Volume 15: Government and Public Administration
8. Standards and accountability
Introduction

8.1 Volume 1 of this Report, Findings and Conclusions, explains the Inquiry's approach to examining the adequacy of the response to BSE, which the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry require the Committee to do. This chapter explains the internal and external scrutiny to which Ministers and civil servants were subject during the period 1986-96.

8.2 Ministers and officials were not able to act entirely as they wished. One MAFF official told the Inquiry that he and his colleagues functioned in an organisation where the key decisions were made by Ministers who were required to operate under the law and answer to Parliament for the decisions and actions they took. Ministers were also accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Departments, and had to explain what they wished to do and why, and answer queries and criticisms. Government actions and decisions could be overturned by the Courts if they exceeded the powers available in primary and secondary legislation, or if they were deemed 'unreasonable'. The process of decision-making was also subject to independent scrutiny by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the 'Ombudsman'). Finally, the 'Armstrong Memorandum' ¹ and its successor, the Civil Service Code, described the standards of behaviour and action expected of all civil servants, independently of the policies of the Ministers of the day.

8.3 This chapter describes these systems of scrutiny and accountability, which were important in establishing and reinforcing the culture and norms within which civil servants and Ministers worked.