Policy and politics means that civil servants and politicians fight – with each other, and between themselves. But it is usually behind the scenes. This week, everyone got to see when such relationships misfire.
The publication of a report on the botched secondment of former Chief Medical Officer Dr Tony Holohan to a Trinity College Dublin post reveals a finely balanced attempt to plan the secondment, its breakneck collapse, and the bitter recriminations which followed.
Quinn’s report
The report makes clear that the idea was originated by Holohan, and developed by him along with Robert Watt, the Secretary General of the Department of Health, and with the high-level knowledge of Martin Fraser, the then secretary to the government.
The Covid-19 pandemic tested relationships. Holohan’s profile reached stratospheric levels during it. “He would always be the person he was during the pandemic,” observes one contemporary. “They (the Government) were probably happy to see him go.”
After the news was confirmed in late March, details began to emerge about the secondment – most controversially, the apparent €2 million annual commitment by the State towards supporting the public health strategy role.
The report captures the escalating concerns, with requests for information for Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly on April 5th; then for the Taoiseach Micheál Martin on April 6th, the same day Donnelly became aware of the €2 million bill.
“The funding approach as laid out ... is problematic,” Donnelly told Watt two days later, following a meeting a day before with the Taoiseach, where they discussed a “letter of intent” outlining the proposal sent to TCD.
“One of the worst things in politics is the surprise,” said one veteran. “Politicians do not like being surprised.” And they were. Concerns grew about how much the politicians knew, and about how the money would be spent.
Gillane is widely regarded as someone not to be trifled with – and proved as much with her eviscerating response to Watt
On April 8th, Martin told journalists on a trip to Helsinki that he wanted to “pause” matters. The next day, Holohan called the whole thing off. Watt produced a report, but under-pressure politicians sought space, commissioning an independent one.
Such reports are dreaded by civil servants. “No matter how much you dress it up as a lesson-learning exercise, nobody believes it,” says a senior mandarin. “They see it as a fault-finding expedition.”
Maura Quinn’s report was circulated in June to those named – prompting responses and requests for adjustments, including from Holohan and Watt. Watt excoriated parts of the report.
Quinn’s work suggested that the Government had not been kept informed. “Not accurate,” said Watt, who said Fraser knew “all the critical details”. Fraser had told the Taoiseach’s Chief of Staff, Deirdre Gillane, he said.
“All the findings and conclusions regarding people/Government not being informed should be removed from your report,” demanded the ever-combative Watt. It was true that Fraser had told Gillane of Holohan’s intention.
Gillane contacted Fraser following a media query in late March, but it was the first she knew of it. After Watt’s intervention, Quinn was asked to consult Fraser and Gillane. Fraser distanced himself, but Gillane came out with guns blazing.
Watt’s comments were “wholly without foundation”, she wrote. “I want to be absolutely clear. The assertions made by the Secretary General ... are, in terms, grossly inaccurate and unwarranted. It is impossible to understand how he can make the broad assertions that he does.”
Bridling at Watts’ reference to the Taoiseach as her “principal”, she continued: “For the avoidance of any doubt and contrary to what is clearly insinuated, I did not, and could never have, informed the Taoiseach of matters of which I was unaware.”
He was probably one of the cleverest, and frankly one of the brashest, of his generation
A straight-talking former union official, Gillane is a commanding presence in her party and the Coalition, a veteran of Fianna Fáil governments on both sides of the economic crash and Martin’s most trusted lieutenant.
She is widely regarded as someone not to be trifled with – and proved as much with her eviscerating response, which was accepted by Watt this week.
The recommendations of the report have been sent over to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for examination on how they might be put into action.
However, the conclusions are stinging, outlining the “lack of formal consultation”; criticising the extent of Holohan’s involvement; and saying that the funding commitments “bypassed all of the accepted protocols for research funding”, were “linked atypically to one named individual” and were not based on “any scope nor costings” but were instead “arrived at” by Watt and Holohan without consulting the Health Research Board. The mechanism and lack of detail do not “meet accepted norms of scrutiny, transparency and accountability”.
Rejecting many of the report’s conclusions, Watt brought renewed attention onto the controversy and onto himself – to the exasperation of ministers
When Quinn sought correspondence between the Department and TCD, she was told the discussions were “carried out by the Chief Medical Officer with TCD through his personal email address, which is external to the Department of Health”.
[ Analysis: Robert Watt undergoes committee grilling but what did we learn?Opens in new window ]
Mishandled
The Taoiseach said the process was “mishandled”, but the Government has backed all the main players, saying all acted in good faith, amid a clear effort to draw a line under proceedings. But the controversy is not going away.
While it is hard to find anyone who is critical of the principle of Holohan moving into a professorship of public health strategy role in TCD, the design of the process – especially the funding – was, in the words of Fianna Fáil TD Jim O’Callaghan, “casual”. Watt retrospectively defended it, arguing it would have been entirely normal and properly accounted for if the secondment had gone ahead.
