Speech PSC

							              Speech By



         HARRY GANOO

        Secretary to Cabinet

    and Head of the Civil Service



         on the occasion of the




    GOLDEN JUBILEE
                 of the

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

                  on

     30 May 2005 at 10 30 a.m.

                  at

       La Grande Cannelle

       Domaine Les Pailles
Mr President,

The Chairman, Public and Disciplined Forces Service Commissions

Deputy Chairmen of the Public Service Commission

Commissioners of the Public and Disciplined Forces Service Commissions

Colleagues Senior Chief Executives and Permanent Secretaries

Distinguished Guests



      I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to address you

this morning on the occasion of the celebrations marking the 50th

anniversary of the Public Service Commission. Let me congratulate         the

Chairman and the Commissioners of the Public Service Commission for

having taken the initiative to celebrate this event. I would also like to

congratulate the PSC for its significant contribution during the last 50 years

to the development of the Civil Service and I wish the Commission every

success in all its future undertakings.



      The PSC as we all know, is vested with the constitutional

responsibility for appointments, promotions and discipline in the Public



                                                                             2
Service.   However, its mission goes well beyond that of an ordinary

employment agency as some may tend to think as the PSC also shares the

lofty responsibility for maintaining ethical standards and safeguarding

public confidence in the Public Service. As such, it continues to occupy a

pivotal role in our institutional landscape.        This event may be the

appropriate time for all those at the helm of the PSC to take stock of what

have been accomplished in the fifty years gone by, draw the lessons and

celebrate the achievements and success. But above all, this should be an

occasion for the PSC to scan its environment and see what’s coming up the

hill so as to prepare the institution to face the upcoming challenges and

ensure that it continues to deliver effectively on its constitutional mandate.



      Ladies and Gentlemen,

      For today’s address I have chosen to speak on the character and the

core values of the Civil Service, and whether these values are being eroded

by the so called politicization of the Civil Service and finally on the

desirability of introducing a code for the guidance of Ministers and

Advisers so as to reinforce these fundamental values.




                                                                             3
      I must here say that I have drawn profusely from the valedictory

speech of Sir Richard Wilson, former Secretary to Cabinet in the British

Civil Service.



      All of us know that the constitutional and practical role of the Public

Service is to assist the duly constituted Government in formulating

policies, carrying out its decisions and administering public services for

which the Government is accountable to Parliament. As public officers, we

are therefore expected to work under the direction of the democratically

elected government of the day.



      However, although the Civil Service owes its loyalty to the

government of the day, it is not the creature of any government. It has an

identity of its own, and it has over time developed a character of its own

which makes it a repository of values in public life, provided of course that

it remains fit for purpose.



      Sir Richard Wilson defines the following four traits of the character of

the Civil Service.

                                                                             4
      First, integrity. Sir Richard says, and I quote,

      “I believe that it is a real benefit to the nation to know that the permanent

body of men and women at the core of the State are committed to public service and

to the conduct of public affairs with integrity. I do not intend to imply that others

lack integrity. I simply make the point because there is ample evidence abroad of

the harm that can follow if public servants lack this tradition”. unquote



      Second, political impartiality. Sir Richard believes “that there is real

benefit in having a non-partisan Civil Service and states that -

       “it is fundamental to the working of our constitution that governments

should use the resources entrusted to them, including the Civil Service, for the

benefit of the country as a whole and not for the benefit of their political party, and

that opposition parties should feel confident that this position is being respected.

The non-political character of our Civil Service underpins that convention. Very

few countries have such a Civil Service. It is an asset which I believe politicians of

all parties value”. unquote



      The third trait of character defined by Sir Richard is merit, by which

he means the ability to do the job, plus the right personal qualities.          There


                                                                                     5
is indeed real benefit in recruiting and promoting public officers on the

basis of merit rather than their political loyalty or personal connections.

This is not because political loyalty in itself is bad; it is not, says Sir

Richard. The vital thing is to get the best people into key jobs. The merit

principle does this and underpins political impartiality.



      The fourth and last trait, is the ability of the Civil Service to work for

successive governments. In the words of Sir Richard, “the permanence of a

non-political service carries with it a commitment to certain standards of conduct

and discretion which ensure that it can provide loyal service to whatever

government is in power, responding flexibly to new political priorities. It also

ensures that there is in every government department a body of knowledge and

experience – a corporate memory – which is at the disposal of every government,

however inexperienced”.

