Individual And Collective Responsibility Flashcards
What is IMR?
Individual ministerial responsibility is the idea that ministers are responsible for the running of their department and its policies. They also have responsibility for the standard of their own personal conduct.
Where is IMR set out (which documents)?
In 1994 Nolan Principles outlined seven principles that public servants should uphold: Selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; leadership. Before this there was no codification of what was expected of a Minister.
Additionally, since 1997 a Ministerial Code has been published by administrations laying out the expectations placed on Government Ministers. One element of these is- ‘do not knowingly mislead Parliament’ (if you do resign). (Changed by Johnson) Ministers are responsible for deciding how to conduct themselves but, importantly, they ‘only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the prime minister.
Reasons ministers may resign
MISLEADING PARLIAMENT - E.g. Amber Rudd who resigned as a Minister after admitting that she had misled the Home Affairs Select Committee ‘not knowingly’ by stating she was unaware of deportation removal targets.
- MISTAKES made within their department. E.g Rudd did however Howard shifted blame.
PERSONAL CONDUCT - E.g In June 2021, when a photo appeared of Health Secretary Matt Hancock embracing his girlfriend in his office, thereby breaking his department’s rules on physical contact during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Prime Minister did not initially see this as a resigning matter. Hancock was forced out 24 hours later as the scale of the public sense of outrage became clear, and media criticism proved unrelenting. Another example is Priti Patel’s (2017) unsanctioned meetings with Israel. Resigned as Sec of State for international development under May.
- POLICY FAILINGS - Ministers who have not adequately carried out their brief, should resign or be sacked. E.g. Gavin Williamson who was responsible for policy disasters as Education Secretary in 2020. However he did remain in office until September 2021.
- POLICY DISAGREEMENTS - Feel unable to support government position about policy due to ideology or principles. E.g. Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons, resigned in opposition to the Blair government’s decision to go to war with Iraq, stating that he could not ‘accept collective responsibility’ for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support’. Another example is that of Iain Duncan Smith. Also may be related to disagreements with the PM- Sir Alan Duncan, Anne Milton, David Gauke, Philip Hammond and Rory Stewart all resigned when Johnson became PM
PERSONALITY CLASHES/AMBITIONS - E.g Iain Duncan Smith
Arguments IMR isn’t effective
It IS NOT effective:
- PM is the ultimate judge and up to him whether minister is forced to resign. The attitude of the specific prime minister is important here. Johnson was reluctant to let go and broke established norms.
E.g. Johnson made a mistake over the details of who paid for the renovations of his flat and decided he shouldn’t resign despite the party being find.
Another example is when Johnson and Sunak (and 124 other people at No. 10) broke their own COVID regulations and Johnson decided that he and Sunak shouldn’t resign. Another example is when it was discovered that Sunak’s wife had non-dom status and so avoided paying UK tax. An investigation found no wrong-doing, Sunak remained in place and tax is now paid. Compare this to the scandals under Major. Tim Yeo, Minister for the Environment and Countryside in John Major’s government, was forced to resign after a scandal involving his so-called “love child” with a Conservative councillor, Julia Stent, who was born on 8 July 1993. Yeo resigned on 5 January 1994 after intense media coverage.
- Ministers can claim lack of knowledge. This is hard to be certain of. Ministers are unlikely to admit this. E.g. • in 2020 Priti Patel was found by an independent investigation of bullying Civil Servants. However, Patel is popular with the right of his party, so the PM didn’t ask for her resignation and said he had full confidence in her, and she didn’t offer it. The investigation said ‘To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.’ This end part saved her. (Sir Alex Allen’s report)
-Tied in with this they may blame lack of knowledge due to size of department and may blame civil servants. It is also hard to be certain about the truth here.
It is now widely accepted that the business of government is so large and complex that a minister cannot be expected to know about everything that goes on within their department, and so would not be expected to resign over a minor mistake.
An example of blame on CS For example, in 2012 Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin admitted that mistakes had been made in the awarding of a franchise to companies to run trains on the West Coast Main Line. Three civil servants were suspended as a result, one of whom launched a successful legal action, leading to the officials’ reinstatement.
