Central government and accountability - Mechanisms of accoun...

Learning Outcomes

This article outlines the core mechanisms securing accountability of the UK’s central government, concentrating on both political and legal controls relevant to SQE1. It explains how collective and individual ministerial responsibility operate in practice, the constitutional status of these conventions, and how the Ministerial Code structures expectations of ministerial conduct, integrity, and resignation. It also outlines how Parliament enforces accountability through questions, debates, select committees, financial oversight, and confidence procedures, and how political realities such as party discipline and media scrutiny shape the effectiveness of these tools. The article further examines judicial review as the key legal constraint on central government, detailing the principal grounds of challenge, standing, time limits, and the range of discretionary remedies available in the Administrative Court. It highlights the limits of judicial intervention in areas of “high policy” while emphasising the courts’ role in upholding the rule of law where public powers are misused. Overall, the article equips SQE1 candidates to analyse problem questions involving ministerial misconduct, departmental failure, or unlawful executive action, to identify the appropriate accountability mechanism, and to differentiate clearly between political and legal routes for challenge.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the mechanisms of central government accountability in the UK, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Distinguish between collective ministerial responsibility (Cabinet solidarity, confidentiality) and individual ministerial responsibility (personal and departmental accountability).
• Understand the legal and political force of the Ministerial Code, including consequences of breaches and the effect of political context on its enforcement.
• Articulate how Parliament holds the government accountable through mechanisms such as questions, debates, financial control, select committees, and the possibility of votes of confidence.
• Analyse the application of core constitutional principles such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and parliamentary sovereignty in central government structures.
• Identify and apply the legal tests and processes of judicial review to government actions, including key grounds for review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality, and breach of legitimate expectation or human rights.
• Evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of each mechanism in connection with recent political and legal developments, and the impact of constitutional conventions and case law.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which constitutional principle requires all government ministers to publicly support government policy, regardless of private disagreement?
   1. Parliamentary sovereignty
   2. Separation of powers
   3. Individual ministerial responsibility
   4. Collective ministerial responsibility
2. A government minister is found to have personally accepted inappropriate gifts from a business seeking a government contract. Which principle of accountability is primarily engaged?
   1. Collective responsibility
   2. Individual ministerial responsibility (personal conduct)
   3. Judicial review
   4. The rule of law
3. Which body ultimately determines whether a government decision is lawful when challenged via judicial review?
   1. Parliament
   2. The Prime Minister
   3. The relevant government department
   4. The courts

4. True or false? Constitutional conventions like ministerial responsibility are legally enforceable in UK courts.

Introduction

Accountability is a key aspect of the UK’s uncodified constitution, ensuring that governmental authority is exercised within clear boundaries and is answerable to both Parliament and the courts. This framework is underpinned by conventions such as collective and individual ministerial responsibility, the Ministerial Code, and institutionalised legislative oversight, all of which are ultimately supported by the legal principle of judicial review. These mechanisms are shaped by the rule of law, separation of powers, and parliamentary control, working collectively to uphold standards of conduct within government and to provide effective remedies for unlawful or improper actions.

Key Term: accountability
The duty of government and its ministers to justify, explain, and answer for their actions and decisions to Parliament, the public, and (occasionally) the courts, ensuring that power is exercised in accordance with law, established constitutional principles, and political expectations.

Ministerial Responsibility

Ministerial responsibility, comprising collective and individual strands, is the primary political convention to ensure government accountability. While these conventions do not have the force of law, they form the expected standards for responsible government in the UK.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Collective ministerial responsibility is the convention that all members of the government, especially those sitting in Cabinet, are required to support agreed policy decisions, and stand or fall together in terms of parliamentary confidence. This convention asserts that public disagreements between ministers are constitutionally unacceptable, and internal differences must be kept confidential.

Key Term: Collective Ministerial Responsibility
A constitutional convention requiring that all ministers publicly support government policy as a single Cabinet, regardless of private disagreement or departmental interests; this also includes the secrecy of Cabinet proceedings and resignation if solidarity cannot be maintained.

The convention of collective ministerial responsibility encompasses:

• Solidarity: Ministers must support government decisions in public and Parliament, even if they personally opposed them during internal Cabinet discussions. Public dissent by a minister often results in resignation, though major constitutional events (such as referendums) may see agreed suspension of this rule to accommodate fundamental disagreements.
• Confidentiality: The content of Cabinet discussions, papers, and deliberations is to be kept strictly secret. This is essential to enabling candid debate and informed decision-making. Breaches, such as unauthorised leaks or disclosures, are seen as serious violations of Cabinet discipline.
• Accountability as a Whole: The government is collectively responsible for acts and choices made in its name. If the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence, the entire government must either resign or advise a dissolution of Parliament.

