DE LANGE stated that the doctrine of indiv idual ministerial responsibility has been significantly weakened over the past ten years or so, so that it can no longer be said, in our view, that it is a fundamental doctrine of the constitution 17 Nevertheless also in the Netherlands there have been complications in apply ing the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in some cases where acts of civil servants were involved The clssical doctrine is really quite smple. As is well-known, practice is much more complicated. First and most importantly, there is the problem of infomation: it is not always certa in that the civil servants give the right information to the ministers, and that it is right to blame the minister if the civil servants made an error in this respect Apart from cases in which ministers have been misled, or have not been fully informed by their civil servants, there have been cases in which civ il servants have not informed their m inister a bout possible implications When Winnie Sorgdrager became minister of Justice in 1994, one of her first acts was to put her signature undera deal with a crim inal informer. This deal had already been made under the previous minister. Although formally responsible, the minister was not infomed about certain implications of the deal. Among other things, the informer was pad an amount of money to set up a new life abroad with a new identity. It later tumed out-to great em harrassment of the minister of Justice-that the informer had duly received the money but hadalways rema ined in rijswijk(very nearthe Hague), where he lived Also, there are cases in which civil servants made a wrong assessment of available information and of the need to tell the minister A clear example is the case of the Biilmer-disaster. An El Al freight Jumbo crashed on an block of flats in a residential area in Am sterdam on october 4. 1992 Infommation regard ing the cargo was not speedily given to the minister of Transport but kept confidential by certain civil servants. This became apparent only during a parliamentary inquiry more than six years ater, and led to a fierce reaction both from the inquiry comm ittee and from the prime minister. It later turned out that the information had pobably been incorrect any way but the civil servants' attitude in this matter was a matter of heated debate Political responsibility of ministers is commonly described as risk liability, ie. that it is not necessary that a fault lies with the office-holder. It is a matter of dispute whether it is necessary that a minister can be blamed personally for acts or omissions of civil servants 18 Following Mark Freedland, one could compare govemmental organisations and Verhey200,p.3590DE LANGE 8 stated that the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility `has been significantly weakened over the past ten years or so, so that it can no longer be said, in our view, that it is a fundamental doctrine of the constitution.'17 Nevertheless, also in the Netherlands there have been complications in applying the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in some cases where acts of civil servants were involved. The classical doctrine is really quite simple. As is well-known, practice is much more complicated. First and most importantly, there is the problem of information: it is not always certain that the civil servants give the right information to the ministers, and that it is right to blame the minister if the civil servants made an error in this respect. Apart from cases in which ministers have been misled, or have not been fully informed by their civil servants, there have been cases in which civil servants have not informed their minister about possible implications. When Winnie Sorgdrager became minister of Justice in 1994, one of her first acts was to put her signature under a deal with a criminal informer. This deal had already been made under the previous minister. Although formally responsible, the minister was not informed about certain implications of the deal. Among other things, the informer was paid an amount of money to set up a new life abroad with a new identity. It later turned out - to great embarrassment of the minister of Justice - that the informer had duly received the money but had always remained in Rijswijk (very near the Hague), where he lived. Also, there are cases in which civil servants made a wrong assessment of available information and of the need to tell the minister. A clear example is the case of the Bijlmer-disaster. An El Al freight Jumbo crashed on an block of flats in a residential area in Amsterdam on October 4, 1992. Information regarding the cargo was not speedily given to the minister of Transport but kept confidential by certain civil servants. This became apparent only during a parliamentary inquiry more than six years later, and led to a fierce reaction both from the inquiry committee and from the prime minister. It later turned out that the information had probably been incorrect anyway but the civil servants' attitude in this matter was a matter of heated debate. Political responsibility of ministers is commonly described as risk liability, i.e. that it is not necessary that a fault lies with the office-holder. It is a matter of dispute whether it is necessary that a minister can be blamed personally for acts or omissions of civil servants.18 Following Mark Freedland, one could compare governmental organisations and 17. Jowell and Oliver 2000: viii. 18. Verhey 2001, p. 35 sqq