MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ministers, both Cabinet and non-Cabinet, have a number of different functions:

> an organisational role, having the political responsibility for the management of the department or section

> a policy role, including the initiation of policy and/or the selection of policy options

> a presentational role, putting the department's case to Parliament, to the media and to the public at large.

Additionally, Cabinet ministers have responsibility for the policy of the government as a whole, for co-ordination and for the resolution of departmental conflicts.


Collective responsibility

The principle of collective responsibility is based on the responsibility of the government and the Cabinet to Parliament for all of their actions. The government as a whole can be held to account for their policies, in a vote of confidence. If they lose the confidence of Parliament, then they must resign.

Every decision of the government is therefore regarded as the responsibility of all its members. In this way, ministers are able to rely on the support of all of their colleagues in defending a particular policy. This is so whether or not they agree with the decision, whether or not they took part in making the decision - or even whether or not they were aware it was being made:

> a minister who disagrees with any aspect of policy is expected to keep silent or resign (e.g. Robin Cook, 2003)

> a minister who speaks out publicly against government policy can expect to be sacked.

In practice, many ministers stay in office even when they disagree with major elements of policy - either for personal advancement or in the hope of being able to change policy in the future.

Collective responsibility is a constitutional convention: it is not based on any statutory authority. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted and applied. It has, however, been suspended on occasion - for example, during the European Community referendum campaign in 1975.


Weakening of collective responsibility?

It has been suggested that in recent years, collective responsibility has been weakened:

> ministers sometimes make speeches “in code” indicating a general dissent, though not any specific disagreement (a sacking matter)

> the use of Press “leaks” and non-attributable briefings can make it clear that differences exist

> a minister’s “friends” can let it be known that the minister disagrees with this or that aspect of policy

> the publication of ex-Cabinet ministers’ diaries (Crossman, Castle, Benn, Lawson, Howe, Thatcher, etc) has revealed the many divisions, conflicts and rivalries within Cabinets - albeit retrospectively.

The virtually open conflict between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is a clear example of how collective responsibility has weakened, though they do maintain the veneer of unity.


Individual ministerial responsibility

Each minister is responsible to Parliament for his/her own conduct and for the actions of his/her department.

It is the minister who takes the praise or blame for policies and civil servants are meant to be impartial and anonymous. And while ministers’ private lives are generally held to be their own affairs, if any of their actions, either personal or political, are such as to cause them to lose the confidence of Parliament, then they are expected to resign.

A strict interpretation of the principle of responsibility requires a minister to resign for a failure by the department even if there was no personal liability.

Examples of resignations on the basis of individual responsibility include:

> in 1982 Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary after the Foreign Office failed to anticipate or prevent the invasions of the Falklands by the Argentines

> in 1998 Peter Mandelson resigned following disclosure of a loan from another minister which had not been declared on the Register of Members’ Interests

> in 2004, David Blunkett resigned over allegations surrounding his relationship with a married woman.


Weakening of individual responsibility

Despite these examples of resignations, it is increasingly the case that ministers refuse to resign if they believ that they can be sustained by the support of the Prime Minister and their party majority in Parliament.

As with collective responsibility, Tony Blair made it clear, when New Labour came into office, that he expected the “highest standards” from ministers and that, if necessary, he would expect ministers to resign quickly, avoiding the long-drawn out resignation dramas of the previous government.