The relationship between ministers and civil servants is a complex and subtle one. The brilliant British TV series Yes Minister poked fun at both ministers and civil servants, and throughout that excellent comedy of manners there ran an element of truth - without which it would never have been such a huge success.
But comedy succeeds by exaggerating the foibles of its subjects, and there is in fact a lot more to the relationship than Yes Minister might suggest.
Much has been made of civil servants being allegedly "the permanent government", enduring patiently the whims of their temporary masters.
And it would, indeed, be odd if civil servants did not sometimes see themselves as the primary representatives of the public interest, seeking to preserve it against sectoral groups trying to bend the governmental system in favour of their special interests, but also sometimes vis-à-vis ministers who have to concern themselves with the public good but also - and especially in the latter stages of their term of office - with their own re-election.
However, it should be said that many civil servants, concerned about and committed to the public good, particularly enjoy working for ministers who have clear ideas about what they want to achieve and who lead their team of permanent officials towards constructive goals.
Participation in such initiatives can be very exciting, testing the skills and ingenuity of the civil servants engaged.
The personal relations between ministers and civil servants can range between formality and friendship - although the latter carries risks, especially with the marked tendency of some politicians to paranoia.
I have heard some ministers speculate as to the "politics" of their civil servants, wondering if so-and-so might be "the other way".
In reality, whatever the private views of civil servants may be on party politics - and these views are much more likely to reflect cynicism about party politics than partisanship - they are professionals who, in my experience, always serve with total loyalty whatever government may be in power.
In the early days of the State, civil servants and members of the Defence Forces - many of whom had been comrades and close friends of their ministers in the national movement, and who had then worked loyally with the first Cumann na nGaedheal government, helping to establish the State in the face of civil war - found themselves challenged in 1932 by the arrival in office of those who had lost that civil war and who had been released from internment just eight years previously.
The Irish civil service came through that test magnificently, earning and speedily securing the confidence and trust of that second, Fianna Fáil government.
Vivion de Valera once told me of a conversation he had with his father in a car ten days after that change of government.
During the discussion, Eamon de Valera told his son how impressed he had been with the response he had received from officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs to his ideas for moving beyond the terms of the 1921 Articles of Agreement, commonly known as the Treaty.
They were, he said, people he could easily work with.
Possible tensions between civil servants and that new government may have been eased by a "no fraternisation" instruction said to have been issued after the change of government by the secretary of the Department of Finance, requiring the termination of personal relationships with former ministers.
The management of government departments is normally a matter for their secretary-general rather than their ministers.
Ministers will rarely interfere in this process, for they lack the time and intimate knowledge of departmental structures required to undertake such a task.
The only post that most of them normally play a personal role in filling is that of secretary-general of their department, when it becomes vacant.
In the Department of Foreign Affairs, because of its particular role abroad as well as at home, ministers may have something to contribute to the making of senior appointments, especially when they have personal knowledge of many of those concerned.
But, after the secretary-general and the management committee of top officials have completed a list of moves from home to abroad and vice versa - a process that, to whatever extent may be possible, will have taken account of personal and family considerations as well as career development - a subsequent ministerial intervention that might disrupt such a carefully-considered scheme (and one such intervention occurred a few years ago) can be very damaging to the effectiveness and morale of all concerned.
Although in home departments there is little room for a ministerial role in appointments below the secretary-general level, a minister must, of course, be concerned about the effectiveness of his department and the overall adequacy of its personnel.
It was in that context that several weeks ago I remarked in this column upon the paucity of economists in the crucial assistant principal grade in the Department of Finance, and raised the question as to whether this gap in the system might have contributed to the extraordinary errors that occurred in revenue projections both last year and perhaps also this year.
I have been disturbed to find that the concern I expressed at the sharp decline in numbers of economists at that level has been interpreted by some in that Department as reflecting on the competence of the very few economists who now remain in that grade - which is the last thing I would wish to do.
I am totally at a loss to understand how anything I wrote here could have been interpreted in the opposite sense to that which I sought to convey - which was the urgent need to increase the far too small number of such qualified people at that level.
If it is the case that the pay rates for economists in the Department are too low to enable it to retain a sufficient number of qualified people to do the skilled work required, that obstacle to the efficient running of our economy should have been tacked long ago at senior departmental level - or should have become a prime concern of the Minister for Finance.
It is frankly absurd that this key Department should apparently have been reduced to having to borrow economists from other parts of the civil service - in one instance feeling it necessary to ask another State agency to recruit someonethe Department could use!
Meanwhile, we have still not been told why last year's tax revenue was miscalculated by €2.5 billion. And is this year's income-tax shortfall perhaps due to deducting hundred of millions of SSIA payments? It would be far preferable to cancel that disastrous scheme, from which only better-off people like myself benefit, than to cut back public services.