Lord Alex Carlile KC- Summary of observations on the reform of the Cabinet as the centre of government
I have spent 39 out of the last 41 years in one or other House of Parliament. I was elected as a Liberal MP in 1983, and left the House of Commons in 1997. I became a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords in 1999. I have been a cross bench member since 2017.
Thus I have observed cabinet government at reasonably close quarters for approximately 40 years. During that time I spent 10 years, between 2001 and 2011, as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and was in quite close contact with cabinet ministers during that time, especially a series of Home Secretaries and Northern Ireland Secretaries.
It is fundamental to our democratic system that the government is formed from the majority party, or by the largest party in conjunction with other parties in the event of a hung parliament.
Cabinet Government is well entrenched, along with the principle of collective responsibility. There is no necessity for major changes – nor is it likely that they would be accepted. However, there is room for measures to increase confidence in the competence of Ministers to perform their new roles when appointed.
The constitutional context in which our government operates is strictly delineated by the separation of powers. This is applied rigorously and with principle. Thus from time to time our traditionally reserved and docile Chief Justices have roared when even (or especially) Prime Ministers have seemed to trespass into the territory of the Courts. Another example of such scrutiny comes from inside Parliament in relation to secondary legislation. The Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee Democracy Denied, emphasised the urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive (12th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 106). The Committee continues to focus on that crucial balance.
The clear and evident competence and authority of the Cabinet is essential for the acceptable level of accountability of government. If the Cabinet performs well, the country is governed well. If the Cabinet performs badly, it is likely that there will be a change of government in early course.
Experience in recent years has shown that when governments lose their authority, for example by the repeated changes of senior ministers and especially of Prime Minister, they focus disproportionately on party interests and function far less well as a government: thus government in the national interest is diluted.
Diminished government authority, as described in the paragraph above, can be damaging within the country; and indeed especially damaging to any nation state’s role and influence in world affairs. This is illustrated by the relative weakness of some European governments at the current time of turmoil in several countries: fractured domestic politics undermine governmental effectiveness on the world stage.
When a government is weak or fractured, my observation is that, perforce, senior officials can become the pre-eminent decision makers and ministers recede into the background. This is a recipe for misunderstandings and misrepresentations at the highest level, and unfair to the officials concerned. There should be greater clarity about the relationship between officials and Ministers. The balance between Ministers, especially those who are less comfortable or confident in their allotted posts, and senior officials is all too easily distorted.
The speedy transition of some senior officials into political roles risks muddying the reality or at least the perception of the separation of powers. ACOBA, the relevant governmental committee dealing with post-retirement opportunities for senior officials, should be conscious of this concern. For a few of the best and most senior officials, appointment to the cross bench in House of Lords provides parliamentary expertise and reassurance. The move of officials more or less immediately from public appointments to political roles, however occasional, is much less reassuring and should be regarded as exceptional.
Regional devolution generally provides a more effective relationship between senior Ministers and the regional level of government. For example, I was commissioned by the Welsh Government to report on the safety of children in the NHS. I made over 100 recommendations, most of which were implemented within months. A significant factor in the rapid response rate was that devolved government Ministers sat on the committee that considered the report (the equivalent of a Westminster Select Committee).
The present Government’s policy of extending regional devolution undoubtedly will catalyse the implementation of national as well as regional policy. This would provide the benefit of the Cabinet and Cabinet Ministers being able to determine and disseminate policy without becoming lost in the detail of implementation.
Given that there are no qualifications requirements for becoming an MP or Peer, it is inevitable that many Ministers will have no prior experience of the policy responsibilities thrust upon them. For some this presents neither a problem nor disadvantage. However, many who walk into a challenging Department with no real understanding of their policy area, apart from the very general, are presented with a real challenge.
It should be regarded as both necessary and wise to allow an official ‘familiarisation’ period for new Ministers. Subject to exception for emergencies, measures should be taken to ensure that after an election Cabinet and other senior Ministers are given at least one week to familiarise themselves with their new posts; and a similar period of ‘training’ should be provided for new Ministers following reshuffles.
24 February 2025