Phyllis Thomas and Tyrone Reid, Enterprise Reporters

DAVIS

Despite admitting that political victimisation has long been a clear and present danger in the public service, Cabinet secretary and chief civil servant, Dr Carlton Davis, is urging permanent secretaries not to be pliable in their dealings with government ministers who may try to muscle them into breaching regulations.

"A lot of public servants operate with that fear (of being politically victimised). It is unfortunate," Dr Davis said. He told The Gleaner that he has seen this "enormous amount of fear" during the tenure of governments formed by both political parties. However, he feels that it is exaggerated.

While Dr Davis believes the need exists for confidence building in the public sector, he stressed that permanent secretaries and other civil servants need to be forthright.

"A permanent secretary who is doing his or her work (shouldn't) just be placid and just go along ... . They must keep their ears to the ground," he said.

Additionally, Dr Davis, who thinks permanent secretaries should not be insulated from blame if things go wrong within their ministries, said if a permanent secretary believes that a minister's directive is political or has some corrupt intent, then that permanent secretary should take steps to have the matter addressed.

"A PS (permanent secretary) must be able to recognise when something is not right and not put his or her job at such a premium that they are not taking risk ... . You must be able to tell ministers the truth.

"Some are not as curious as they ought to be and their ears are not as close to the ground as they ought to be," he added.

Risk-averse

Dr Davis also opined that many civil servants are not inclined to risk speaking out. "A lot of people in the public service are risk-averse. It is a problem (as) they don't want to risk their positions," he said.

However, not all civil servants have a phobia of ministerial authority. A former permanent secretary told The Gleaner that he has had to stand his ground when a minister insisted that he do things that he felt were highly irregular.

He acknowledged that that kind of valour results in conflict. But he added that any minister who recognises that the permanent secretary is compelled, by his letter of appointment, to go the route of putting his objection to the minister's instruction in writing to the Financial Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, auditor general and the Cabinet secretary, usually backs off.

"The smart minister usually backs off," the former permanent secretary said. "There are some things that should not be done and people must know the difference." However, he argues further that if the minister respected the permanent secretary, "then he will leave it".

Factors to examine

The time has come, the former permanent secretary said, for a review of the role of the permanent secretary. "We have to look at whether or not a permanent secretary can physically and logically be held accountable for the actions of all the agencies that fall under him."

He said the review should be carried out in the context where the agencies which the permanent secretary oversees ought to be staffed with professionals who are aware of, and who abide by the regulation. Also, he said, the review should consider the disparity between the salary of the permanent secretary and the CEO for the agency for which the permanent secretary has oversight responsibility.

"Frequently, the permanent secretaries may not be earning at the same levels as persons at the agencies for which they have oversight responsibility. You can't talk to such a person."

Several government projects have come to public attention because of procedural breaches and alleged corruption. There is the notion that in some cases, there was laxity and acquiescence on the part of public officials.

Thieves in the system

The former permanent secretary said that sometimes the corruption takes place because there are thieves in the system. "The permanent secretary could well have put systems in place to detect weaknesses and through no fault of his or hers, that system does not reveal any. However, that does not mean that actions aren't taking place that are breaching the various regulations."

He said the scope of the permanent secretary needs to be defined.

Dr Davis, who shares the view that more accountable officers need to be introduced into the public service, suggested that currently permanent secretaries are burdened with the many departments, companies and agencies under their purview. "People are going before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for things they don't know about. (We) need to broaden the scope of persons with accounting officer responsibility."

While Donovan Stanberry, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, believes the minister (currently Dr Christopher Tufton) is his boss, he says when it comes to accounting for the funds entrusted to the ministry, the permanent secretary is the last line of defence. "The fact of the matter is, as accounting officer, the buck stops with the permanent secretary as to how government money is expended," Stanberry adds.

"I'm not saying that I would be defiant but would take it to a superior authority ... . Only a fool would preside over his own liquidation," he stressed.

Placing the blame

Robert Pickersgill, former cabinet minister under the People's National Party (PNP) administration, said while the minister heads policy formulation, the permanent secretary is the permanent chief executive.

Pickersgill pointed out that when the PNP formed the government, the permanent secretaries were provided with the party's manifesto, which outlined its policies, and asked to get acquainted with it.

Pickersgill believes it is unfair for ministers to take all the blame when things go wrong.

"Whenever things go wrong in the ministry, all of a sudden nobody knows. It is the minister who gets blame for everything," he argues. "I have always said, as well, to those who want to interfere with policy or to make policy that they must first face the public. That's how you do it, you offer yourself."

When asked if he saw himself as the permanent secretary's boss, the former cabinet minister said the regulations governing the relationships are blurred. "The line is not clear. In terms of policy, yes (because) they answer to you, and as the name suggests they are the secretary to the minister," he explained.

However, he interjected that the permanent secretary has security of tenure; something that cabinet ministers do not enjoy; plus they are sometimes paid more than the minister.

"It (the constitution) gives them security of tenure (and) a minister has no security of tenure. The prime minister cannot fire an MP (member of parliament), the prime minister cannot fire a senator (but) the prime minister can fire a cabinet minister," Pickersgill explained.

He believes that the security of tenure of the minister's "number one man" should be on par with the minister's job security. "I really can't consider myself the boss of a man who gets paid more than me," Pickersgill stated.

Struggle for power

While this has not been his experience, Pickersgill said he has heard of the stories of struggle for power between the permanent secretary and the minister.

Dr Kenneth Baugh, deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs and foreign trade, believes that the Cabinet minister is the man in charge of the ministry and, as a result, should shoulder the responsibility when things go wrong.

"The minister is the boss in terms of policy ... one has to accept that the minister is the person who is finally accountable to the prime minister and to the country. The minister must take the blame," he stressed.

Dr Baugh, a second-time Cabinet minister also said that the permanent secretary is the executive head who is accountable for the running of the service. However, the deputy prime minister does not believe there is a perennial power struggle between ministers and permanent secretaries.

He describes the permanent secretary as a guiding and restraining hand to the minister of government.