The prerogative has allowed powers to move from Monarch to Ministers without Parliament having a say in how they are exercised

While the existence of the convention of ministerial responsibility does heighten the accountability of the government to Parliament, it is largely ineffective. There are no strict rules over when a minister should resign or not and, therefore, as Barnett states "... existence and acceptance of responsibility does not necessarily lead to resignation."2 Whether a minister decides to resign or not largely depends on the ministers own sense of guilt and responsibility and the pressure put on him by his party. Estelle Morris, for example, took responsibility for the A-level fiasco in 2002, where as Byers did not resign until an outbreak of public and media criticism made his position untenable. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a piece of legalisation which explains exactly when a minister is responsible and when he is not and Parliament should be able to induce resignations in the event of the legalisation being broken.

Ministers, however, do need some prerogative powers at their discretion for effective administration and government control, and indeed, if parliament was to take on all of the different aspects of the ministerial prerogative it would become overwhelmed with overseeing a wide range of decisions and actions. In addition, it is often necessary for the prerogative to be exercised quickly and this would not be possible if all powers were subject to the scrutiny of parliament. In the case of Burma Oil V Lord Advocate (1965) AC 75, for example, the prerogative was used as an emergency power when the Japanese invaded Burma and the army commanded that the oil installations should be destroyed, so they could not be used by the enemy.3 Therefore, not all powers under the royal prerogative should be subject to greater scrutiny from Parliament. It is only those which gravely affect the lives of the public that Parliament should review.

As Jack Straw stated, "the royal prerogative has no place in a modern Western democracy... only part of our constitutional arrangement has been endorsed by Parliament. The rest derives from royal prerogative... Accountability of the executive is fundamental to any democracy... where power is not based on statue but on the royal prerogative, it is accountability that suffers."4 In order to make ministers accountable to Parliament it is necessary to define their powers and the circumstances in which they can exercise them under statue. As well as, giving greater parliamentary scrutiny over the use of powers which greatly affect the lives of the British people. However, with the British constitution not being codified and the wide scope of the royal prerogative powers it may improve impossible to do so.

Bibliography

Loveland "Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights" (The Bath Press, Bath, 2004)

Barnett H "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Cavendish Publishing, Australia, 2004)

Hogan G "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1999)

M and J Spencer "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2000) pg 2 M and J Spencer "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2000) pg 28

"Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament" (March 2004) www.publications.parliament,uk/pa/cm200204/cmseelct/cmpubadm/422/42202.htm

"Unfinished Business? Ministerial Powers and the Prerogative" (May 2003)- http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_no_12.cfm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407374,00.html

Cited in Barnett H "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Cavendish Publishing, Australia, 2004) pg 289

2 Barnett H "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Cavendish Publishing, Australia, 2004) pg 296

3 M and J Spencer "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2000) pg 28

4 http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407374,00.html