One of the factors that seems to have led Mr Quigley to the view that the Minister for Transport, Mr Cullen, had not committed any impropriety in the appointment of Monica Leech to a PR role in the Departments in which he served as minister was the fact that, at the time, the heads of these Departments had not raised any question with the Minister about the appointments.
From what has been published it does not appear that Mr Quigley has commented upon the appropriateness or otherwise of the absence of any such question by the civil servants concerned.
It is not clear whether this was due to this issue having been excluded from Mr Quigley's terms of reference, or whether, as a former civil servant, he himself felt it invidious to comment on a matter involving one of his former colleagues - or whether, perhaps, he simply did not consider the absence of such a warning to the Minister to be worthy of comment.
Yet this is, I believe, a very important issue, which seems to me to have been missed by most of those who have commented on Mr Quigley's report - Fintan O'Toole on last Monday's Questions and Answers being a notable exception. For the system under which a senior civil servant has the right and the duty to record his dissent from a ministerial action which he or she feels inappropriate is an important potential safeguard in our system of government. This safeguard operates in two directions. On the one hand such written records protect senior civil servants against possible implication in ministerial improprieties. But, much more frequently, the raising with a Minister of a question about an unwise or inappropriate decisions being contemplated by a Minister, perhaps because of inexperience or lack of foresight about possible consequences, will make him or her think again about the matter - making it unnecessary for the senior civil servant to record dissent.
In my personal experience as Taoiseach this is a most important and valuable aspect of our administrative system. Nothing is more dangerous for a member of a government than to have as a senior civil servant someone who will implement without demur any ministerial instruction, regardless of how flawed or unwise or foolish that instruction may be. I was fortunate in having had a Cabinet secretary throughout my two periods in office who was always prepared to raise a question about any action I proposed which he considered might have implications upon which I had not adequately reflected.
The fact is that a key element of the Civil Service's role is to ensure that their Ministers are warned of any flaws or dangers in what they are proposing to do. If a Taoiseach or minister, having heard these warnings, nevertheless decides, as he or she is entitled to do, to proceed, the civil servant's duty is, of course, to carry out the Minister's instructions. Ithe rare event that the decision should involve anything judged to involve an impropriety or be seriously contrary to the public interest, a senior civil servant has a right - and also a public duty - to record in writing the objections raised with the minister and inform the secretary to the government and the comptroller and auditor-general.
There is always a danger that, in their concern to serve their Ministers loyally, civil servants may be reluctant to implement this aspect of their duties. In the Monica Leech case, the Quigley Report seems to suggest that senior civil servants in the Department of the Environment and Local Government may not have pointed out to the Minister that, as he had already filled his quota of advisers, and as the Department had an existing contract with a PR firm, the further appointment of Monica Leech could leave him open to public criticism. Had they done this, the Minister might well have thought twice about proceeding. The truth is that once the Minister had mentioned the name of a particular PR person whom he would like to see appointed, alarm bells should have rung at a senior level in the Department.
One would have expected that in these disturbing circumstances exceptional care would have then been taken to protect the Minister and the Department against any possible later failure to observe proper procedures.
Instead, despite the evident absence of any issue of real urgency, the Department seems to have gone on to seek bids from only three, rather than five, possible contractors - thus leaving the Minister open to criticism.
As this issue does not seem to have been explored by Mr Quigley, possibly because he considered it outside his terms of reference, the case for a further investigation by the Standards in Public Office Committee is, I believe, compelling.
Such an investigation might throw more light on how in future civil servants might best view their relationship with ministers, how and when they should protect the public interest, and in what circumstances they have a duty to protect the public interest against inappropriate ministerial behaviour.
In this connection, a problem for civil servants is the fact that over the decades practices have developed and have been tolerated which involve abuses of public resources that would not have been tolerated at an earlier period. These abuses include the employment of civil servants to undertake constituency work for politicians. When I became Taoiseach my Department's organisation chart included a "general section" with 16 staff who, it appeared, had been handling such matters for my predecessor in office. The next time I saw a similar diagram this section had disappeared, its staff apparently dispersed around the Department. Constituency matters were handled for me by the personal secretary whom I had brought with me from opposition.
A second widespread abuse of the public service involves ministers who have resource-allocation functions instructing their civil servants to divert projects and funding away from the areas of greatest value or need to their own constituencies.
In fairness to civil servants, when abuses of this kind are accepted as normal, it becomes very difficult for them to identify what other matters they would raise with their temporary bosses. The whole fabric of public ethics is thus weakened.
Politicians tend to be blind to the extent to which such abuses contribute to the disillusionment of the public about politics.
All too often they convince themselves that the collective unpopularity of their profession, (which, of course, contrasts sharply with the personal popularity at local level that secures their own re-election to the Dáil), is due to the media, rather than to political abuses.