depends on the relationship between Government Ministers and top management, writes Muiris MacCárthaigh
Public administration rarely features in public discussion. However, the assertion in the Travers report that the cause of the problem that resulted in an inadequate legal basis for charges collected by the health boards since 1976 was a "failure of public administration" has changed this.
Normally, civil servants are criticised for being overly concerned with "doing things right" rather than "doing the right things". This report finds them implementing a policy that most agreed was correct but with insufficient attention to its legal basis.
However, the issues raised by the report point to more than simply the compounded effects of administrative errors and poor decision-making in what Travers himself agrees is the most complex Government department. The report has brought to the fore some important issues about the management and operation of the Civil Service.
Developing a better understanding of the relationship between the political and administrative systems, and of other aspects of the role and function of the Civil Service in a modern economy, is essential if the full lessons of Travers are to be learnt. In most democratic systems, bureaucratic accountability extends upward to the interface between the administration and elected representatives. In Ireland this interface occurs at the point of ministerial responsibility.
The origins of the doctrine lie in attempts by 19th century British liberal democrats to reconcile using a salaried bureaucracy that was not accountable to the people with the requirements of an emerging democracy. Parliament was content to delegate responsibility for various agencies and departments to ministers, who would be the final authority and fully answerable to it for the actions of those bodies.
But the role of the permanent Civil Service was critical to achieving the correct balance. As Northcote and Trevelyan put it in 1854: "It may safely be asserted that . . . the government of the country could not be carried out without the aid of an efficient body of permanent officers occupying a position duly subordinate to that of the ministers who are directly responsible . . . to parliament, yet possessing sufficient independence, character, ability and experience to be able to advise, assist, and to some extent influence those, who are from time to time set over them".
The qualities of independence of mind and experience do not indicate any specific expertise; they do suggest that what was valued was prudence or the quality of sound judgment.
Ministerial responsibility was given legislative basis in the Irish Free State through the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924.
Although much has been made of the legal element of this Act, which decreed that a minister, as "corporation sole" for his or her department, could be sued, it has been at the expense of full analysis of the political and managerial elements.
The latter find particular resonance in many of the deficiencies identified by Travers. For example, the precise role of the Civil Service in contributing to policy formulation and advice has never been adequately addressed. The Strategic Management Initiative launched in 1994 has contributed significantly to the modernisation of the Civil Service and to the further development of administrative efficiency and organisational coherence in all areas of the public service.
However, it has also challenged key principles of public administration. The Public Service Management Act 1997 for the first time put the accountability of a secretary general to his or her minister on a statutory basis. Although it did not change the primary locus of accountability, ie ministerial responsibility, it did provide for the transfer of responsibility, where appropriate, downwards in the public service hierarchy.
Ireland is unique insofar as its public sector modernisation programme was largely the brainchild of senior civil servants. Whereas in other countries politicians wrote the reforms, in Ireland they endorsed them. Although this speaks well of the professionalism of the Civil Service, a stronger sense of political ownership may have quickened the pace of, or even changed the nature of, the reforms. The Travers report provides a case study in how policymaking and implementation, and the relationship between the Civil Service and its political masters, have become much more complex.
The public, once respectful and grateful, questions more and expects more, and is now far better informed about public service performance. Interest groups with competing goals increasingly represent its voice.
The media casts a critical eye on Government, more eager to find failure and apportion blame than to explain problems and expound solutions.
In all of this it may be argued that the independent role of senior officials has been compromised in the search for greater accountability.
The Travers report gives those concerned with the reform of the public service in Ireland much to consider.
The core issue of responsibility for decision-making remains unresolved and will continue to cause problems for the public service, politicians and public.
The introduction of "special advisers" has further complicated lines of accountability and arguably overcrowded the most crucial point in the political-administrative nexus.
As Travers points out, the role of special advisers cannot be regarded as part of the normal line management system. Addressing wider issues of corporate responsibility and ministerial/top management relationships will be critical to ensuring the future success of the public service. Other issues raised indirectly by the report, such as the failure of parliamentary questions to elicit required information, inadequate oversight of secondary legislation, and even the relationship between ministers and ministers of state, also deserve further analysis.
While the technical reforms at the centre of the modernisation programme can make, and have made, a significant contribution to improving the delivery of public services, they can only go so far. As a major evaluation of the SMI prepared by PA Consulting in 2002 argued, further progress is only possible if we take a "whole of government perspective" that unites both political and administrative systems in one view.
In the meantime, beleaguered civil servants have good reason to point to what the current spotlight leaves in the shadows. Even the briefest examination of the activities of the 15 departments demonstrates the substantial contribution of the Civil Service to our current wellbeing as a nation.
Security, social welfare and the sustaining of the conditions in which a market economy can flourish are all part of its business, and the Civil Service has executed it with generally good effect since its foundation.