6 Checks and balances
42. We asked our witnesses whether there were sufficient
checks and balances on the Prime Minister's powers and, if not,
how they could be improved.By checks and balances, we meant mechanisms
to prevent too much power from being concentrated in the hands
of one individual.Dr Nicholas Allen commented: "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." He himself stated: "There is
little evidence that the Prime Minister is too powerful."[51]
43. Others emphasised that the unwritten nature of
the Prime Minister's role meant that there were relatively few
formal checks and balances on his or her powers, and that Prime
Ministers were constrained instead by political factors.Professor
Hazell commented:
compared with most other heads of Government,
the British Prime Minister has, in large part thanks to our unwritten
constitution, a relatively free hand. In our system, the Prime
Minister's powers are very extensive and they are constrained
largely by political constraints, in particular the size of the
Prime Minister's majority in Parliament, the Prime Minister's
standing in his party and his standing in the country. So the
Prime Minister's power and authority waxes and wanes depending
on those political factors.[52]
Support of MPs
44. Professor Pryce was sceptical about the extent
to which the need to retain the support of MPs in their party
constrained Prime Ministers in practice, pointing to the Prime
Minister's powers of patronage:
I accept that Prime Ministers have to keep their
parties onside but, let's face it, Prime Ministers can keep their
parties onside.How many appointed Under-Secretaries are there,
or Parliamentary Secretaries, spokespersons and all the way down?
Is it about 120 now?So you have 120 people who are somehow placemen.Of
the people who are left, you probably have at least 70 or 80 who
want to be placemen and have no further hope, except preferment
to the House of Lords.[53]
Professor Pryce was of the view that the media, because
of its role in influencing public opinion, was a more significant
check than any of the political constraints.She commented: "The
media is not democratically elected but that probably is our only
check on power in this country.We may not like that but that is
the way it is."[54]She
acknowledged, however, that if a large number of MPs in the Prime
Minister's party wanted a change of leadership, they could bring
that about: "Certainly I think the ongoing day-to-day power
of Parliament is limited, but I do think when it comes to a crisis
it perhaps is important.I think Margaret Thatcher demonstrated
that."[55]
45. Dr Pinto-Duschinsky placed more emphasis on the
significance of the need to retain the support of MPs.He answered
the question of whether there were sufficient checks and balances
on Prime Ministerial powers by stating:
I would go back quite simply to the thesis of
R.T. McKenzie in British Political Parties, that as long
as a Prime Minister has a majority in Parliament and the support
of MPs the Prime Minister is powerful, but there is plenty of
precedent for that support being withdrawn, and the threat of
that withdrawal does act as a very strong brake on the power of
the Prime Minister.[56]
Support of the Cabinet
46. The extent to which Cabinet Government functions
as a check and a balance on Prime Ministerial power was the subject
of some debate among our witnesses. Professor Pryce stated: "Constitutional
checks and balances in the UK are designed around the Prime Minister
as chair of a Cabinet of equals; not a government that is in practice
a presidency.Under such circumstances, the existing checks and
balances would seem to be inadequate."[57]
47. However, otherstook a more positive view of the
extent to which the Cabinet functions as an effective check.Professor
Smith and Professor Richardsstated: "Whilst...formal Cabinet
Government may not in practice be the effective site of decision-making,
the Prime Minister remains severely constrained if she/he does
not have the support of key Cabinet Ministers."They quoted
Lord Wilson of Dinton, a former Cabinet Secretary, who in evidence
to the House of Lords Constitution Committee said: "Prime
ministers are only as powerful as their colleagues allow them
to be...We are always fundamentally in a position where if cabinet
ministers wish to assert themselves then the power of the prime
minister will be checked and balanced in that way."[58]
48. Dan Corry, who from 2007 to 2010 worked as Head
of thePolicy Unit in Downing Street and then as Senior Adviser
on the Economy, commented:
My experience suggests that the Cabinet do act
as a sort of accountability check on the power of the PM...
