British Ministers, Politicians, and Civil Servants' Accountability - Essay Example

?ACCOUNTABILITY Question Is The Accountability Of British Ministers, Politicians And Civil Servants Real OrMerely An Aspiration? The principle of accountability is prevalent though there is uncertainty of the actual occurrences in the respective government sectors. This also relates to its practice and basing on its fundamental stipulations in political life of an individual. Accountability is the hypothetical thought that a minister, politician or a high profile civil servant assumes the fault if something goes erroneous in his department or area of management, even if he is not directly involved in the mistake. The feeling of accountability amongst the government personnel has been critical in Britain ranging from previous decades in history. Many people have gone to greater extents and in situations where decisions are difficult to make to the extent of resignation from their various responsibilities. Individuals feel that the situations might be unfortunate yet they have to do what is to be done. In normal situations, the conventional understanding of ministerial accountability, in which ministers are answerable to Parliament and departmental administrators emerge before parliamentary committees on behalf of their minister, works well (Smith 2006).  This shows that the accountability feature among the officials in a given department or sector is transferrable and should be handled throughout the system as a dependent factor on all attributes. To confirm on this claim, there is a valid rationale in posing that accountability should be evaluated as to originate from all the politicians as well as the departmental heads associated with the observable practices. According to Smith, accountability is a factor that should involve no discrimination in its evaluation and this forms one part of argument of this paper that is subject to argument basing on critical reasoning from the logics displayed. Real accountability is observed as being precise in identifying the source of mistake observed in the management and departmental administration. In a given department, there are individuals with different abilities and hence performance output in various sections. An individual, research or evaluation process cannot assume that the fault from one area in the department is always a fault from every official (Smith 2006). Moreover even if a fault in a single sector of the administration attributes to detrimental effects on other parts, the analysis by the commission should identify the ultimate source of the fault and deal with it independently. The magnitude of liability can therefore vary on the actual source of the fault. For instance, in a situation where a mistake from one individual or department leads to errors in several other departments or the whole ministry, the liability cannot be compared with the case where a fault leads to an error in a single and smaller section of the department (Osbaldeston 2005). In case the situation goes out of hand, nevertheless, and when public disagreement results, some start to query this perceptive of ministerial responsibility. The non directional questions associated from divergent sources implies on the prevalent notion on the conception of accountability in the government. Recent arguments, such as the need for the review of the considerations of accountability arose with the support initiative and the Human Resources and Development Canada grants and donations program, have resulted in disappointment over determining who was responsible and thus in the end accountable.  This has resulted into some individuals to question whether there is need to be higher accountability of senior public servants, most notably deputy ministers, before parliamentary committees.  Opinions on this matter are classified, and the government has constantly protected the traditional perception of accountability (McGrath 1985). The question pertaining to the reality or mere inspirations of accountability of the British ministers, politicians and civil servants constitutes a subject whose analysis can result into an absolute solution to some frequent finance and accounting issues. In this scenario, one might be tempted to ask for the meaning of the word accountability. To attain completion and relevance to the question in regards to the subject, it would be logical to determine the real accountability and or measly inspiration. Mere inspirations concerning accountability in most situations might pose to possess all the basic aspects of responsibility as that which is viewed as ideal. Therefore, the best means of ascertaining the perfection of accountability in either of the forms is through evaluation of actions in practical situations. The real world situation of actions is advantageous when considering accountability because besides using solely words in describing accountability, actions would be observed to confirm the basis of arguments. Accountability incorporates the compulsion of a personage or institution to account for its operations, admit liability for them, and to reveal the outcomes in an explicit manner. Concerning the accountability of the stakeholders in Britain especially the civil servants and the leaders, the main concern is finance, economic prosperity and the anticipated development (Finer 1956). Therefore, to determine the nature of accountability that is considered real, it must possess all the features of the termed accountability. Mere inspirations of accountability are realized if an act of an individual or an operation of an organization imitates accountability without meeting all its specifications outlined in its definition. As a result mere inspirations of accountability are common in people’s daily endeavours of leadership or