Evaluate the view that the concepts of individual ministerial responsibility and
collective ministerial responsibility are both still important (written 2022)
Individual Ministerial Responsibility can be defined as the notion that ministers should
be prepared to take accountability to parliament for their own policy and decisions,
whether it be in the HoC or through facing interrogation through select committees.
The accountability that ministers owe to themselves and parliament is a key aspect of
democracy operation within the UK suggesting misconduct is an important factor and
should be acknowledged. Similarly Collective Ministerial Responsibility is the idea
that all ministers are collectively responsible for all government policies and that
ministers should not dissent publicly following cabinet decisions. Within the UK
Collective Ministerial Responsibility has faced suspension over dividing topics, an
example being over Brexit, allowing Ministers to not be bound to the cabinet
consensus or Prime Minister’s personal views. However in recent years this has not
been the case, with leaking and public disagreement against PM’s in a time of weak
leadership. Therefore there is a more persuasive argument to be made that CMR
and IMR are not important within the UK political system.
It can be argued that the notion of Individual Ministerial Responsibility is still relevant
within government due to its importance of issues concerning misleading parliament
and personal misconduct. Individual Ministerial Responsibility ensures independently
that ministers are individually liable and responsible for their actions within
Parliament, specifically over matters that affect their department separately. The
doctrine of IMR can be recognised as important through the resignations of Amber
Rudd and Edwina Currie, with individuals misleading parliament as well as the
general public. Under the principle that if a serious error of judgement or if a serious
error is made by a minister’s department, he or she should be required to resign both
individuals resigned following their failure to provide correct information, whether it be
on their own accord or due to the mistakes of other ministers within their department.
Amber Rudd being involved in the Windrush scandal of 2018, whereby May
attempted to reduce illegal immigration with new policies including creating a ‘hostile
environment’ for immigrants so they would choose to leave under their own accord.
However when the Home Affair select committee asked Rudd about alleged set
targets for deportation, she denied the statement, although it had in fact been
discussed within her department. Leading to her resignation under inadvertently
misleading parliament, complying with the idea of IMR. Similarly Edwina Currie faced
controversy under her statement that most egg production of egg’s within the country
were in fact contaminated with salmonella in 1988. Currie’s statement led to a decline
in egg sales of 60% and concluded an uproar from politicians and those in egg
production, leading to up to 400 million eggs being destroyed. Individual ministerial
responsibility can be seen to be upheld due to the fact Currie resigned from her role
in parliament as the Public Health Minister, following her public mistake and the
disapproval the PM had over her statement. As a result it can be argued that
, Individual Ministerial Responsibility is important within the UK as it is still regularly
upheld and when it is deemed necessary when breaking ministerial code, especially
through misleading parliament reinforcing the paramount importance that Ministers
give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. However, it can be argued that
Individual Ministerial Responsibility is more undermined than upheld due to the fact in
recent years ministers who have resigned for misconduct have been reappointed into
the cabinet shortly after breaking ministerial code. Suella Braverman can be
recognised as IMR being unimportant within government due to her reappointment 6
days following her breachment of the ministerial code in sending private matters
relating to immigration through a personal email. Braverman failed to address her
mistake in taking it immediately to an authority, pretending it had not happened until it
was brought forward. However following her resignation stating she had ‘made a
mistake’, with the rise of the new PM she faced reappointment a matter of days later
due to rising fears concerning the support of Johnson in the leadership contest.
Braverman holds dominance over the further right wing of the Conservative party
making her more likely to be in support of Johnson publicly and privately. IMR was
undermined through Sunak’s appointment of Braverman as it is ignorant of her
wrongdoings and her duty as a member of parliament to resign over matters of
misconduct, not face reappointment to the same role days later. Similarly is the case
with collective ministerial responsibility with Gavin Williamson breaking CMR with his
involvement with Huawei, facing appointment to Health Secretary shortly after.
However, it is more convincing to suggest IMR is still an important doctrine within UK
democracy as there have been multiple incidences by which IMR has been
reinforced and taken as a serious principle to which ministers should abide by.
Ministers continue to hold themselves to account for their actions through publicised
resignations suggesting that the idea of IMR is predominant in government and thus
important.
On the contrary, it may also be argued that within the UK individual ministerial
responsibility is lacking importance as it is not fulfilling its purpose within parliament,
with ministers refusing to resign following personal misconduct and continuing as a
force in office. Individual ministerial responsibility can be seen to not complete its
function through the employment of Matt Hancock regardless of his controversial
actions and policy decisions. Facing controversy multiple times through Johnson's
cabinet of the pandemic, a PPE and ventilator disaster whilst breaching covid
regulations and creating chaos in care homes with the release of untested hospital
patients into care homes. Matt Hancock’s actions sparked discussion of his
resignation in the media following his handling of COVID-19, reinforced by
Cummings’ published apparent discussion between himself and the prime minister in
which the PM appeared to call Hancock “totally f***ing hopeless”. However, even with
his peers' disapproval as well as the Prime Minister, Hancock did not resign from his
position, undermining the principles of individual responsibility as well as the
ministerial code by which he did not address responsibility for his actions. Similarly
collective ministerial responsibility are both still important (written 2022)
Individual Ministerial Responsibility can be defined as the notion that ministers should
be prepared to take accountability to parliament for their own policy and decisions,
whether it be in the HoC or through facing interrogation through select committees.
