The top civil servant in the Home Office
has apparently found it necessary to tell
the department’s staff that they will not be breaking the law nor be guilty
of racism if they implement the Home Secretary’s plan to deport some asylum
seekers to Rwanda. The claim that the plan does not break any laws is a bold
one for a civil servant to make; ultimately it is for the courts to decide whether
the plan is legal or not, and we can be certain that there will be legal
challenges aplenty. The question as to whether it is racist or not is more
complex. It is arguably not directly racist in the sense that race will not be
a factor in the criteria for deciding which of those migrants who arrive by one
particular mode of entry will be sent; but since the overwhelming majority of
those arriving by that route are of African or Middle Eastern origin (Europeans
generally having safer routes available to them, as well as less need to seek sanctuary - current circumstances notwithstanding), there is every probability
that it will be indirectly racist.
But perhaps the most significant part of
the mandarin’s lecture to staff was the bit where he said that staff were
obliged to implement ministers’ decisions. That sounded a lot like telling them
that they must always follow orders, an approach to government which many will
have thought to have been seriously discredited at Nuremburg. There are lots of
things in human history which have been entirely legal under the laws in force at
the time – including, of course, slavery – but being ‘legal’ doesn’t make them
right, and it doesn’t absolve those implementing them of all moral
responsibility for their actions. Where to draw the line is far from being an
easy question: a situation in which different civil servants draw the line in
different places depending on their own consciences would clearly cause untold
difficulties. But the precedents for a government which falls back on
instructing its servants to do as they are told regardless of any reservations
about legality or morality – which is where we seem to be headed – are not exactly
good. The Civil Service is, quite rightly, expected to be neutral rather than
partisan in implementing the policy of the elected government of the day. But acting
in a neutral fashion isn’t – and should not be allowed to become – the same
thing as acting without any sense of morality. The fact that the head honcho at
the Home Office doesn’t seem to understand the nuance here is something that
should worry us all.
1 comment:
One little thing you fail to mention - the probability that the idea of shipping a "problem" to Rwanda or indeed anywhere else originated from a working party of senior civil servants. Combine a bunch of malicious politicians with an equally amoral permanent staff and you get outcomes like this one. No doubt there will be servants at the sharper end of the operation who will be very concerned about the legality but those senior guys are often cut from nastier bits of cloth than the political rotters they "serve".
Post a Comment