This Bill provides for the establishment of a Department of the Public Service and of a Public Service Advisory Council to advise the Minister for the Public Service on the organisation of the public service and on matters relating to or affecting personnel in that service.
These measures are the first to come before the Oireachtas as a consequence of the Report of the Public Services Organisation Review Group. This group was set up in 1966, under the chairmanship of Mr. Liam St. John Devlin, with the following terms of reference
Having regard to the growing responsibilities of Government, to examine and report on the organisation of the Departments of State at the higher levels, including the appropriate distribution of functions as between both Departments themselves and Departments and other bodies.
The group reported in 1969. Before I pass on to deal with the content of the Report, I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Devlin and his colleagues on the review group who devoted so much of their time and talents to the production of this most significant public document. Its recommendations range over the whole spectrum of our administrative institutions but those which are of primary interest in relation to this Bill are concerned with the machinery for the central management of the public service.
Historically, this central management has been vested in the Minister for Finance. The Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, assigned to the Department of Finance the traditional "establishment" functions, when it assigned "the business and functions formerly administered and discharged by the British Treasury in Ireland". The Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, continued the responsibility of the Minister for Finance for the regulation and control of the Civil Service and various enactments since the foundation of the State assign powers in relation to organisation and personnel matters in the wider public service to the Minister for Finance. While present arrangements may have historical legitimacy doubts exist concerning their present and future efficiency.
The review group, while recognising the connection between the budgetary function and the functions of organisation and personnel, saw serious objections to the present structure for discharging these functions at administrative level. They said:
Many of the weaknesses in the present system derive from the subordination of organisation and personnel to the budgetary function in the Department of Finance in the organisation beneath the Minister. The Minister's principal function is budgetary and the Secretary's background should therefore be in the economic and financial spheres. Granted such background and the demands on his time, it is unlikely that he will have extensive experience of organisation and personnel and he will, therefore, have to delegate these functions to a deputy. A deputy, however, can never operate with that freedom which is essential and the organisation and personnel functions would, in such circumstances, remain subordinate. Therefore, in our view, these functions should have equal status with and be independent of the finance and economic structures. To achieve this they should report through a separate Secretary to the Minister.
The first purpose of this legislation is, as recommended by the review group, to establish a separate Department of the Public Service under a Minister who will be Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service. This Department will be concerned with the functions of organisation and personnel for the public service. On the establishment of the Department of the Public Service on the appointed day, which, I intend, will be as soon as practicable after the enactment of this legislation, the Government will make an order under section 6 (1) of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1939, transferring the organisation and personnel functions for the public service, at present discharged by the Department of Finance, to the new Department. The first effect of the legislation, therefore, will be to have the central organisation and personnel functions for the public service assigned to a separate Department instead of being discharged—as they are at present—as part of the responsibility of the Department of Finance. I have, in fact, made the separation in practice within the existing Department of Finance pending this legislation.
The second purpose of the Bill is to set up a Public Service Advisory Council as recommended by the review group. Again, I think the report of the review group makes the case for this council and I quote the relevant recommendations:
The reorganisation of the public service and its subsequent maintenance at the highest possible level of efficiency is a matter of such great public interest that it must be subject to a dynamic for adaptation from outside and it must be seen to be continuously adapting itself. We, therefore, recommend the establishment of a Public Service Advisory Council of eight persons —four from the private sector, three from the public sector and the Secretary of the Public Service Department—to survey the progress of the reorganisation of the public service. Appointments should be for a term of two years but, initially, to preserve continuity one person from each sector should be appointed for four years, one from each sector for three years and one from the public and two from the private sector for two years. The Advisory Council should review the work of the Department and its progress in the reorganisation of the public service in a report presented to the Minister for Finance and the Public Service each year. This report after consideration by the Government should be laid before the Oireachtas. While procedure will be a matter for the Council itself, we envisage that it will meet frequently. It should be able to suggest new methods and techniques but should not have executive powers. Its members should be nominated by the Government and, to secure an initiative for change from outside the public service, the Chairman should also be nominated by the Government from the private sector representatives.
