Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone

Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone In medieval times, the royal will was signified in documents bearing royal seal and was applied by one of the King’s ministers. Maitland has described this practice as being â€Å"the foundation for our modern doctrine of ministerial responsibility – that for every exercise of the royal power some minister is answerable†[1]. This essay will consider the modern doctrine of ministerial responsibility and examine the extent to which it forms, in modern political times, the cornerstone of accountability in the UK constitution. The convention of ministerial responsibility has been described by Loveland as â€Å"perhaps the most important non-legal rule within our constitution†[2]. The convention may be said to be concerned with regulating the conduct of government activities, both in respect of Ministers’ relations with each other, and with the two Houses of Parliament[3]. Ministerial responsibility comprises of two branches: collective responsibility and individual responsibility[4]. Collective ministerial responsibility may be further reduced into three main rules: the confidence rule; the unanimity rule, and; the confidentiality rule[5]. Through the operation of these rules, Ministers of the Government all appear to others to share the same policy opinions, whatever their own personal views. They are therefore collectively responsible for any decisions made by the Government and the Government as a whole should resign if it loses confidence. The doctrine of collective responsibility was stated in 2005 in the following form: â€Å"Collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees should be maintained.†[6] It therefore follows that where a Minister does not wish to be publicly accountable to Parliament and the electorate for a Governmental decision, he should resign from the Government. This occurred, for example, when Robin Cooke resigned over the Labour Government’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003[7]. Collective ministerial responsibility allows all members of Government to be accountable as a whole, thus avoiding arguments and blame-shifting between different Ministers and Departments. In this way, collective responsibility enhances the accountability of Government. Individual ministerial responsibility is the convention that a Minister answers to Parliament for his department, with praise and blame being addressed to the minister and not civil servants[8]. It has been said that â€Å"the fundamental purpose of the convention of individual ministerial responsibility is that it provides an important means of drawing information into the public domain†[9] The principle has often been associated with the idea that ministers must resign in cases of official wrongdoing[10] but it also encompasses Ministers’ on-going obligations to account to Parliament for their departments’ work[11]. However, in 2000, Jowell and Oliver suggested that ministerial responsibility to Parliament had been â€Å"significantly weakened over the last ten years or so†¦ so that it can no longer be said, in our view, that it is a fundamental doctrine of the constitution†[12]. Their opinion may have been influenced by the structural changes in government. During the 20th century tasks of the state expanded and vast Whitehall departments were created, with the effect that ministers could not oversee all aspects of the departments’ work[13]. Executive ‘Next Steps’ agencies created since 1988 had the specific purpose of delegating managerial power. Indeed, as Turner states: â€Å"Ministerial responsibility, however, is a different matter in the modern era. It has shrunk, it seems, almost to nothing, thanks, in no small part, to the creation of â€Å"independent† agencies to undertake the work of government.†[14] Where civil servants have great authority, the question arises as to what extent a Minister is responsible for any acts of maladministration, and whether maladministration results in a duty to resign. Is it fair to hold the Minister responsible? If not, who should be and how does this affect accountability? As Tomkins notes, during the Major Government’s office from 1990 to 1997 â€Å"Ministers and senior civil servants†¦ proposed a number of initiatives that sought significantly to undermine the tenets of individual responsibility†[15]. It was claimed that Ministers were responsible only for those decisions in which they were directly and personally involved. Michael Howard claimed, after serious failings leading to Prison escapes, that Ministers were responsible to Parliament only for policy matters, with â€Å"operational† failings falling