In addition to the principle of collective responsibility, Ministers are iindividually responsible in political and legal terms for the implementation of policy and the exercise of relevant statutory powers and functions within their portfolios. They are also responsible for ensuring that there is effective communication with key officials, for the overall performance of the portfolio, and for appropriate professional conduct by Ministers and officials. These responsibilities require understanding of the scope and relevant issues in the portfolio and the ability to state the issues clearly in Cabinet, the Parliament and, when necessary, to the public.

There is an important boundary between routine policy within a Ministry (which Ministers should manage as part of their ordinary duties) and matters which should come to the Cabinet for decision. Section 4.1  described the matters that should be referred to Cabinet, including for example:

1. any activities that are likely to be widely controversial or unpopular;
2. plans for a national public consultation relating to a Minister’s portfolio on matters of public interest; and
3. reports on the likelihood or results of major litigation, and lessons learnt.

A general principle is that Cabinet expects Ministers to manage their own routine matters and not take up Cabinet’s time inappropriately. However, the doctrine of collective responsibility requires Ministers to exercise good judgment so that they consult Cabinet colleagues and bring any new or important policy matters for collective decision, in circumstances where they would have themselves regarded it as appropriate to have been consulted. A slightly different test is for a Minister to ask himself or herself whether the Prime Minister would be surprised if the matter was not brought to Cabinet.

The requirement of ‘good judgment’ requires all Ministers to consider carefully the submissions and reports of fellow Cabinet Ministers, so that collective decision-making is efficient and effective.

Ministers are individually responsible to the Parliament for their own activities as Ministers and the activities of public officers in their areas of responsibility.

Some ministerial portfolios are recognized in the Constitution or statutes, and aspects of the responsibilities of individual Ministers may be defined in law.

Ministers should carefully consider not only the boundaries between their individual and collective responsibilities, but also the circumstances in which the carrying out of their roles might be the subject of rules of practice or law that should be considered. For example, when Ministers attend regional or international meetings, they represent and speak for the country, as a whole, within their ministerial responsibility.

Of particular importance are portfolios that deal with the administration of the law. Hence the role of the Minister responsible for police is subject to a clear expectation that the Police Commissioner and the Royal Grenada Police Force will be independent regarding operational matters from the political leaders of the country. It is not appropriate for the Minister for the Police or the Minister for National Security to be involved with or give directions on operational matters of crime enforcement, such as investigation and prosecutorial powers. However, there are circumstances in which the Police Commissioner would be well-advised to ensure that his or her Minister was at least kept informed of significant developments. On broad policy and budget matters, however, the Minister for the Police’s role is not circumscribed.

The general test for all individual Ministers is that they should focus on ensuring that the government’s key policy agenda is well understood, and that steps are being taken to implement it. Also, they should be fully aware of key developments in their portfolios. This requires that Ministers are appropriately briefed on relevant administrative, managerial and operational matters. But there is always a boundary concerning operational decisions that should be respected to avoid intrusion into the responsibilities of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry - for example a Minister should not decide personal, individual matters, but should set the broad policy under which decisions are made on individual cases and ensure that the system is working effectively.