In short, and depending on the PM's personal
position in the Party and Government at the time, the PM has to
keep a close eye on what the Cabinet will and will not wash. That
does not mean that issues are brought forward for a bold and open
discussion and a vote at Cabinet. This occurred rarely in the
days when I worked at Number 10 and I suspect rarely ever happens.
But it does mean that the PM does not in any way have untrammelled
powers.[59]
Improvements
49. When it came to how to improvepolitical checks
and balances, our witnesses cited several possibilities, including
the provision of better information for those in a position to
exert a check on prime ministerial power. Dr O'Malley, who warned
of the need to get the correct balance between putting checks
on excessive power and imposing a system liable to deadlock, stated:
"A more effective system might be to ensure that those who
can exercise checks on executive power can act from a position
of full information."[60]This
point was supported by Dan Corry, whostated that one of the weaknesses
of the Cabinet system was "papers being put out too late
so Secretaries of State were often not that well briefed."[61]He
commented:
The Cabinet Office does produce and commission
papers for Cabinet Committees to give background, pros and cons
and so on. Perhaps these could be fullerand perhaps there
could be better papers for Cabinet itself. That in turn would
be aided if agendas for Cabinet were decided well in advance and
people were alerted to them. But life often moves too fast at
the centre to allow this and circulating papers showing massive
difference amongst colleagues isI feara recipe for
leaks.[62]
50. There was also an acknowledgement that the operation
of effective checks and balances required not simply more information,
but a change of political culture.Dan Corry told us: "Ultimately
the Cabinet is only as powerful as its members and the way they
choose to exercise their power."[63]He
added: "At the end of the day, if you have members of the
Cabinet who are weak and won't stand up and say what they think,
then of course it will be a weaker check, just like any accountability
structure."[64]
51. Dr Heffernan spelt out the factors that prevent
Cabinet Ministers acting as an effective check and balance on
Prime Ministerial power:
In terms of within the Cabinet and within the
Government more generally, people are not likely to want to throw
away their political career that they have fought hard for by
disagreeing with the Prime Minister on an issue. It is much easier
to paddle your own canoe privately and to agree publicly. I think
that is a fact of life. Very few people resign
on matters
of public policy disputation.[65]
He stated in written evidence:
Only a set of radical changes in political culturefor
example (1) the assertion by ministers of their existing individual
rights and the collective rights of the cabinet or (2) the refusal
of the Prime Minister's parliamentary majority to endlessly prefer
to supply and support the government rather than check and balance
itcould significantly clip the Prime Minister's wings in
between elections.[66]
He suggested that some form of codification could
help to empower those in a position to act as a check to do so
more effectively:
codifying in some part further institutional
developments is important because, after all, Lilliput temporarily
kept Gulliver down with 1,000 ropes or whatever it was. One way
in which Parliament and one way in which politicians can constrain
the Prime Minister is by empowering colleagues within the Cabinet
to be slightly more assertive.[67]
52. The need to keep the support of the majority
of Members of Parliament and the support of the Cabinet acts as
a check and balance on the powers of the Prime Minister.In extremis,
Members of Parliament can, as history demonstrates, remove a Prime
Minister from office by withdrawing their support.However, these
political mechanisms are not effective as a day-to-day check and
balance on Prime Ministerial power.Members of Parliamentbe
they Cabinet Ministers or Backbencherscan technically say
"no" to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Ministerial
powers of patronage mean they very rarely do.A more assertive
Cabinet, and a more assertive House of Commons, would require
a change in political structure.Defining Prime Ministerial powers
could be the start of that change.
51 Dr Nicholas Allen written evidence Back
52
Q68 Back
53
Q25 Back
54
Q4 Back
55
Q50 Back
56
Q188 Back
57
Professor Sue Pryce written evidence Back
58
Professor Martin Smith and Professor David Richards written evidence Back
59
Dan Corry written evidence Back
60
Dr Eoin O'Malley written evidence Back
61
Q145 Back
62
Dan Corry written evidence Back
63
Q145 Back
64
Q148 Back
65
Q24 Back
66
Dr Richard Heffernan written evidence Back
67
Q303 Back
|