outside the scope of individual responsibility[16]. Furthermore, it was argued that where Ministers had misled Parliament, they should resign only if they had done so knowingly rather than inadvertently[17]. In this way Ministerial responsibility was weakened, with accountability becoming more prominent. A minister may be said to be accountable to Parliament for everything which occurs in a department, having a duty to inform Parliament about the policies and decision of the department and to announce when something has gone wrong. However, this does not bring with it responsibility in the sense that the Minister takes the blame. In 1997 the Ministerial Code reformulated ministerial responsibility to the effect that: Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility; (b) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies; (c) it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister; (d) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest†¦; (e) Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information†¦[18] This new formulation would suggest that it is now ministerial accountability rather than responsibility which forms the cornerstone of accountability in the UK constitution. Unless there is fully open Government, there may be situations which arise where no person will take responsibility for actions and Ministers’ relationship with the Civil Service will be fundamentally changed. As Hennessy points out: â€Å"For the Civil Service the buck-stopping question is of crucial importance. Under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, ministers are the ultimate can-carriers for everything done by the civil service in their name†[19]. This will no longer be the case where a Minister’s responsibility ends with alerting Parliament to a problem. Bibliography Allen, M. Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition, (2008), OUP Bamforth, N., â€Å"Political accountability in play: the Budd Inquiry and David Blunkett’s resignation†, (2005), Public Law, 229 Bradley, A.W. Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson Longman Brazier, R., â€Å"It is a Constitutional Issue: Fitness for Ministerial Office in the 1990s†, (1994), Public Law, 431 Cooke, R., The Point of Departure (2003), Simon and Schuster Hansard, HC cols 31-46 (January 10, 1995) Hennessy, P., Whitehall, (1989), Secker Warburg Hough, B., â€Å"Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions: some recent concerns†, (2003), Public Law, 211 Jowell, J. Oliver, D., The Changing Constitution, 4th Edition, (2000), OUP Lewis, N. Longley, D., â€Å"Ministerial Responsibility: The Next Steps†, (1996), Public Law, 490 Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition, (2006), OUP, Maitland, Constitutional History, Marshall, G., Constitutional Conventions, (1984) Ministerial Code: a Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidance for Ministers (reissued, July 2005) Tomkins, A., The Constitution after Scott: Government Unwrapped, (1998), Clarendon Tomkins, A., Public Law, (2003), OUP Turner, A., â€Å"Losing heads over the lost data†, (2007), 171, Justice of the Peace, 841 1 Footnotes [1] Maitland, Constitutional History, pg 203 [2] Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition, (2006), OUP, pg 306 [3] Loveland, ibid, pg 306 [4] Allen, M. Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition, (2008), OUP, pg 251 [5] Marshall, G., Constitutional Conventions, (1984), pg 55-56 [6] Ministerial Code: a Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidance for Ministers (reissued, July 2005), para 6.17 [7] Cooke, R., The Point of Departure, pg 115 [8] Bradley, A.W. Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson Longman, pg 114 [9] Hough, B., â€Å"Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions: some recent concerns†, (2003), Public Law, 211 [10] See e.g. Lewis, N. Longley, D., â€Å"Ministerial Responsibility: The Next Steps†, (1996), Public Law, 490; Brazier, R., â€Å"It is a Constitutional Issue: Fitness for Ministerial Office in the 1990s†, (1994), Public Law, 431 [11] Bamforth, N., â€Å"Political accountability in play: the Budd Inquiry and David Blunkett’s resignation†, (2005), Public Law, 229 [12] Jowell, J. Oliver, D., The Changing Constitution, 4th Edition, (2000), OUP, p. viii [13] Bradley Ewing, ibid, pg 114 [14] Turner, A., â€Å"Losing heads over the lost data†, (2007), 171, Justice of the Peace, 841 [15] Tomkins, A., Public Law, (2003), OUP, pg 140-141 [16] Hansard, HC cols 31-46 (January 10, 1995) [17] Tomkins, A., The Constitution after Scott: Government Unwrapped, (1998), Clarendon, pg 41-45 [18] HC Deb, 19 March 1997, col 1046 [19] Hennessy, P., Whitehall, (1989), Secker Warburg, pg 502

