Conventions of Ministerial Responsibility

Changes to the ministerial code explained

Individual Ministerial Responsibility and Collective Cabinet Responsibility are important conventions, governing the behaviour of ministers. In recent weeks and months, these conventions have been tested, with some arguing that because they are not legally binding, governments can ignore their details.

Changes to the ministerial code

Many of the specific (and vague) details governing the behaviour of ministers and explaining how these conventions apply are set out in the ministerial code, a document written by the Prime Minister. This document has recently been revised by the Prime Minister, as he is being investigated by the standards committee of parliament.

Here are some controversial changes:

1. Boris Johnson has weakened the rules on standards in government so that ministers found guilty of breaching the ministerial code will no longer be expected to resign.

2. The updated code says it would be “disproportionate” to require ministers who break the rules to resign and lays out an alternative range of punishments such as a temporary salary reduction or a public apology.

   The new code says:

   “Where the prime minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, he may ask the Independent Adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the prime minister”.

   and

   “Where the prime minister retains his confidence in the minister, available sanctions include requiring some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period”

3. In the document, Johnson has also refused to give Lord Geidt, his independent adviser on ministerial standards, the power to launch his own investigations — something which had been demanded by a number of ethics bodies.

   The committee on standards in public life had previously called for Geidt to be given powers to launch investigations himself. However, the prime minister has refused and Geidt will have to seek his “consent” to initiate inquiries

4. He also rewrote the foreword to the code, removing references to honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability.

Analysis

Many commentators have argued that Johnson is trying to water down the ministerial code ahead of the standards committee report conclusions that may well find he lied to parliament over partygate.

The timing suggests this. It confirms the ‘good chap doctrine’ of Peter Hennessey. The idea is that the uncodified UK constitution requires honest people to apply conventions in a faithful and reasonable way. In the absence of ‘good chaps’ - maybe the need for codification and entrenchment has now become more important.