Ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention applicable to governments using the Westminster system. In this system, a Cabinet minister bears the ultimate responsibility for the actions or omissions of his ministry or department.
There is no doubt that in Malta we follow this system in the sense that the Standing Orders and procedures of the House of Representatives are not too far removed from the British model. In recent years, however, we note that this notion of ministerial accountability is being slowly eroded here and many ministers frequently try and exonerate themselves from accountability by arguing ignorance of misbehaviour. The electorate in general, however, does not seem to be too amused and will surely give its verdict in due course.
This notwithstanding, there is no law or code that clearly defines the juridical notion of ministerial accountability, and this perhaps is unfortunate. The Constitution is absolutely mute in this regard and so is the code of ethics for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, promulgated in January 1994. This principle, therefore, is the result of custom but, nonetheless, is very much within the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
In the UK, the formulation of a set of guidelines took place during the Crichel Down affair in 1954 in which the then Minister of Agriculture resigned. It was inferred that the minister in question would be exempt from personal accountability only in instances where the mistakes committed by officials within the relative department would not prove to be an important issue of policy or where there was no serious claim to individual rights.
It is also worth referring to the resignations in 2002 of Steven Byers and Estelle Morris, UK secretaries of state for transport and education. Here, both ministers resigned after they acknowledged that they had failed in the oversight or supervision of their departments and, thus, in the fulfilment of their ministerial role.
In Malta, over the last decade or so, there has never been a case of any government minister conceding to ministerial accountability, even in instances of gross mismanagement and institutionalised mismanagement or corruption in their respective departments. In the UK, as stated, failure to properly oversee the proper running of a particular department, which could cause serious prejudice, has always led to resignations. In our country, in a subtle way, government ministers have been shifting their individual ministerial responsibility onto their subordinates, including heads of departments and senior civil servants. This trend goes contrary to the dictates of parliamentary democracy where, as stated, the minister must, as a rule, bear the brunt of serious failings within his ministry.
Lately, we have experienced the unfortunate episode concerning the Ministry of Education, where substantial European funds have been frozen. On account of this, we are informed that over 500 Maltese students will be adversely affected. In the aftermath of all this, the Labour spokesman for education has called on the minister to assume political accountability and resign. The minister argues that she was not directly involved in the matter and was not kept abreast of the affair as much as she ought to have been. Three senior ministry officials did, however, eventually resign. One of these is none other than the permanent secretary himself.
Article 92 of the Constitution defines both the role of the minister and that of the permanent secretary. Strangely, however, these roles are quite similar from a political perspective because they are both empowered with the general direction and supervision of the particular department. They are both politically responsible for what goes on within the department concerned and the only difference is one of degree, in the sense that the ultimate responsibility rests with the minister. Thus, having the permanent secretary resign due to his failings as general supervisor of the ministry would signify how much more the minister in question has to politically answer for.
To my mind, in this case, either the Prime Minister should have refused the resignation of the permanent secretary or else insisted also on the resignation of the minister. The Constitution makes them both politically accountable, except that the latter is more so.
Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.