Independent Employer Essay

An independent contractor is the worker whose taxes are not withheld or paid by the employer. Joshua is an independent contractor not an employee. Elements such as behavioral, financial and type of employment relationship will help us in determining who Joshua is. First, the Ark Bark has no full control over what Joshua does. This is evident from the point that he still deals with the other business enterprises as the sales person and even the VP of the company Fred Flood accepts the fact the Joshua makes his own decisions about his work in the company. Schneir and James (1999) view a person whose duties are not controlled by the company as an independent contractor. Dealing with the financial issue, we can vividly see that the business aspects of Joshua’s job are not fully controlled by the Ark Bark. Though, there is a bit of confusion in this area because Ark Bark chipped in to foot the travel expenses, business cards among others. These are just minor expenses. If he was an employee, he could have not incurred the greater business expenses, instead the employer could. The type of employment relationship also confirms that Joshua is an independent contractor. First there is no written contract for the contract between the two parties. Broadhurst Emily holds that, even though one can enter into a contract with the employee even minus a written document, it is mandatory that the person be provided with the staff handbook. Joshua’s claim that he was still winding up with the former companies was illogical for an employee. For one to be an employee, the contract between the employee and the employer is never gradual. Therefore, the fact that he accepted the contract while still holding onto the other jobs indicates that he was an independent contractor, who is not under any obligation of Ark Bark. What the company could do to make Joshua an independent contractor. If the company had an intention of making Joshua an independent contractor, they ought to have laid a better business contract for him. It was the duty of the company to keep to the employment Act of 1963 (passed in 1972 Act). This Act defines employees must be given written evidence on the major issues related to terms of employment, this include the mode of payment. This could have saved the controversies erupting over with the $2,500 was a salary or commission The company could as well fill the form SS-8 (PDF) with IRS to be certain about the work status of Joshua for the purposes of taxation. According to Barry and Jeffrey (1992), the form critically reviews the workers status based on the circumstances of employment. It was unnecessary for the company to provide other services like paying for printed stationery and business cards and travel expenses, when they intended to make him an independent contractor. Doing this creates some confusion since for an independent contractor; the company should not provide any tool of operation for the worker. This kind of confusion is tackled in Philip Inman’s (1999) scheme regarding payment between contractors and the employers. Are there ethical issues in the company’s action? No, there are no ethical issues involved. The way the company is trying to treat the man is unethical, according George Richard’s (1999) opinion on business ethics, even if the contract was made orally, it was better for the business to provide a staff handbook or any other written material indicating the terms of employment. The company breached law of a fair employment contract. Actually, if the intention of the company was to have Joshua as an independent contractor, what was the need of terminating his services when he claimed that he was winding down his links with the former companies? This is ethically unaccepted because it leads to harassment. According to Bowie, Norma (1999), business should not be accompanied with harassment. It is not very clear that why Joshua was terminated. But the obvious reason is due to the poor relationship between him and the company. Broadhurst Emily (2005) argues that such an act is unlawful since the law provides protection against unfair dismissal. Other than terminating his services, the company could have embarked on solving grievances at the work place as described by Broadhurst Emily. This could better their relationship instead. Is there room to alter the relationship? Yes there is room to make things different, but very limited. I say very limited because, Joshua is already out of Ark Bark company. If he was still a worker in the company, the company could simply revise the relationship bit, translate the contract in writing and forward details to the IRS. This could justify whether Joshua is an independent contractor or not. At the same time, I say that there is limited room since there are no legal issues preventing Joshua from re-applying to be an employer of the company. The success or failure of the re-union lies with the two parties.

