----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:33 AM Subject: Accountability > I've been desperately trying to get back to answering postings by Ed Weick, > Tom Walker and others of the past week or so but have been too busy. > > But there is one point I'll make separately here before pushing off to > hospital for my daily X-ray session. This is about the accountability of > those responsible for important services. > > Very briefly, here's the background. In the UK we have four severe crises > -- the railways, foot-and-mouth disease, the National Health service, and > State Education. All of them are either caused or exacerbated by > incompetent management. The first is a (recently) privatised service, and > the others are State run, each with large civil service departments. > > I won't go into details of any of these crises, save to say that > public/consumer opinion is worked up about all these to a degree which I > haven't observed before in the last 50 years of taking an interest in these > matters. Every day in the papers, radio and TV there is intense discussion > of the deficiencies in each case. > > The big difference is in accountability. > > In the case of the railways, journalists and commentators regularly grill > the managers of Railtrack (the "master" system which supplies the track and > signalling to the other regional operational companies) on matters of > safety and bad timetabling. That is, it is those who are operationally > responsible who are questioned. And they are questioned rigorously, > sometimes mercilessly. > > In the case of the others, it is Ministers, Junior Ministers, and other > Government spin doctors who are questioned. These people, of course, are > not operationally responsible. To a lesser or greater degree they are > constitutionally responsible but they have no clear idea of what the real > management issues are. They are at least one remove from the system.* The > people who really run these systems -- the senior civil servants -- are > never questioned. They refuse to to speak publicly. > > In fact, "refusal" is too strong a term for this practice because it is > never disputed. Quite simply, this has been the policy of the senior civil > servants for over 100 years ever since the formation of the civil service > as a unified power bloc. (Middle and junior administrative ranks don't dare > give their opinions in public, of course, because they have had to sign > secrecy documents when appointed and can easily be dismissed.) > > That's all. I will attempt to discuss this matter in a little more detail > in replying to Ed Weick's message of 28 June (Re: Shorter Reply . . . ) > later today. > > Keith Hudson > > P.S. *Here's a little story that illustrates this. Twenty years ago, when > my home town, Coventry, faced an employment/industrial crisis (which > subsequently deepened and didn't start to lift for another 15 years) I put > forward some ideas for a Coventry Investment Fund to the Council. I was > actually invited to speak to the small, but important, policy-making > committee of the Council. Although I received the support of Coventry's > Chief Economist who also attended, I didn't get anywhere in persuading the > Councillors to initiate such a Fund. (My proposal envisaged a Fund similar > to the Boston Investment Fund, and would have involved the University of > Warwick also.) (The latter actually started the first "Science Park" in the > country seome years later, very similar to part of what I was proposing. > But I had no direct inputs to this, so I don;t take any credit. It was more > likely to have been an idea that was in the minds of many others besides > myself.) > > However, one of Coventry's MPs, himself a past member of the Council, had > also attended, and suggested that I should speak to senior civil servants > at the Department of Industry. As he was Junior Minister at the Department, > this was an opportunity I couldn't resist, so he fixed up an appointment > and a few weeks later I travelled to London and turned up at the House of > Commons, met the MP and we set out for the Department. . . . . . Except > that he didn't know where it was!!!! True, the Department of Industry -- > huge, of course -- is/was located in many different buildings in London and > he was not to be expected to know it all. The Junior Minister had been > given the names of the senior civil servants we were to see (those with > responsibility for regional indsutrial policy) but he had never met them > before! He suddenly realised that he didn't know where their particular > "sub-department" was. It took several phone calls before we finally set out > for the right place. (Needless to say, I got nowhere with the civil > servants either and Coventry continued to descend into recession.) > > I am sure that my MP friend was not an exception. This story illustrates > that even Ministers know little about the workings of the Departments they > are supposed to be responsible for and yet have to answer for when > questioned by journalists, etc. > > KH > ___________________________________________________________________ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
