Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I also welcome the legislation although I appreciate reservations have been expressed by colleagues in different places. I have always felt that the cumbersome method of dealing with dismissals of civil servants might have been acceptable in an emerging state in the 1920s and 1930s but it has no place in modern work practices. It is a tidying up exercise that will eventually allow the system to work better. I agree with Senator McDowell in that I do not see it making any major change to the way the system will work.

One of the difficulties is the level of authority and discretion allowed to civil servants. The main problem is that decisions taken 25 years ago at assistant principal level are now being taken at Secretary General level. I could give many examples. Some 25 years ago assistant principals in consultation with a principal officer decided on the entitlement of schools for teachers or the appointment of teachers to schools. Now such matters are probably decided in the Minister's office with four telephone calls to Deputies before making an announcement, which will not help matters or make things more efficient. We should give people responsibility and discretion as would happen in other parts of the economy. As with anybody who deals with them at senior level, I have seen the absolute frustration of civil servants at not being allowed to get on with the work they are well able to do. They are being constrained at all levels.

On the Order of Business, I asked about the failure in recent years to spend the total budget allocations in the Departments of Education and Science, and Health and Children, as outlined in the newspapers. This is a management problem. Money that was available was not drawn down. I would like to be able to track the decisions as this problem goes back to the decision-making process. Decisions that take twice as long are not twice as good.

Another matter, covered on the Order of Business today, is not addressed in the Bill. Earlier today I attended a committee meeting and missed Senator Mansergh's contribution on the Bill. I do not know how the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 relates to the modern world. The Minister is the head of the Department and takes responsibility while the Secretary General is the Accounting Officer. Tomes have been written on the importance of the provisions of the Act over the decades but I still do not understand how the decision making process works. I do not know who takes responsibility and who gives accountability in all situations. Without getting into the current row about the nursing homes involving the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and his then Secretary General other than to use it as an illustration, how is such a matter decided? If we had all the information and agreed on that information, is there a point at which without bias and on that basis we can determine that the Accounting Officer must be accountable and pay with his head or that the person with political responsibility for the Department must pay with his head? We have not done this, which is an issue in how we move forward with the strategic management initiative.

I do not know the answer and I do not know how we will find the answer. It is extraordinary that all these years into the life of the State a joint committee of these Houses should recommend allocating more time to understand what level of accountability and responsibility is required from people at senior levels in the Departments. Every time we have a row, the Opposition will point out that the Minister is blaming the civil servants, the Government parties will back the Minister and those of us who are disinterested would be unable to take a position. I see Senator Brian Hayes smiling. By "disinterested" I mean without having a party political interest. I am not suggesting we would be disinterested in any other way. Leaving the people out of it, how can we come to a conclusion?

We are concerned here with the process of dismissal. One of today's newspapers referred to an "honourable resignation". I would like to see that term defined. What does it mean? Does it mean that if the person in the back office is found to be doing something nasty on the watch of a particular Minister, that Minister is both responsible and accountable and must pay the ultimate price? While I am sure it does not mean that, why not? How do we make the judgment call? What are the ethics involved? What is the morality, with a small "m"? How do we come to that conclusion?

The SMI will never really work until we understand the processes involved. As an illustration, last week Senator Brian Hayes and I differed on the issue of the gardaí in Donegal, who are public servants. No doubt for the best of reasons, he said that those gardaí should have been suspended. That I took a different view does not mean that I am right and he is wrong or vice versa. I would like to know how we reach a judgment on such matters. Due process will need to take its course and codes of discipline will need to be worked through, which are never easy.

These are issues we have not addressed. The Minister of State stated that a person on suspension continues to draw a salary. The point I was making last week was that in his judgment the Commissioner did not want people on suspension drawing salary, going on holidays and doing the gardening and felt that something different was required while the matter was worked through the disciplinary code and the various other procedures, including the involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We need a clear understanding on these issues and should not depend on political intervention.

What is the relationship at issue here? It boils down to this. If the political head of a Department has a different view to his or her Accounting Officer, at what stage do they part company? If a Minister wants money spent in a particular area and the Accounting Officer says he or she cannot agree, in the ultimate how is it determined? For instance, in the ultimate can the Government overrule an Accounting Officer? It could take the decision to give the Accounting Officer the required money, which would address the matter. However, at what point is the Accounting Officer supreme? At what level does he or she have the discretion to make a decision? None of these matters is clear and this lack of clarity filters down through the system. People down the line will not take a decision that will cause a problem up the line and in their career. A number of Departments have given individual sections a budget to work to and take control of. However, how is that done?

The Minister of State said he tabled some amendments to address the issue of superannuation. He should read a book prepared for the public service pensions commission, in which the Department of Finance outlined the different arrangements for superannuation in the Civil Service and public service. The number of different combinations is mind-boggling. Officials at the Department of Finance often talk about creating precedent. They have used every pension arrangement that can be imagined in some form, way or shape at some time. The Minister of State knows how the Department of Finance works. If the officials want a new post they just give it a new title. They have titles that do not exist in any other Department. Unlike any other Department, the Department of Finance has three Secretaries General. The Minister of State knows the way officials there do things. I do not say this in criticism. It works very effectively and efficiently, and we want that kind of creativity from our public and civil servants. On many occasions I have suggested such solutions to problems.

Most people in these Houses do not realise that the Department of Finance has a Secretary General with responsibility for public service management and development. While some people on the Government side believe we eliminated the Department of the Public Service 18 years ago, it is still alive and well and functioning with a Secretary General in Merion Street. How do those kinds of arrangements take place? Who is in charge in those cases? Is there an Accounting Officer for the area administered by a Secretary General with responsibility for public service management and development and, if so, how does that Accounting Officer relate to the Secretary General in the Department of Finance? I believe I know the answer in that he is referred to as second secretary or some similar title. However, is the Secretary General in the Department of Finance with responsibility for public service management and development an Accounting Officer? Is he an Accounting Officer in a form different from that in other Departments? As I mentioned on the Order of Business, we need to differentiate between responsibility and accountability. We need to indicate where they overlap and when the responsible person is also the accounting person, the person who must pay the account for matters that go wrong.

It is useful for Secretaries General to have the authority given to them in the Bill. I am certain they will have to be advised and I do not have any worries about that at all. I know that the Civil Service unions would ensure that the code of discipline and the process are worked through pretty well. They will have the protections of legislation, which they did not have previously. Many people were excluded in the Industrial Relations Act 1946, when distinctions were made between servants and masters, civil servants and public servants and other such Jesuitical changes, many of which have been improved. There are more improvements here today.

The Bill is a worthwhile movement forward, but where will it all end? It is significant that one of those involved in this at an early stage was Mr. Kevin Murphy, who later became the Ombudsman and, incidentally, made a fine speech yesterday. I have known him for many years and I hold him in high regard. I was one of the few who welcomed his appointment. At the time, many Senators wondered how we could trust a civil servant to take on the Government and be critical of it. In light of his single mindlessness over the years, such concerns were unfounded. I never heard him discuss the issue of accountability and responsibility. In his speech yesterday, he spoke about how easy it is to blame the civil servant and he is right. That should not be easy to do, but neither should it be out of bounds. If that is what needs to done, then so be it. However, if it only happens that way and the political leadership never takes responsibility, something is completely wrong. How do we get it right?

Senator Hayes asked for a debate on this today and that could be very useful. Can we develop a clear code in order to reach a conclusion on such issues? I do not know the answer but I do not see this happening any time soon.