THE Public Service Management Bill is intended as the most profound change affecting the Civil Service since the foundation of the State. But what will it mean in practice? Will it represent a radical shift in the way the Civil Service operates? Or will it make little difference to the general public?
It is part of a wider process of Civil Service reform taking place since the Strategic Management Initiative was introduced in 1994. The Bill can be seen as giving "teeth" to many of the changes proposed in Delivering Better Government - a programme of change for the Civil Service announced by the Government last May. Legislation is a central guiding force for civil servants. If change in the Civil Service is promoted by legislation, there is much more chance of it happening than by general exhortation.
Translating the Bill into practice will raise some significant challenges. The Taoiseach has spoken of ministers "releasing their grip" on some of the levers of power. Certainly, if the Bill is to work as intended, ministers will have to distance themselves to some degree from day-to-day operations and focus more on policy development. Yet the clientelist nature of much of Irish politics puts significant pressures on politicians to involve themselves in detailed matters. The Government's commitment to changing power relationships between ministers and top civil servants is yet to be tested.
Senior civil servants also face significant changes in their roles and responsibilities. Their traditional role as policy advisers is to be complemented by an enhanced role as departmental managers. There will be more emphasis on policy management, strategic and performance management, and ensuring that appropriate accountability procedures are in place.
While there will be more freedom for departmental secretaries (to be retitled secretaries general), to run their departments, they will also be expected to show value for money arising from this delegation of responsibility.
THE distinction between ministers being responsible for policy and outcomes and civil servants being responsible for policy advice and outputs, while attractive, may in practice pose some difficulties. In reality, the boundaries as to who does what are unlikely to be so clear. If effective policies are to be developed, it is likely that civil servants will need to consider a range of options for developing appropriate strategies, and they will need to consider different policy options and outcomes.
The Government will ultimately determine which options are pursued. But unless civil servants are free to develop strategic thinking in an unconstrained manner, their role may be restricted. How this political-bureaucratic interface is affected will be a key issue.
Even the aim of clarifying accountability is not necessarily straightforward in practice. A salutary lesson is to be learnt from the UK, where the director general of the prison service was removed from office in 1995 after a report on the escape of prisoners from Parkhurst Prison. This despite his achieving the targets set out for him in agreements with the Home Secretary.
The issue was that the Home Secretary clearly separated policy from execution, and found the report had criticised the executive, but not the minister's policy-related functions. But as one commentator noted at the time
"Are ministers, as they insist, only accountable for policy and not operational failures? If so, does that mean they now wield the power without responsibility? And how do you separate policy from execution in such a high-profile and political sphere of public life?"
The Public Service Management Bill is intended to replace the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 as the framework for managing the Civil Service. The 1924 Act underpins the way the Civil Service now operates. It states that the Minister is "corporation sole" of his/her department. This means Ministers are accountable for all actions in their departments. Critics say this makes it difficult to distinguish clearly between the role of a minister and that of the head of a government department and civil servants. The Act is also seen as making civil servants overly cautious in decision-making.
THE Bill will modernise management practices and provide a legal basis for clarifying accountabilities and responsibilities in the civil service. Ministers are to be responsible for policy and for specifying the outcomes or results to be achieved from those policies.
Secretaries general will be responsible for policy advice and for managing their organisation to achieve agreed outputs: the means by which policy is delivered.
A more results-oriented approach to decision-making is proposed. Traditional centralised structures are to give way to decentralised management practices. Accountability is to be promoted through three-year strategy plans for departments and the clearer specification of objectives and outcomes.
Privatisation does not feature.
Executive units, separate parts of departments tasked specifically with service delivery, are to be considered, but on a case by case basis. The Bill puts significant emphasis on respecting the core public service values of equity and integrity which have served the State well.
It might better he seen as placing Ireland alongside other small European countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. With a corporatist style of government, and proportional representation rather than majority rule, the emphasis is on consensus and partnership rather than an adversarial approach.
In general terms, the Public Management Bill is to be welcomed as an important step in the modernisation of the Irish Civil Service. It has the potential to clarify accountability and to enhance performance. Seen as part of a wider movement of reform in Civil Service management practice, it is a thoughtful and positive step forward. It will be important that the elements of the Bill are monitored and evaluated as they progress through to practice. But the Bill represents an important contribution to achieving the Minister for Finance's goal ford 2010, as set out in the 1995 Budget, of possessing the most efficient and effective public administration in Europe.
