OPINION:Selective, distorted and ideologically driven – Eddie Molloy is wrong. Civil servants were diligent and responsible in the boom; don't blame us
TO LISTEN to a range of commentators in recent times, including management consultant Eddie Molloy in a series of articles in these pages, the absence of a “corporate culture” in the public service was a significant factor in the causes of our economic crash between 2007-2008, and continues to be a stumbling block in the reform of our public institutions in an effort to rebuild our economy.
Criticisms of the public service by self-styled outside experts – not to mention a cult of management consultants, many of whom have benefited from lucrative contracts from the State – on this basis are nothing new. More often than not, they are based on an ideological position that believes in smaller government and that the private sector will always be able to do things better. In this regard such criticisms were in existence before, during and after the economic boom, and no matter how much change or reform is embraced, the critics will never be assuaged.
However, when critiques of the public service such as Molloy’s recent article in The Irish Times use the reports by Canadian expert Rob Wright and the Finnish banking expert Peter Nyberg in such a selective fashion as to utterly distort the representation of senior civil servants contained in these documents, while simultaneously disregarding the reform process that is already under way, then it is time to shout stop!
Therefore, on behalf of the senior members of the civil and public service that I represent, I would like to set the record straight about how both Wright and Nyberg have depicted public servants in their reports. I would also like to acknowledge and learn the important lessons of these reports and to restate our commitment to the process of reform and change under way that will allow civil servants to provide the best possible advice and planning to promote economic recovery.
In the first instance, Molloy claims that these recent reports reveal ongoing “appalling levels of incompetence and worse on the part of the public service”. In fact, they do no such thing.
To take the recent report by Canadian expert Rob Wright into the role of the Department of Finance, for example, he states clearly that political, rather than departmental, actions were largely to blame for the economic crisis and deep recession. Wright is explicit that politicians, rather than civil servants, were the primary factors in, firstly, adopting short-term policies that ultimately led to economic collapse; secondly, ignoring repeated warnings of an impending downturn; and thirdly, failing to respond appropriately when it hit.
On page 15, the report clearly states that in its annual June memo to the Cabinet the department’s advice “did provide clear warnings on the risks of pro-cyclical action” and that “this advice was more direct and comprehensive than concerns expressed by others in Ireland, or by international agencies”.
Furthermore, the report also states that “relatively prudent fiscal advice” provided by the department was “systematically ignored in the budget process”.
Indeed, the report states that forces outside the control of the Department of Finance, such as commitments given in successive programmes for government, left officials having to reconcile these with the normal budgetary process. This, allied with the ending of the construction boom, left the economy vulnerable to a downturn that was beyond the control of civil servants. No level of better management within the Department of Finance could have overcome the mandate successive governments received to implement the commitments contained in their manifestos and subsequently repeated in various programmes for government that were designed to achieve political success rather than sound economic planning.
Indeed it is interesting to note that in Molloy's article ( Placing the Public Good Ahead of Political Masters; Opinion and Analysis, April 22nd), the three areas of the public service that he cites as providing best practice, namely the Army, An Garda Síochána, and the Revenue Commissioners, are not directly responsible to a minister from a political party. Rather they are run by commissioners or the Army chief of staff.
The Nyberg report similarly vindicates the Department of Finance. On page 93 of his report, Nyberg states that “it is well documented that the DoF consistently . . . supported a less expansive fiscal policy, particularly regarding property market incentives. It also appears that worries about the developing financial situation were expressed internally”.
While it should be acknowledged that Nyberg states that these reservations were sometimes expressed “not forcefully enough”, it must also be recognised and understood that this advice was given in the context of a consensus among politicians from government and opposition, the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator, all the major banks, the media, the overwhelming majority of economists and economic commentators and the public at large, that the economy was on a sound and stable footing and that any downturn was likely to result in a soft landing at worst.
Against this backdrop are we seriously to accept a hypothesis that identifies the structures of the Department of Finance as a primary cause of our economic collapse?
Rather than indulging further in this blame game, my association is more interested in learning the lessons of the extensive, considered and important Wright and Nyberg reports and incorporating their recommendations and conclusions into the reform process that is under way and the Croke Park agreement that is being implemented.
That agreement is already delivering. Targets are being met. Efficiencies and savings are being achieved. At the same time, senior civil servants continually recognise that in order to achieve a more streamlined, modern, and effective public service, expenditure will have to be scrutinised more closely and cutbacks made on non-priority areas, just as families are doing the length and breadth of the country.
We are also open to – indeed have already accepted – the opening-up of senior positions in the Civil Service to outside applicants. However, we do object in the strongest possible terms to preventing serving civil servants from applying for such positions. To do so is to actively discriminate against them, similar to preventing an internal candidate applying for a promotion within any large business or corporation.
Yet we will work with the new Government to make the Croke Park agreement work. We recognise that the alternative to that agreement, ie prolonged industrial action, will not achieve anything better.
Civil servants worked diligently and responsibly throughout the economic boom, and have had to endure significant cuts in pay and entitlements during the crash, as have many other people in other sectors. Despite this, many of them have been conveniently scapegoated by some for the economic collapse.
With the Wright and Nyberg reports now complete and with a process of reform under way, it is time to move on from the vituperative and inaccurate blame game, and to work towards reform and fairness throughout the public service.
Dave Thomas is general secretary of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants