Ministerial Responsibility
To what extent does the concept of ministerial responsibility work successfully?
a) Accountability: Ministerial responsibility ensures that ministers are accountable to both the parliament and the public for their actions. It enables scrutiny and oversight, which fosters a culture of transparency and reduces the risk of abuse of power.
positive example: Thomas Dugdale stepping down on behalf of civil servant mistakes over Crichel Down affair,
negative example: Michael Howard firing the head of prison services rather than stepping down, Norman Lamont refusing to step down after Black Wednesday despite calls for him to do so
b) Democratic Governance: By holding ministers accountable, ministerial responsibility enhances the democratic process. It allows for the removal of ministers who have failed to fulfill their responsibilities or have engaged in misconduct, thereby promoting public trust in government institutions.
positive examples: ministers can be held to account for their actions, such as Amber Rudd after misleading parliament in 2017
negative example: as its just a convention it can be difficult to enforce, and doesn’t result in permanent suspension of ministers (Priti Patel was dismissed in 2017 then became home secretary in 2019), Boris Johnson has engaged in a range of misconduct but failed to be reprimanded
c) Policy Effectiveness and a Strong Government: Ministerial responsibility encourages ministers to make well-informed decisions, considering the potential consequences of their actions. It also creates the appearance of a strong and united government as ministers have to be united on government policies WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY OPPOSITION AND PUBLIC
positive examples: ministers have to be unite on policy, e.g. Robin Cook resigned under Blair over the Iraq conflict
negative examples: collective ministerial responsibility was suspended during Brexit and ministers were allowed to disagree during the coalition government in 2010, whilst agreements to differ are traditional and normal part of democracy they have become increasingly common in recent years, threat of leaks, sofa government
Evaluate the view that CMR and IMR are no longer significant conventions in the UK [30]
its a convention, so has limitations but still remains significant due to the way that parliament works as an institution
limited by the fact that the prime minister is the sole ‘judge, jury and executioner’ of it
use of the ministerial code outlining how ministers should act: e.g. don’t mislead parliament, which Amber Rudd broke and then resigned in 2018 under May.
some ministers do clearly follow the code, and resign when it is expected of them, such as Rudd. Although she denied ‘knowingly’ misleading parliament, she still resigned as it was convention and seen as the appropriate thing to do
Matt Hancock resigned for personal scandal, after having an affair and being caught kissing one of his colleagues in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic
in lots of cases, the code is enforced and ministers will follow it and resign when expected to, demonstrating that it can work relatively effectively as a convention
HOWEVER
as it is just a convention, ministers are able to ignore it especially if the prime minister doesn’t wish for them to resign
Priti Patel was investigated for bullying and found to be a bully by Sir Allan, but Johnson wanted her to remain in the party and thus kept her as cabinet member, instead sacking sir Allan
Norman Lamont was expected to resign after his involvement in black Wednesday but didn’t, and due to IMR nature as a convention, no one apart from the prime minister could have enforced his resignation
collective ministerial responsibility dictates that all ministers must publicly agree on all decisions made. Its significant in terms of presenting a strong, united government and allowing for debate and discussion on matters
Ministers regularly disagree on matters, such as Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak over the removal of free lateral flow tests. However, once a decision had been reached they both supported it publicly, ensuring the government had a clear policy
Having a united government not only ensures a stronger and more united appearance, as well as better debated policy, but also allows for a clear source of responsibility which can be held accountable
For example, CMR also dictates that entire cabinets have to resign if the PM loses a vote of no confidence, such as James Callaghan’s Labour government
However, the role of the cabinet isn’t as strong as it necessarily could be, with the cabinet meeting only once a week for one hour - can it really come to fully-debated, effective and united policy decisions in this time?
To what extent does the concept of ministerial responsibility work successfully?
a) Accountability: Ministerial responsibility ensures that ministers are accountable to both the parliament and the public for their actions. It enables scrutiny and oversight, which fosters a culture of transparency and reduces the risk of abuse of power.
positive example: Thomas Dugdale stepping down on behalf of civil servant mistakes over Crichel Down affair,
negative example: Michael Howard firing the head of prison services rather than stepping down, Norman Lamont refusing to step down after Black Wednesday despite calls for him to do so
b) Democratic Governance: By holding ministers accountable, ministerial responsibility enhances the democratic process. It allows for the removal of ministers who have failed to fulfill their responsibilities or have engaged in misconduct, thereby promoting public trust in government institutions.
positive examples: ministers can be held to account for their actions, such as Amber Rudd after misleading parliament in 2017
negative example: as its just a convention it can be difficult to enforce, and doesn’t result in permanent suspension of ministers (Priti Patel was dismissed in 2017 then became home secretary in 2019), Boris Johnson has engaged in a range of misconduct but failed to be reprimanded
c) Policy Effectiveness and a Strong Government: Ministerial responsibility encourages ministers to make well-informed decisions, considering the potential consequences of their actions. It also creates the appearance of a strong and united government as ministers have to be united on government policies WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY OPPOSITION AND PUBLIC
positive examples: ministers have to be unite on policy, e.g. Robin Cook resigned under Blair over the Iraq conflict
negative examples: collective ministerial responsibility was suspended during Brexit and ministers were allowed to disagree during the coalition government in 2010, whilst agreements to differ are traditional and normal part of democracy they have become increasingly common in recent years, threat of leaks, sofa government
Evaluate the view that CMR and IMR are no longer significant conventions in the UK [30]
its a convention, so has limitations but still remains significant due to the way that parliament works as an institution
limited by the fact that the prime minister is the sole ‘judge, jury and executioner’ of it
use of the ministerial code outlining how ministers should act: e.g. don’t mislead parliament, which Amber Rudd broke and then resigned in 2018 under May.
some ministers do clearly follow the code, and resign when it is expected of them, such as Rudd. Although she denied ‘knowingly’ misleading parliament, she still resigned as it was convention and seen as the appropriate thing to do
Matt Hancock resigned for personal scandal, after having an affair and being caught kissing one of his colleagues in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic
in lots of cases, the code is enforced and ministers will follow it and resign when expected to, demonstrating that it can work relatively effectively as a convention
HOWEVER
as it is just a convention, ministers are able to ignore it especially if the prime minister doesn’t wish for them to resign
Priti Patel was investigated for bullying and found to be a bully by Sir Allan, but Johnson wanted her to remain in the party and thus kept her as cabinet member, instead sacking sir Allan
Norman Lamont was expected to resign after his involvement in black Wednesday but didn’t, and due to IMR nature as a convention, no one apart from the prime minister could have enforced his resignation
collective ministerial responsibility dictates that all ministers must publicly agree on all decisions made. Its significant in terms of presenting a strong, united government and allowing for debate and discussion on matters
Ministers regularly disagree on matters, such as Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak over the removal of free lateral flow tests. However, once a decision had been reached they both supported it publicly, ensuring the government had a clear policy
Having a united government not only ensures a stronger and more united appearance, as well as better debated policy, but also allows for a clear source of responsibility which can be held accountable
For example, CMR also dictates that entire cabinets have to resign if the PM loses a vote of no confidence, such as James Callaghan’s Labour government
However, the role of the cabinet isn’t as strong as it necessarily could be, with the cabinet meeting only once a week for one hour - can it really come to fully-debated, effective and united policy decisions in this time?
