OPTIONS PAPER 7: REFORM OF THE CABINET

The Cabinet is the top forum for taking decisions and overseeing the working of government and is - or should be - its beating heart. Chaired by the Prime Minister, it includes all the key Secretaries of State, as well as other ministers who attend at the invitation of the Prime Minister. Its purpose is to consider major issues of policy and legislation, and it has the final word on disagreements between departments which cannot otherwise be reconciled. In short, the Cabinet sits at the centre and at the top of government decision-making.

The Cabinet is a UK-wide body, with the devolved nations represented only by their Secretaries of State, although during the Covid pandemic, there was more coordination with the respective First Ministers.

Under the Coalition government, led by David Cameron, the Cabinet took on particular importance, functioning in a more structured manner to help ensure the Coalition held together. The Commission has been told that this was a time when the Cabinet truly operated as a collective body. Because the Coalition Agreement set a framework from the outset for what government aimed to achieve, governance appeared to improve.

This experience suggests that, were this country ever to move to a proportionally representative electoral system, the Cabinet will become much more important - an arena where rival parties would have to come together on an agreed platform to debate and decide policies. Indeed, the Coalition Agreement served in some ways, a blueprint for how a proportionally elected national government could function.

Throughout the Coalition, the two political parties each held pre-meetings to prepare for Cabinet meetings and, in addition there was an inner group - the Quad - comprising senior ministers that met weekly.

The composition of the Cabinet has changed under recent premierships with the number of people attending varying and the meetings sometimes becoming quite bloated. Although the number of formal and paid members is officially restricted to 21, other ministers can attend at the request of the Prime Minister. Currently, Keir Starmer includes an additional five ministers alongside his Secretaries of State. Special advisors and civil servants are also able to attend although they may not take part in the formal proceedings - meaning that sometimes more than 40 people are crammed into the room.

Elizabeth Truss reduced the size of the Cabinet, but did not use it to discuss contentious issues, exemplified by the secrecy surrounding her budget, the details of which were not revealed to the Cabinet in advance.

The Prime Minister decides which committees should be set up and who should chair them. The Cabinet currently has twelve committees with responsibilities covering issues such as security; future work; the constitution; and relations with other states. This is where most of the more detailed work takes place. Normally, the composition of committees is published; however, Keir Starmer has set up ‘mission boards’ as Cabinet committees and, controversially, has not made their membership public.

The Prime Minister’s role is generally understood to be providing leadership in government and setting priorities, while the main work is carried out in government departments which are equipped to consider and deliver the practicalities. However, the core executive in the UK has tended to become more presidential in recent decades, centred around a Prime Minister who is far more than simply first among equals.  He or she effectively has the power to go to war without consulting Parliament and to appoint and to dismiss Secretaries of state. A more subtle power is the ability to sum up discussions in Cabinet and determine its conclusions without taking a vote. Evidence presented to the Commission confirms that votes have rarely been taken in recent governments. 

One sign of this ‘presidentialization’ is arguably an increase in the number of people working in the Cabinet Office although this Labour government has announced plans to reduce this number by around a quarter. That said, so-called ‘sofa government’ emerged under the premiership of Tony Blair, when more informal meetings took place outside Cabinet, prompting allegations that decisions were increasingly made more before formal Cabinet discussions – if they occurred at all.

Another change under Tony Blair, the Commission was told, was the decision to stop commissioning Cabinet papers on many significant debates which meant that ministers were sometimes unprepared for discussion of the issue in hand and unaware of the implications for the country and their departments. The decision to go to war in Iraq is arguably the most egregious example.

More recently experts told the Commission, that under Boris Johnson the concept of an agenda was a foreign notion. Thus, owing to him taking no interest in the machinery (and often the substance) of government, decisions were not actually made by Cabinet but in a more diffused manner.

Leaks have also become more frequent over the years - not least since the vitriol generated by the debates around Europe and in the last years of the Conservative government when there were several Prime Ministers and a revolving door of ministers.  Leaks are a major problem as they trivialise debate and allow issues to be portrayed simplistically as personality conflict. Leaks tend to be targeted at particular individuals and can damage careers, effectively removing talented individuals from government for the wrong reasons.

