HC 842 The role and powers of the Prime Minister

Written evidence submitted by Dr Nicholas Allen, Department of Politics and International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London

The Committee’s inquiry into the role and powers of the prime minister is to be welcomed. Before setting out my answers to the Committee’s questions, I offer a few general thoughts, none of which is wholly original but all of which are meant to provoke further discussion.

Some general thoughts

(1) The Committee should be clearer in recognising two considerations in its inquiry: (i) how does the prime minister’s role and powers affect the quality of British democracy; and (ii) how does the prime minister’s role and powers affect the quality of British government? The issues of good democracy and good government are distinct, and the Committee should be explicit about their distinctiveness.

(2) The prime minister operates in a system built on two contradictory norms: (i) the norm of collegiality or collective decision making; and (ii) the norm of prime ministerial authority. Commentators and practitioners sometimes give the impression that the latter is the only legitimate principle guiding British government. Yet, prime ministerial authority-in the fields of appointments, government organisation and, to some extent, general policy-has been just as much a feature of British government as collegiality. Prime ministerial authority is sometimes grumbled about, but it is an accepted part of the political system. Needless to say, there is inevitable tension between the two norms. Indeed, Britain’s core executive stands over a fault line.

(3) The tension between collegiality and prime ministerial authority is manifested differently in different arenas. In the formal, institutional arena, as embodied in the practice and power structures of cabinet government, collegiality probably trumps prime ministerial authority. In the party political and public realm, as reflected in the popular, media and occasionally elite preoccupation with individual leadership, prime ministerial authority is at least as important, if not more so. The asymmetric tension in different arenas risks creating expectations gaps and public disappointment. [1]

(4) The manifestations of collegiality are in just as much need of evaluation as prime ministerial authority. Indeed, the two cannot be understood in isolation. In many respects, the historic expansion in the size of government-measured by the numbers of ministers-raises more important questions about both the quality of British democracy and governance than the role and powers of the prime minister. The existence of so many ministers gives the executive more votes in the House of Commons, it creates considerable ministerial activity that may not be strictly necessary, and it raises questions about whether the Commons is a sufficiently large talent pool for filling all these posts.

(5) It is important that the Committee considers fully the nature of the party system and the characteristics of British political parties. As others have pointed out, party politics are often more important in shaping a prime minister’s influence and power than the customary, legal or institutional powers that he or she may be able to exercise in theory. For example, a recent survey of prime ministers in seventeen European countries found that the British and Spanish prime ministers were the strongest, partly because of their institutional powers and partly because of the party system (the survey assumed ‘normal’ single-party government in Britain). [2] In the sample, the German chancellor and Spanish prime minister had more institutional powers; but the British prime minister was blessed with a more conducive party system.

(6) Any changes to individual prime ministerial powers may have unintended consequences on the prime minister’s overall power and status in government.

Answers to specific questions

1. Is there sufficient clarity as to the Prime Minister’s role and powers?

There is probably insufficient clarity about the prime minister’s role, in part a reflection of the tension between prime ministerial authority and collegiality. The formalities do not always accord with the functional realities. For example, Chapter 3 of the current draft Cabinet Manual refers to the ‘Prime Minister’s unique position of authority’ but it does not go as far as it might in capturing fully the prime minister’s practical or potential authority over general policy guidelines. [3] In Chapter 4, the Manual notes that: ‘Cabinet is the ultimate decision-making body of government’; it may be formally, of course, but it is not, in every instance, functionally. Moreover, the Manual fails to note that it is the prime minister who is ultimately responsible, politically at any rate, for the decisions of his or her government.

1a. Should the Prime Minister’s role and powers be codified in statute or otherwise?

I am against detailed statutory codification because there needs to be some flexibility in the prime minister’s role and powers. The role of the prime minister necessarily varies according to the context and ‘events, dear boy, events’. For instance, the previous prime minister had to spend much of his time responding to global financial crises; the current prime minister almost certainly has to spend a greater proportion of time managing inter- and intra-party relations.

If the Committee sought a vehicle for codification in some form, the draft Cabinet Manual is one potential candidate, although the content would need some revision. Alternatively, the Cabinet Office, or your Committee, could draft a shorter document that focuses on the principles embracing all aspects of British government. However, there may be uncertainty about such a document’s status.

2. How has the role of the Prime Minister changed in recent years?

The role of the prime minister has always been plastic and the extent of change should not be overstated. For example, changes in the nature of media coverage have enhanced this mode of political accountability and emphasised the prime minister’s role as his or her government’s chief political spokesperson, yet prime ministers have always performed this role to some extent and been held to account in this way. Alternatively, in the past year, the prime minister has had to manage an inter-party coalition (in addition to managing an intra-party coalition), yet even this role has historical precedents. Finally, prime ministers today are perhaps expected to be more active in their role, bringing their own policy vision, but their activism cannot be all-embracing, and, of course, there have always been prime ministers with an agenda, whether it be ‘pacifying Ireland’, rolling back the frontiers of the state or creating a ‘Big Society’.