The doctrine is sustained not by legal compulsion but by political necessity and practicality—the government cannot function if its members are not seen as a single entity in the eyes of Parliament or the public. The Prime Minister plays a central role in enforcing collective responsibility, having final authority on Cabinet appointments and dismissals, and is responsible for ensuring Cabinet discipline.

Suspension of collective responsibility may be formally agreed, typically during referenda on major constitutional change, such as in 1975 (EC membership) and 2016 (Brexit), where ministers were permitted to campaign on opposite sides without resigning. However, this remains the exception and is politically sensitive.

Worked Example 1.1

A Cabinet vote concludes with a new public spending commitment being agreed, despite vocal opposition from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions during discussion. The next day, the Secretary is challenged in Parliament on their previous public criticism of increased spending. The Secretary responds by stating, "The government has weighed all the facts and come to a conclusion. I support this decision." However, if further evidence emerged that the Secretary continued briefing media sources against the policy, what would be the implication?

Answer:
The Secretary has fulfilled their public duty of solidarity but is in breach of the confidentiality limb of collective responsibility if confidential Cabinet positions are revealed externally, whether by the minister or their allies. If proven, such conduct would likely lead to pressure to resign.

The convention is neither absolute nor unchanging. It has evolved to accommodate coalition governments and complex modern issues, and can be altered by political agreement (for instance, permitting "free votes" on morally or constitutionally sensitive issues). Where collective agreement is not possible, it must be clearly signalled in advance.

Individual Ministerial Responsibility

Individual ministerial responsibility requires ministers to account to Parliament for their conduct and for the work of their departments. This encompasses both personal and departmental responsibility.

Key Term: Individual Ministerial Responsibility
The convention that each minister is personally answerable to Parliament for their private conduct as well as for all actions, policies, and failures of their department, including those of civil servants and agencies under their authority.

Individual responsibility is separated into:

• Personal Responsibility: Ministers are expected to uphold standards of integrity and propriety in their private lives and in all dealings that could impact public perceptions of their office. This includes compliance with the Ministerial Code, and subjects them to scrutiny if found to have, for example, accepted bribes, failed to declare interests, or committed serious crimes. If a minister’s personal conduct falls below these standards, resignation or dismissal is anticipated.
• Departmental Responsibility: Ministers are answerable for their department’s policies, actions, and mistakes, whether or not they had direct knowledge. They must report to Parliament and take steps to address failings, up to and including resignation in serious cases (though, in contemporary government, resignation tends to occur in only the most severe instances of mismanagement or scandal).

Ministers are required to correct any misleading statements made to Parliament as soon as possible. A failure to do so is traditionally considered a resignation matter, and serious misrepresentation is likely to result in immediate demand for resignation.

Ministers are also expected to ensure that there are systems in place for proper supervision of their departments and that they do not attempt to blame civil servants for failures that fall under their overall command. The convention thus promotes both transparency and integrity at all levels.

Worked Example 1.2

A significant IT error causes the loss of confidential personal data held by a government department, which is discovered by a member of the public before any official takes action. The Secretary of State is notified and must account for this in the House of Commons. The Secretary states "I regret that a serious error happened outside my knowledge, but systems are being reviewed." A committee asks whether the Secretary should resign.

Answer:
The Secretary may not immediately be required to resign provided they demonstrate transparency, accept overall responsibility, and ensure remedial action, unless there is evidence of personal negligence or a pattern of previous failings. Effective accountability requires that ministers answer and, where necessary, take corrective action. Incomplete or unsatisfactory explanations may increase the pressure for a resignation.

Ministerial Responsibility in Practice

The application of these conventions has evolved, reflecting the realities of modern bureaucracy and the increasing use of agencies to deliver public services. Full resignations for departmental mistakes are now rare, with a greater focus on stepping up ministerial scrutiny and oversight following failures. Nevertheless, Parliament continues to expect ministers to account—publicly and promptly—for any failings and to demonstrate that every possible step is being taken to remedy errors.

The Ministerial Code

The Ministerial Code, issued by the Prime Minister, codifies many aspects of both collective and individual responsibility and sets out the standards expected of ministers. While not legally enforceable, it carries substantial political weight and provides clear benchmarks for expected conduct, declaration of interests, the avoidance of conflicts, and the transparency of decision-making. Breaches may result in warnings, enforced resignations, or dismissals, particularly where ministers are found to have failed in honesty, integrity, or respect for parliamentary accountability.

