3 WHY OUTSIDE APPOINTMENTS?
15. Ministers are drawn from the governing party
in Parliament, and sometimes from outside, for a variety of complex
reasons.[14] However,
we can assume that certain factors will come into play. Merit
is one. People with previous ministerial experience - or with
shadow cabinet status - may expect to be accommodated. The Prime
Minister will probably also want to have gender, ethnic and regional
balances in mind when forming his administration.
16. A Prime Minister in a secure position, with
a large parliamentary majority, may decide to appoint people who
are of a similar political stripe or who are friends and colleagues
who share a common history and outlook. As Jonathan Powell put
it, "You are going to choose people who will support the
Government".[15]
The 'proximity factor' may also be a consideration; people who
work closely with the leader of a political party and with a Prime
Minister may get rapid promotion.
17. On the other hand, a Prime Minister in a weaker
position, with a smaller majority, may have to accommodate people
with a wider range of view points from his or her political party
and appoint people he or she would not otherwise choose. Sir John
Major acknowledged that "it was necessary to keep a political
balance within the party, so I had to look at a political balance
as well as straightforward merit".[16]
18. It follows that the decision to make outside
appointments as ministers will, similarly, be for a range of complex
reasons.
Fewer options?
19. The principal argument we heard in favour of
the appointment of ministers from outside Parliament was that
the requirement to recruit from the legislature limits the Prime
Minister's choice of prospective ministers. Some of our witnesses
compared this system of appointing ministers unfavourably with
that used in some, predominantly European, countries where the
head of government regularly appoints ministers who are not members
of Parliament. Jonathan Powell observed that:
in Europe, pretty much all of continental Europe,
and the US your gene pool from which you can choose is the entire
country to be ministers, whereas here we have 300-odd MPs on the
government benches…It is a much narrower group from which
you can choose.[17]
20. They went on to argue that the number of potential
ministers could be further reduced over time. Recent political
history has seen two long periods of the same political party
being in power—the Conservatives from 1979 until 1997 and
Labour from 1997 to date. Sir John Major told us that the length
of time his party had spent in office had caused him difficulties
when forming a government:
the longer the government's life exists, the
more people have passed through being minister, are no longer
a minister, are unlikely to come back and the gene pool correspondingly
reduces. [18]
Lord Turnbull agreed. He also drew attention to the
possibility that reductions in a Government's majority over the
time it had been in power might also reduce the number of people
available to serve in office.[19]
21. Jonathan Powell drew attention to another potential
aspect of this issue. A party coming into government after a long
absence may find itself with a scarcity of people who, in the
Prime Minister's view, are ready to take up ministerial office.
As he put it, "lots of people do not think it is a very good
idea to go and be an MP and sit on opposition benches for 18 years."[20]
22. However, there are three assumptions underpinning
these arguments that can be challenged. The first is that former
ministers, having 'done their time', would not wish to return
to ministerial life. Ministers leave government for a variety
of reasons, sometimes by choice, sometimes under duress and sometimes
for reasons which are unclear—often for reasons that are
related to politics rather than competence. Some former ministers
who have left government may be able to return to a different
post or even the same post under different circumstances—and
some have done so.
23. Secondly, these arguments give the impression
of Prime Ministers that have meticulously gone through their parliamentary
parties and exhausted every possible minister.[21]
The current situation does not bear this out. Immediately following
the last three general elections, the Labour Party held 418 (1997),
412 (2001) and 355 (2005) seats in the House of Commons. 164 current
Labour MPs, nearly half the total, have never held ministerial
office, including a dozen or more who were previously leaders
of major local authorities. By no stretch of the imagination had
the reservoir of talent on the government benches been exhausted.
24. Thirdly, the size of government is something
that, below a statutory upper limit, is within the gift of the
Prime Minister. As Professor King pointed out, much of the perceived
problem comes about because increasingly large administrations
are being appointed from a relatively small number of people.[22]
Part of the motivation to appoint a large administration is to
secure a significant payroll vote. As Jonathan Powell put it:
If the Prime Minister had his way, he would appoint
every single backbencher in his party to a ministerial job to
ensure their vote.[23]
We intend to examine this issue in more depth in
a separate report. However, for our purposes it is sufficient
to note that the size of government has increased through Prime
Ministerial choice.