      Ladies and Gentlemen, if we are to maintain our Civil Service as an

institution of value and a force in public life, we must, by all means, protect

and preserve its sacrosanct character and the core values which constitute

its foundation.




                                                                                 6
      As you all know, Civil Service reform has always been at the top of

every government’s agenda.       However, the reform process and the

preservation of values cannot be dissociated. All the reform programmes

initiated so far have taken into account the need to protect the fundamental

values that underpin our Civil Service and they have in fact been targeted

at consolidating those very values. We have so far spent a lot of time and

money under these reform programmes. But I believe that pouring in extra

money alone will not be enough. We need at the same time to have in

place a comprehensive process and system that will demonstrate that

reform is producing the desired impact and the scale of improvement

required. We have certainly made very good progress.



      But inspite of all the positive measures that have been introduced for

the improvement of the Civil Service and the consolidation of its core

values, we have often heard that the Civil Service is being politicised. But

is that really so?




                                                                           7
      Ladies and Gentlemen,

      The relationships between public officers and Ministers should be

one of mutual trust and understanding. This is crucial for the effectiveness

of any Government.        The success of the top team in any organization

depends to a great extent on loyalty and trust.         The accusation about the

politicization of our Civil Service is that the Government wants people who

are their cronies or “one of them” and that the Civil Service is being used as

an arm of the political party in power. This issue has also been the subject

of debate recently in Britain among both academics and practitioners.

Speaking on this very issue, Sir Richard Wilson said, and I quote,

       “in practice there is no evidence that Ministers want the permanent Civil

Servants who work for them to share their political views. What Ministers are

interested in, quite rightly, is having competent people working for them, the best

people to do the job. The eternal challenge for the Civil Service is to win the trust

of the Government of the day in its ability to serve them well. It requires a

constant supply of able rising stars in every field. But that is not politicization.”

      Unquote




                                                                                    8
      I must say that I totally subscribe to these views and that the

situation is not different as far as our Ministers are concerned. Our Civil

Service is a national asset that is leased by successive Governments to

whom its loyalty should be instantly available on tap. The Civil Service is

not any government’s individual property. It has not been so over the 37

years of our independence and there is no sign it is becoming so now. If it

does, the internal balance of the whole system will change. However, the

Government of the day is perfectly entitled to expect a highly performing

and responsive Civil Service and for this purpose it may take such

measures as it deems fit, including for example the hiring of new people

having new vision and the overhauling of certain bureaucrative rigidities,

etc., provided it does not change the fundamental values of the Civil

Service. But again, this cannot by any means be termed as politicization.



     The question that we should perhaps ask ourselves is whether the

dangers of drawing public officers into the political arena are growing with

the increasing prominence of civil servants in public life following mainly

the advent of private radios in the audiovisual environment. There is now

much more news coverage round the clock, more competition and more

                                                                            9
questions that dominate the political environment. Our actions as civil

servants have become the subject of daily public scrutiny and comments on

private radios.   But civil servants cannot and should not become public

figures and give personal views on government policies or else loyalty and

trust will be eroded.



      The other charge is that the Civil Service is being dragged into the

political arena as it is being used to implement the political manifesto of the

Government. This is also unjustified. The Civil Service is here precisely for

that – to implement the Government’s programme.           However, although

there may not be any perceptible level of politicisation, it has been argued

that the danger may be of a more insidious kind where a young officer

seeing that advice which Ministers want to hear falls with a joyous note in

their ears - and advice which they need to hear falls on their ears with a

rather dismal note - will tend to make him twist his advice           to what

Ministers want to hear rather than to what they need to hear.



      But still I take exception to the allegations about the politicisation of

the Civil Service. As you are aware, a few years back we introduced a

                                                                             10
Code of Ethics for Public Officers to supplement other existing manuals.

The Code sets out the framework within which Public Officers work and

the values they are expected to uphold.      In our endeavour to protect the

fundamental values of the Civil Service, there has obviously been a natural

tendency to focus on Public Officers alone. But the reputation of the Civil

Service does not rest solely on the shoulders of Public Officers. We share

this responsibility with all our Ministers and for quite some time now, with

their Advisers.



