Confidentiality and Ministerial Responsibility'In principle, any disagreements between Government Ministers should be kept private. 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 agree. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Collective ministerial responsibility is a crucial part of the British 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 should resign. Ministers can express their opinions, either disagreeing or agreeing in private, but once the decision has been officially approved by the cabinet, every member of the cabinet 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 confidential, especially if they have different points of view. This paper will critically discuss the importance of keeping confidential cabinet information confidential and will analyze past situations where the collective responsibility convention has been breached. Furthermore, the paper will also discuss actions that can be taken by Parliament to ensure better privacy in the cabinet. Ministerial accountability operates under two different elements: (1) Collective ministerial accountability: applies to all ministers to ensure that cabinet members publicly respect the decision made by the government. However, if the minister fails to respect the decision, he will have to resign. (2) Individual ministerial responsibility: a minister must resign to be responsible for his personal action. Both conventions are reported in the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual is a document published by the Cabinet Office in 2011 that sets out conventions, laws and rules that influence the workings of the British government. The document clearly highlights that collective responsibility is a convention rather than a requirement that applies in all situations, paragraph 4.2: “Except where it is explicitly set aside”. In 1977, Prime Minister James Callaghan said: “I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except where I announce that it does not.” The purpose of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility is to (a) display political strength through a unified government that formally speaks with one voice (b) promote privacy by maintaining confidential "internal" government discussions. However, if a minister fails to accept collective responsibility, he or she is expected to resign, to maintain integrity in government. For example, Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary who resigned in 2003 because he could not accept the decision to take military action in Iraq without an international agreement, said: “In principle I believe it is wrong to take military action without an international agreement. broad international support. In practice I believe it is against Britain's interests to set a precedent for unilateral military action." The second factor that threatens government privacy is information leakage; data revealed or published without the consent of other ministers can be highly damaging to the cabinet's reputation. The Government is extremely concerned about the leak of confidential information as this violates the Convention on Ministerial Collective Responsibility. Leaks of confidential information can cost you your jobministers, as in the case of Jimmy Thomas, a Labor minister who resigned in 1930 after leaking budget secrets to a Conservative MP. Cabinet ministers' discussions are often published in the press. The question arises whether for how long the minister is bound by the collective responsibility convention, after leaving the position of minister in the government. In the main case of Attorney General v Johnathan Cape LTD, Crossman, who was a member of the cabinet, kept a personal diary to take notes of discussion held at meetings by cabinet ministers. His intention was to publish the diary after retirement. However, he died prematurely and his wife took steps to publish the information before the expected deadline. The government sought an injunction to protect the confidential information from further publication. The editors argued that government confidentiality is hardly an obligation, as there is no written law preventing the publication of classified government information. Lord Widgery supported the journal's publisher and no injunction against further publication was enforced. Secondly, due to the ten-year time frame, the court declared that the information had lost confidentiality. 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 limited, and (c) that there are no other facts of public interest that are contradictory and more convincing than those relied upon. Furthermore, the court, when asked to prohibit such publication, must carefully consider the extent to which relief is necessary to ensure that restrictions are not imposed beyond the narrow requirement of public necessity. “Protecting the government's confidential information is extremely important to preserve the minister's identity from harm and support political strength. News leaks and a government that supports diverse voices can represent a segregated legal system that can have a negative impact on the country's image. In the Cabinet of Ministers, the duty of confidentiality should be applied, which is a legal obligation that protects confidential information that can be shared with third parties, without consent. In common law, the duty of confidentiality is mainly enforced by lawyers and doctors who are legally required to preserve the confidential information of their clients or patients by preventing the disclosure of information to third parties, without authorization. However, the Convention on the Duty of Confidentiality and Collective Responsibility are not robust rules that could prevent a minister from disclosing confidential cabinet information. Parliament should take further action to limit the Cabinet Minister's power to take unsatisfactory action. Legislation can be introduced to strictly limit the minister's action from further damage to the government's image. For example, the Data Protection Act 2018 is a written regulation that provides clear guidance to companies and organizations to ensure that people's information is used fairly, legally and transparently. Therefore, breaches of the Data Protection Act can result in serious criminal offences, including fines worth millions of pounds or possible prison sentences, depending on the severity of the case. Introducing such a regulation can protect confidential government information and provide clear guidance for everyone to follow. the cabinet representatives. Therefore, it can strongly promote government unity as all classified information will remain "internal". Secondly, the unauthorized publication of information or le.