Scandal highlights a grave misuse of power

THE power of a state has been vividly illustrated by the Post Office scandal gripping the UK. This is a story years old, but one revived by the marvellous drama aired on ITV, and on Virgin Media in this country. Mr Bates vs The Post Office tells the chilling and by times tragic story of what happened when faulty computer software led to the conviction of more than 700 branch managers.

Technology glitches made it look as though money was going missing. What followed was a catastrophe for thousands of families, at least four suicides, and a grotesque example of what happens when the state misuses its power, or abrogates its responsibilities altogether.

Culpable

Successive governments in the UK look culpable on both charges, and it is pitiful that it took a TV show, even one as compelling as Mr Bates vs The Post Office, to prompt the flurry of action now consuming all sides of the House of Commons.

That an autumn election looks certain is also clarifying minds and spreading panic.

The scandal has also revived the long-standing debate about the size of the state, with opponents of so-called big government seizing on the story to warn about the dangers of too much power being invested in bungling technocrats.

It’s a bold position to hold in the UK at this time given the suppurating disasters that the provision of water and rail services have become following privatisation.

But the Post Office tragedy – and the wicked, relentless pain inflicted on decent, working families makes it nothing less than tragic – has a resonance here, and should make us consider the power of the State, and the awesome responsibility resting on those charged with overseeing it.

The size of the State machinery grew unavoidably bigger during the pandemic, but there is no serious political movement here advocating for a libertarian approach that would drastically reduce the role it plays in everyday life.

In the critical areas of health and housing, State involvement is both vast and insufficient, which exposes a failure of management that begins at the cabinet table but percolates down.

Indirect State influence is exerted almost unnoticed via the vast industry involving nongovernmental organisations, or

NGOs. There are estimated to be close to 33,000 NGOs operating in the country, across a range of sectors and industries, and at a cost to the Exchequer of close to €6billion annually.

Their influence is in places profound, to the point that bodies effectively funded by the State can challenge or even oppose government policy.

From their ranks flows an apparently endless stream of talking heads, ready to appear behind a microphone and deliver a lecture or offer some prim guidance on where the country is going wrong.

The housing sector is a feeding frenzy of NGOs, some providing valuable services, others less so; the implosion of the high-profile, venerated Peter McVerry Trust last year, leading to a Government bailout that could end up totalling €15million, made brief headlines but the story has since slipped out of focus.

Duties

There isn’t much of an appetite for examining the unpleasant details when a non-governmental organisation, much less a wellloved, high-wattage one, is put under the spotlight.

The thriving NGO sector is partly the result of the plain fact that a government cannot provide every service required by its people, but when it swells to accommodate almost 33,000 bodies, then it is obvious that the State is subletting too much of its duties to satellite organisations.

If billions of taxpayers’ money is to be spent, then it should be in as politically accountable a manner as possible. Again, housing is a prime example of this.

This administration is spending billions, through a blizzard of initiatives, trying to address a desperate need. This money has to be spent swiftly, but also responsibly and in a way that maximises value.

It sounds simple, but it can’t be when so much is diverted through NGOs.

The Post Office scandal in the UK was an egregious instance of state power cruelly wielded, and haplessly overseen.

The might of the State does not have to be misused to make us expect more of it – and to demand direct accountability for hardearned taxes.