Lord Birt should be forced to explain himself to MPs

The mockery of John Birt could be a turning point for Tony Blair. The appointment of the unrespected former director-general of the BBC as an adviser to the Prime Minister on crime 18 months ago was simply baffling. But his translation to adviser on long-term transport policy, attached to the new Forward Strategy Unit at Downing Street charged with "blue skies thinking", has provoked that most dangerous response for any government: derision.

Such is the low esteem in which Lord Birt of Liverpool is widely held that even Cabinet ministers feel free to have a pop at him. Thus Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Transport, when asked by the Transport Select Committee why "this fellow" was wandering all over his departmental territory, replied: "It keeps him occupied."

All the more reason, therefore, for Lord Birt to come to the same committee of MPs to explain what he does and why it helps to improve policy-making. But no. Lord Birt is a special adviser whose advice to the Prime Minister is "private".

Another unfortunate Cabinet minister, Robin Cook, was pushed unwillingly to the microphone yesterday to explain that it would be "much more difficult for us to tap in" to people like Lord Birt if "the full grilling of parliamentary accountability" were the price of it. That must be another example of BS (blue skies) thinking. What does it say about the quality of advice that the giver of it should not be prepared to explain and defend his or her thinking to a committee of MPs? As for Mr Cook's implication that Lord Birt was under less of an obligation to account for himself because he was unpaid, that comes from well beyond the blue sky.

These are the same feeble arguments against openness and accountability that are deployed by all politicians of all governments. This government has already excluded papers relating to policy advice from its minimalist freedom of information law, which is in any case not coming into effect until 2005. That is too grudging and still assumes that the Government has a right to conceal rather than that the people have a right to know. But what is utterly unacceptable – and which risks real damage to this Prime Minister's reputation – is his high-handed refusal to require those who give him advice to explain themselves to the people's elected representatives.