responsibilities. The real accountability is that which is specific to particular individuals and ensures no element of victimization of the innocent individual. The provisions of accountability should be evident in the initial instance and should associate no element of complications. Britain is similar to other countries in the world which possess ministers, politicians and civil servants in their systems of governance and should embrace accountability. The government ministers operate in a form of specialization where the government responsibilities are divided according to dissimilar areas and individuals assigned to man the areas referred to as ministries. For instance, there are ministries of defence, justice, foreign and commonwealth office and finance among others (Robert and Andrew 2003). There are also politicians such as the governors and senators who are responsible for the management of different regions in the country and the populations involved. The populace constitute the citizens who should be served by their leaders. This service demanded by the citizens in their dwellings and activities demands for accountability. In many situations, ministers, politicians and the civil servants have engaged in different activities during their official duties of services that supports both sides of real accountability and mere inspirations. There have been arguments on where the observed activities should be classified. There is need to provide the best points of classification of the observed actions of the officials as per the House of Lords Commission on Constitution provides, this will only be probable through critical evaluations that necessitate rational judgment. Therefore, this piece targets the provision the answer to the question on whether the type of accountability displayed among the ministers, politicians and the civil servants in Britain are real or mere inspirations. Throughout this exercise, there will be provision of instances involving the activities of the British ministers, politicians and the civil servants followed by evaluations before judgment in each case. The civil servants referred to in this case of accountability are the permanent secretaries who head various departments in different ministries in the government. The politicians referred to here are the members of parliament and other individuals engaged in the British politics such as representatives of different wards especially those who directly affect the decisions of the government. The ministers are directly spelled in this evaluation. However, the part mentioning the politicians implies a broader perspective of view since it generalizes all the individuals who have engaged in politics in Britain (Sharman 2001). In this perspective, the politicians might not only involve the individuals in the government but also those who were runners up during previous elections. Surprisingly, the evaluation of the accountability would spread to even the subjects in British (Sharon 1991). To begin from the previous century, the issue of accountability was regarded highly by the government officials. In case a mistake would arise then the individual at the apex of management of the sector would halt his services to the ministry or the department. A predominant example, Sir Thomas Dugdale, who was the Minister for Agriculture felt his failure from a mere criticism of his ministry declared himself unfit for the position. In the seventh month of the year 1954, an inquiry censured civil servants in the ministry of agriculture over the enforced acquisition of farmland at Crichel Down, in Dorset. There was clearly no proposition that the minister was implicated, but he persisted on resigning. Sir Thomas Dugdale’s decision besides proving extreme resolute in his nature attracted foreign interests accompanied by praise. In the first instance, Sir Winston Churchill referred to his action as "chivalrous in the extreme". This also showed something in Sir Thomas Dugdale’s nature that he believed in his reputation and personality and shunned any element of tint (Sharon 1991). Another scenario of incredible decision among the leaders especially ministers was observed in Lord Carrington who was the Foreign Secretary in 1982. On the second day of April 1982, the Argentines inhabited the Falkland Islands. After three days Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary made his resignation from the docket. Interestingly, there were no suggestions that the act emanated from his mistake. This observed willingness performed by a minister to presume liability conceivably originates from a previous period during which politics was regarded as the defence of populace with private ways who had faith in an ultimate of public service. The principle assumes that a person responsible for the citizen’s service should be perfect in all aspects because people who are the subjects constitute all types of people. The perfection of the ministers implied that lack of perfection in the minister renders him or her unworthy hence; there is a perfect person in the population who can manage his position without mistakes (Aucoin, Peter & Jarvis 2005). This traditional understanding of the respective accountability of ministers and their deputies has never been unanimously accepted.  In actual fact, there have been several suggestions for modifications that would make assistant ministers more accountable facing parliamentary committees. According to the Lambert commission’s report of 1979 entitled, the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability realized that the situation whereby the traditional standard of ministerial responsibility was created had transformed.  The greater demands put on ministers, civil servants and their several mandates, make it tricky for them to work as the only connection between Parliament and the civil service.  