Breaking the Code: What a Lack of Accountability Could Mean for the English Political System

As Donald Trump faces his civil fraud trial in New York, we are witnessing history in the making. Trump has become the first ever president in United States history to face indictment for criminal charges in an unprecedented reminder that no one is above the law (Baker, 2023). The presidential office has been seen to provide a certain level of immunity and this indictment has crossed a line in the US that there is potentially no coming back from. I, for one, see this as a welcome change that gives worthy cause to question the accountability of our own politicians in Westminster and what this means for the political system as a whole.

The Ministerial Code is what holds ministers accountable to Parliament and the wider public for any actions during their tenure. This includes not only personal actions but also the actions of their entire department. However, crucially, ministerial accountability is a constitutional convention. This means that it is a non-legal precedent or rule and is therefore legally unenforceable (UCL, n.d.). Essentially, accountability is an expectation rather than an obligation (Hazell, 2015). Whilst this is laid out in writing in the Ministerial Code, the document again has no legal basis (Haddonalasdair de Costa, 2019). This raises the question, ‘Is the Ministerial Code truly enforceable?’. The process of responding to any breach of the Ministerial Code entails an investigation by either an independent advisor or by the cabinet secretary. Ultimately though, the final authority for decisions lies with the prime minister. As well as this, an investigation cannot commence without the prime minister’s consent, again raising concerns over the impartiality of the process.

Therefore, we are left in a position where politicians are at the whim of the prime minister rather than having an established set of concrete and legally enforceable rules. At worst, this leads to situations such as Priti Patel being found to have broken the code by Sir Alex Allen. This was due to bullying allegations that were levelled against her, yet she still kept her job after the prime minister overruled the findings of the independent enquiry (BBC, 2020). This came with massive criticism from government opposition and the public, including from Sir Ed Davey, head of the Liberal Democrat party at the time. Sir Davey stated this was a clear indication of there being ‘one rule for him and his friends and another rule for everyone else’ (BBC, 2020). At best, individuals choose to take accountability themselves (although this seems to have gone out of the window with the election of recent conservative governments) or face substantial enough political pressure that their position is no longer tenable. In any case, it is more often than not a question of the temperaments of individuals rather than a concrete political process.

When the Ministerial Code has been brought into question in recent years, we see time and time again political convenience and cronyism are prevailing over the evidence found by independent inquiries. The mercurial enforcement of the Ministerial Code and lack of real accountability for our politicians only add to the growing disillusionment and the public lack of trust in politicians. Accountability is crucial to the sustainability of an effective government as it is essential to ensuring politicians act with honesty and in line with the views of the country or their respective constituents.

The case of the Ministerial Code is one of many that signals a wider problem of the overreliance within the UK’s political system on conventions and so-called good sportsmanship. This leaves it more vulnerable to underhandedness and gives a political advantage to a lack of integrity. Politicians who are not bound by legal consequences will continue to push the boundaries of political conventions. To secure and protect the efficacy and integrity of the Westminster political system, there must be a process to convert conventions into statutory law.

Bibliography

Baker, P. (2023, March 30). A President Faces Prosecution, and a Democracy Is Tested . New York Times.

BBC. (2020, November 20). Priti Patel: Bullying Inquiry head quits as PM backs home secretary. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

Haddonalasdair de Costa, C. (2019, April 26). What is the ministerial code? Retrieved from Institute for Government: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/ministerial-code

Hazell, R. (2015). The United Kindgom. In B. Galligan, & S. Brenton, Constitutional Conventions in Westminster Systems: Controversies, Changes and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mason, R., & Allegretti, A. (2022, May 27). Boris Johnson accused of changing ministerial code to ‘save his skin’. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/27/boris-johnson-changes-ministerial-code-to-remove-need-to-resign-over-breaches

UCL. (n.d.). What are constitutional conventions? Retrieved from UCL Constitution Unit: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-are-constitutional-conventions#:~:text=Constitutional%20conventions%20are%20rules%20of,exercising%20powers%20to%20the%20full.