It is also important not to overstate change in terms of the functions the prime minister performs. Beyond the obvious governmental roles-chairing cabinet, appointing and dismissing ministers, meeting the Queen, managing the government, and so on-all prime ministers in recent years have had to spend considerable time abroad dealing with other governments. They have had to make speeches up and down the country and deal with journalists and the media. They have had to manage their own office or ‘prime ministerial branch’. They have had to perform in Parliament, and they have had to function as constituency MPs. They have had to lead their party in government, in Parliament and in the country. Above all, prime ministers have had to be on constant call to provide public leadership and respond to crises (military, financial, political, international and environmental) as and when they arise.

None of this is to say that there has been no change in the prime ministerial role. The nature of the job has changed as prime ministers have had to alter the amount of time and energy they routinely devote to specific tasks. For example, prime ministers spend less time in the House of Commons answering PMQs, they now have to submit to monthly prime-ministerial news conferences, and they probably spend more time abroad. Such changes have almost certainly increased the perceived importance of the principle of prime ministerial authority in the public arena.

2a. How has this process of change been brought about and controlled?

Insofar as there has been change, it has probably been a consequence of prime ministers choosing to act in a more activist way and finding it easier to do so because of changing expectations-among colleagues, in the media, in the political parties and in the public.

3. What is the impact of coalition government on the role and powers of the Prime Minister?

The impact of coalition government is potentially very great. On the basis of Bergman et al.’s comparative framework (see note 3), we might suppose the prime minister’s power to be greatly reduced. For example, the needs of coalition management have curtailed the prime minister’s power of appointment and dismissal; they have effectively been delegated to the deputy prime minister when it comes to filling posts allocated to the junior coalition partner. Needless to say, it will require a few more years before we can accurately gauge the full impact of coalition politics.

4. Are there sufficient checks and balances on the powers of the Prime Minister?

Whether you think there are sufficient checks and balances on the powers of the prime minister depends on whether you think the prime minister is too powerful or not. It also depends on the role you think he or she should perform. Given that the British prime minister has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of his or her government-at least in political and democratic terms-it is only reasonable that he or she should have sufficient powers to carry that responsibility.

Most of the prime minister’s important day-to-day powers-those that impact upon the quality of government as well those that relate to ‘big’ democratic questions-are essentially political i.e. the power of appointment and dismissal, the control over the organisation of government, the chairmanship of cabinet and its committees and the control over its agenda, the ability to appoint senior civil servants and the ability to acts Britain’s overseas agent. Most of the effective checks on these powers are also political. At risk of being complacent, political checks ebb and flow, but their political nature has not made the prime minister tyrannical. There is little evidence that the prime minister is too powerful.

5. Is the Prime Minister sufficiently accountable personally to the electorate, to Parliament, and otherwise?

British democracy in practice rests on voters being able to exercise retrospective and prospective judgements about the governmental performance of one political party vis-à-vis another. The weight of electoral-survey evidence highlights the importance of party leaders, as well as evaluations of parties’ past and anticipated performance, in individual voters’ choices. [4] Whatever the legal formalities, individuals do not vote for a House of Commons that then chooses a cabinet that then chooses a prime minister. Rather, voters choose between party-leadership teams to form a government, and the composition of the Commons is a consequence of this choice. The reality of democracy does not fit neatly with legal textbooks (or draft Cabinet Manuals).

Given that the prime minister leads a team of party politicians that stand for re-election every four or five years, there is, I think, sufficient electoral accountability. The government is not a one-man band, no matter how influential the prime minister is within the government, and it would be absurd to have the prime minister personally accountable when he or she lacks the legal and political authority to dictate what government does.

Because British voters choose a government and prime minister at each general election, and because the composition of Parliament is a by-product of this collective choice, it would seem odd to alter fundamentally the relationship between government and Parliament on democratic grounds. For this reason, I am unconvinced of the need for a parliamentary constructive vote ahead of any new government being formed. That said, there are good democratic and governmental reasons for having a Parliament that is able to oversee government as a whole, not just the prime minister. However, empowering Parliament-both institutionally and culturally-is somewhat beyond the scope of this inquiry.

6. Are structures of power beneath the Prime Minister sufficiently clear and accountable?

I find it very difficult to keep track of the changing roles of the Cabinet Office and Number Ten! In many ways, the fluctuating structures of power, as institutionalised in Number Ten’s relationship with the Cabinet Office, reflect the ebb and flow between the norms of collegiality and prime ministerial authority. I suspect the muddle will continue so long as people remain committed to the ideal of genuine collective decision making.

6a. If no, how should this clarity and accountability be improved?

I am genuinely unsure. If a full-blown Prime Minister’s Department were to be created, akin, perhaps, to the German Chancellery, then this would amount to a major rebalancing between collegial government and prime ministerial authority, in favour of the latter. Perhaps it is time to abandon an anachronistic commitment to full-blown cabinet government, but that is something beyond the scope of the present inquiry!

Assuming the current system is maintained, with government co-ordination being performed in practice by prime minister and cabinet, or perhaps more accurately by prime minister with and sometimes through cabinet, then it would probably be unwise to create a large and distinct Prime Minister’s Department. An organisationally distinct and much larger Number Ten would not necessarily even be good for an activist prime minister.

7. Should the Prime Minister be directly elected by the British people?

No, not unless a good case can be made for Britain adopting an entirely different model of democratic government. Were the prime minister to be directly elected, Britain would have a de facto presidential system. This change would require a major rethink of how heads of departments i.e. ministers are held accountable. It would also signal the ultimate rejection of collegiality from the British political system and a profound change in the country’s constitution.

22 February 2011