The Blame Game

In the "Yes Minister" episode "One of Us", Sir Humphrey Appleby fails to check up on the security of the head of MI5. He protests that he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything, and mentions that admits that government security inquiries are primarily designed to kill press speculation.

I was reminded of this when hearing the "blame game" about the recent news on the pending lawsuit against Harcourt.

No, says Jim Perchard, we did not knowingly deceive the States. We enquired about this from Harcourt, and were told there was no lawsuit, and it was a disgruntled ex-business partner stirring up trouble.

That little word "knowingly" is the key to why there will not be resignations.

The lawsuit was was formally filed on 30 April 2008.

According to the JEP, Frank Walker, Philip Ozouf, and Terry le Sueur all were emailed with details.

Frank Walker asked three times before the debate if there was any substance in the existence of a lawsuit, and apparently received three denials from Harcourt, that in addition to assurance from them on the 22nd of May 2008. He never thought to check that out elsewhere. Like Sir Humphrey, he didn't need to because he believed in their integrity.

Philip Ozouf could not read attachments on his Blackberry, and had only been "cc" in the email; he prioritised emails that are sent directly to him - voters take note. Presumable he also took advice from Frank Walker's direct check with Harcourt. He never thought to check that out either. Clearly - rather like Sir Humphrey - he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything.

Terry Le Sueur presumably depended on Frank Walker checking matters out. I think he does use emails, even though he looks as if he belongs to the Victorian ledger era, when the telegraph system was the cutting edge of technology. He never thought to check that out either.

Jim Perchard again took his lead from information received by Frank Walker and Harcourt. As the Web representative, he said that Web were mislead by Harcourt. He never thought to check that out himself either.

Now consider this hypothetical case. I want to do a business deal with Enron, but I have heard that the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), was now pursuing a formal investigation and got assurances from Kenneth Lay, the chairman at Enron, who reassured me by by affirming that there was "absolutely no accounting issue, no trading issue, no reserve issue, no previously unknown problem issues". Would I take Lay's word for that, or check with the SEC?

In the JEP tonight it says "the JEP has obtained court papers from the Clark County District Court in Nevada which show that the case was formally filed on 30 April - more than a month before the States debate." If the JEP could check up, couldn't someone do that on behalf of the States - if the ministers were too busy, what about delegating it to the invisible Bill Ogley or another civil servant?

I think that it would be a matter of gross incompetence not to check up elsewhere. If there was no collusion, there must be incompetence. The simplest way of deflecting attention from this, of course, is the "blame game".

But the blame game itself raises issues which will not go away, especially in an election year. Should we be doing business with someone who gave categorical assurances to our Chief Minister that were categorically wrong? If they can deceive the States over this, even if their financial integrity is sound (and that is now a big "if"), should we be doing business with people whose moral integrity seems to be rather suspect.