      Ministers have a strong hold on the Ministries they are responsible

for and control, specially if they tend to give a wider interpretation to their

fuzzy mandate under the Constitution, and thus tend to assume more

powers than the founding fathers intended. Politics attracts the person

who is eager to change society to his own view. The Minister is therefore

naturally tempted to take actions that yield results in the short term. This

may lead to the administration being subject to political influence. The

result of such encroachment by Ministers over the administration may

easily be imagined. It is generally agreed that the Minister and the Civil

Servant, have each his role in the initiation, formulation and execution of

                                                                             11
public policies. Neither can substitute for the other. Those who have tried

to usurp the functions of the other have inevitably headed for a fall.

Modern governance and administration is based on the premises that the

separation of rules and functions between politics (fonctionnaire d’autorité)

and administration (fonctionnaire de gestion) increases the quality and

potential of either of them. Civil servants should be able to ‘speak truth to

power’ as it is a vital ingredient of professional ethics and moral integrity

of not only civil servants but the administrative machinery as a whole.



     As we know, according to our Constitution, the Minister is

responsible for the good administration of his ministry within the confines

of the Constitution and of our existing laws.



     On the other hand, the Constitution also provides that a ministry

under the responsibility of a Minister shall be supervised by a Supervising

Officer, i.e. a Senior Chief Executive or as in most cases, a Permanent

Secretary.




                                                                           12
      Between the political and administrative chambers is found in every

department of Government a grey area. It is in this grey area that political

and administrative influences meet and confront each other. This grey area

can be an area of much or little activity, but it has the potential to colour the

tone of a Ministry and of the Civil Service.

      Since Ministers share the responsibility for upholding the values of

the Civil Service, they too are required to behave according to the highest

standards of constitutional and professional conduct in the performance of

their duties and to contribute to reduce         the risk of ‘colouring’ and

‘politicizing’ the Civil Service. It is mainly for this reason, that in Britain,

the Government has deemed it fit to introduce a Ministerial Code which

provides guidance to Ministers on how they should conduct the affairs of

the State in order to uphold these standards. The Code which applies to

all members of the Government, lists the principles which should prevail

in particular situations. It covers issues of Parliamentary Customs, practice

and procedures and also the more substantive issues of ministerial

conduct.    The Code has recently been reviewed by the Committee on

Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks. This Committee has




                                                                              13
even recommended that the Code should be defined as having equal

weight and authority as the existing Civil Service Code.



      The introduction of such a code in Mauritius will, in my opinion, not

only help considerably in clarifying the grey area that characterizes the

political/administrative interface, but it will also contribute significantly in

enhancing public trust in Government.         Besides, it will certainly dovetail

the Code on Good Corporate Governance, the introduction of which was

unanimously welcomed by all of us in Mauritius.



      The code would not be a rule book and it would certainly not be the

role of the Secretary to the Cabinet or other officials to enforce it. In fact the

Wicks Report has recommended that the Secretary to Cabinet and

Permanent Secretaries should have no responsibility whatsoever for giving

advice to Ministers on conflict of interests arising under the Ministerial

Code. Ministers are personally responsible for decisions how to act and

conduct themselves in the light of the Code. Ministers remain in office as

long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. It is therefore the

Prime Minister who is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour

                                                                               14
expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences for any breach of

these standards.



        Any eventual code for Ministers would have to be framed against the

background of the overarching duty of Ministers to comply with the law,

to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public

life.   The code would impose an obligation on Ministers to observe the

seven principles of public life, i.e. selflessness, integrity, objectivity,

accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.              It might also cover,

inter-alia, the following areas of ministerial life :-



        (i)     Matters pertaining to Cabinet proceedings;

        (ii)    Conduct in the National Assembly;

        (iii)   Legal proceeding involving Ministers;

        (iv)    Membership of Select Committees;

        (v)     Ministers interactions with Public Officers;

        (vi)    The role of the Accounting Officer;

        (vii) Public Officers and Party Conferences;

        (viii) Contacts of Ministers with outside groups, including lobbyists;

                                                                                 15
     (ix)   Minister’s constituency and Party Interest;

     (x)    Relations with other Governments;

     (xi)   Expenses on travel abroad and hospitality;

     (xii) Acceptance of hospitality and gifts;

     (xiii) Presentation of Government’s policies and broadcast by

            Ministers;

     (xiv) Writing of press articles and books by Ministers;

     (xv) Writing for Party and other publications;

     (xvi) Complaints against the Media;

     (xvii) Minister’s private interests;

     (xviii) Relations with NGOs and Trade Unions

     (xix) Financial interest, Partnership and Directorship; and

     (xx) Acceptance of appointments after leaving ministerial office.



