Pass the parcel (or The buck stops where?)

Government accountability for policy mistakes rests on a series of ambiguities which can too easily turn into ‘who, not me’ evasions. Among many other lessons, the Public Accounts Committee’s damning report on the £469 million (minimum) waste on the now abandoned FiReControl project exposes one of the inherent flaws in the auditing of large-scale programmes. By definition, such projects last several years, in this case more than six, so that those who launch a programme are not around in the same posts when the cost of their mistakes becomes apparent. In the FiReControl case, Eric Pickles, who cancelled the project, is the fourth Communities Secretary since its launch by John Prescott, while the Permanent Secretary changed twice, and there were five ‘Senior Responsible Owners’ and four project directors. Yet, as the PAC noted, ‘no individuals have been held accountable for the failure and waste associated with the project’. Nor were any of the relevant civil servants responsible for the project were questioned by the committee in its heated hearing in July. By convention, Sir Bob Kerslake, the current Permanent Secretary, appeared as accounting officer before the PAC, even though he was not in charge when the main decisions were taken. Sir Peter Housden, Permanent Secretary for the crucial period of 2005 to 2010, and now Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, was therefore not requested to give evidence, even though he would almost certainly have agreed if asked.

So, recommendation one, the existing convention should be changed so that the officials responsible for initiating and handling projects should be questioned as well as the current occupants of their post. But it is wrong, and unfair, to put all the blame on civil servants. The line between policy and operation, decision and implementation, has always been blurred. While civil servants took forward the project, the driving force was the now Lord Prescott. Even though he ceased being a minister more than four years ago, he should have been questioned.

So, in recommendation two, the current convention that the PAC mainly questions Permanent Secretaries should be modified and extended to include former as well as current ministers where big policy failures are alleged. In short, the current distinction between ministers being accountable to Parliament for the decisions of their departments, and Permanent Secretaries being answerable as accounting officers for the expenditure of their departments to the Public Accounts Committee is artificial and needs to be updated.

One approach, recommendation three, was contained in the Institute for Government’s recent report, ‘Making Policy Better’ by Michael Hallsworth and Jill Rutter. They suggested that the criteria under which a Permanent Secretary as accounting officer can seek a written direction   from a Secretary of State should be broadened from lawfulness, impropriety and poor value for money to include poor policy process, such as a failure to provide clear, well-reasoned timely and impartial advice. The aim—of publicising disagreement- is to encourage adherence to the more transparent and formal policymaking process advocated in the report. Would civil servants have objected to the FiReControl project on this basis? Nothing will prevent policy failures, but, at least, they can be exposed earlier: and those directly responsible, rather than their successors, should be held accountable.