MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ministerial Responsibility means every minister is answerable to the duties or powers

assigned to them. The relationship between Parliament and executive is running from
decades (conventions). Ministerial Responsibility is well described by Marshall and
Moodie: for the conducts of government, ministers are responsible, also for the legal
powers of Monarch and eventually through the Parliament and parties to the electorate.
The trend of ministerial responsibility is running from 19th century.
There are two categories of this doctrine (a) collective and (b) individual responsibility of
the minister. Collective, for governments actions and individual, for head of the
department. It happens that collective responsibility sometimes turns into individual just
because the reputation of government is not destroyed, it is better to lose one minister
rather than the whole government for example resignation of Lord Carrington over the
Falklands crisis (1982). Just like this individual responsibility may become collective so
that the government stops their minister from resigning (Fiasco -1949).
Collective responsibility is divided into three categories. Firstly, the confidentiality rule,
where it is made clear that the conversation and dialogues of cabinet members must be
private and is not disclosed to media as mentioned in Radcliffe Committee Report 1976.
Now the curtain of confidentiality/secrecy is removed by some ministers. As Bab Castle
and Richard Crossman published the documents after leaving their seats. Members
also used rule of confidentiality as a weapon by leaking the information (Westland
Affair). Regardless of such acts, the rule is still being followed and with this it is also
being ignored sometimes.
There are some steps which are put forward to protect confidentiality principle, for
example the current government is prohibited to leak documents of the previous
government without permission of the previous PM. In recent developments, it is also
prohibited to publish written of present Minister and for the former minister, his
documents should be submitted to Cabinet Secretary.
The Second is Unanimity Rule, it simply describes that once decision is presented in the
Cabinet then the members have to act in support of that decision and prevents to
criticize that in front of public whether it was supported by the cabinet member or not.
This doctrine is treated abruptly. First of all, ‘agreement to differ’ is made admissible by
Prime Minister on several disputes to stop resignations of ministers. For example:
‘agreement to differ’ by Wilsons government in the time of 1975 referendum over
Britain’s EEC membership, ‘agreement to differ’ by the National government over tariff
policy (1932).
Secondly the collective responsibility is also undermined when the unhappy ministers’
leaks information to media but still not resigns. Just like in 1969, hype was given to the
opposition of Home Secretary (James Callaghan), on governments plan of trade union
reform. One more example is, decision of Cabinet was opposed by Michael Hardtimes
regarding Westland Helicopter. Collective responsibility was also opposed by MR
Thatcher on employment bill when she was PM.
Comparing the concept of unity of nineteenth and this century, in nineteenth century
decisions made were simpler which were in knowledge of all cabinet members, and also
the number of members were less at that time. Today the concept is changed, members
sometimes comes to know about the decisions when they are published. The
worthiness of unanimity rule is now questionable.
Third is Confidence Rule, basically it means that Cabinet have to resign or PM have to
dissolve the HOC, if they lose confidence of HOL. This rule previously consisted of: no
confidence motion, failure on a confidence motion and defeat on central policy issue.
Baldwin was the only British PM in twentieth century to resign.
Individual responsibility is defined by Lord Morrison: Ministers are answerable to
Parliament and also to the public through Parliament, for whatever being done by the
Executive. This is a convention.
Every minister is answerable to his performance and the minsters which are assigned
as Secretary of particular department are answerable to any conduct of that
department. The Scott report (1996) states that it lies in the heart of ministerial
responsibility to give explanations and information of the department and the official
work of executives, by the ministers. If any error is found done by the civil servant than
the minister has to prove it. It is clear in conventions that minister should stand in front
of Parliament and informs the House regarding the work of his particular department.
However, some ministers gave answers when they are ok with it but sometimes (the old
masters) refuse to answer.
Scott report 1996 revealed the sale of ammunition to Iraq and Iran by Ministers to which
the Parliament was given wrong information regarding this and when the truth was
revealed the Parliament demanded accountability of ministers involved in it after which
the Ministerial Courts (2001) were formed and they stated: the minister if provides false
or wrong information intentionally then he would be asked for resignation. it also says
that ministers should only kept information secret if it is not for public interest, without
this they should act openly with public and Parliament.
Basically the convention is to secure the minister from blames on policy failure or any
other departmental error or even any error by a civil servant. In case of serious errors
being exposed, the civil servant must be kept unnamed and minister should resign
respectfully.
Now mandarins can be seen addressing the media and they are finding their selves
criticized by public (Vehicle and General case 1971). In 1972, Home Secretary
admonished a public servant who was the governor of Holloway prison, publicly
because for taking a culprit to a walk. There are many cases like Maze Prison breakout
(1984), fiasco (1949) and flop British policies in Palestine (1945-1948) where civil
servants had to resign instead of the ministers, ministers have back support of party and
the PM so they do not give resignation.
The tradition view of individual responsibility regarding resignation of minister for any
failure fails in today’s modern time because the work of departments has been
increased a lot and an individual person cannot look after a huge work alone. Reginald
Maudling (Home Secretary 1973) said that this doctrine must be contemplated in light of
today’s world.
A minister if do any uncivilized conduct then he is supposed to resign, depending upon
the nature of his conduct. Many minister resigned due to their personal wrongdoings like
in 1973 Lord Jellicoe and Lord Lambton resigned because their mingling with prostitute
was revealed. Cecil Parkinson resigned after disclosure of affair with Sarah (1984).
However, the doctrine of individual responsibility persists today but is weaken, because
government officials are taking advantages in different ways.