THE EDITOR: SirI REFER to an article in The Sunday Gleaner of April 21, 2002 by Erica Virtue about Permanent Secretaries.
Ms. Virtue claimed that I could not be reached for my comments. It is interesting that neither my office (at which I was present most of Thursday and all day Friday) nor my home (where either myself or a member of my family was present all day Saturday) has any record of any calls from her.
Ms. Virtue relied, primarily, on the gossip of an apparently bitter retired Permanent Secretary who chose to characterise the situation of Permanent Secretaries in general, and my own role in particular, in pejorative terms and with vague generalities, while hiding behind the screen of anonymity. I cannot help asking what is this retired Permanent Secretary afraid of that she cannot even in retirement, stand behind her views? It should be clear to all who are willing to think, that this is precisely the sort of outmoded and spineless behaviour which is at the root of the problem we face from time to time, and why it is imperative that meaningful change takes place. The confidence to openly express, defend, pursue and execute one's goals are the qualities we need, not hiding behind a veil of anonymity.
So much for this anonymous retired Permanent Secretary.
Ms. Virtue has cited the opinions of other persons, on the worth and work of several Permanent Secretaries. But the question must be asked: Can these "judges" evaluate (a) how well Permanent Secretaries manage resources to produce the outputs and ultimately the outcomes desired by society; (b) how well they motivate and develop the human resources under their command; (c) how well they manage the physical assets of their departments; (d) how well they adhere to laws, rules and procedures, but at the same time not being bureaucratic humbugs? I think not; and I am sure that well-thinking Permanent Secretaries, and other persons are not impressed by such amateurish evaluations (which, I might add, have led to some curious results).
The respective roles
The matter which led to Ms. Virtue's article (and another in a rival newspaper) concerns the role of Permanent Secretaries vis-a-vis Ministers in the running of the departments of Government. The respective roles are described in the briefest of terms in Section 93 of the Constitution which states:
Where any Minister has been charged with the responsibility for a subject or department of Government, he shall exercise general direction and control (my emphasis) over the work relating to the subject and over that department; and, subject as aforesaid and to such direction and control, the aforesaid work and the department shall be under the supervision (my emphasis) of a Permanent Secretary appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of this Constitution.
Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, therefore, have to work out an accommodation between their respective roles of "general direction and control" and "supervision". Like any other working relationship, including in the private sector, this can either be non-adversarial and productive as is indeed the case for most Government departments, or it may not work well in some instances because of general incompatibility or fundamental disagreements between the two on policy (not involving breaches of laws, rules or procedures). In the latter circumstances, it is best if the Permanent Secretary is re-assigned, and this has happened on occasion. Obviously, the Permanent Secretary and not the Minister because the latter is either an elected representative recommended for appointment by the Prime Minister, or non-elected, but nevertheless, recommended for appointment by him; and the Minister is the person under whose direction and control the Permanent Secretary works. Therefore, given the circumstances, the Minister must be given the primacy. I do not think any reasonable person could disagree with this position.
There may be a situation where a Permanent Secretary is simply not as competent as desired. In such a circumstance he/she is normally re-assigned, since our system of discipline is still not that rigorous to take more extreme measures. We are working on this, but in the meantime, several Permanent Secretaries are on contract appointments which give the Public Service Commission the option of not recommending renewal to the Governor-General, if they do not perform.
I have not said anything about Ministerial incompetence, because this is within the remit of the Prime Minister who can easily remove a Minister (under the provision of Section 71(4)(b) of the Constitution than is the case of the removal of the Permanent Secretary as provided for in Section 125 of the Constitution.
The third and perhaps most pertinent matter, in the current context, is where a Minister requires a Permanent Secretary to approve expenditures which in the latter's opinion, is improper or irregular. Here, Permanent Secretaries must be guided by the instructions (which were revised in the early 1990s, to deal with the sort of problems now current) in their letters of appointment, as Accounting Officers, by the Minister of Finance, I quote, in particular, the section -
Advice to Your Minister. It states, inter alia:
1) You have a particular responsibility in seeing that appropriate advice is tendered to your Minister on all matters of financial propriety and regularity and more broadly as to all considerations of prudent and economical administration. You will need to determine how and in what terms such advice should be tendered and whether in a particular case to make reference to your own duty as Accounting Officer to justify to the Public Accounts Committee your Ministry's expenditure.
II) If the Minister in charge of the Ministry is contemplating a course of action involving a payment which you consider would infringe the requirements of propriety or regularity (including where applicable the need for the Ministry of Finance (FAA Act) authority) you should set out in writing your objection.
III) If the Minister decides nonetheless to proceed, you should seek a written instruction to make the payment. Having received such an instruction, you must comply with it, but should then inform the Financial Secretary of what has occurred and should also communicate the papers to the Financial Management Division of the Ministry of Finance, and the Auditor General.
So, Permanent Secretaries have these guidelines with which they should work. In addition to this, they have been advised (the pejorative remarks of the retired Permanent Secretary notwithstanding), that I am prepared to use my good offices to assist them in these and related circumstances, and as several current Permanent Secretaries will confirm, we have worked through a number of problems that have arisen from time to time.
Permanent Secretaries who, despite all of this, deviate from proper conduct, must be prepared to face the consequences and not seek to ascribe blame for their plight to anyone but themselves. At the same time, I should say that it is as wrong for anyone to discredit the whole institution of Permanent Secretaries, because some individuals do not behave in the approved manner from time to time.
I should say one more thing. Despite its weaknesses - and there are many which we shall have to continue to work on - the Civil Service, especially its leadership, has been a source of stability and continuity in the Jamaican polity. This is a feature which many other countries do not have and we should not take it for granted.
I am, etc.,
CARLTON E. DAVIS
Cabinet Secretary