Holohan has largely kept his own counsel, but is said to feel bruised. In a statement to The Irish Times, he welcomed declarations from the politicians this week regarding the good faith of the effort, and hoped that lessons would be learned to offer “improved clarity and competence in any future initiatives of this kind”.
Gillane and Fraser have been silent. But Watt has not. On Wednesday, he was involved in an extraordinarily bad-tempered tangle with the Oireachtas finance committee which saw its chair, John McGuinness, label him as “arrogantly dismissive”.
Rejecting many of the report’s conclusions, Watt brought renewed attention to the controversy and to himself – to the exasperation of ministers. “This was over. This was done,” says one government source.
Except it is not. Watt and the committee faced off before on the issue. For ages, he refused to appear before them. The committee sought powers to compel him. On Wednesday, he ditched the convention of supplying an opening statement.
His trenchant approach is familiar to colleagues. “Public and private are no different,” says one such person. “His style is incredibly clipped, brusque. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and that includes most politicians”. Behind the scenes, he is the same, “but with more bad language”.
Civil servants are wary before Oireachtas committees: bobbing and weaving, trying to avoid controversy. Officials who have previously found themselves on the defensive say it leaves deep scars.
However, there is sympathy among current and former officials for Watt’s position – if not for how he has prosecuted his cause. “(People) can’t expect to get the knives out for individual civil servants, yet not expect targets to fight back,” says one veteran.
“A bit of contrition would have been wiser,” groused one senior political source. Another experienced in dealing with committees says upping the ante runs the risk of creating a heavily politicised slugfest – which is what happened.
“You have to be deferential and not get into a situation where you’re matching fire with fire. Because they have to win the battle, so you try and avoid having the battle”, says the official. Even colleagues who support Watt say he lost because of how he engaged.
Off the rails
At the controversy’s heart is the relationship between politicians and officials, and what happens when things go off the rails.
Ironically, part of the reason why Watt was drafted into the Department of Health was to address similar problems during the pandemic as relations deteriorated into rows. There, he was a key cog in a system that functioned infinitely better in 2021.
The move to Health made sense for Watt, who was coming to the end of his time in Public Expenditure and Reform. There, he had forged a formidable reputation during the economic crisis, a key link between politicians, officials and the International Monetary Fund.
“He was the most important civil servant in all of that,” says a veteran, describing “day-to-day, hand-to-hand battles”. But his manner made enemies as well as friends, especially during austerity budget talks.
Watt grew up in Drumcondra on Dublin’s northside, the son of a milkman turned taxi driver, during the 1980s. Joining the Labour Party as a young man, he later did an MA in Economics and joined the Department of Finance in the early 1990s.
There, he was “probably one of the cleverest, and frankly one of the brashest, of his generation”, said a source who observed him at the time. He left for the private sector in the 2000s, working in economic consultancy and flirting with journalism in The Irish Times and The Sunday Business Post. His leaving prompted soul-searching within the Department – including, ironically, a sense that he should have been allowed to go on secondment, which he had sought.
People can’t expect to get the knives out for individual civil servants, yet not expect targets to fight back
On his return, Watt was one of a small group of officials including former Department of Finance Secretary General Derek Moran, who crafted the economic recovery plan after the 2008 crash.
Eventually, he became the first Secretary General of the newly-minted DPER. Contemporaries say his approach there became more deeply ingrained, saying no, having arguments and winning. “The value of that shouldn’t be underestimated, but it does set the context for how he does his business,” says an official.
In time, Watt set himself against gestating ideas – including the €3 billion National Broadband Plan, even if the Government finally agreed to it.
Twice, he wanted to be made Governor of the Central Bank. By the time the top vacancy in Health came up, the move made sense for all parties. There, his defenders say he has been effective, and Tánaiste Micheál Martin backed him again in the Dáil on Thursday.
But he has attracted controversy, with his €300,000-a-year salary becoming a lightning rod for political and media criticism – a controversy that led to a pub row with Darragh O’Brien, the Minister for Housing.
The events of this week led Michael McDowell, the former Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, to tell the Seanad that he had no confidence in the Department of Health examining its own role during Covid, given Watt’s display of “breathtaking impunity and arrogance”.
No matter how much you dress it up as a lesson-learning exercise, nobody believes it. They see it as a fault-finding expedition
Watt can be “brilliant”, but has three flaws, say supporters. He is outspoken, can show a lack of focus on detail, and fails to understand the boundaries that exist. Each alleged failing has been on display during the latest controversy.
Where to from here?
John McGuinness and other committee members have already indicated they are considering their own report, and holding further public sessions, even if the Tánaiste has said he accepts the Quinn report in full.
The Department of Health said on Thursday that Donnelly accepts its recommendations, which are less racy than its conclusions, but it did not directly address whether he accepts the latter when questioned.
Watt, meanwhile, has indicated he will implement the parts of the report accepted by the government – as he is obliged to do. There is less obligation on him to personally accept Quinn’s conclusions, even if his noisy disputation causes political headaches.
However, there is no appetite for Watt’s head, even if there is consensus that he is damaged. Besides anything else, it would likely beget further rows.