The growth and complication of departmental operations indicates that supplementary measures are required to make sure that departmental administrators are satisfying their responsibilities and being held liable for the output in the respective dockets (Franks 1997).   The Commission established that other heads and politicians are not often held accountable in a methodical or logical manner for program organization and departmental management.  It is critical that the power of politicians and civil servants with regards to administration be explicitly outlined, and that the incorporated accountability be implemented as per the ideal stipulations.  As a result, the Commission opted that the accountability aspect be reviewed and based on reality in spite of the involved intelligence and economic benefits anticipated by the politicians, civil servants and the ministers. This is because, they are viewed as the principal administrative personnel and have to explain the trend of his performance of particular entrusted or allocated functions before the parliamentary committee whose purpose is to scrutinize the government expenditures (Hansard Society 2001). This function is specifically performed by the Public Accounts Committee. At the hub of Britain’s parliamentary scheme is the constitutional principle and practice of ministerial accountability.  Ministers of the Crown are liable and answerable to Parliament jointly, as section of Cabinet, and independently, as minister heading a department or a group of departments.  This convention results from the democratic principle which elected officials should be held responsible for the operation of the government (TBS 2005). Nonetheless, the situation is directly opposite especially in the current leadership ministries and the general politicians. There are numerous reasons in support of the trend and it seems to oppose the previous resignation in case of detected compromised accountability. The rationale behind the current persistence is claimed to originate from the need of comprehensive investigation of the matter to ascertain the true origin of the problem (Osbaldeston 1989). The modern minister is typically a career-driven qualified whose way of life relies on his ministerial earnings, and who is hesitant to quit, even over something which is his blunder, let alone something which is not (Butler and Butler 2000). When a dispute erupted in the Department of Transport involving Jo Moore, Stephen Byers's political consultant, and Martin Sixsmith, the director of communications, the minister's unchivalrous resolution was that they should quit and he should carry on. Recently, as Tony Blair and Downing Street closed ranks about the Transport Secretary, they appeared to be editing the canon of ministerial accountability still further. Not only were they exonerating Mr Byers of any fault for bad working dealings between his officers, they were mainly implying that Mr Byers could not be called to be answerable for what he has pronounced to the House of Commons, since he was not to blame for his own sentiments (Facer & Adam 2006). According to the Article 1 section three of the Ministerial Code released by Tony Blair in 1997, it stated that: "It is of principal essence that ministers avail exact and truthful information to the Parliament, rectifying any unintentional errors at the earliest prospect." Mr Byers never just made an erroneous statement in passing but did something greater than that. According to the Cabinet Office, the whole of his statement that almost lasted for one hour and questions with the consequential answers conference in the Commons dated on February 26th relied on the fake allegation that Martin Sixsmith had quit his docket in the Civil Service. Presuming that the provision was an "inadvertent error", there would be an implication apparent from the statements outlined in the code providing that Mr Byers is gratified to go back to Parliament and rectify himself from the previous sentiments. The Downing Street line is that the mistake has been resolved, in a media statement revealed by the Department of Transport. It also affirmed that the controversial occurrence was not Mr Byers's mistake whatsoever anyway (Cabinet Office 2005). It explained that the fault arose from a mere misapprehension amid Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram, who was the permanent secretary of the department, and Mr Byers was completely depending on what Sir Richard had explained to him. This poses to revolve the traditional conception of "ministerial responsibility" on its direct position and phase. Instead of the minister being liable for his officials' blunders, the permanent secretary is blamed for what the minister relayed (Flinders 2000). The observed controversies in accountability amongst the British politicians, ministers and the civil servants are paramount in every system that involves individuals with diversified views, especially professionals (Hansard Society 2004). The practice of the accounting officials has instituted a potential basis of accountability amongst the leaders in various categories, mainly before the parliamentary committees. According to McGrath Committee and the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons of 1985, the attainment of routine accountability in selected sections in the government compromises the real accountability. The report typically stated that “The policy of ministerial accountability weakens the capacity for genuine accountability on the particular section of the person that should be accountable.” This specifically referred to the senior official of the department. The committee also provided that it considered several arguments from various departments regarding the priority of the creation of a doctrine