The Code is periodically updated to reflect changing expectations in public life and new challenges concerning ethics, transparency, and conflicts of interest.

Key Term: Ministerial Code
A written set of principles and rules governing ministerial conduct, issued by the Prime Minister, which codifies ministerial responsibilities and ethical expectations but is not legally binding.

Limits and Political Realities

Both collective and individual ministerial responsibility are conventions, not legal rules. Their enforcement depends on political factors, media scrutiny, public opinion, and leadership within government rather than on judicial or legal sanction. Removal from office, resignation, and loss of confidence are the usual consequences for serious breaches, but these are not automatic, and the conventions are flexible in response to shifting political contexts.

Exam Warning

Collective responsibility is about solidarity and policy, while individual responsibility focuses on a minister’s own personal conduct and oversight of their department’s activities. Both are key to government accountability but serve different constitutional functions and have different consequences.

Accountability to Parliament

Parliament, as the sovereign legislative body, plays an essential role in holding central government to account. This is exercised through numerous procedures, including:

• Parliamentary Questions: Ministers must attend and answer questions from MPs and Lords, with Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) providing a high-profile forum for scrutiny. These questions can be oral or written, and are an essential means for clarifying government policies, revealing errors, and compelling government transparency.
• Debates and Motions: Parliament holds regular debates on government policy and major events, and has the power to table motions of censure or no-confidence. Losing the confidence of the House of Commons compels a government either to resign or seek a dissolution and fresh election.
• Select Committees: Departmental select committees, as well as specialist committees, have significant power to call ministers, civil servants, and external witnesses to provide evidence. They scrutinise departmental spending, policies, and administration, producing reports that highlight successes and failures.
• Financial Oversight: Parliament controls government expenditure via the approval of estimates and authorisation of taxation and expenditure in Financial Acts. The Public Accounts Committee, a key select committee, scrutinises government spending’s efficiency and effectiveness.

Key Term: select committee
A committee of Parliament, typically comprising backbench MPs, charged with scrutinising government departments and holding ministers to account. Select committees are an essential mechanism for oversight in modern parliamentary government.

Contemporary Developments

Parliamentary accountability has grown through the professionalisation of select committee scrutiny, increased visibility of committee hearings, and robust mechanisms for summoning evidence. However, government dominance through party discipline (“the whip”), control of the parliamentary timetable, and the executive’s majority in the Commons continue to limit Parliament’s oversight in practice. Recent years have seen debates about the adequacy of current scrutiny arrangements, particularly in relation to fast-tracked or wide-ranging delegated legislation and the use of secondary powers by ministers.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the legal mechanism by which the courts supervise the lawfulness of government and administrative action. While largely independent of political conventions, judicial review ensures that central government does not act beyond its lawful powers, acts fairly, and respects individual rights.

Key Term: Judicial Review
The legal process by which courts review the lawfulness of decisions, actions, or omissions of public bodies—including government ministers and departments—evaluating whether power has been exercised within legal boundaries and consistent with principles such as procedural fairness and reasonableness.

Judicial review is grounded in constitutional principles of the rule of law and separation of powers. Parliament confers powers and imposes limits on governmental action, while the judiciary ensures that these limits are respected and that public bodies and ministers remain subject to law.

Grounds for Judicial Review

The principal grounds of judicial review, as set out by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, include:

• Illegality: The public authority misunderstands or exceeds its legal powers, acts for an improper purpose, takes into account irrelevant matters, or fails to consider relevant factors. Unlawful delegation of powers or rigid application of policy (“fettering discretion”) are common forms of illegality.
• Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness): The decision is so unreasonable no reasonable authority could have made it, often described as ‘outrageous’ or defying logic (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]).
• Procedural Impropriety: The decision-making process fails to meet the requirements of fairness, impartiality, or consultation set out in statute or common law. This includes breach of procedural rules, bias, failure to give a fair hearing, or breach of legitimate expectation.
• Breach of Legitimate Expectation: Arises where a public authority has given clear assurance (by promise or past practice) creating an expectation in an individual or group that a certain procedure will be followed or benefits conferred.
• Breach of Human Rights Act 1998: Courts are empowered under the Human Rights Act to review and, where appropriate, make a declaration of incompatibility where government action or legislation conflicts with Convention rights.

Key Term: Wednesbury unreasonableness
A decision is ‘Wednesbury unreasonable’ if it is so irrational that no sensible person acting with due regard to their responsibilities could have arrived at it.

The courts focus on the legality, not the wisdom or merits, of government decisions, reflecting the separation of powers by leaving questions of policy to the executive and Parliament.