The accountability that ministers owe to themselves and parliament is a key aspect of
democracy operation within the UK suggesting misconduct is an important factor and
should be acknowledged. Similarly Collective Ministerial Responsibility is the idea
that all ministers are collectively responsible for all government policies and that
ministers should not dissent publicly following cabinet decisions. Within the UK
Collective Ministerial Responsibility has faced suspension over dividing topics, an
example being over Brexit, allowing Ministers to not be bound to the cabinet
consensus or Prime Minister’s personal views. However in recent years this has not
been the case, with leaking and public disagreement against PM’s in a time of weak
leadership. Therefore there is a more persuasive argument to be made that CMR
and IMR are not important within the UK political system.
It can be argued that the notion of Individual Ministerial Responsibility is still relevant
within government due to its importance of issues concerning misleading parliament
and personal misconduct. Individual Ministerial Responsibility ensures independently
that ministers are individually liable and responsible for their actions within
Parliament, specifically over matters that affect their department separately. The
doctrine of IMR can be recognised as important through the resignations of Amber
Rudd and Edwina Currie, with individuals misleading parliament as well as the
general public. Under the principle that if a serious error of judgement or if a serious
error is made by a minister’s department, he or she should be required to resign both
individuals resigned following their failure to provide correct information, whether it be
on their own accord or due to the mistakes of other ministers within their department.
Amber Rudd being involved in the Windrush scandal of 2018, whereby May
attempted to reduce illegal immigration with new policies including creating a ‘hostile
environment’ for immigrants so they would choose to leave under their own accord.
However when the Home Affair select committee asked Rudd about alleged set
targets for deportation, she denied the statement, although it had in fact been
discussed within her department. Leading to her resignation under inadvertently
misleading parliament, complying with the idea of IMR. Similarly Edwina Currie faced
controversy under her statement that most egg production of egg’s within the country
were in fact contaminated with salmonella in 1988. Currie’s statement led to a decline
in egg sales of 60% and concluded an uproar from politicians and those in egg
production, leading to up to 400 million eggs being destroyed. Individual ministerial
responsibility can be seen to be upheld due to the fact Currie resigned from her role
in parliament as the Public Health Minister, following her public mistake and the
disapproval the PM had over her statement. As a result it can be argued that
, Individual Ministerial Responsibility is important within the UK as it is still regularly
upheld and when it is deemed necessary when breaking ministerial code, especially
through misleading parliament reinforcing the paramount importance that Ministers
give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. However, it can be argued that
Individual Ministerial Responsibility is more undermined than upheld due to the fact in
recent years ministers who have resigned for misconduct have been reappointed into
the cabinet shortly after breaking ministerial code. Suella Braverman can be
recognised as IMR being unimportant within government due to her reappointment 6
days following her breachment of the ministerial code in sending private matters
relating to immigration through a personal email. Braverman failed to address her
mistake in taking it immediately to an authority, pretending it had not happened until it
was brought forward. However following her resignation stating she had ‘made a
mistake’, with the rise of the new PM she faced reappointment a matter of days later
due to rising fears concerning the support of Johnson in the leadership contest.
Braverman holds dominance over the further right wing of the Conservative party
making her more likely to be in support of Johnson publicly and privately. IMR was
undermined through Sunak’s appointment of Braverman as it is ignorant of her
wrongdoings and her duty as a member of parliament to resign over matters of
misconduct, not face reappointment to the same role days later. Similarly is the case
with collective ministerial responsibility with Gavin Williamson breaking CMR with his
involvement with Huawei, facing appointment to Health Secretary shortly after.
However, it is more convincing to suggest IMR is still an important doctrine within UK
democracy as there have been multiple incidences by which IMR has been
reinforced and taken as a serious principle to which ministers should abide by.
Ministers continue to hold themselves to account for their actions through publicised
resignations suggesting that the idea of IMR is predominant in government and thus
important.
On the contrary, it may also be argued that within the UK individual ministerial
responsibility is lacking importance as it is not fulfilling its purpose within parliament,
with ministers refusing to resign following personal misconduct and continuing as a
force in office. Individual ministerial responsibility can be seen to not complete its
function through the employment of Matt Hancock regardless of his controversial
actions and policy decisions. Facing controversy multiple times through Johnson's
cabinet of the pandemic, a PPE and ventilator disaster whilst breaching covid
regulations and creating chaos in care homes with the release of untested hospital
patients into care homes. Matt Hancock’s actions sparked discussion of his
resignation in the media following his handling of COVID-19, reinforced by
Cummings’ published apparent discussion between himself and the prime minister in
which the PM appeared to call Hancock “totally f***ing hopeless”. However, even with
his peers' disapproval as well as the Prime Minister, Hancock did not resign from his
position, undermining the principles of individual responsibility as well as the
ministerial code by which he did not address responsibility for his actions. Similarly
