Confidentiality and ministerial responsibility'In principle, any disagreement between government ministers must remain confidential. In practice, it is very difficult to ensure that a united front among Cabinet ministers is presented to the public, particularly when political issues are divisive and individual ministers cannot, or simply refuse, to stand together. All right. “Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayCollective ministerial responsibility is a crucial part of the UK constitution; the government is responsible for its decisions and actions before Parliament. According to the Cabinet Manual (2011), paragraph 13: a minister who cannot accept collective responsibility is expected to resign. Ministers can express their opinions, either by disagreeing or agreeing privately, but once the decision has been formally approved by cabinet, each member of government has the responsibility to accept and acknowledge the decision in public. However, it is very difficult to keep the opinions and decisions of all members of the government private, especially if they have different points of view. This paper will critically discuss the importance of keeping firm confidential information private and analyze past situations where the collective responsibility agreement was violated. Furthermore, the paper will also discuss measures that can be adopted by Parliament to ensure better confidentiality in the cabinet. Ministerial responsibility operates under two different elements: (1) Collective ministerial responsibility: applies to all ministers to ensure that members of the cabinet publicly respect the decision made by the government. However, if the minister cannot respect the decision, he must resign. (2) Individual ministerial responsibility: a minister to be responsible for his own personal action must resign. Both conventions are set out in the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual is a document published by the Cabinet Office in 2011 which sets out the conventions, laws and rules affecting the operation of the British government. The document clearly emphasizes that collective responsibility is a convention rather than a requirement that applies in all situations, paragraph 4.2: "Except where explicitly set aside." In 1977, Prime Minister James Callaghan said: "I certainly think the doctrine should apply, except in those cases where I announce that it does not." The purpose of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility is (a) to display political strength through a unified government that speaks formally with one voice (b) to promote privacy by maintaining confidential "internal" discussions about the government. However, if a minister cannot accept collective responsibility, he or she must resign in order to maintain the integrity of government. For example, Robin Cook, former Foreign Secretary, resigned in 2003 because he could not accept the decision for military action in Iraq without an international agreement. He said: “In principle, I think it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support. In practice, I believe it is against Britain's interests to set a precedent for unilateral military action. » The second factor threatening government privacy is information leaks; data revealed or published without the consent of other ministers can seriously harm thereputation of the firm. The government is extremely concerned about leaks of confidential information, as they violate the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. Leaks of confidential information can cost ministers their jobs, as in the case of Jimmy Thomas, a Labor minister who resigned in 1930 after leaking budget secrets to the Conservative MP. Ministers' discussions are frequently published in press articles. The question arises as to how long the minister is bound by the collective responsibility agreement, after leaving his position as government minister. In the main case Attorney General v Johnathan Cape LTD, Crossman, who was a member of the firm, kept a personal diary to make notes of discussions held at meetings. by cabinet ministers. His intention was to publish the journal after his retirement. However, he died prematurely and his wife took the necessary steps to publish the information, ahead of schedule. The government sought an injunction to protect the confidential information from further publication. The editors debated that Cabinet confidentiality is hardly an obligation, since there is no written law that prevents the publication of confidential government information. Lord Widgery supported the newspaper's publisher and no injunction was sought for other publications. Second, due to the expiration of a ten-year period, the court declared that the information had lost its confidential character. Lord Widgery said: “The Attorney General must demonstrate (a) that such publication would constitute a breach of trust; (b) that the public interest requires that publication be restricted, and (c) that there is no other fact of public interest contradictory and more compelling than that pleaded. Furthermore, when the court is asked to prohibit such publication, it must carefully consider the extent to which any relief is necessary to ensure that the restrictions are not imposed beyond the strict requirements of the public interest. . » Protecting confidential government information is extremely important. preserve the identity of the minister from damage and maintain political strength. Information leaks and a government that supports different voices can constitute a segregated legal system that can negatively impact the country's image. The duty of confidentiality must be enforced within cabinet between ministers, which is a legal obligation that protects confidential information to be shared with a third party, without consent. At common law, the duty of confidentiality is primarily enforced by lawyers and doctors who are legally obligated to preserve the confidential information of their clients or patients by preventing the disclosure of information to a third party, without authorization. However, the Convention on the Duty of Confidentiality and Collective Responsibility do not constitute strong rules that could prevent a minister from disclosing confidential cabinet information. Further action should be taken by Parliament to limit the minister's power to take unsatisfactory action. Legislation can be introduced to strictly limit the minister's actions so as not to further damage the government's image. For example, the Data Protection Act 2018 is a written regulation that provides clear guidance to businesses and organizations to ensure that individuals' information is used fairly, lawfully and transparently. Therefore, a violation of data protection law may result in.