MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Ministerial responsibility can be described as a set of conventions central to constitutional
relationships in the British constitution. Most of the rules are also formulated in writing (along
with much else) in the Ministerial Code. The United Kingdom has a system of parliamentary
government and all ministers are required to be members of either House of Lords or the
House of Commons. This firm rule is a constitutional convention rather than a legal
requirement. The rationale for the requirement that all ministers are in parliament is that
parliament is thereby able to apply accountability over the executive.
Collective ministerial (or cabinet) responsibility has three different aspects (i.e. The
Confidence Principle, The Unitary Principle and The Confidentiality Principle).
The first of these may be referred to as the Confidence Principle according to which the
government has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. If the House were to
lose confidence in the government, then the Prime Minister would be under the obligation to
ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament through the exercise of prerogative and call a
general election. Recently, the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 has allowed for a two-week
period before fresh elections are called. According to Marshall and Moodie (1967), the
defeat of a substantial bill in Parliament was taken as amounting to a loss of confidence and
so governments considered it mandatory to avoid such a defeat on any issue.
The Unanimity Principle also underlies collective responsibility. This requires the
government to present a united front to Parliament and the public. All ministers are required
to publicly support government policy even though they might privately disagree with it. If a
minister is unable to do so, he or she must resign from office in which case they are
permitted to make a personal statement before Parliament. A breakdown of the convention
was witnessed in the Westland Helicopter incident of 1986 in which Mr Heseltine, resigned
following the cancellation of a meeting in which he was told he could put forth his dissenting
plan. In March 2003, Robin Cook, the Leader of the House of Commons, resigned as he
found himself unable to support the government's decision to go to war in Iraq. There are
also instances where the convention has been waived in light of strong political
disagreements within the government. It was waived by Ramsey McDonald in 1932 to allow
Cabinet members to express differing views regarding economic policy. It was again waived
by Harold Wilson in 1975 in the form of an "agreement to differ to allow Cabinet members to
take different stances on continued membership of the European Union. It was again waived
before the 2016 referendum concerning EU membership. These examples are illustrative of
the many exceptions to the classical doctrine of collective responsibility. This has led to the
discussion on whether the convention should be abandoned or merely be considered a
practice instead. On the other hand, these exceptions can be taken to illustrate the flexibility
inherent in the nature of conventions.
The Confidentiality Principle which dictates that all Cabinet discussions are to be kept
absolutely secret. It even requires that the government of the day cannot release a previous
government's papers without the consent of the former Prime Minister. This aspect of the
convention was at issue in AG v Jonathan Cape Ltd in which the government sought an
injunction to prevent the publication of the diaries of a former Cabinet member.
The Cabinet Office Ministerial Code 2010 describes the convention of collective ministerial
responsibility as follows:lOMoARcPSD|11697329
2.1 The principle of collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express
their views frankly, in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining
a united front when decisions have been reached.
Ministerial responsibility can be described as a set of conventions central to constitutional
relationships in the British constitution. Most of the rules are also formulated in writing (along
with much else) in the Ministerial Code. The United Kingdom has a system of parliamentary
government and all ministers are required to be members of either House of Lords or the
House of Commons. This firm rule is a constitutional convention rather than a legal
requirement. The rationale for the requirement that all ministers are in parliament is that
parliament is thereby able to apply accountability over the executive.
Collective ministerial (or cabinet) responsibility has three different aspects (i.e. The
Confidence Principle, The Unitary Principle and The Confidentiality Principle).
The first of these may be referred to as the Confidence Principle according to which the
government has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. If the House were to
lose confidence in the government, then the Prime Minister would be under the obligation to
ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament through the exercise of prerogative and call a
general election. Recently, the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 has allowed for a two-week
period before fresh elections are called. According to Marshall and Moodie (1967), the
defeat of a substantial bill in Parliament was taken as amounting to a loss of confidence and
so governments considered it mandatory to avoid such a defeat on any issue.
The Unanimity Principle also underlies collective responsibility. This requires the
government to present a united front to Parliament and the public. All ministers are required
to publicly support government policy even though they might privately disagree with it. If a
minister is unable to do so, he or she must resign from office in which case they are
permitted to make a personal statement before Parliament. A breakdown of the convention
was witnessed in the Westland Helicopter incident of 1986 in which Mr Heseltine, resigned
following the cancellation of a meeting in which he was told he could put forth his dissenting
plan. In March 2003, Robin Cook, the Leader of the House of Commons, resigned as he
found himself unable to support the government's decision to go to war in Iraq. There are
also instances where the convention has been waived in light of strong political
disagreements within the government. It was waived by Ramsey McDonald in 1932 to allow
Cabinet members to express differing views regarding economic policy. It was again waived
by Harold Wilson in 1975 in the form of an "agreement to differ to allow Cabinet members to
take different stances on continued membership of the European Union. It was again waived
before the 2016 referendum concerning EU membership. These examples are illustrative of
the many exceptions to the classical doctrine of collective responsibility. This has led to the
discussion on whether the convention should be abandoned or merely be considered a
practice instead. On the other hand, these exceptions can be taken to illustrate the flexibility
inherent in the nature of conventions.
The Confidentiality Principle which dictates that all Cabinet discussions are to be kept
absolutely secret. It even requires that the government of the day cannot release a previous
government's papers without the consent of the former Prime Minister. This aspect of the
convention was at issue in AG v Jonathan Cape Ltd in which the government sought an
injunction to prevent the publication of the diaries of a former Cabinet member.
The Cabinet Office Ministerial Code 2010 describes the convention of collective ministerial
responsibility as follows:lOMoARcPSD|11697329
2.1 The principle of collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express
their views frankly, in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining
a united front when decisions have been reached.