including other politicians’ responsibility concerning administration. This brought out the accountability of the assistant ministers to be answerable before the committees in the parliament. Therefore, the politicians have been made accountable for responsibilities that are then same as the accounting officers in the country and the government systems. The observations outlined have ensured that the issue of accountability is considered a communal facet, and to which all the associated officials are liable (HCPAC 2007). The accounting officer model presented in the British system has rendered the permanent secretary individually accountable to their operations and answerable before the Public Accounts Committee concerning the financial normalcy, modesty and the quality for money within the particular department (Bogdanor 2003). The accounting officer is mandated for personal duty for reservation of appropriate records of accounts sensible, economical management, the prevention of waste and unreasonable expenditure, and the effectual use of resources. The accounting officer has to provide his or her aim in writing format explicitly if any disagreement results between the officer and the minister. However, the minister has the right to continue though the accounting officer might ask for a written guideline to act. There are considerations by the parliamentary committee and in case the committee establishes that the accounting officer had received a written instructions from the minister, then the officer is not held responsible for any liability thereafter (Robert & Andrew 2003). This is the precise application of rational accountability that is straightforward and the proposition of its implementation would avail a system that meets both the theoretical and practical aspects. According to the provisions of this piece through the observable comprehensive analysis, the accountability of the British ministers, politicians and civil servants is real and does grant opportunity for mere inspirations (Butler & Butler 2000). Any arguments fostering the appearance of the accountability facet as a mere inspiration has no valid basis to attain any considerations. The British system is set to foster all requirements of accountability across all levels of administration. The committees’ reports and provisions outline a perfect model that ensures that accountability is embraced amongst all the officers engaged in the management (Hansard Society 2001). The reality of the British accountability is empowered by the fact of specificity in its considerations and ensures that the system picks only the specific individuals even if the fault occurred amongst a group. The model sets out to detect the actual source of the problem is established hence, no victimization among the involved personal management such as the ministers, politicians and the civil servants. The experienced stipulations in this case, are also perfect as demanded by the real accountability and its provisions. References Aucoin, P and Jarvis, M 2005, Modernizing Government Accountability:  A Framework for Reform.  Ottawa: Canada School for Public Service Bogdanor, Vernon (Ed.) 2003, The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press. Butler, D and Butler, G 2000, Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900-2000, Palgrave Macmillan. Cabinet Office July 2005, Ministerial Code, A Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidelines for Ministers. Facer M & Adam D., 2006, “General Election 2005”, House of Commons Library, Research Paper 05/33, 10 March, 2006. Finer, S E 1956 ‘The Individual Responsibility of Ministers’, Public Administration, 34, Flinders M 2000, The enduring centrality of individual ministerial responsibility. London: Routledge Franks, C. E. S 1997 “Not Anonymous:  Ministerial Responsibility and the British Hansard Society 2001, Report of the Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny: The Challenge for Parliament – Making Government Accountable, London: Vacher/Dod. Hansard Society 2004, Briefing Paper, Issues in Law Making, Number 5: Pre-Legislative Scrutiny. Oxford: Oxford publishers House of Commons Public Administration Committee (HCPAC)(2007), Machinery of Government Changes, Seventh Report of Session 2006-2007, HC672, HMSO, 15 June ,2007. House of Lords Committee on the Constitution 2002, Second Report of the Committee, 2002-03, Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom, HL Paper 28, 17 December 2002. House of Lords Committee on the Constitution 2004, Sixth Report of the Committee, 2003- 2004, The Regulatory State: Ensuring its Accountability, HL 68, TSO, 6 May 2004. Lambert T 1979, Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability (Allen Thomas Lambert, Commissioner, Final Report, Ottawa, March 1979 McGrath J 1985, Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (the Hon. James McGrath, Chairman), Third Report, Ottawa Osbaldeston and Gordon 1989, Keeping Deputy Ministers Accountable.  McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto Osbaldeston G 1989, Keeping Deputy Ministers Accountable. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Robert B and Andrew K 2003, Parliament Functions, Practice and Procedures. New York: Thomson Sweet & Maxwell Publishers Sharman L., 2001, Holding the Executive to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government, February 2001. Sharon L 1991, “Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility:  Every Reform Is Its Own Problem.”  Canadian Journal of Political Science, March 1991, pp. 91-120. Smith A., 2006, The Accountability of Deputy Ministers before Parliament. Ottawa: Library of Parliament Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) 2005, Government Response to the 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, August 2005. Read More