A debate on accountability is long overdue

Ed Balls' article in today's Independent is yet more of the same accountability-dodging over the recent Sats scandal.  Rather than apologising, he returns to the tired "I share your frustration" mantra, as though that absolves him of any blame.  He does, though, let us know what we can hold him accountable for:

"So when this newspaper calls for me to be held account, as it did last week, and demanded to know my plans to improve children's education, I say that test results are crucial to my accountability – as well as that of local authorities and individual governing bodies."

Does anyone think we can actually hold Balls to this?  Rightly or wrongly, there are numerous ways to escape accountability over falling test standards.  An education minister who hasn't been in the role for very long could always argue that current results are down to his predecessor, and that the latest "reforms" haven't had time to filter through the system.  And that's before we get onto the question of what level of declining standards would count as unacceptable.  Besides, is Balls trying to suggest that any improvements in test results can be attributed to his work?  That rather does away with questions about "dumbed-down" exams, and the prevelance of "coaching", doesn't it?

There are wider issues of accountability here.  I believe that Balls should have been held to account over the Sats fiasco - it was a major failure, and it happened on his watch.  But he's still filling the role of schools secretary, and he's still in a position to write shameless articles for the Independent.  So just when does a minister cross the line?  Just when does he become accountable?

One answer is that we, the public, decide come election time.  If voters aren't happy with the service they're getting from their elected representative, then they can boot him out at the ballot box.  There's a problem with that, though - on the whole, elections only happen every four to five years.  That means an incompetent minister could wreak havoc on the country for some length of time.

To that there's a counterargument.  That in between elections, ministers are accountable to their boss - the Prime Minister.  If he's not happy with what they're doing, then he can give them the boot as well.  But there's a problem there, too.  The Prime Minster has allegiances and strategies to consider.  Sacking a minister may create the impression that the Government's in disarray.  And for that reason - along with plenty of others - he may be reluctant to do so.

Does all this mean that we need a charter of accountability, which sets out what each minister is responsible for?  I'm not sure, and I certainly don't have any answers.  But that the current status quo prevails - and that there don't seem to be many alternatives being put forward - suggests that a debate on accountability is long overdue.

Until that debate takes place, minsters like Ed Balls will be able to pick and choose what they're accountable for.  And that's the same as no accountability at all.