In democratic systems, ministerial accountability matters. This is why then-American president Harry S Truman famously declared, "The buck stops here." Accountability breeds responsibility, and those at the top cannot get away with blaming others for failings that occur on their watch.

If mistakes are made, legal blunders arise, or departmental lapses occur, accountability requires ministers to at least apologize and consider resigning; remedial action should also be initiated. In a classic example, Sir Thomas Dugdale, the agriculture and fisheries minister, resigned from the British government in 1954 over maladministration in his department. Although he had not created the problem (land seized in wartime but not returned to its rightful owner afterward), he took responsibility for the people working under him. However, no one seriously suggested that the prime minister, Sir Winston Churchill, as head of government, should also quit.

The tradition of "individual ministerial responsibility" is widely recognized, and not only promotes public confidence in governmental institutions but also reduces the risk of corruption.

Indeed, ministers ignore it at their peril. After the former British prime minister, Liz Truss, when promoting her latest book (Bank Job), was asked about her responsibility for the disastrous mini budget crisis of 2022 that crashed the British economy and toppled her government, she replied, "Not very much" (Oct 27) — which attracted derision. She even sought to blame her Treasury officials for the fiasco, a vivid demonstration of how leaders should not respond to crises. If disasters occur on their watch, leaders should always accept responsibility (even if not actually resigning), and not point the finger at their subordinates.

In its just-released 1,154-page report into the Tai Po fire tragedy that killed 168 people, the Independent Committee, chaired by Justice David Lok Kai-hong, made some damning findings. It found that "The relevant civil servants had ignored the real and legitimate concerns of the residents, leaving them in a helpless and desperate situation." Unscrupulous contractors, consultants and professionals were the "main culprits". It concluded that "The failings were systemic and pervasive (and) cannot be ignored."

Moreover, there was a failure to preempt obvious risks across five key areas, coupled with a widespread "lack of a sense of crisis". In this scenario, consequences were inevitable.

On Thursday, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, who had earlier pledged to "pursue accountability", held a press conference with seven principal officials, with the Independent Committee's report as the backdrop. He issued a public apology and announced a raft of remedial measures. He said he had accepted the resignation of the secretary for housing, Winnie Ho Wing-yin, stressing that a politically appointed team must bear political accountability.

Lee explained that although the tragedy "did not involve personal fault or misconduct, I believe the secretary for housing should bear political responsibility". When asked whether the net should be cast more widely, he emphasized that other department heads should also bear responsibility. He said, "They must learn from these lessons, better exercise their leadership roles, and exert greater efforts to deliver on the result-oriented governance philosophy."

When pressed on his own liability, Lee said he was "deeply pained" by the tragedy. Still, his main responsibility was to lead "the government to face and solve the current problems". His "number one" priority was therefore "comprehensive reform". If Lee had walked away and left his government in the lurch, it would have been a dereliction of duty, and it is to his credit that he has not only remained but also squarely confronted the issues.

Although some may regard Ho as the "fall-guy", this is not the end of the matter. Lee pointed out that apart from the Housing Bureau's Independent Checking Unit (ICU, which is being scrapped), three other government departments also bore responsibility. They were the Buildings Department, the Fire Services Department, and the Labour Department, and further developments should be expected.

An independent team is being created to investigate which officials should be held accountable and to consider appropriate disciplinary action. In other words, more heads may yet roll. Although Ho fell on her sword, others may need to follow her out the door.

Indeed, Lee was at pains to emphasize that authorities must ensure "criminal, political and administrative accountability".

Thus, criminal charges have already been brought against contractor Prestige Construction and Engineering Co Ltd, and project consultant Will Power Architects Co Ltd (which, the report concluded, bore primary responsibility), as well as seven individuals. They include manslaughter, conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, and tax evasion.

Moreover, a tightening of criminal law is also on the cards, which is welcome.

The Independent Committee observed that bid-rigging for site work involved many different parties, some linked to triad-organized crime groups. It said "reform has just begun", and recommended laws to criminalize bid-rigging across the construction industry with maximum penalties of 10 years' imprisonment and fines of up to HK$10 million ($38.24 million). This clearly resonated, and Lee identified bid-rigging as the "source of the problem".

Although, as with Churchill in 1954, there was no serious suggestion that Lee should quit, he pledged, “I will not let the same thing happen again." This was undoubtedly why he announced measures to clamp down on bid-rigging (including a dedicated police task force and improved intelligence gathering). They will center on reforms to the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (with their robust investigative powers, asset-freezing provisions, and penalties), and the Competition Ordinance (which will criminalize bid-rigging, targeting major building repair works). Although the details have yet to be finalized, Lee clearly means business.

A steering committee, chaired by Chief Secretary for Administration Eric Chan Kwok-ki, is also being established to oversee the reforms the report recommended (it made 120 recommendations, which will keep Chan very busy). The public expects results, together with transparency, legitimacy and checks and balances, and Chan's skills will be fully tested. There can be no question of sweeping difficult issues under the carpet, or imagining people will forget particular matters over time.

If public trust is to be restored, full accountability must be allied to effective criminal laws. As his responses show, Lee is determined to pursue these objectives, which will undoubtedly enhance his government's credibility. Members of the public must be able to see for themselves that the lessons of the tragedy have been fully learned, and only then can there be any closure.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.