- Big Beasts are hard to remove as may alienate wings of the part. Risks losing control and power. E.g. Priti Patel
- Since the late 1980s, many government functions have been delegated to executive agencies under a director general, rather than a minister. This has led to some doubt about who is accountable, with the minister assuming responsibility for making overall policy, while the head of the agency exercises ‘operational responsibility’. E.g. in 1995 Home Secretary Michael Howard sacked Derek Lewis, the director general of the Prisons Service, following criticism of the escape of prisoners from Parkhurst Jail.
Arguments IMR is effective
- Even if reluctance to resign or PM reluctant to remove, media and popular pressure can force resignation. Also star Campbell’s Golden rule. E.g. Hancock affair and Charles Clarke.
- Changing circumstances can force a resignation. Clarke, Johnson scandals and cabinet resignations (62/179).
What happened with Charles Clarke?
Clarke was challenged by opposition MPs in April 2006 over the inability of the Home Office to account for the movements of more than 1000 foreign prisoners after they had served their sentences in the UK. It appeared that they had been freed without being considered for deportation. Clarke admitted that his department had taken its ‘eye off the ball’ but also told the BBC that ‘I certainly don’t think I have a duty to the public to go - I have a duty to sort this out.’ It was reported that he did in fact privately offer to resign but initially the prime minister backed him to continue in office. However, 10 days later, with the affair showing no signs of abating, Blair sacked Clarke as part of a wider Cabinet reshuffle, following poor results for the Labour Party in the local elections.
Potential solution to breaking of norms and ignoring of code?
• The potential answer is to replace the convention with an independent body with powers to enforce the ministerial code. Will a PM give up their Royal Prerogative power over sacking or asking for the resignation of ministers? Would Sunak or any other PM create a body that could force them out of office?
The fate of an individual minister depends on:
• how serious the issue is perceived to be
• thé level of criticism in parliament and the media when a mistake is made
• the attitude of the prime minister of the day.
What is CMR?
Collective ministerial responsibility is the convention that ministers must support all decisions of the government in public. It means that they are responsible as a group to parliament and thus to the people, and that discussions in Cabinet should be confidential. If defeated in a vote of no confidence in the Commons, the government as a whole resigns. While ministers are free to argue their case with each other in private, once a decision has been reached it is binding on them all. If a minister cannot accept such a decision, in theory they should resign.
What is the purpose of CMR?
The practice is designed to maintain the unity of the government in face of attacks by the opposition. It also avoids confusion over policy and means the government can easily be held to account as there is coherence and collective support behind policy, not ambiguity about who is responsible. Public trust in Government Ministers should improve if ministers are seen to resign on matters of principle, rather than go along with decisions simply to keep their position.
E.g. prior to the decision of Boris Johnson to introduce his ‘living with COVID’ plan there was fierce debate between the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the Health Secretary Said Javid about the plan to remove free Lateral Flow Tests. Whilst they disagreed on this issue, both then supported it in public afterwards. This strengthens government as it becomes more careful and more deliberative
Arguments CMR is ineffective
-Clear-cut resignations on grounds of disagreement with government policy are quite rare in practice. To take such a step may well end a political career. Promotes dishonesty and careerism. Views ideological disunity as weakness, while may not be, e.g. Truss. May in turn alienate important wings of the party.
E.g. prior to the decision of Boris Johnson to introduce his ‘living with COVID’ plan there was fierce debate between the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the Health Secretary Said Javid about the plan to remove free Lateral Flow Tests. Whilst they disagreed on this issue, both then supported it in public afterwards. This strengthens government as it becomes more careful and more deliberative
- Undermined by the fact that the PM can/may be forced to suspend it. E.g. Coalition, EU and EEC. Therefore CMR difficult to enforce in some instances.
- There are further problems with this convention as can lead to Ministers anonymously briefing against each other or leak information whilst never directly breaking the convention publicly. E.g. Tony Blair and Gordan Brown his Chancellor of the Exchequer would brief against each other in the media. Recently this was seen with Johnson and Sunak with reports appearing about splits over spending to ease the cost of living crisis and leaks about Sunak’s non-Dom status. This clearly undermines collective responsibility, without openly breaking it and damages the reputation of governments and politics in general.
