Confidentiality & Ministerial Responsibilities
“In principle, all disagreements between ministers of government must be kept secret. It is extremely difficult to ensure that Cabinet ministers present a united front, especially when political issues can cause division and individual ministers are unwilling or unable to agree.
The British constitution includes a key part that recognizes collective ministerial responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Government to make decisions and act on behalf of Parliament. The Cabinet Manual (2011) Para 13 states that a minister who refuses to accept collective responsibility must resign. Although ministers can express their views privately, or disagree with them, once the decision is approved by the cabinet, each member of the government has to acknowledge and accept the decision publicly. It can be very difficult to keep all the Government’s opinions and decisions private, especially if there are different views. This document will analyze past examples of breaches to the collective responsibility convention and discuss why it is important to keep cabinet information confidential. This document will also provide information about what the Parliament can do to protect the cabinet’s privacy. The minister must resign if he or she does not agree with the decision. (2) Individual Ministerial Reputation: A minister must be resigned if it wants to be accountable for its own actions. The Cabinet Manual outlines both of these conventions.
The Cabinet Manual is an official document published by Cabinet Office in 2011. It outlines the conventions, laws and rules that apply to the British government’s operation. Para 4.2 clearly stated that collective responsibility is an agreement and not a demand. It applies to all situations. James Callaghan, Prime Minster, stated that collective responsibility should apply in 1977. The doctrine on collective ministerial liability is intended to: (a) demonstrate political strength through a unified federal government that formally speaks one voice. (b) protect privacy and keep the government’s private discussions confidential. A minister must accept collective responsibility if they are not to be considered. This is done to preserve integrity within the government. Robin cook, former foreign secretary, quit in 2003 after he refused to accept the decision to go ahead with military action in Iraq. I believe that it is against Britain’s best interests to establish a precedent for unilaterally military action.
The second threat to the privacy of government information is the leakage. Data published or revealed without consent from other ministers can have a severe impact on the cabinet’s reputation. Leakage of confidential information is a breach of the convention of ministerial shared responsibility. This makes the government extremely concerned. Cabinet ministers’ jobs can be affected by leaks of confidential information. Jimmy Thomas was a Labour cabinet member who quit his job in 1930 after leaking details about the Tory budget to a Tory MP. Reports often include discussions about cabinet ministers. It is not clear whether the convention of collective liability applies to the minister after he has resigned from his position as minister.
Crossman, a member in chief of the cabinet, kept an account of all the discussions held during cabinet meetings. After his retirement, Crossman intended to publish his diary. But he died early and his spouse took the necessary steps to publish it before the period was up. The government requested an injunction to prevent confidential information being published again. The publishers disagreed on the issue of cabinet confidentiality. There is no law that prohibits the publication of government confidential information. The Lord Widgery supported publishing the diary. There was no injunction against further publication. The court also stated that the information was no longer confidential due to the lapse of ten year. Lord Widgery stated: “The Attorney General must demonstrate (a) that such publication would constitute a breach of confidentiality; (b) the public interest requires that publication be restricted and (c) there are no facts in the public interest that are contradictory to or more compelling than the one relied on. The court must also examine whether relief is needed to prevent such publications from being published.
It is important that government information not be disclosed to anyone else. This will help protect ministers from being damaged and ensure political stability. A government that is unable to abide by the will of all its members can be a sign of a segregated legal system, which can negatively impact the country’s image. The cabinet should have ministers apply the Duty of Conscientiality. It is a legal obligation which protects confidential information. The Duty of Confidentiality in common law is mostly applied by doctors and lawyers who are legally bound not to disclose any information to third parties without authorization. The Collective Responsibility Agreement and the Duty of Confidentiality may not be sufficient to prevent a cabinet minister from leaking sensitive information. The Parliament should also take other actions to limit ministers’ power to take unsatisfactory decisions. It is possible to introduce legislation that will limit minister’s actions and protect the image of government. The Data Protection Act 2018, for example, is a written regulation which provides clear guidelines to organisations and businesses to ensure that information of individuals is lawfully, fairly and transparently used. Depending on the severity of the case, a breach of the Data Protection Act could lead to serious offenses, such as a fine of more than 500,000 Pounds and possible imprisonment sentences.
A similar regulation could be introduced to protect the confidential information of cabinet members and provide clear guidelines for cabinet representatives. It can promote unity in government because all confidential information will be kept ‘in house’. Second, leaks or unauthorised publication of information can negatively impact the government’s image and also the identities of other ministers. The government can prevent such situations from happening by creating a law that is legally binding.
Conclusion. The English legal system should take better steps to reduce the number of cases that have been brought up about privacy. The Parliament of England should establish strict rules and guidelines to ensure that the government is unanimous. If a party does not satisfy the requirements of the cabinet or the public, the Parliament can restrain their power.
