The significance of the
convention of collective and individual ministerial responsibility?
The rule of law, constitution
with small ‘c’ as per Anthony King, and constitutionalism are dependent upon
the principles of accountability, responsibility and limited government. The
principle of accountability requires public authorities including ministers to
defend and justify their actions and decisions. As per Andrew Le Sueur- the
presence of accountability is the prerequisite of legitimacy which generates
trust of public over the decisions and processes of public and administrative
authorities. Accountability is usually explained in terms of political and
legal accountability and usually entails political sanctions. This convention
of collective and individual ministerial responsibility through Ministerial
Code 2019 is a major convention regulating the UK unwritten constitution that
is erected on the maintenance of responsible and accountable government. As per
Hilaire Barnett, there can be vagueness in the demarcation in meaning between
afore mentioned two limbs- as they are interrelated and complementary to each
other.
There are three different aspects
of collective responsibility (Cabinet responsibility). The foremost aspect is
confidence principle- it denotes that the government has to maintain the
confidence of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons loses confidence in
establishment than prime minister has to ask the crown to initiate dissolution of
the current parliament using prerogative power and announce the next general
elections. There is two-week period
allowed before the fresh elections are called- according to Fixed Term
Parliament Act 2011. As per Marshall and Moodie 1967, the loss in voting of
substantial bill accumulates to loss of confidence, hence government consider
to avoid such a defeat on any issue. On January 2016, the government of
Terrassa May was ousted by vote of no confidentiality by majority in
parliament, to which Jeremy Corbyn has called a “Zombie” government. The vote
of no confidence was held once held before in 1925 against James Callaghan. However,
as per Sunkin, there have been number of situations where a bill had major
defeat in the parliament and still government did not resign. The paradigm is
of November 2005, when a proposal to detain a suspected terrorist for 90 days
without trial was defeated in the parliament. The loss of confidence in
government often lead to vote of no confidence.
The second aspect of collective
responsibility is Unanimity principle. It presents an idea where government
must show a united front to the parliament and public. Whole cabinet of
ministers is required to support government policy even though they may disagree.
If a minister dissent with the government policy, they must step down from the
position- in which case they can present their view in front of the parliament.
According to Lord Salisbury every member of the cabinet, who holds an office is
responsible for the decision reached in the cabinet and may not excuse
themselves from the responsibility on any occasion. For example, the ministry
of state for agriculture fisheries and food- George Eustice resigned from May’s
government over her promise to allow MPs a vote on delaying Brexit, if her deal
is rejected. The leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom- resigned from
May’s cabinet with a “heavy heart” on the eve of the European election, saying
she could no longer back the government’s Brexit plan 2019. However, there are
times when the convention had been waived off due to strong political
disagreements with in government. For example, in 1977 James Callaghan allowed
ministers to present their dissenting views on European parliamentary
elections. Another instance was in 2010, where coalition government relaxed the
convention with regards to certain policies due to political differences among
the coalition. It was again waived before the 2016 referendum concerning
European Union membership. these exceptions has led to debate on whether the
convention may be abandoned altogether or should be considered a practice
instead. Albeit the example also illustrates the inherent flexible nature of
the conventions.
The third aspect of the
collective ministerial doctrine is confidentiality principle suggests to keep
cabinet’s discussion secret from the public and current establishment cannot
publish documents of preceding establishment without obtaining consent from the
preceding prime minister. The example of this aspect is AG V. Jonathan Cape
ltd. 1976- the government seek an injunction against the publication of diaries
of a former cabinet minister. The court recognized the convention albeit did
not enforce it.
Another doctrine of the
convention is Individual ministerial responsibility. Which circles around
minister’s financial probity, personal conduct and minister’s responsibility
for the policies and actions of their respective department. A. V. Dicey
explained that it is a legal duty to act responsibly for a minister, when they
conduct a job on behalf of the crown. For e.g., in 2016 Sir Michael Fallon step
down as defence secretary due to an incident where he repeatedly touched knees
of the journalist. The Nolan committee has presented a demarcation between the
requirement for rules relating to financial conduct and the rules relating to
sexual conduct. Committee has stated that it was impossible to formulate rules
related to sexual conduct and it is in prime minister to access whether
minister have shown highest standard of propriety.
