In the past few weeks, the word ‘accountability’ seems to have raised its head above the parapet yet again.
Questions of NHS regulation and performance hit the headlines with the unexpected resignation of Baroness Young as chair of the Care Quality Commission. The public (and I count myself in that number) remain confused about how Basildon found itself between being both a good and bad hospital at the same time. How much confidence do we have in the quality of regulation and the ability of ministers to accept accountability?
That is not just a question for the NHS. It affects all government departments; and their response when things go horribly wrong provides a good insight into damage limitation and the marvels of political spin. Sometimes it is difficult to know where the buck starts, let alone stops!
Take this example. I was in the car on Tuesday evening listening with ever increasing incredulity to a classic performance of “how not to answer the question” on Radio 4’s PM programme. The subject? Not the NHS this time, but an interview with David Lammy, Minister in charge of our universities responding to a damning report on the Student Loan Company. If you have a moment it is worth listening to.
You might think that the answer to Eddie Mair’s simple question: “Is the person who was in charge of the Student Loan Company at the time of this fiasco still in charge of the Company?” would be a simple yes or no. Far from it. The reply was this: “The Chair has said that he is looking to strengthen and re-organise the senior management of the team and it is right that I allow them to do that with the due process that you would expect to take place.”
Eddie Mair tried again to elicit a simple answer: “But the person who was in place when it all went wrong remains in charge?” Answer: “There will be changes to strengthen and re-organise the senior management of the team but I am also making clear that it is not for me, as a minister, to determine the outcome of that. I look to the Board to do that and it’s right that they follow due process in doing that and in employment law.”
Not for the first time, I lost the will to live listening to such obfuscation. The words yes or no seem to escape those charged with running our public services. But the minister has done his colleagues a huge favour. His interview provides the perfect template for any government minister, permanent secretary or quango chief to use when things go wrong. They would do well to keep this reply on file. But I can’t help feeling that for proper accountability to work the better answer is a simple yes or no!