Abstract
Proposals for the creation of the ‘Next Steps’ executive agencies seemed to carry with them the possibility of significant change to the theory and practical operation of the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility. As we have seen in the previous chapter, in its unpublished version, the Ibbs report is said to have proposed fundamental managerial and constitutional change, involving, inter alia, the abandonment of individual ministerial responsibility in its traditional form. (Hennessy, 1989, 620) The published report, heavily influenced by the Treasury and Downing Street, was more muted, but still veered between flirting with a form of constitutional radicalism which implied the need to rethink extant notions of ministerial responsibility, and an obvious desire to placate constitutional traditionalists. Compare and contrast the following extracts from the published version:
Clearly ministers have to be wholly responsible for policy, but it is unrealistic to suppose that they can actually have knowledge in depth about every operational question. The convention that they do is in part the cause of the overload we observed. We believe it is possible for Parliament, through ministers, to regard managers as directly responsible for operational matters. (Efficiency Unit, 1988, para. 23)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cm 524, 1988: Civil Service Management Reform: the Next Steps: Government Reply to the Eighth Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, 1987–88, HMSO, November 1988.
Davies and Willman, 1991: What Next? Agencies, Departments and the Civil Service, Institute for Public Policy Research, 1991.
Dunleavy, 1992: Patrick Dunleavy, quoted in Peter Hennessy and Simon Coates, ‘Bluehall, SW1?’, Strathclyde Analysis Paper Number 11, University of Strathclyde, 1992.
Efficiency Unit, 1988: Cabinet Office Efficiency Unit, Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps, HMSO, 1988.
Efficiency Unit, 1991: Making the Most of Next Steps: the Management of Ministers’ Departments and their Executive Agencies, Cabinet Office, May 1991.
Finer, 1956: ‘The Individual Responsibility of Ministers’, Public Administration, Vol 34, No 4, 1956.
Greer, 1992: Patricia Greer, ‘The Next Steps Initiative: the Transformation of Britain’s Civil Service’, Political Quarterly, Vol 63, No 2, April-June 1992.
Hennessy, 1989: Peter Hennessy, Whitehall, Secker and Warburg, 1989.
McDonald, 1992: Oonagh McDonald: Swedish Models: the Swedish Model of Central Government, Institute for Public Policy Research, 1992.
Price Waterhouse, 1991 and 1992: Price Waterhouse, Executive Agencies: Facts and Trends, No 3, March 1991; No 4, March 1992.
Pyper, 1987: ‘The doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility in British Government: theory and practice in a new regime of parliamentary accountability’, PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, 1987.
Pyper, 1991: ‘Ministerial Departures from British Governments, 1964–90: A Survey’, Contemporary Record, Vol 5, No 2, Autumn 1991.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pyper, R. (1995). Ministerial Responsibility and Next Steps Agencies. In: Giddings, P. (eds) Parliamentary Accountability. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13682-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13682-7_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-13684-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-13682-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)