Propriety is also mandatory for
financial conduct of ministers. The customs and regulation of parliament
suggests that ministers must register their financial interest in the Register
of Members’ Interest as well in debates and committee proceedings, where
minister may alter other members’ impartiality. The additional requirement of
ministerial code 2019 is that ministers should take consultation regarding
business appointments from advisory committee, for any business appointment
they may take up leading to two years after leaving the office. In 2005 David
Blunkett breached the latter requirement hence resigned that year. In 2009, it
was revealed that many ministers have breached this convention hence had to
resign including chief secretary to the treasury- David Laws.
The doctrine of individual
responsibility requires that ministers are responsible for every policy and
action of their department. For example in the Crichel down affair 1954- in
which inaccuracies in the report made by land commission led to resignation of
the agriculture minister. On contrary, there are instances where resignation
was not called in, even though there was a clear breach of the convention,
which question its effectiveness. In 1984, there was a breakout from the prison
in Northern Ireland but then Northern Ireland minister Mr. James Prior did not
resign. He defended his action by suggesting that the responsibility for
matters of policy is different from responsibility for matters of operation.
Hence, it cannot be concluded
with confidence that whether minister will resign due to departmental failure.
As per Professor SE Finer, the answer to latter depends on the minister, Prime
Minister and his particular party. According to Richard Scott, it is an
obligation of ministers to furnish provide information about their subordinates
and departments. He distinguished in ministerial responsibility 1996, between
ministerial responsibility and accountability. He suggested that accountability
requires a minister to give an account to parliament and satisfy their query,
on contrary responsibility is about accepting the blame. Accountability is not
effectively engaged by accepting the blame and resign later.
It is difficult to distinguish
between the matters of ministerial responsibility and accountability as per
Public Service Committee report. It is becoming increasing difficult to hold
ministers responsible effectively due to short tenures of the ministers in one
department, growing size of the departments and the complex and extensive
administrative framework. Mr. Reginald suggests that the classical doctrine of
responsibility must be assessed according to modern conditions with large
departments of state. In 2000 Jowell and Oliver suggested that the doctrine of
responsibility has no longer held the status of constitutional doctrine because
ministerial responsibility to parliament has shrunk over couple of years. It
can be said that their opinion is influenced due to structural changes in
governments. Turner also mentioned that ministerial responsibility is another
matter in new age, it has weakened due to outsourcing the governmental work to
independent contractors.
The accountability of ministers is assessed
through parliamentary questions, select committee and debates on the floor of
each house. In 1979, new and improved system of select committee was
introduced. Every major department has its own select committee- which
comprises of eleven MPs. They conduct inquiries and function as an advisory to
the department. Ministers face rigorous queries by these select committees.
They are made in a way that they do not have any political influence on them.
These factors purport the effectiveness of the select committee. The findings
of the committee is not binding on the committee. For example, in 2011, the UCL
constitutional Unit studied the impact of select committees and assessed that
40% committees’ recommendations are implemented by the government. While
two-third of those presenting a major policy, change is not considered by the
government.
Parliamentary question is another
way of MPs and peers to hold the government to account. In the first hour of
business in commons, minister spend answering questions by MPs. However, the
effectiveness of this method is weakened when ministers have advance notice of
some questions and deliver pre-prepared answers.
Debates is another way of
ensuring accountability but debating time primarily concerned with discussion
of bills. However, there are only twenty days a year are allocate din which
opposition choose the topic for the debate, while thirty minutes are given to
the back-bench MPs for a topic of their choice.
After perusal of above
principles, it can be said that doctrine of ministerial responsibility along
with parliamentary procedure has attained sufficient success in promoting a
limited, accountable government. However, exception remained and Prime minister
must work in collaboration with parliament to ensure greater responsibility. In
summary, ministerial responsibility is a corner stone of the democracy and it still
is fundamentally important doctrine to in UK governance system.
Bibliography
