Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Workshop 5.2 - Individual ministerial responsibility - Coggle Diagram
Workshop 5.2 - Individual ministerial responsibility
Introduction
The twin convention of collective ministerial responsibility is individual ministerial responsibility.
IMR has been supplemented with the Ministerial Code.
This plays a role in relation to the accountability of government.
Traditional IMR requires ministers to accept responsibility and, if necessary, resign for any errors of their department.
However, uncertainty of this convention arises from 2 areas:
a) Its entanglement with the short-term realities of the political world
b) Assessing the degree of fault and responsibility in a big government.
Evolution of convention
IMR tends to change over time.
The sense of obligation in IMR has arguably become weaker.
The introduction of a more interventionist government in the 20th century highlighted the disconnect between the political leadership at the top and operational matters on the ground.
This issue came into light in 1954 when the Crichel Down affair lead to the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture, Sir Thomas Dugdale.
This controversy involved going back on a promise by civil servants in his department and this led to a inquiry.
Maxwell Fyfe guidelines
During the Crichel Down affair, the Home Secretary (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe) made some recommendations to distinguish between situations where the minister had personal involvement or knowledge, and situations where the minister played no role.
Situations in which the minister should resign:
a) Where there is an explicit order made by a minister, in which case the minister must protect the civil servant who has carried out his order.
b) When the civil servant acts properly in accordance with policy laid down by the minister, in which case the minister must protect the civil servant.
Situations in which the minister doesn't need to resign:
a) Where an official makes a mistake, but not on an important issue of policy.
b) Where a civil servant has taken the action, of which the minister disapproved and has no prior knowledge, and the conduct of the official is reprehensible.
Further development of IMR
The partial redefinition of the convention to require some personal knowledge or involvement by the minister has become more pronounced in recent years.
In 1983, the NI Secretary, James Prior, didn't resign after there was a mass breakout of IRA prisoners from the Maze prison. He distinguished between responsibility for policy (which belonged to himself) and the failure of the officials to properly implement policy. This is the policy/operational divide.
In 1994, Home Secretary, Michael Howard, Refused to resign after the escape of 6 high category prisoners from Whitemoor Prison. Howard blamed the Director of the Prison Service for the operational failings in security
It is rare for a minister to resign for reasons that they themselves directly attribute to an error of policy.
Accountability
While there has been a weakening of the degree of obligation felt by ministers to resign, there has been a greater emphasis on more direct forms of accountability.
Accountability and openness of government is a key trend in modern public and one of the [principal rationales for judicial scrutiny of the executive. It is also a notable feature of the Ministerial Code.
Informing Parliament
Paragraphs 1.3b and c of the Ministerial Code (2022)
"Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies"
"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister"
Misleading Parliament is still classified as a resigning matter in relation to the Code.