Martina Devlin: Transparency vital if we are to trust civil servants
We already know the Department of Finance's economic forecasts are as reliable as Mystic Meg's. Now comes proof that its accountancy methods amount to jottings on the back of an envelope.
This week we learn, thanks to TV3 News, how the department was €3.6bn adrift in its calculations of Ireland's national debt figures. But when the double counting blunder was pointed out, no move was made to put it right. The lapse was compounded by the department's failure to hold up its hands and admit the error.
So much for transparency and accountability. So much for public trust in the competence of our permanent government. And so much for feeling secure about the foundations on which the national finances are run.
This is yet another dent for a department already looking like an old banger in the credibility stakes, by association with the rise and fall of the Irish economy. It raises questions not just about incompetence but inept management.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan missed the point when he told RTE News yesterday: "I'm not interested in blaming individuals but I want to make sure that the systems within the department have sufficient checks and balances to ensure that if one official makes a mistake it's picked up elsewhere in the system."
Minister, the individual's error was picked up -- by the National Treasury Management Agency, on a number of occasions. And still it wasn't put right. So we already know the checks and balances are inadequate. And we know now from your response that yet again there will be no accountability.
This slip-up by the Department of Finance does nothing to underpin public confidence in the workings of government. For many of us, it is confirmation that unelected bureaucrats operate behind the scenes, within a culture of secrecy and without consequences -- the antithesis of democracy.
Senior civil service figures are powerful, yet virtually invisible, apart from the odd appearance before an Oireachtas committee. We know little about what goes on at the boundary lines between mandarin and minister. And still less about how these senior civil servants reach the decisions that inform their advice. How does this gap in transparency benefit the public interest?
The civil service shouldn't just serve government, it should serve society. If the public is to have faith that its interests are considered, we need more openness in the structures which buttress government. This means senior civil servants being held publicly accountable for their decision-making.
Eight months ago, the Wright report into the Department of Finance's performance over the preceding decade was published. It received less attention than it deserved amid the euphoria of a new government's election just days earlier. Among concerns highlighted were significant failures in specialist expertise and at management levels in this heavy-hitting department. The report said the department:
Does not have critical mass in areas where economic technical skills are required.
Has too many generalists in areas requiring technical economic and other skills.
Is more numbers-driven than strategic.
Does not have sufficient engagement with the broader economic community in Ireland.
Often operates in silos with limited information sharing.
Is poorly structured in a number of areas, including at the senior management level.
Is poor on Human Resources Management.
The report, headed by Canada's former deputy finance minister Rob Wright, advocated an independent Fiscal Council to review and comment on the department's analysis and government Budget proposals. This has happened, thanks to the IMF. However, another key recommendation -- more information released by the department to the public and parliament -- has not been implemented. This is central to restoring trust.
The report suggested when civil servants issued warnings, they should use clear rather than oblique terms. It said warnings were given to Cabinet in the run-up to Armageddon. But I note that no documentary evidence proves the case -- no emails, no memos, no minutes of meetings. So we don't know how strong these oral warnings were.
Disastrous policies were pursed by politicians rather than civil servants. The latter only advise. They do not make policy. But could they have been too close to ministers? Could they have been unwilling to stand over their own advice? Could they have been part of group-think? Could they have trodden so softly they allowed all our dreams to be trampled on?
The department is meant to be concerned for the long-term, even if that's beyond a politician's capacity. Yet its staff never foresaw a property bust generating a banking collapse. And although the men and women who work there have laboured hard in the aftermath, how strongly-worded was the guidance given to ministers?
As he stepped down from the Dail in January, Bertie moaned: "I would have loved if someone somewhere could have told me what was going on in the banks." Why isn't there a paperwork trail to contradict him -- to prove someone did?
Anxiety about Freedom of Information requests, that's why. Officials do not want memos containing their views to be made public. So they don't write it down.
Back to the Wright report, which says the department "did provide warnings on pro-cyclical fiscal policy and expressed concern about the risks of an overheated construction sector. However, it should have adapted its advice in tone and urgency after a number of years of fiscal complacency".
If politicians were really careering in the polar opposite direction to that advised by bureaucrats, I find it odd there were no resignations on principle from senior staff at the department.
Civil servants are obliged to "conscientiously serve the duly elected government of the day . . . and the public" under the Civil Service Code of Conduct. But if one obligation conflicts with the other, surely the public service duty overrides any other.
Wright urged reform, but rather naively suggested the Department of Finance should tackle the job itself. This week's howler shows reform is not a priority. We can only hope the IMF might have the charity to intervene once again.
- Martina Devlin
Irish Independent
