Commission meeting with Lord Richard Wilson and Lord Robin Butler, 14 January 2025
The Commission launched its final inquiry, looking into how the Cabinet should function at the heart of government. Its first meeting was a discussion with Lord Richard Wilson, Crossbench peer and former Cabinet Secretary, and Lord Robin Butler, Crossbench peer and former Cabinet Secretary.
Lord Wilson had given the Commission a note on his initial thoughts on how the Cabinet was working and kindly agreed to us posting it on this website.
The Commission’s discussion built on a debate initiated by Lord Butler in the Lords on 28 November 2024 which dealt primarily with the civil service at the highest level.
It was suggested that the role and decision making responsibilities of the Cabinet should be defined more clearly, for example it should have the ultimate responsibility to decide on sending troops into conflict zones and be able to decide on any policy that was clearly contrary to manifesto commitments.
Cabinet meetings should be a safe space for discussing complex and critically important issues.
The question was posed whether the Cabinet is subordinate to the prime minister and there to take orders or is it a body of equals?
Government is about introducing order into chaos and balancing conflicting and differing views and interests. How this is done at the highest level needs to be reconsidered.
We noted that social media had changed the political landscape as now millions of people have views that they express forcefully. The immediacy of this public pressure can lead to curtailed discussion and mistakes in decision making. Good government in a social media world has not been resolved.
Furthermore, it was emphasised that Cabinet is a UK body and not simply for England and could meet sometimes in the devolved nations.
The quality of decision making depended on the ministers and the prime minister and their experience and expertise. One recommendation was that new ministers should all be given training and educated about the role of Cabinet as well as their place as ministers.
A concern was expressed that government had been moving inexorably into a more presidential style with the prime minister increasingly in the public eye and called on to respond to events. Alongside this, the staff at Number 10 had grown to comprise hundreds of staff. This sometimes had resulted in informal sofa-style meetings that undermined the quality and transparency of decision making.
Different prime ministers have had different methods of dealing with Cabinet, some seeking to avoid conflict and dissent and some seeking to manipulate it. Margaret Thatcher treated Cabinet meetings seriously but wanted to get agreement so she made sure she knew who was likely to dissent and called those people to speak sandwiched between those who agreed with her line. She also met with ministers beforehand in groups in which the dissenter was outnumbered, putting pressure on them to acquiesce. She worked hard to get agreement to decisions. There was rarely a vote.
Under John Major things started to disintegrate over the question of Europe. It was then that the leaks started in earnest.
Tony Blair started his first term with a Cabinet split between ‘old Labour’ and ‘new Labour’ and he therefore tended to avoid it being given decisions to make. Quite a lot of contentious decisions were left to the prime minister to make.
Tony Blair stopped having papers for each of the significant items for debate and discussion, which meant that ministers were unprepared for the issue and did not have a briefing on the implications for the country and their departments. This was true even on issues like whether to go to war in Iraq which was made without ministers having a briefing and so they were ignorant of the complexity of the situation in Iraq and the total lack of preparation for the war and what could happen after.
At one time there were 39 sub-committees of Cabinet, committees that take decisions that are binding across government. There are currently fewer than 20 and most are chaired by the prime minister. These committees do allow for more detailed discussions and are an effective decision making mechanism.
Leaks are an increasing problem as they trivialise debate and allow issues to be portrayed as personality conflict. One suggestion was that ministers should sign an oath at the start of the first meeting to promise to work for the good of the country. Another suggestion that the prevention of leaks could be included as an extension in the Privy Counsellor oath.
It was suggested that shadow ministers should be prepared for government more effectively before an election which should include briefings by civil servants.
The shadow cabinet had a responsibility to prepare for government and not just via political manifesto.
It seems to be the pattern of our electoral system that a party is in government for 15 to 18 years so it is all the more important that the Cabinet is properly prepared and managed.