Rikkitic:

 

I think I did not do a good job of explaining my point, or people did not understand it. I do not think anyone in any position should be held liable after the fact for things that happened under their watch, as long as no criminality is involved. I do think they should remain accountable, in the sense of having to submit to questions about their performance and the things that happened while they were responsible. I think this should apply to Ministers in particular, but also other officials.The reason I think this is because the things people in charge decide continue to have an effect long after they are gone, and I think it is legitimate to be able to question them about those. The excuse that 'I don't work there any more' should not be sufficient to avoid having to provide any explanations when consequences emerge later. 

 

Your question doesn't apply to me since I am a pensioner, but in principle, yes, I should be required to explain why I made the decisions I did at the time. I shouldn't be accountable  in any liability sense as long as no criminal behaviour was involved, but people are entitled to ask why I did that and didn't do this and they are entitled to the courtesy of a proper reply.

 

 

 

The problem is that such people would be outside the chain of command, could possibly have conflicts of interest which have arisen since leaving, could jeopardise matters going on in their old workplaces which they know nothing about and all sorts of other things.

I think, ultimately, in government the correct route is that the current Minister is responsible today and needs to be answering the questions based on briefings from his staff who were in the department at the time. There's little point, really, in a non criminal scenario, in questioning someone about something that happened some while ago, the resolution of which they cannot control any longer and which may well be superseded by other policies and decisions made subsequently.