Broadly, I agree with this recommendation and the Bill makes provision accordingly. When it came to a question of legislation, it appeared better to simplify the provision about terms of office and I am providing for terms not exceeding four years. To meet the point of getting new people and new ideas on the council, I am providing that a member of the council ceasing to hold office shall not be eligible for reappointment for four years. There is a problem about a definition of the public service for the purposes of membership of the council and of distinguishing those bodies on whose organisation and personnel matters the council may advise the Minister. There is no satisfactory neat definition of the public service and the definition in section 1 of the Bill is designed to cover the problem as far as the membership and scope of the council is concerned.
This is all that is provided for in the Bill but there are two other matters which I should mention. First, the new Department will have three main divisions—one for organisation, one for personnel and one for remuneration and staff relations. It will discharge all of these functions, at present discharged by the Department of Finance, with, I intend to ensure, increased professional competence and effectiveness while acting more in a staff capacity to the whole administrative system. As time goes on, I hope to extend its operations to cover all areas of the public service. I want to emphasise that any extension of its functions to bodies or areas which do not at present come within the scope of the functions of the Department of Finance would require further legislation.
The review group did recommend that two other functional units should be incorporated in the new Department—a procurement division and a commissioner for administrative justice. Although I am interested in implementing these proposals in some form, I do not propose to act on these recommendations at this stage. The future organisation to deal with public service accommodation and supplies will have to be considered in the light of the future organisation of the Office of Public Works and other purchasing bodies in the Civil Service.
In relation to the commissioner for administrative justice, I believe it will be very desirable, and indeed necessary, for us to deal with the problem of people aggrieved by administrative decisions. The report recommends that this should be secured through a commissioner for administrative justice who would oversee and coordinate the appellate machinery in the public service and report to a Parliamentary Committee. I would hope that the relevant recommendations about this matter in the review group report and the general question of appellate machinery will be considered at an early date by the new Department.
Secondly, there is a matter which is of great interest to the Oireachtas— the recommendations in the review group report that each Department should be divided into a central management and policy making area, the Aireacht, grouped around the Minister and a number of executive units to carry out settled policy. As already announced, we are examining the possibility of applying this concept on an experimental basis in four Departments—Health, Industry and Commerce, Transport and Power and Local Government. Teams from my Department and the Departments concerned are conducting the examination. Generally the idea is to allocate as much as possible of the executive business of Departments to executive offices and agencies, combining as much freedom in execution as possible with the essential responsibility and accountability to Ministers and to the Oireachtas. The general oversight and direction of these bodies would remain in the Aireacht, the part of the Department which would remain closely linked to the Minister.
The main problem emerging is the question of how to ensure acceptable standards of public accountability while granting the executive bodies reasonable freedom of action. I hope that, as a result of these examinations, we will be able to experiment with several models on a non-statutory basis and that we will eventually be in a position to come before the Oireachtas with proposals for worthwhile reform in our institutions.
As I say, and I want to stress this, there can be no change in the relationship of the public service to the Oireachtas without legislation. The new Department will be occupied with the exploration of the areas where change is needed and I would hope that it will, after a reasonable period of operation, enable me to seek the approval of the Oireachtas to such changes as are desirable. It is already evident that Members of both Houses are aware of the shortcomings of our present system particularly as regards the accountability of State-sponsored bodies. If the Oireachtas should decide to examine by Committee such matters as the relation of State-sponsored bodies to Ministers and to the Oireachtas, I would be prepared to make available to that Committee any possible help which the new Department could provide.
While the Bill of itself does not propose dramatic changes, it does provide a more effective instrument for the organisation and development of the public service. It does not alter the relation of the Oireachtas to the public service but it does provide for the creation of a new Department which will be available as an analytical base and resource for the development of proposals for the consideration of the Oireachtas in this regard.
We have joined the European Communities; we are living in a world where competition is keener than ever before. Our development and, perhaps, our survival depends on the extent to which we adapt our institutions to meet the new challenges. Certainly our public service must be brought to the highest standards and the proposed new Department is the instrument by which I hope to do this. This legislation is, I hope, the first step in a series of measures through which, over the next few years, we may transform our institutions to meet the requirements of the time.