     A Code covering all the issues which are likely to arise in the areas

just mentioned would not only be an immensely useful guide to all

Ministers but would significantly enhance transparency, public trust and

confidence in the running of Government business.         In Mauritius, the

Manual of Cabinet Procedures is the only document that is provided to a

                                                                         16
Minister on his assumption of office. First-time Ministers have to learn all

the rest on the job. The Wicks Committee Report I referred to earlier, has

gone very far in even recommending a scheme for the Education and

Training of Ministers. Experience elsewhere has indeed shown that there is

a need to prepare Ministers who have had no previous experience of

Government. In the UK there is already a programme of joint seminars

and workshops for Ministers and Senior Civil Servants and reports indicate

that three quarters of Ministers have attended at least one such seminar.

Recognising the crucial relationship between Civil Servants and Ministers,

and the need for incoming Ministers to trust the Civil Service they inherit

from a previous administration, the Committee has recommended Training

and Education for the following groups :

     (i)     Opposition politicians shadowing Cabinet posts;

     (ii)    New and inexperienced Ministers entering Government on a

             change of administration; and

     (iii)   New Ministers appointed during the lifetime of a Government.




                                                                          17
      Such training, it has been recommended, should focus on how

Government works, its organisation, standards and boundaries and the

role of the Civil Service.



      I believe that in Mauritius we have reached a stage where, through

our membership of, and affiliations with, specialized international

organizations     like    the   Commonwealth      Association    of   Public

Administration and Management, we can envisage to expand our training

options in place to cover the needs of both the newly appointed Ministers

and of opposition politicians shadowing Cabinet posts.



      Finally I would like to come to the role of Advisers particularly

Political Advisers. Increasingly Governments are securing the services of

Special Advisers who have now become part of our political system. And

they are no doubt here to stay. I think there is nothing wrong in that.

Public Officers cannot claim to have the monopoly of giving advice to

Ministers.   The Government should be able to tap other professional

sources for advice.      Sir Richard advises that “we should take a positive

approach to their role, bring them in from the shadows, put them on a proper

                                                                          18
footing, as clearly as we can, and recognize that they have a legitimate contribution

to make to the working of government as it is evolving. They can help understand

the mind of the Minister, work alongside officials on the Minister’s behalf and

handle party-political aspects of government business”.



      Advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work

of Government and the work of the government party overlap and where it

would not be appropriate for permanent public officers to become

involved.     They are an additional resource for the Minister providing

advice from a standpoint that is more politically committed than would be

available to a Minister from the Civil Service. In this way they can surely

help protect the Civil Service against allegations of politicisation.


      But I also believe that Advisers must remain subject to many of the

canons and disciplines of government service. There should be a Code of

Conduct for Advisers as well, which would, inter-alia define:

      (i)     the sort of work an Adviser might do;

      (ii)    their status and conduct;

      (iii)   their relations with the government party;



                                                                                  19
     (iv)   their interactions with the media; and

     (v)    their involvement in politics.


     However, it would perhaps be wiser to clarify what they should not

be doing rather than what they should do. It has been suggested that

Advisers should not have any role in the appraisal, reward and promotion

of public officers or in the appraisal and award of public contracts. They

should not exercise any statutory powers nor any management functions in

respect of the Civil Service and they should also not be allowed to

authorise expenditure from public funds. For at the end of the day it is the

civil servant, and not the Minister or the Adviser, who is personally

accountable for the propriety and regularity of public finances.


     Ladies and Gentlemen

            The thoughts that I wanted to share with you today reflect

some of the concerns that I have had during the past years in particular

how to instill more public trust and confidence in our institutions. Not

everyone will agree with all that I have said, but I sincerely believe that

these issues need to be aired and debated. May I therefore venture to

suggest that the Government coming to power after the forthcoming


                                                                          20
General Elections, consider the desirability of setting up a working group

to examine the proposals for the preparation of a Ministerial Code and a

Code of Conduct for Advisers. Even if partly implemented, I consider that

these proposals will not only help reduce the perception of the

politicisation of the Civil Service and improve standards of propriety, but

will also enhance transparency and public trust in the Government

machinery and help further strengthen our democracy.


     Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish the PSC well and I thank you for your

time and attention.




                                                                         21