21 NOVEMBER 1992, Page 6

POLITICS

Have you no morals, Governor?

Can't afford them, man

SIMON HEFFER

Half a dozen Liberal Democrat MPs have put down an early day motion in the Commons. They move that 'this House is appalled by the cynicism, deception and moral laxity shown by ministers over equip- ment sales to Iraq as revealed by docu- ments made available at the Matrix Churchill trial.' One lax act especially aggrieves this morally constipated sextet: the Foreign Office dropping its objections to selling machine-tools to Iraq (tools that can be used to make motor-bikes as well as nuclear weapons). However, it did so only after being bought off by an assurance that the Foreign Office minister responsible (Mr Waldegrave, now the Minister for Open Government) would not have to answer questions about it. 'This derisory price,' howl the Liberals, 'makes a mockery of the seriousness of the issue and brings the whole Government into contempt.'

Politicians and governments are seldom more ridiculous than when preaching morality. They should act morally; but it is dangerous to boast of doing so. Moral con- duct is essential if respect for politicians by electors is to be maintained. If it is not, then society erupts. As Carlyle (it is always well to invoke a sage when discussing moral matters) put it: 'All Power is Moral . . . the grand point is the distinction of Good and Evil, of Thou shalt and Thou shalt not.'

Before examining the moral position of the Government, let us look at that of their Liberal judges. Not everybody's definition of moral behaviour is the same, in which lies part of the danger of politicians preach- ing about it. But the proposer of the EDM, Sir David Steel, is regarded by some as immoral for his Private Member's Bill that legalised abortion; and the leader of the party to which he and his co-signatories belong is a proven adulterer, a trait not considered 'moral' by much of the popula- tion. According to one's own code, these sins may or may not be as serious as minis- ters standing by (if that is what they did) while sanctions were breached and three innocent men faced jail. They do, however, point to the difficulties of finding someone suitably qualified to cast the first stone.

Two main types of immorality are dis- cernible in governments: downright dishon- esty, usually simple prevarication but some- times serious deception; and the immorali- ty of neglect, through laziness or incompe- tence, of duties entrusted to ministers by the electorate. This Government tells lies almost daily, as it seeks to recover from the misjudgments and failures that have dogged it since the summer. But, although the subject matter of the lies may be seri- ous — the economy, for example — the lies themselves are not. This is because one feels the liars really do not expect anyone to believe them. They are simply lying to save face. Take, for example, the protests that there has been no economic U-turn, or that there is no link between ERM and the Maastricht Treaty, or that the Maastricht Treaty is not a centralising measure.

The real sins of the Government, as the Scott inquiry into Matrix Churchill may confirm, are of incompetence, and of fail- ure to punish it. However, a frisson went around the political establishment on Tues- day when it was heard that Mr Alan Clark, whose conflicting evidence in court caused the trial to be abandoned, was being inves- tigated by the police. Ministerial imm- morality may be exposed if Mr Clark is prosecuted. Former colleagues from Lady Thatcher, Mr Major and Lord Ridley downwards would wait nervously to hear what was claimed from the box. Mr Major must believe he has done nothing wicked, or he would not have widened the remit of the inquiry to include almost everything, and everyone. Some others, either knowing more, or much less, than he does, clearly did suspect something naughty had hap- pened; otherwise they would not have gone to such lengths to cover 'it' up.

Perhaps the length of time so many min- isters have spent in office is causing mis- takes to be made. Of the present Cabinet, Lord Mackay, Mr Hurd, Mr Clarke, Mr Lamont, Mr Heseltine, Mr MacGregor, Mr Rifkind, Lord Wakeham, Mr Brooke, Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr Newton were all in the Government in 1979. Additionally, the chauffeur-driven car has called each morn- ing for the best part of 12 years for Messrs Gummer, Patten, Lang, Waldegrave and Hunt. Most show signs of fatigue (the min- isters, that is, not the cars); a few are grave- ly out of touch and have little regard for what the people who elected them (and, more importantly, the 57 per cent who did not) think. They are like company directors who have been inside the boardroom so long that they have entirely lost touch with what is going on outside among their cus- tomers, staff and competitors.

Some should, perhaps, remember that one reason Lord Wilson resigned as Prime Minister was because it was all becoming so familiar to him that he was getting bored, and he feared making oversights. Perhaps boredom is why four long-serving ministers, including two Queen's Counsel, signed the Public Interest Immunity Certificates in the Matrix Churchill case so readily. The grow- ing workload must either become oppres- sive after so many years, or one must learn to cut corners. It is a long time since Sir Robert Peel read all the Foreign Office telegrams and answered each day, in his own hand, most of the letters sent to him.

But the career structure of permanent government has a more insidious effect. Some ministers have nowhere else to go; theirs is not temporary service of their country, but a job until retirement. They will cling on desperately, and we have seen painful examples of ministers doing just that. Because of their lack of an alternative, and their alienation from their sharehold- ers — the voters — they may lack the mod- esty to see when it is time to go. The Gov- ernment is 23 points behind Labour in the latest opinion poll, largely because of the economic mess; but part of it is down to the complacent and indefensible refusal of any of those who have caused the misery to do the decent thing and resign. One can blame loss of perspective, work- load, and falling moral standards generally for much that has gone wrong; they all help to cloud the judgment, and it is bad judg- ment rather than dishonesty that has done most damage to the Government and the country. But, even if there is no dishonesty, morality is still an issue. The very nature of government now, with ministers routinely evading the personal consequences of their mistakes, tends towards immorality. The Government has often been accused of having no ideological principles; this was seen last week, for example, in the nation- alisation of 20,000 repossessed homes, and may be seen further if taxes have to be increased next spring, and the Tories become indistinguishable from Labour. But the malaise is wider; it is not just about hav- ing no framework of ideology, but about not appearing to have a framework of prin- ciples in any respect — whether social, moral or political. Correcting that might not erase the 23-point Labour lead, but It would at least improve the smell.