The editorial entitled The Civil Service And Ministerial Powers (September 3) laudably attempts to open a debate on what should be the role of the permanent civil service vis-à-vis ministers.

In spite of all its nice language, the voluminous Public Administration Bill fails to address the real problem, which is that ministers and their secretariats (most of them recruited from outside the civil service) constantly interfere in the minutiae of administration. Ministers should not be there for detail but to lay down policy and ensure that it is applied.

The editorial mentions article 6 as an offending article. It is offensive in that the minister is empowered to act directly when dealing with departments, agencies etc. This totally ignores the fact that where there is a permanent secretary (PS), departments and agencies are under his supervision. Otherwise why have a PS at all? In other administrations where PS and such like exist, a minister would not dream of acting independently of such senior officials.

Incidentally, the editorial seems to think that the 1990 Amendments to the Interpretation Act introduced some special safeguards to limit the possible abuse of power by unscrupulous ministers. This is not quite so.

Under article 6c of the Interpretation Act (Cap 249), a minister is only debarred from interfering where the holder of an office "is expressly declared by any law not to be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority". Are there any laws which state this, apart from the Constitution?

The reality is that we have managed to turn "discretion" on its head. Malta is possibly the only country where a holder of an office may not act at his discretion, as the minister's discretion substitutes that of his permanent subordinate.

Isn't it time we try to make some sense out of all this?