The public uproar that ensued when it emerged that foster care team leader John Rolé was to be transferred from Aġenzija Appoġġ to another department took the government so much by surprise that it swiftly reversed the decision.
Mr Rolé will remain at the agency, to the relief of many foster carers, social workers and former fostered children who described him as being unmatched in his qualifications as team leader.
It is not so much the reversed decision that raises concern – the government is to be commended for recognising the error and immediately rectifying it – but the reason why the situation arose in the first place and how it was handled.
Social Solidarity Minister Michael Farrugia was said to have been presented with a fait accompli by Appoġġ. Initially, his ministry said the staff within the Foundation for Social Welfare Services, including Mr Rolé, had the ability to work in different posts while obtaining good results. The foundation, the ministry said, believed such mobility was healthy.
Evidently, the Office of the Prime Minister thought different. Joseph Muscat intervened in the matter and asked Dr Farrugia to reinstate Mr Rolé.
Why did it have to come to that? The minister emerged weak, firstly because the decision to transfer Mr Rolé caught him off guard and secondly because the Prime Minister overruled him, publicly.
This was not the first incident of its kind. When, a year ago, a tent was set up outside Mater Dei Hospital to serve as a temporary reception area, the Prime Minister had also publicly intervened and ordered it removed. Then health minister Godfrey Farrugia was damaged by that incident.
The Prime Minister has often been critical of his own government, usually limiting himself to saying that “things could have been done better”.
Hence, when controversial issues arose, like the Individual Investor Programme, the police handling of the Norman Vella case, the appointment of the Energy Minister’s wife as government envoy for Asia and the case involving Minister Helena Dalli and a farmhouse in Żejtun, Dr Muscat’s reaction was always that things could have been done better. He summed it up best in the wake of the shooting incident involving the ex- home affairs minister’s driver when he said that “people expected better from everyone”.
Education Minister Evarist Bartolo even remarked recently that because of government slip-ups, the Prime Minister was ending up defending against own goals.
The public involvement of the Prime Minister in situations where a minister falters sends a very wrong message. It gives the impression of lack of coordination, not only within the government but also between the ministers and the departments they are responsible for.
Unilateral actions by the Prime Minister, in some cases in sheer conflict with his own ministers’ decisions, undermine the spirit of Cabinet collective responsibility. Cabinet members, including the Prime Minister, must publicly support all government decisions made in that Cabinet, even if they privately disagree.
It can be argued that Cabinet collective responsibility is separate from individual ministerial responsibility, as is this case involving Appoġġ. It is a significant difference but the impression conveyed is still that the government, in or outside Cabinet, is disjointed and uncoordinated.
Having a Prime Minister publicly stepping in at the eleventh hour to save the day may temporarily boost his standing in the eyes of the public, albeit at the expense of his own ministers, but, in the long run, it reflects badly on the government that he leads.