25. The reasons why a Prime Minister chooses particular
individuals to be ministers are complex. Over time the number
of prospective new ministers within a governing party is likely
to diminish. However, where a Prime Minister considers himself
short of prospective ministers in the House of Commons, this is
often because candidates are being sifted out because of politics
or personality rather than competence. It is likely that some
outside appointments are similarly driven by political and personality
considerations rather than a lack of options on the government
benches.
Career politicians
26. Similar arguments apply when looking at the range
of experience that is brought into government. The upper reaches
of politics have, in common with many disciplines, become a specialist
career dominated by people who have pursued it—or closely
related fields—for the majority of their working lives.
Sir John Major argued there was a "shortfall" in certain
areas of expertise and experience:
If you compare the House of Commons today with,
say, 30, 40 years ago, where are the businessmen, the farmers,
the soldiers? … Politics has changed, I do not disparage
the role of someone who is a professional politician at all, it
is the question of whether you have the right mixture in the House
of Commons.[24]
27. Lord Turnbull spoke of a "growing gulf"
between the requirements of managing a government department,
particularly where technological and scientific issues were concerned,
and the experience of ministers:
There is a growing trend for people to come into
politics more or less straight from university. They lick envelopes
in Central Office, become a Special Adviser, on and on it goes,
and by the time they are in their mid-thirties they are Cabinet
Ministers, barely touching the sides of real life.[25]
He went on to argue that it was increasingly difficult
to have a successful career in another field and then enter politics
at a senior level:
You have no chance if you come in at 50 [years
old] of getting anywhere in politics now, so how can you develop
in a senior position in local government or in trade unions or
in business? You are so far behind in the climb up the greasy
pole that you never catch up.[26]
28. There are two separate issues here. One is the
range of experience within the House of Commons; the other is
the experience of people who have been brought into government.
Career politicians have increasingly dominated the top positions
of government. As Professor King wrote as long ago as 1981:
Most of the top posts in British politics and
government have been occupied for many years by such career politicians.
Until quite recently, however, a significant number of these posts
were occupied by people who were not career politicians. Now these
non-career politicians have largely disappeared from the scene;
with a few exceptions only career politicians remain. [27]
29. It does not follow that Prime Ministers have
chosen largely career politicians to make up their governments
because they have been limited by the makeup of the House of Commons.
The proportion of MPs whose previous occupation was "politician
or political organiser" has been increasing across the House
as a whole since 1987.[28]
Nonetheless, this group still comprised only 14.1% of Members
of Parliament in 2005, fewer than the 19.2% with a business background
and 39.3% from the professions.[29]
In short, career politicians fill many of the top posts of government
because Prime Ministers have chosen them for those posts.
30. Career politicians undoubtedly have advantages
when competing for ministerial jobs. They will have a long record
of party work and, presumably, extensive contacts. Traditionally,
UK ministers have not been expected to have technical knowledge
or experience of their areas of responsibility—political
skills are seen as more important. Giving evidence to our previous
inquiry into Skills for Government the former Minister,
Nick Raynsford, told us:
I was very struck in international meetings how
many ministers from other countries are appointed on the basis
of their technical expertise in the area in which they have responsibility
rather than simply because of political background. We have a
culture which rightly emphasises the importance of political accountability
to Parliament, and that means the overwhelming majority of ministers
come into the job without any technical expertise in the area
that they are responsible for.[30]
31. Moreover, as Sir John Major argued, someone who
has served in the House of Commons will tend to have a much better
grasp of the political skills necessary to running a government
department and presenting government policy than an outsider.[31]
Lord Adonis, perhaps unsurprisingly, agreed—arguing that
his employment as a special adviser had served as "an absolutely
invaluable apprenticeship for being a minister".[32]
Lord Darzi and Lord West stressed that their experience outside
politics was not sufficient for them to become successful ministers.
They needed to acquire political skills and generalist knowledge
through their ministerial work.[33]
32. Set against this background, the appointment
of a significant number of 'outsiders' is a notable counter trend.
