Malta tribes that lose their head

The civil service, defined to include the police and the armed forces, still accounts for by far the largest segment of the public sector. This sector is made up of the civil service, public corporations, boards and authorities, and limited liability companies in which the state holds over 50 per cent of the issued shares.

There is much talk of reducing the portion of the state in the economy. Talk that springs both from ideological reasoning – the assertion that the larger the state the less the space for a properly functioning democracy, and for economic reasons, emanating from the conclusion that the state is far less efficient than the private sector in allocating and utilising resources.

In numerical terms the public sector is perceived to have shrunk somewhat. This is due to an attempt to reduce the civil service by not replacing completely those who retire annually, a figure which used to be of around 600. The concept here is to do more with less, but in reality it does not always work that way.

Manpower planning in the service has not been the epitome of farsightedness. The acknowledged shortage of nurses required to man the state hospitals and health centres is the most significant sign of lack of proper planning. Another sign is the continued very high deployment of personnel with limited skills.

The last breakdown of this position which I saw was given by Eddie Fenech Adami in reply to a parliamentary question when he was still prime minister. It would be useful if some MP were to ask for the situation as it is now. In fact, the question should be expanded to include the rest of the public sector.

I am prepared to bet an orange the figures are not readily available, and that Lawrence Gonzi will reply that he will be giving an answer in a future sitting.

The limited liability element of the public sector has diminished as a result of privatisation, particularly of the commercial banks, and the closing down of Malta Drydocks, though I’m not sure whether that used to be included under the corporations segment.

It would be very interesting if detailed light were shed on what has actually taken place in this sector. Whatever the numerical count my perception is that the number of corporations, boards and authorities has expanded. This government has an established tendency to set up quangos, without necessarily determining that duplication and inefficiency is being created.

Duplication has to be tested with official numbers on both sides of the fence. Inefficiency shows itself stark naked. Take the postal service, where the deterioration in the level of service given to the public cries out loudly.

Move on then to the billing for water and electricity. The government promised increase efficiency with the setting up of Arms Ltd. Instead there has been an almost total collapse in good service, so much so that the Prime Minister was forced to apologise twice for it.

The corporations and authorities segment was brought to the forefront of the news a week ago. The Leader of the Opposition was probed on what he would do regarding chairmen of entities in this sector, as well as in its limited liability counterpart, if he became prime minister.

An attempt was made to draw him into a contrast with what the Labour government did in 1996, as well as to contrast him to the policy of the current government. That policy could not be more unashamedly partisan. The PN manifesto came up with the ludicrous suggestion that top positions in these sectors would be filled after calls for application.

We are half into the life of this government and practically all these positions remain crammed with acknowledged Nationalists; some mild, some rabid.

Muscat would not be drawn to committing that a future Labour government led by him would make appointments solely according to required merit. He said he could not have his government wanting to head north and top officials pulling south.

One understands his position – Austin Gatt had declared it years ago and the Nationalist governments have certainly practised it. It is, however, not correct. Were it to be correct it would require that the civil service be unashamedly led solely by supporters of the government of the day. Nor is it necessary.

When Labour was elected in 1996 I was the Cabinet minister responsible to make the great bulk of appointments to public boards, authorities and corporations.

In consultation with George Abela, the adviser to the Cabinet, I kept various sitting officials who had been appointed by my Nationalist predecessor. Prime Minister Alfred Sant went along. I had acted similarly with regard to civil servants when I first became a minister in 1981.

None of the civil servants then and their counterparts and the appointees I made in 1996 stabbed me in the back or underperformed. Nor am I aware that they double crossed my successor when I resigned from Cabinet in March 1997.

The then Labour government did not fail because of public sector skulduggery, but due to some wrong key policies and internal tensions.

We cannot be a tribe that loses its head with each change of government The public sector should be led by the best technical brains available. Their loyalty should be to the government of the day. Where they disagree, they should resign.

And it should be up to competent ministers to ensure that Malta gets the service it requires from its servants. As can be witnessed now, that is definitely not assured by appointing sympathisers and fellow travellers.