ABSTRACT
The doctrine of ministerial responsibility-both collective and individual-is supposed to be the democratic ‘buckle’ between the executive and Parliament and the people. As we have seen, ministers from the Prime Minister down are said to be answerable in the House of Commons for practically all government activity from a decision to order the sinking of an enemy battleship or flying a ragged Union Jack upside-down in Whitehall on Remembrance Day to a health authority’s policy on AIDS treatments or young people’s training programmes provided by a publicly funded private company. Yet the idea that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to Parliament is a democratic check on the executive belongs in the shadowy and uncertain world of constitutional convention. It may be developing in that direction, but it is far from being fully developed. Over the past few years, the doctrine has been the subject of intense political and semantic debate, interpretation and re-interpretation, and subtle re-definitions of its terminology and terms, all sharpened up to May 1997 by political crises such as the Westland affair, the ‘arms to Iraq’ controversy and the Scott Report on arms sales to Iraq, the handling of the BSE saga and Gulf War Syndrome, rows between a Home Secretary and the head of the prison service over responsibility for prisons, and continuing concern over ‘sleaze’. At its worst, the debate recalls the notorious medieval dispute over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin; at its best, it has reflected a new resolve in the House of Commons-and in two select committees in particular-to reduce the executive’s domination of Parliament and to bring clarity to the principal means by which government is meant to be held accountable by MPs.