It would have been unthinkable in 1981. Indeed, Professor King
wrote that:
The rise of the career politician...and the increasing
burdens of political life in general, make it unlikely that many
such outside appointments will be made in future.[34]
The same could have been said prior to the 1997 election
- in the previous sixteen years there had been only one such outside
appointment. Even following Tony Blair's first such appointments
in 1997-8 the resulting controversy indicated that parliamentary
experience would remain a key criterion for selection as a minister.[35]
To some, therefore, the recent spate of outside appointments may
represent a change in government towards valuing technical expertise.
33. Career politicians have an important place
in government. Despite this, government will be more effective
if people in ministerial roles come from a wide range of backgrounds
and experience. Appointment of people from outside parliament
is one route to achieve this. A greater willingness on the part
of Prime Ministers to appoint from a broader cross section of
their own parliamentary party would be another.
Gaps in skills and experience
34. In part, this counter trend may have occurred
because some outside appointees can bring in experience that is
rarely to be found within Parliament. As Professor King argued,
a largely decentralised system of candidate selection means that
many MPs will be selected largely on the basis of their potential
performance as a constituency MP, rather than how they fit into
the broader picture of a prospective government.[36]
This may mean that a governing party has few people with experience
in a particular field. For example, following the 2005 General
Election, the Parliamentary Labour Party contained only one doctor,
whilst the Conservative Party had no-one who had been a lecturer
in Further or Higher Education.[37]
35. Some of the ministers who were appointed from
outside by the present Prime Minister some have brought skills
from long and successful careers in other fields, which it would
be highly unlikely to find in Parliament. For example, Lord Darzi
and Lord West outlined the skills that they brought to the job—in
Lord Darzi's case credibility within the NHS and a first-hand
understanding of the needs of patients and staff, in Lord West's
case a long career of senior work in intelligence and counter-terrorism.[38]
Others have had more conventional political backgrounds—such
as Lord Mandelson or Baroness Kinnock. Then there is an intermediate
category, where an individual has extensive experience of a particular
field, but it is not clear that similar experience could not have
been found in the House of Commons.
36. Sir John Major was in favour of making a small
number of outside appointments to fill particular roles where
gaps might arise. However, he also suggested that membership of
the House of Commons was not an attractive prospect for older
people who had had successful careers in other fields or indeed
for people on average incomes with a family. He argued that reforms
to ensure greater independence for the House of Commons could
also benefit government by ensuring a greater diversity of people
standing for Parliament leading in turn to a more diverse talent
pool for ministerial office.[39]
There are circumstances in which an outside appointee may have
particular experience, skills or expertise which are not readily
available within the House of Commons. However, outside appointments
should not be a substitute for efforts to make the House of Commons
more diverse and representative, or for using untapped talent
that already exists. Some ministers are clearly less competent
than some of those in the House who are not ministers.
14 For one of many discussions of this issue, see Rodney
Brazier, Constitutional Practice: The Foundations of British
Government Third Edition (Oxford, 1999), pp. 63-67 Back
15
Q 9 Back
16
Q 157 Back
17
Q 4 Back
18
Q 153 Back
19
Q 1 Back
20
Q 4 Back
21
Q 7 Back
22
Q 1 Back
23
Q 32 Back
24
Q 159 Back
25
Q 1 Back
26
Q 19 Back
27
The Rise of the Career Politician, p. 277 Back
28
Social Background of MPs Standard Note 1528, House of Commons
Library, November 2005, Table 4, p. 4 Back
29
Social Background of MPs Table 5, p. 4; note that around
40 MPs are not accounted for in this survey. Back
30
Public Administration Select Committee, Ninth report of Session
2006-07, Skills for Government, HC 93, para. 148 Back
31
Q 162 Back
32
Q 69, also Q 95 [Lord Adonis] Back
33
Q 95 [Lord West and Lord Darzi]; Q 145 [Lord Darzi] Back
34
Anthony King, "The Rise of the Career Politician in Britain-and
its consequences," British Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 11( 1981), No. 3, p. 277 Back
35
See for example the discussion in Meg Russell, Reforming the
House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas, (Oxford, 2000) p.
196 Back
36
Q 17 Back
37
Social Background of MPs, Table 5, p. 4 Back
38
Q 74, Q 81, Q 123, Q 138 Back
39
Q 152, Q 155, Q 163 Back
|
