It could be seen as a matter of motivation. For as long as we've had Government Departments we've had the principle that the buck stops with the Minister. This, predictably, kept the Ministers on their toes. But it also had a negative effect on their performance. They would absolutely refuse to accept that anything had gone wrong anywhere in their Departments as, ultimately, it would be their fault. It also made them reluctant to change how things were done, because new ways of doing things often bring teething problems, or cock-ups, as they're more commonly known. The Minister would have to invent new ways of saying that an error was not, in fact, an error.
This was a particular problem for those in charge of, for example, the health, justice or local government briefs. These Ministers found themselves responsible for the actions of thousands of public sector employees, over whom they had little, or no, control. So a laudable principle, designed to ensure the vigilance of the Ministers, tended, instead, to cause great feats of ass-covering.
It also led to the demotivation of the civil servants. Just put yourself in their shoes. You've got a nice, permanent, pensionable job from which it is nearly impossible to get fired. And you know that even if you mess up spectacularly, the blame will not rest with you - it will be shunted up the line to the Minister. This set of circumstances might just cause you to be ever so slightly relaxed about your level of performance.
But, courtesy of this week's events at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), that has started to change. Accountability has started to spread itself throughout Government Departments and through the bodies operating under their aegis.
Now, this situation is not entirely new. Department secretaries-general already had to appear annually before the Public Accounts Committee, as the accounting officers of their Departments. It was not an encounter they tended to relish and there was always immense relief when it was over. But the key difference this time is the media attention that is focused on the hearings. Previously they were roasted in private, now their behaviour is being scrutinised not just by the committee but by the public as well.
The civil servants from the Department of Finance will not be surprised to know that there would be little sympathy for them at the moment. As for the Revenue Commissioners, there will be collective applause from all PAYE taxpayers, plus those small to medium business taxpayers, who feel they have been hounded for even the smallest delay in submitting returns while larger businesses and banks and financial institutions in particular got off lightly.
It's not that anyone wants to witness attacks on civil servants, but many people will find it refreshing to see the permanent government, as it were, having to defend itself and explain why certain actions were, or were not, taken. Indeed, I'm one of those who has felt strongly that all officials and office holders should be held accountable, including the Attorney General, Chief State Solicitor and the DPP, and the wider public service such as local authority, health board and State company officials.
TnaG, or TG4 as it is now known, is to be congratulated on its foresight in gaining the right to broadcast the PAC's debates. More particularly, the committee members have to be congratulated on their conduct of their business. The questioning is professional, competent, incisive. A lot depends on the success of this investigation. We should not, however, underestimate the unacknowledged. There is no public acknowledgement that to be a prominent Public Accounts Committee member is a good personal career and PR move. But it is.
There is little public acknowledgment that the excitement which is pulling viewers to the TG4 coverage of the PAC in action can be generated by PAC men engaging in interrogative theatrics. But it can be.
There is also little public acknowledgement of the genuine dread experienced by previously anonymous professionals who find themselves thrust into the public gaze under pressure to justify - right this minute - actions based in abstruse and subtle policies. But public servants do experience such dread.
Significantly, many of the recent headlines coming from the public service side were generated, not by those currently employed at an operational level within the public service, but by former public servants. The corollary of Dr Johnson's comment that the prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates a man's mind wonderfully may well be that the knowledge that they can't get you because you are retired frees the tongue wonderfully.
But let us revert for just a moment to the benefit to PAC members of being a tad tough in their questioning. There is a hidden disadvantage in this.
Governance of State-sponsored bodies and Government Departments has a great deal in common with good corporate governance. Serving, as I do, on private sector boards, I am constantly struck by the success of managers and of management styles which set out, not to catch people doing things wrong, but to catch people doing things right and to spread best practice, when discovered, throughout the entire organisation.
The Public Accounts Committee might add this to its armoury. Were it to spot where individuals or a State entity were doing something particularly well, it would be no harm to ensure the good practice got as much publicity as the controversial issues more frequently turned up.