Ministers should always be ultimately accountable
David Blackburn 12:21pm
Bob Ainsworth’s response to the Nimrod inquiry features one extraordinary omission: ministers do not appear to be directly accountable in the event of another tragedy. The reforms establish the MAA, the military aviation authority, which is independent from the MoD, but will not have responsibility for releasing aircraft to service – assistant chiefs of staff have that responsibility - however there the buck apparently stops. Here is the relevant section in Hansard:
‘The single service chiefs of staff must retain responsibility for determining that our aircraft can be safely released into service. The MAA will provide full assurance, but it will not carry out this release-to-service role directly. For operational emergency clearances, I have decided to opt for a tighter regime than Mr Haddon-Cave proposed, under which the assistant chiefs – not those who fly the aircraft at the front line – will be responsible for any clearances.’
The MoD is an intelligent customer: it pays to be advised by private firms about air maintenance. As such the MAA is welcome: it will ensure that the quality of technical advice, upon which service chiefs can advise ministers, is improved. But the decision not to remove Nimrod from service rested ultimately with ministers; that should be recognised in reforms. Blame should not be apportioned on ministers for past failures, but not to do so in the future is perverse.
Previous
Dorothy Wilson
December 31st, 2009 4:31pm Report this commentDoes anyone in the government understand what "accountability" means?
Noa Zrk
December 31st, 2009 4:34pm Report this comment"...the decision not to remove Nimrod from service rested ultimately with ministers; that should be recognised in reforms. Blame should not be apportioned on ministers for past failures, but not to do so in the future is perverse...".
Your article touches on one of the central problems of modern government, David.
The doctrine of Ministerial responsibility has been in decline for many years, but this has accelerated dramatically since Labour's accession to power, since when the "what, who, wasn't me Guv", has become prevalent. The rot starts at the top of course, if Blair happily lies to go to war and Brown gaily manipulates statistics to portray a debt ridden, bankrupt economy as nothing to do with him, why should the smaller fry, at their beck and call, accept any responsibility for anything?
Which comes first, a rotten government or a rotten system?
Will the Conservatives change this situation, I really don't hold out any hopes on that account?
The Laughing Cavalier
December 31st, 2009 5:01pm Report this commentLabour Minsters do not take responsibility or resign. Anything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. This simply formalises the unwritten Labour rule that the Ministerial Limo, the Ministerial salary and the Ministerial perks should never be surrendered voluntarily.
Chuck Unsworth
December 31st, 2009 5:06pm Report this commentRidiculous. Accountable? Since when? I cannot recall a single occasion where a Minister of this 'government' was held to be accountable for the actions or inactions of his/her department, or for his/her own actions or inactions. I challenge you to name one.
'Should'? Well, yes. Then again, the whole damn lot of them 'should' resign immediately - and I include the heavily politicised Service Chiefs as well as the soi disant 'Civil Service'.
Currently the whole of political life is one of avoidance of responsibility. It is Nirvana - a guilt-free, and responsibility-free, zone.
M Reid
December 31st, 2009 5:27pm Report this commentMinisters should stop pretenting they are running things and stick to formulating policy.
Senior civil servanys should be held accountable for all operational matters-not ministers.Ministers don't run things- that is a nonsense invented by civil servants to protect themselves.
BrianSJ
December 31st, 2009 7:06pm Report this commentM Reid has the right of it. Ministers are much more like customers acting on our behalf than head of dept. Sir Humphrey needs to be accountable. Douglas Carswell's proposal for accountability to parliament are also important.
Michael Booth
January 1st, 2010 2:51pm Report this commentThey should be ultimately accountable - tumbrils, anyone?
JS Mill
January 1st, 2010 3:34pm Report this commentThis government considers itself accountable only for good things, not bad.
JS Mill
January 1st, 2010 4:58pm Report this commentHear, hear M Reid. MPs are not qualified for anything in particular. Just think of the ridiculous Balls, Johnson, Darling, Brown et al. Balls has no qualifications, experience, knowledge of education except the job itself. Johnson was a postman and CWU officer. We may have a problem defining policy as opposed to management but not too much of one. I can take a bit of fudge but the totalitarianism of modern governments.
Back to top