Prime Ministerial Responsiblity PDF

Preview

Summary

EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE CONVENTIONS OF MINISTERIALRESPONSIBILITY NO LONGER ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE ACTIONS OFMINISTERS (30 MARKS).Ministerial responsibility relies on the constitutional convention that both the individual minister and the collective cabinet/government can and are held accounta...

Description

EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE CONVENTIONS OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY NO LONGER ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE ACTIONS OF MINISTERS (30 MARKS). Ministerial responsibility relies on the constitutional convention that both the individual minister and the collective cabinet/government can and are held accountable for their actions in parliament, both go hand in hand. In terms of the individual, it means that each specific minister is held accountable for their personal and direct actions in their field of work and in their department. In terms of the collective, the entire cabinet and each of its members share joint responsibility for the actions of a department or government as a whole, they must work as a term and take accountability together, or else they should not be in the executive. Ministerial responsibility is a necessary element of government as it provides grounds for government scrutiny and effective development; it can prevent abuse of power and stop government officials from straying from the representative position they hold. However, governing has progressively become more and more complex overtime, with slight power shifts, and various different changes to legislation are being made. This creates a more difficult environment to hold ministers and departments accountable as there are more and more ways to divert attention and avoid inspection. Through time, it can be argued that the government gains more and more authority with each parliamentary term. An example of government gaining or at least attempting to take more control of the political system in their favour is Boris Johnson’s recent attempting to undo the Fixed Term Parliaments Act so that he can manipulate general election times to best fit his benefit. Individual ministerial responsibility can become overlooked or difficult, due to the complexity and sheer size government. This makes it significantly more problematic for individual ministers to be completely in the know of every action taken within their cabinet. As government grows more powerful, its inner workings grow more complex, therefore raising the weight of responsibility of a single minister’s knowledge, and overall difficult connections within his or her cabinet: a huge problem in terms of ministerial responsibility conventions. This means ministers are out of touch within their cabinet, but also with the public as many do not resign because of this. Matt Hancock, health secretary for the UK in the current government, completely mishandled the restriction in place around the Covid-19 pandemic and misinformed the public on important figures for Christmas time. He faced huge media backlash and was completely out of touch in his department, yet still did not either take responsibility publicly or resign due his utter incompetence. He still stands in cabinet ignoring this ever-growing weak convention. And when he addresses controversy it is only in response to media pressure. Collective ministerial responsibility causes problems within the collective convention as it can be dismissed and self-defeating in relation to individual will. It would not adequately account for ministers actions as it can be dismissed if it is felt necessary. For example, Prime Minister David Cameron suspended the cabinet collective responsibility doctrine for the 2016 EU referendum, following the precedent set by Harold Wilson in 1975. Prominent cabinet ministers including Michael Gove and Chris Grayling opted to make use of the relaxation by campaigning to leave. A further reason collective responsibility does not adequately account, it is extremely unlikely to see a self-informed resignation as it typically

indicates the downfall of a politician, this is an issue of one’s own pride which can interfere in one’s workplace decisions. On the other hand though, the convention of collective ministerial responsibility does not have to conflict with the individual persons will. Ministers publicly must support the policies of the government in which they work, however they are not obligated to privately defend and support them. The key reason in which a government is prosperous is the matter of public unity. If a minister should wish to remain in government, they will adhere to the collective conventions as a means of keeping their chosen position. And if the minister is not willing to set aside personal disagreements, they are fully entitled to resign as many minsters have done in the past, for example Robin Cook, Iain Duncan Smith. And to contrast my earlier point, individual responsibility has many recent accounts of conventions still being effectively holding ministers accountable. It is widely accepted that ministers must know and be in touch with the inner working of their cabinet, must maintain the confidence of the Prime minister, and must act appropriately publicly and personally. If they do not possess the ability do these things, then it is required by convention that they should resign. Many ministers have been able to hold themselves accountable in this way, one of them being Amber Rudd. After supposedly lying about the figure produced by the Home Office about immigrants specifically targeted for deportation, the media and select committees were quick to scrutinise and publicly humiliate. In response, she was forced to resign due to this scandal of her lack of responsibility as an individual and for her lack of knowledge of her own department. Overall, these conventions are still necessary and do work, just not to the extent that they may have used to. As the executive grows stronger, so does their ability to avoid accountability and such conventions. However, as the conventions grow less effective, the media’s grasp on the political world grows more powerful and the influence it has is significant, if not more effective than those of the said conventions of ministerial responsibility. The convention definitely do not adequately account for the actions of ministers, but with the rise of the influence of media, I would personally argue that whilst still being necessary to have in place, media could be the replacement and will do a more effective job in government scrutiny....