Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

That kind of thing does not bode well for the future. I will leave that to the experts here in the Chamber.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with the Minister of State. On the Order of Business this morning, I raised the remarks made yesterday by Mr. Kevin Murphy. He put his head on the block with his views on political responsibility. This arose from the publication of the Travers report and the decision to move Mr. Kelly from the Department of Health and Children to the Higher Education Authority. That decision has profound implications for the entire public service. The idea that one civil servant can be made a scapegoat will reverberate around senior management within our entire public service. In a sense, it has politicised the historic role of the Civil Service in Ireland. That one decision taken by the Government to scapegoat Mr. Kelly for the collective problems in the Department of Health and Children will have far-reaching and dangerous consequences for the Civil Service.

Senator O'Toole asked what the difference was between political responsibility and political accountability. I think there is a difference. The Government, under the Constitution, is collectively responsible for the administration of the various Departments and each Minister is responsible to the other House. Ministers are not responsible for the individual decisions taken by civil servants, but they are collectively responsible in the same way that Enron was responsible for the way in which financial impropriety took root in that corporation. Decisions had to be taken at board level on who was responsible as it was not the individual employees of the company. Under our Constitution, the Government is like the board of directors in this case. That is why the decision regarding Mr. Kelly has such wide-ranging consequences. There is much sourness in the relationship between senior civil servants and this Government because of that scapegoating. In time, it will mark a very sad chapter in the failure by the Government to take political responsibility. The Public Service Management Act 1997 is quite clear on the issue of political responsibility to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Cabinet is responsible and that certainly did not happen in this case.

It was the great achievement of WT Cosgrave and the first two Governments in the first decade of the State's existence to establish a Civil Service following the bitterness and division of the Civil War, which was not only for those who were victorious. One of the abiding, far-reaching and fundamental successes of the service has been the Civil Service Commission, which has ensured there has been no politicisation of appointments. When one looks at the impact of very senior civil servants like Dr. TK Whitaker, especially since the 1970s in the context of Europe, one realises that dramatic change in Ireland did not just occur because of political support for, among other things, the EU project, but also due to the kind of management existing at a high level within the Civil Service. We must remind ourselves that since the establishment of the State, there has been virtually no politicisation of the service due to an independent recruitment network and the overperformance to which Senator Mansergh referred by various people who have had a significant influence on the transformation of Ireland over time.

While I had the privilege to be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Strategic Management Initiative, I have as much knowledge of SMI now as I had ten years ago. People within the political community do not know what benefits have accrued from the initiative, largely because of the rather worthless, meaningless reports which have been produced. Senator McDowell referred earlier, for example, to the annual strategic plans from each Department. Unless we begin to translate the strategic management initiative process into tangible and real benefits for ordinary citizens and the Civil Service, we will not make the improvements envisaged when it was first established.

Previous speakers have referred to the need for much greater flexibility within the Civil Service. I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot recruit people well into their 30s and 40s who have expert knowledge and the skill sets required in the service at given times. While the recruitment of people at a certain age during a certain part of their life cycles, while investing in their training and education, is very useful, we must allow people to move from the Civil Service to the private sector for a number of years and vice versa. It is not impossible to so provide and it is done in other jurisdictions. We should be conscious that the service itself would gain significantly from an open recruitment process.

My party is not against the benchmarking process but objects to the way in which it has been delivered. I take up the point made earlier by Senator McDowell who quoted former Minister, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, who said the process would not be recreated every three years or so. It was a valid point as the original objective of benchmarking was to deliver tangible benefits to customers and those who use services to make visible the added value at the end of the chain. I asked in my local authority area of South Dublin County Council what was being delivered in return for benchmarking and the manager was able to tell me about a new customer service unit which is open one hour per day, five days per week. It is a tangible benefit to which one can refer to explain to people what they have paid for. I am not as certain of the benefits which have accrued from the process in other Departments and agencies. If we are to have another round of benchmarking, it must be open, accountable and transparent, which was not the case the last time when there was no public perusal of the negotiations and agreements between the review group and Departments.

While I welcome the technical changes in the Bill, I point out that politicians cannot scapegoat civil servants but must take responsibility. In the rainbow Administration, three separate Ministers resigned, two over very minor matters and the other, clearly, for not such a minor reason. The culture has not been imbued in the current Government which blames others for its problems rather than itself.