First, the government should be more open and accountable through innovation especially through prior ministers. In this situation, the Privy Council Office clearly states, that only the cabinet minister currently in office can be held liable to Parliament for any dispute at hand (McCall& Klay, 2010). Under these conditions, prior cabinet ministers are not responsible and cannot have any accusations held against them by parliament for any misdemeanor that took place during that person's time in office.
Second, the government should be more open and accountable through innovation especially through the phrasing of terminology. In this case, the Privy Council doctrine reveals that any wrongdoing is directed to the specific office and holder. So, any wrongdoing done by prior cabinet ministers must be brought to the attention of the current cabinet minister to answer. In essence, for cabinet minsters to answer for the faults of previous a cabinet minister evidently suggests a lack of accountability (Kluvers & Tippett, 2010). For the most part, this particular practice is a common occurrence in parliament. Therefore, parliament is not taking action and holding someone accountable for his or her wrongful deed. .
Third, the government should be more open and accountable through innovation especially through non-departmental agencies. For example, the policy and procedures implemented states that cabinet ministers are required to reveal any liable information to parliament by finding credible sources regarding the autonomy held by non-departmental agencies, which identifies the specific agency by statute (Bridgeman& Hunter, 2008). On this account, to have these particular guidelines noted the leader of the non-departmental agency are not held accountable to the cabinet minster.
Fourth, the government should be more open and accountable through innovation especially through the House of Commons.