Individual ministerial accountability

Research Paper 04/31 Individual ministerial responsibility – issues and examples offers an introduction to the constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility. It covers significant resignations such as Crichel Down in 1954 and instances where demands for resignations were resisted. This Note looks at the recent debate on the question of individual ministerial responsibility in the context of civil service reform and civil service capability. The question of ministerial responsibility for failures within departments remains a live issue, not least following the failures of the West Coast Main Line tendering process for the rail line within the Department of Transport in October 2012. The Commons Liaison Committee report on 8 November 2012 on the powers and resources available to select committees summarised the issues as follows:

The report finds that “the old doctrine of ministerial accountability (by which ministers alone are accountable to Parliament for the conduct of their department) is being stretched to implausibility by the complexity of modern government” and says that there is a need for “a changed approach”. It recommends that the Government engage with the Liaison Committee in a review of the relationship between Government and select committees with the aim of producing joint guidelines for departments and committees, which recognise ministerial accountability, the proper role of the Civil Service and the legitimate wish of Parliament for more effective accountability.

“Committee chairs call for review of relationship with Government” 8 November 2012