How to Say to Teach in French

The French verbs apprendre, enseigner, instruire, and à ©duquer all mean to teach but have different uses and nuances. Learn how to recognize and use these four verbs correctly with this lesson. Teach a Technique or Something Apprendre means to teach a technique. It can only be used in the following constructions: apprendre quelque chose à   quelquun  - to teach someone somethingapprendre à   quelquun à   faire quelque chose - to teach someone (how) to do something Chantal apprend la guitare à   mon fils. -  Chantal is teaching my son (to play the) guitar. Il apprend aux enfants à   skier. -  He teaches children to ski. Pouvez-vous mapprendre à   lire? -  Can you teach me to read? Apprendre also means to learn and can be used in two constructions: apprendre noun and  apprendre à   infinitive Mon fils apprend la guitare. -  My son is learning (to play the) guitar. Les enfants apprennent à   skier. -  The children are learning to ski. Je veux apprendre à   lire. -  I want to learn to read. Teaching a Subject Enseigner means to teach in general or to teach a subject. It is used in the following construction: enseigner [quelque chose] [à   quelquun] The items in [brackets] are optional. Jenseigne le franà §ais aux adultes. -  I teach French to adults. Mon mari enseigne la chimie en France. -  My husband teaches chemistry in France. Nous enseignons depuis 5 ans. -  Weve been teaching for five years. Teach Someone Instruire  means to  teach someone. It cannot be used to specify what is being taught and is used only in the construction  instruire quelquun: Elle instruit les à ©tudiants à ©trangers. -  She teaches foreign students. Il faut instruire les enfants par exemple. -  You have to teach children by example. Teaching Éduquer  is used just like instruire, except that it is very  general: it can refer to vague  concepts, particularly morals and manners. Là ©glise doit à ©duquer son peuple. -  The church must educate its people. Ces enfants sont bien à ©duquà ©s. -  These children are well educated (well-mannered).

Background on the Killing of Harambe the Gorilla

On May 28, 2016, an employee at the Cincinatti Zoo and Botanical Garden shot and killed a silver-back gorilla named Harambe after a small child wandered from his mother and fell into Harambe’s habitat. The gorilla, who was alarmed by the child, a sudden interruption to his normally routine life in captivity, became agitated. Zoo officials chose to kill the gorilla before he could harm the child. The boy survived, suffering minor injuries and a concussion. The Debate Could there have been a better way to handle this situation, given how quickly the events transpired? This became the central question of a nationwide debate that transpired on social media and in news outlets, after video of the incident was published and circulated on Youtube. Many felt that the zoo could have handled the situation differently and believed that the killing of the animal was cruel and unnecessary, especially considering the silver-backed gorilla’s status as a critically endangered species. Petitions circulated on Facebook asking for the mother, a childcare worker, to be arrested for child endangerment. One petition garnered almost 200,000 signatures. The incident raised questions of zoo maintenance, security, and standards of care. It even reignited a public debate over the ethics of keeping animals in captivity. Investigations of the Incident The Cincinnati Police Department investigated the incident  but decided not to press charges against the mother, despite widespread public support for a negligence charge. The USDA also investigated the zoo, which had been cited previously on unrelated charges, including for security concerns in the polar bear habitat. As of August 2016, no charges have been filed. Notable Responses The debate over Harambe’s death was widespread, even reaching as high up as then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, who stated that it was â€Å"too bad there wasn’t another way.† Many public figures blamed the zookeepers, arguing that had the gorilla been given just a few more moments, he would have handed the child off to humans as other gorillas living in captivity have done. Others asked why a tranquilizer bullet could not have been used. Said Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, â€Å"The killing of Harambe saddened the nation, because this magnificent creature did not place himself into this captive setting and did nothing wrong at any stage of this incident.† Others, including zookeeper Jack Hanna and legendary primatologist and animal rights activist Jane Goodall, defended the zoo’s decision. Although Goodall originally stated that it seemed in the video that Harambe was trying to protect the child, she later clarified her position that the zookeepers did not have a choice. â€Å"When people come into contact with wild animals, life and death decisions sometimes have to be made,† she said. Significance to Animal Rights Movement Like the killing of Cecil the Lion by an American dentist one year prior, the widespread public outcry over Harambe’s death was viewed as a significant win for the animal rights movement, despite its tragic catalyst. That these issues became such high-profile stories, covered by The New York Times, CNN, and other major outlets and discussed on social media broadly, marks a change in the way the public engages with animal rights stories in general.