Diminished Responsibility

We’ve seen it before, most notably during the unravelling of the banking crisis, the Iraq war and the fallout over ‘baby P’, when individuals resolutely faced down any responsibility for activities directly attributed to themselves and others close to them.

Now, I admit that there are indeed times when, in the heat of the moment, resignation – whether by jumping or being pushed, is the least clever response.

A captain resolutely going down with his ship is, to my mind, a noble but unproductive gesture since he could be the only individual with the gumption and experience – a much debased quality, these days –to save the wreckage caused by his less capable crew.

Those braying for resignation may succeed in claiming a head, but such a pyrrhic victory often remains merely ‘business in progress’ leaving the underlying problem unresolved. Nevertheless, the hackles rise when there is an official disconnect between those in charge and the responsibilities they are entrusted with.

There is, of course the highly favoured art of the side step, widely practised by politicians and those in positions of authority. How often do we hear: ‘My staff failed to brief me, but I will initiate a full inquiry.

Blaming ‘the system’ is another convenient diversionary tactic, whether to excuse criminal practice, educational failure, or pastoral neglect, while there’s the ultimate claim for absolution which allows the commission of whatever misdemeanour – the denial of ‘wrong doing’ – a meaningless phrase if ever there was one.

Casting blame far and wide is also a favoured tactic. That way, it doesn’t land on any individual and is more difficult to trace back. Though offering a clever escape mechanism, it does contain the risk of misfire, leading to all in its path being discredited: in effect, leaving the impression that, say, the entire finance industry, in particular the City, is corrupt; all politicians are rife with sleaze and hubris: and all health workers are sloppy and uncaring.

Better that the guilty – and it’s naïve to believe their identities are unknown – are singled out and punished, in order to distinguish the wolves from the good sheep. Closing ranks and confronting any attempt to expose the miscreants as an attack on the whole industry, is as offensive as it is corrupt. Worse still, is to single out an array of scapegoats to deflect opprobrium and protect the biggest villains.

Meanwhile, there are those who will institutionally try to wriggle out of responsibility. Insurance companies take the lead in this sport, capitalising on every legal minutiae – whether or not it be backed by common sense.

This is the province of Mr Loophole. When, pray, was it compulsory to wear a high visibility jacket at all times when walking out of doors in the evening, simply to avoid an injury claim being contested?

You could argue, of course, that risk aversion has been forced upon us by the compensation culture, spawned by the ‘it’s not my fault, somebody’s got to be blamed’ message from claim lawyers who infest daytime TV just at times when those who don’t work are bound to be tuned in and looking to earn money from those who do.

It’s no wonder that in the immense and complex organisations we have created, particularly in the public sector – and because we now own them, I include the banks – lines of responsibility are blurred and tracking is a major exercise. I can well remember the old BBC broadcaster’s response to the other end not receiving a signal: ‘It’s alright leaving me, Guv!’

But these days, the degree of responsibility that was always built in – if not writ in letters as large as Canary Warf – needs to be revisited, ring-fenced and rewarded. The recompense for enhanced responsibility is greater salaries – but who’s shouldering it? It was almost comical to hear this week that the ‘transfer fee’ for the new governor of the Bank of England would be less than a professional footballer squanders in a week!

So, from behind the smokescreen of collective responsibility – or corporate anonymity – whichever you consider more appropriate, we may have cause for some hope from this weekends’ unequivocal words of the new Secretary for Health: ‘It is absolutely disgraceful that nobody has been brought to account for substandard care which led to the death of 1200 patients. We must put evidence in the public domain.’ Somewhat ironic that this denunciation comes directly from one mired by the shenanigans over B-Sky B. It takes one to know one.

Yet, with impeccable timing came discussion of the ‘Justice and Security Bill’ deftly slipped under the parliamentary radar during the politically manufactured distraction of the Same-Sex Marriage pantomime.

If passed into law, anything related to State security – and you can’t design a wider net than that, would be considered in secret. So, responsibility for faulty military equipment, the effects of inept strategic or policy decisions which could have catastrophic implications for individuals, would be subject to review behind closed doors well away from public scrutiny. Plus ca change.