- Sometimes a parties ‘big beasts’ cause a big issue for CMR as they are often too powerful to sack, (lessons learned from
Thatcher’s sacking of Howe?). May appointed Johnson as Foreign Secretary in an attempt to reduce his potential threat as a rival and critic (she clearly has little respect for him). As Foreign Secretary he briefed against May, wrote damaging articles in the Daily Telegraph but was not sacked. When he finally resigned in July 2018 this caused significant damage to May. - May lead to prime-ministerial dominance in which the cabinet is not properly consulted. Accusation against Thatcher, Blair, Johnson, Truss. May limit effectiveness as decisions less informed and may alienate people and wings. E.g. Said Javid refused to accept greater control from Johnson and his advisors.
Why did Iain Duncan Smith resign?
lain Duncan Smith resigned in 2016 as work and pensions secretary in David Cameron’s government, stating that he could not accept cuts to disability benefits, on which the Treasury was insisting. He objected to the fact that, at the same time, Chancellor George Osborne had made other changes in his budget to benefit higher earners. However Duncan Smith’s decision was not based on his reaction to a single budget, but was the culmination of growing resentment. In his opinion Osborne was too inclined to make cuts for narrow political reasons rather than in the national economic interest. Duncan Smith also disliked the Treasury’s demand that the Department of Work and Pensions should take responsibility publicly for what he regarded as unfair measures. Personality differences played a part. It was widely believed that Osborne considered Duncan Smith to be too intellectually limited to take responsibility for complex government policies. Duncan Smith’s desire to see Britain leave the European Union, which had recently brought him into conflict with Cameron and Osborne, may also have played a part in causing the clash.
Examples of exceptions to CMR
In general, under coalitions to satisfy all wings and bases, and with big decisions like referendums where party may be split anyway.
- A notable example was the need to find a compromise between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in order to form a coalition government in 2010. There were four issues on which, it was agreed at the outset, Liberal Democrat ministers would not be bound by collective responsibility.
These were areas where they were most likely to come into conflict with the views of their Conservative partners. Liberal Democrats were allowed to abstain in votes on the construction of new nuclear power stations, tax allowances for married couples and higher education funding and to propose an alternative to the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. - 2011 referendum on the Westminster electoral system, in which David Cameron defended first past the post, while Nick Clegg campaigned for the alternative vote.
- Issue of Britain’s membership of the European Union. In 1975 Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson recognised that, in order to prevent resignations by anti-Europeans, he had to allow ministers to campaign on both sides of the argument. The understanding was that, having been allowed to argue their cases in public, they would then unite behind the people’s verdict. Labour ministers were allowed to share platforms at public meetings with members of other parties who shared their views. The only condition was that, as the official government position was to remain in Europe, opponents could not speak against membership from the despatch box in the House of Commons. Industry Minister Eric Heffer was sacked for breaking this rule.
- In the spring of 2016 David Cameron, faced with an equally divided Conservative Party, reluctantly agreed to suspend collective responsibility on the European issue. The ensuing referendum was more bitterly fought than the 1975 campaign, with five anti-EU Cabinet ministers joined by the charismatic former London Mayor, Boris Johnson, in attacking the terms on which Cameron proposed to continue British membership. Unlike Wilson four decades earlier, Cameron took personal charge of the ‘Remain’ campaign and, when his side lost the vote in June 2016, had no real alternative but to resign as prime minister.
- Free votes- where votes are a matter of ‘conscience’ not party policy e.g. same sex marriage in 2013.
Arguments CMR is effective
- Doesn’t stifle debate as is permitted in private just not publicly E.g. Sajid and Sunak
- Avoids confusion, promotes coherence
- Can easily be held to account
- United front against opposition
Which is more important: CMR or IMR?
• CMR is more important than IMR in UK politics. It is sometimes relaxed but only through necessity and not necessarily weakness but rather to ensure things can move forwards or when issues cross party lines. CMR should mean debate behind closed doors but a consistent message in public avoiding confusion and helping accountability.
• Whilst PMs do sometimes have to relax it generally Ministers are bound by it.
• IMR has limited significance. It relies on the honour of Ministers (in short supply?) A PM won’t enforce it if doing so will damage them. As is clearly demonstrated at the moment the PMs role as the ultimate adiudicator of the code means that it can be unenforceable especially if it is the PM who broke it.
