Theresa May and the responsibility of ministers

Has Theresa May successfully rewritten the concept of ministerial responsibility? By constantly repeating in the Commons yesterday that she "did not give [her] consent or authorisation to any of these actions" when referring to the UK Border Agency relaxation of immigration controls during the summer, she has significantly redefined the concept of ministerial responsibility. And much as I would like to see a few more Tory scalps - especially in an area where the party shamelessly added to public hysteria, including through the theft of confidential papers from a previous Home Secretary's office - it would be a good thing for politics if it worked. However, that doesn't mean ministers are blameless in this case.

The truth is that ministers do not - and cannot - know everything that is being done in their name by officials and agencies. They rely on their private office and senior officials, as well as on special advisers, to keep an eye on things. But a good minister should ask questions, and track what's happening on key policy implementation: and it is here that May and Damian Green, her immigration minister, do seem guilty of serious shortcomings. Equally, it should be said, this is another example of the limitations of no 10: did they not ask for such updates either?

However, the idea that the minister should always carry the can for an official cock-up is not good for politics. Estelle Morris felt obliged to resign when the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the exam boards screwed up over A-level test papers and marking, which are much further removed from ministerial responsibility than the immigration policy at Heathrow Airport. Beverley Hughes quit when a previous agency screwed up badly over immigration, and she unwittingly misled the House of Commons in the ensuing furore. In neither case was the minister directly responsible for a failure of implementation, but convention dictated that they should resign. If it turns out May or Green or their private offices were told more than she is letting on, they would similarly be expected to go.

But there have been too many ministerial resignations, too many good people lost in the process and too few occasions where an official directly responsible for a policy has had to take the consequences where they got it wrong. In this case, I have some sympathy with those who argue that a more proportionate response to full passport checks is good for tourism, so long as everyone knows they may be checked. But that isn't what the Tories have been saying, so May has been wrong-footed by her officials. In this case, she may be right to blame them. But if I were her, I would take an urgent look at the mechanisms her office uses to check on policy operation on a regular basis. The best ministers seek and get regular updates. The failure of her immigration minister or her private office to do that basic part of his job suggests that they may not be fit for purpose either.

The benefits of immigration

As Theresa May produces her latest proposal to demonise migrants (with the acquiesence of some senior Labour figures), Alice Miles offers a timely reminder in this week's New Statesman that many immigrants provide things that local people are simply unwilling to do:

When a local post office closed a couple of years ago, the villagers wailed and moaned, because the accompanying shop would have to shut, too. The post office was indeed just an expensive public subsidy for a crap village shop, so when it did shut, the dismal shop swiftly followed, despite the villagers' attempts to form committees and fundraise to keep it open.

Then a family from Sri Lanka arrived. They bought the lease, reopened the shop. The (generally white and wealthy) villagers patronised them, and the Sri Lankans smiled back. The shop is thriving. It sells fresh, locally sourced meat and fish, and good bread; it offers dry-cleaning, seedlings, fruit and veg. And the family is about to open a little café outside.

It's only one shop in one village, but it is a lesson in what immigrant enterprise can do. The white people just gave up on it when their subsidy was withdrawn. This is the other side of the currently fashionable, anti-immigration bleat from some Labour leadership candidates, and from the Conservatives.

Where is this man when you need him?

A few weeks ago, Sir Michael Scholar (pictured here), who heads the UK Statistics Authority, launched a full scale attack on ministers for the premature publication of knife crime statistics, which hadn't yet been fully cleared by government statisticians. (Godot would have arrived in the time it usually takes for government statisticians to provide timely data). This attack was justified on the grounds that the professional integrity of statisticians had been impugned.

Yesterday, the Office of National Statistics waded into a difficult political row about immigration by publishing seriously misleading statistics on migration, which wrongly suggested that the only people getting any new jobs were foreigners. As an excellent leader in today's Times points out, the briefing (published prematurely on the grounds of 'topicality') made no distinction between people born abroad but permanently resident here and those who arrived recently. Only someone of the greatest political naivety could publish such a briefing without proper context, and without considering its effect on a potentially poisonous political debate.

According to its website, the Statistics Authority's main objective "is to promote and safeguard the quality of official statistics that serve the public good. It is also required to safeguard the comprehensiveness of official statistics, and ensure good practice in relation to official statistics." It is also intended to oversee the work of ONS. I trust Sir Michael Scholar, who apparently attended the weekly meeting of Whitehall permanent secretaries yesterday "to discuss the importance of abiding by the new regime for releasing figures" can bring himself to show the appropriate indignation on this occasion, and issue a severe public rebuke to ONS head Karen Dunnell in the same way he has with ministers. After all the premature publication on this occasion threatened public order rather than simply highlighting a minor ministerial success story.

Backing jobsworths

The Daily Mail and the Tories are in high dudgeon this morning because Lyn Homer, the chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency decided that a Chinese student - someone who contributes thousands of pounds in fees to the UK economy and higher education - who had applied for an extension on her visa, but had filled in the form (doubtless one of impeccable clarity) incorrectly should not be deported. Ms Homer told the Today programme that she had exercised her 'common sense' and asked her officials to do the same. Instead of demanding that immigration officers should behave like mindless jobsworths, shouldn't the Mail and Tories be hailing this refreshing example of bureaucratic flexibility?