2.3 – The concept of ministerial responsibility
This week it emerged that Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had let out her family home in the London Borough of Southwark while failing to obtain the required “selective licence” for the property. The letting was for about £3,200 a month. She admitted that the mistake was ‘inadvertent’ and stated that as soon as she became aware of the issue she applied for the licence. The letting agent used by Reeves publicly accepted that it had offered to apply for the licence on her (and her husband’s) behalf but did not complete it when a staff member left. Emails between the letting agent and Mrs Reeves’s husband showed that the requirement for a licence had been flagged. The Prime Minister Keir Starmer was informed, as was the independent adviser on ministerial standards; the adviser’s view (published in a letter) was that it was an “unfortunate but inadvertent error” and there was “no evidence of bad faith”. The Prime Minister concluded that further investigation was not required, and turned down calls from opposition parties for her resignation.
Reeves has formally apologised, taken responsibility, applied for the licence and received the Prime Minister’s backing. The matter has been declared closed for now (insofar as no formal further investigation or sanction is being pursued). However, critics argue the episode damages public trust, particularly given her prior support for stricter landlord licensing schemes and the broader context of the Government emphasising standards and integrity, which had played a key part of Starmer’s attempts to position himself – and Labour – as a more upstanding alternative to the Conservatives when he was Leader of the Opposition.
Whilst the correspondence suggests that the fault was predominantly as a result of the letting agency, this episode had the potential to end Reeve’s tenure as a minister. The convention of individual ministerial responsibility (IMR) holds that ministers are individually responsible to Parliament for their own conduct and for that of their department and must account, explain, apologise or resign when things go wrong. Although in practice the threshold for resignation is flexible, the underlying idea is that ministers must maintain high standards of propriety, be prepared to take responsibility and accept consequences if there are serious failings. In this case, the fact that a minister failed to comply with a legal requirement for a property they own and earn rental income from – while previously advocating regulation of landlords – means the risk of being seen as violating the standards of the code (and the convention) was elevated.
Under the current Ministerial Code, ministers are required to behave in a way that “upholds the highest standards of propriety” and must give accurate information to Parliament; where they knowingly mislead Parliament, they are expected to offer to resign. Even without misleading Parliament, a failure of this sort could lead to a minister being judged to have lost the confidence of their Prime Minister or Parliament under the convention of IMR. If the adviser had found evidence of bad faith, or the Prime Minister judged that the conduct undermined public confidence, the normal consequence could be stepping down.
Reeves avoided resignation because the adviser judged the error inadvertent, she remedied it promptly, and the Prime Minister retained confidence. But the scandal nonetheless illustrates the way the IMR convention looms over ministerial behaviour – ministers must not only avoid wrongdoing but avoid the appearance of wrongdoing or neglect, be ready to explain and accept responsibility, and could be forced out if standards are judged to have been breached in a more serious way.