Subscriber OnlyOpinion

Eamon Ryan: Ireland’s risk-averse civil service cannot speed up delivery of the things we need most

We are going to have to decarbonise and dampen down current spending to avoid overheating the economy

It was speculated that energy might be moved to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 'a suggestion that seemed to be motivated by the desire to get additional data centres built'. Photograph: Agency Photos
It was speculated that energy might be moved to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 'a suggestion that seemed to be motivated by the desire to get additional data centres built'. Photograph: Agency Photos
Eamon Ryan
Tue Jan 14 2025 - 14:58

We’ll know soon enough what the new programme for government has to say about the reform of government departments, after the intense talks of recent weeks. I agree with what Gerard Howlin wrote in these pages recently that our civil servants are “overwhelmingly honourable” and that our system has shown real strength when, for example, managing the economic crash and the Covid pandemic in recent years. Given the success of our country, as measured in so many international league tables, you cannot but give credit to our public service for their good decision making and hard work over decades.

However, when not jolted by crisis management, our risk-averse administration tends to put process before delivery. It seems not to have the vision or wherewithal to quicken the production of new housing, energy, water and public transport systems, which is what we need most today.

Simon Harris initially raised expectations when he proposed a new Department of Infrastructure but it seemed to me there had been little real thinking as to what that might mean. At the time, we in the Green Party were proposing that responsibility for water and planning should be moved from the Department of Housing and Local Government to the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications. This would allow the Department of Housing to focus on its core business, while responsibility for all the pipes, cables and wires would also be more coherently held in the one place. I think it would work better, but have no sense that Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael see it that way.

Speculation during the negotiations was that energy might be moved over to the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment (DETE) – a suggestion that seemed to be motivated perhaps by the desire to get additional data centres built. Such a move would rest on a misdiagnosis of the reasons for restrictions on new grid connections and would ignore the fact that the energy transition is for every part of society, and not just the business sector.

READ MORE

DETE is also regarded as a “policy department” rather than a “delivery department” and that cultural difference is important. This is not a policy development problem; what we need is experience of building things, so we get quicker and lower-cost construction.

[ Last thing we need is a Department of Infrastructure ]

The idea – which had also been voiced during the talks – that energy, transport and water would all be moved together into the one big department seemed to me to be a mistake. Having had responsibility for two of those functions for the last four years, I was grateful for the advice I got from an experienced Cabinet colleague at the formation of the last Government not to put the two departments together. I was warned, I think correctly, that you would do little else but manage the reorganisation for the next few years.

I also think the transport transition is too important not to have its own department. It has a huge budget and will have a vital role if we are to build sustainable and affordable housing and meet our climate targets.

You can endlessly play out this fantasy Cabinet game and argue why the government parties should have opted for one reconfiguration or another, but what also matters is the role of the two finance departments and the Department of the Taoiseach in overseeing the infrastructure leap we need to make. Splitting the Department of Finance has weakened its overall effectiveness. The deployment of what Howlin refers to as “process grit” – delaying things as a way of slowing down and managing spending – is costing us all because contractors price expected delays into every tender bid with the State.

[ Fiscal council says government spending has ‘lost its anchor’ ]

What we need for the next five years is for the public expenditure and finance departments to really own two strategic imperatives, which should guide where we go from here. The first is to move away from their traditional scepticism about the decarbonisation and digitalisation of our economy. The departments need to embrace these transitions as the only way of building efficiency, competitiveness, and resilience. Unless they own and are resourced to understand what is happening in these two areas, they will not be able to serve the State. Ownership means not just signing off on the cheque after prolonged wrangling with a line department, but having the necessary skills to help get things done quicker and therefore cheaper in the end.

The second strategic aim is perhaps a more political one: recognising that with full employment and strong economic growth we are going to have to dampen down current spending right across the country, if we are not to overheat the economy and lose value for money in all our capital investments. That will be difficult in big-spending line departments and at budget time, but failing to do so would be more significant than any departmental changes.

Last but not least, everyone looks for the Department of the Taoiseach to take responsibility for their pet mission in the public service sphere. It’s true it must have a central co-ordinating role, and can’t be subservient to the Department of Finance, but on its own it does not have the capacity to manage our expansion in capital spending.

We inherited a well-designed Civil Service from the UK, but I’m glad we avoided what the UK did in recent years by centralising so much of its delivery units in numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street. The UK has also weakened its Cabinet by making it too big, whereas under our Constitution we can only field a football team of 15 frontline ministers. The programme for government sets out the formation of that team and gives us an indication of how they are going to play.