Remedies

Remedies available on judicial review include quashing orders (nullifying the impugned decision), prohibiting orders, mandatory orders, injunctions, declarations, and, in rare circumstances, damages. These remedies are granted at the court’s discretion and may be refused where alternative remedies are available, excessive delay has occurred, or the outcome would likely be the same if the public body’s error had not occurred.

Key Term: quashing order
An order from the court which sets aside a public body’s decision as unlawful, requiring the body to reconsider.

Procedure

A claim for judicial review is brought in the Administrative Court. Claimants must have ‘sufficient interest’—known as standing—in the matter, and must bring the claim promptly, generally within three months of the grounds arising (though special rules exist for specific areas, such as planning). The court has a two-stage process: (1) seek permission to bring the claim (to filter out unarguable cases early); (2) the substantive hearing. The court will not grant permission where there is an alternative remedy available, or where the case lacks substance.

Worked Example 1.3

A statute empowers the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs to impose restrictions on development “where necessary for protection of unique habitats.” The Secretary issues a blanket ban on all planning applications in an entire region, claiming efficiency. An applicant for development challenges the legality.

Answer:
The Secretary’s action likely breaches the principle of illegality and possibly irrationality. The blanket ban fetters discretion by failing to consider individual cases as required by law, may exceed the statutory power’s purposes, and could be subject to judicial review and quashed by the courts.

Public Body Test and Standing

Only decisions by public bodies or those exercising public functions are susceptible to judicial review (R v City Panel on Takeover and Mergers ex parte Datafin). Claimants must show ‘sufficient interest’ in the subject matter; standing is assessed contextually, especially where issues of broader public concern arise.

Ouster Clauses

While Parliament may sometimes attempt to ‘oust’ or limit the courts’ supervisory jurisdiction (for example, by stating a decision shall not be reviewed by any court), the courts interpret such provisions restrictively to preserve the rule of law, often refusing to allow any statutory exclusion of review where illegality is alleged, unless clear and explicit wording is used (Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]).

Recent Developments

The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 modernised some aspects of judicial review, notably permitting the court to make suspended and prospective-only quashing orders (allowing for delayed or partially retrospective remedies in some cases), while also maintaining promptness requirements and ensuring judicial discretion remains central.

Key Term: suspended quashing order
A court order that annuls the impugned decision at a future date, giving the public body time to resolve defects lawfully before the annulment takes effect.

Revision Tip

When analysing potential judicial review questions for SQE1, focus on evaluating the lawfulness of the government action, distinguishing between errors of legality, policy, and procedure, and always articulate the relevant ground of review that would apply on the facts.

Interplay of Accountability Mechanisms

The UK’s accountability framework for central government is a dynamic mix of political and legal mechanisms. Conventions facilitate political accountability, compelling ministers and the Cabinet to explain and, if necessary, answer for decisions to Parliament and the electorate. Legal accountability is secured through judicial review—administered by an independent judiciary that does not interfere with merits or political considerations but ensures the executive acts within its legal boundaries. Both operate alongside and support each other: failures in political accountability can lead to judicial challenges, and vice versa.

Similarly, the courts are reluctant to intervene in “high politics” or matters of national security, instead leaving these to Parliament and political processes, but they make no exception where government or ministerial decisions are unlawful.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Central government accountability is enforced through both political conventions (collective and individual ministerial responsibility, Ministerial Code) and legal principles (judicial review).
• Collective ministerial responsibility requires Cabinet secrecy, and that government as a whole commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
• Individual ministerial responsibility holds ministers to account for departmental failings and personal conduct, but resignations are rare absent gross neglect or scandal.
• The Ministerial Code codifies standards of ministerial conduct and is backed by potential ministerial dismissal, not legal sanction.
• Parliament provides accountability through questions, debates, select committees, financial oversight, and the ability to withhold confidence from government.
• Judicial review is the process by which courts scrutinise the lawfulness—never the merits—of government decisions, holding public bodies to account for acts done ultra vires, unreasonably, or in breach of fair procedure or statutory duty.
• Grounds for judicial review include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, breach of legitimate expectation, and breach of human rights.
• Remedies include quashing, mandatory, or prohibiting orders, declarations, and injunctions; awards of damages are rare.
• Both political and legal mechanisms interact to enforce accountability, with flexibility built in to respond to shifting political, social, and legal demands, ensuring that central government remains subject to parliamentary and legal control.

Key Terms and Concepts

• accountability
• collective ministerial responsibility
• individual ministerial responsibility
• Ministerial Code
• select committee
• judicial review
• Wednesbury unreasonableness
• quashing order
• suspended quashing order