Ideas for change

Option 1: The role and decision-making responsibilities of the Cabinet should be defined more clearly.

The Cabinet should be a safe space for discussing complex and critically important issues.  Its decision making powers should be clearly defined.

Two ways that the Cabinet role might be defined and enhanced:  it should be the Cabinet that recommends to Parliament the committing of armed forces into conflict; and it should have the power to decide on any policy that is contrary to manifesto commitments.

The quality of decision making depends very much on the Prime Minister and their expertise. In recent years the way this has been exercised has varied hugely from the effort that Margaret Thatcher put into getting consensus (albeit often on her terms!) to the more informal structures preferred by Tony Blair.

One recommendation is for all new ministers be given training about the role of the Cabinet and their responsibilities as Secretaries of State. This would balance power more evenly, and foster a culture of questioning, debate and challenge.

Option 2: The problem of leaks must be addressed.

Leaks by disaffected individuals have increased, and the rise of social media has amplified their impact and potential for distortion.

One suggestion is for ministers to sign an oath at the start of the first meeting of the new government to pledge to work for the good of the country. An explicit extension to the Privy Counsellor oath could be considered. It is for the Prime Minister to assert discipline and perhaps it should be clear that the only person allowed to report what was discussed would be the Prime Minister and his or her principal communications person or the appropriate Secretary of State in a statement to parliament. Dismissal of individuals responsible for breaches may be an effective deterrent.

It is crucial that the main arguments on a policy need to be heard before a decision is taken. The present procedure puts too high a premium on political infighting and image, and too little on getting decisions right.

The principle of collective responsibility, too often merely paid lip service, should be reassessed and adhered to.

Option 3: There needs to be more systematic and structured support for the Opposition.

Unlike the system in the United States where an incoming President has months to prepare and appoint the team, in the UK the incoming government has only hours with a revolving door of ministers. One of the traditional skills of the civil service is to provide incoming governments with support and this requires sustained work with the Opposition.

Seconding around a dozen civil servants to the Opposition before an election, should they win, would smooth the transition of power. The support of civil servants would improve Opposition policies, providing background and information. Perhaps the time has come to consider this option, as the political landscape is becoming more fragmented and the possibility of parties with no experience of government coming into power.

There are no knowledge qualifications required for being an MP or a peer and when Secretaries of State (and their shadows) are appointed they often have little knowledge or understanding of the policy area which has suddenly been thrust upon them. This kind of amateur approach presents challenges – especially given the technical complexity of many polices.

Option 4: The need for a Prime Minister’s department is another option.

The establishment of a Prime Minister’s department would reflect the presidentialized reality of British government and should be separated from the Cabinet Office. It should also be relocated. Number 10 Downing Street, built in the eighteenth century, is a warren of more than 100 rooms.  It has been suggested that either the Prime Minister’s residence or the office of the Prime Minister should move. Either way, Number 10 is not fit for purpose, it is a rambling building that needs constant renovation and does not have the appropriate working or meeting spaces required.

Option 5: Frequent changes of departmental heads should be avoided.

The turmoil under previous governments, when there were, for example, ten Secretaries of State for Education and eleven for Justice, meant that Cabinet government was fractured and it was unclear who was going to turn up and who was going to go missing and what the policy for discussion would be. Stable government requires a Cabinet that works coherently, consistently and cohesively.

Under Margaret Thatcher, Cabinet ministers were expected to make clear recommendations arising from policy discussions and expected to provide political direction. The relative stability of the membership of her Cabinet enabled this.

We have suggested in another paper on Executive Reform that Secretaries of State should prepare annual plans and budgets to be presented to the relevant select committee in Parliament, and that these should emerge from discussion and agreement in Cabinet. Cabinet, Parliament and the public could then hold them more to account.

Option 6: Make the workings of the Cabinet more transparent.

Informal meetings and committees whose membership is secret are not appropriate structures for good governance and democracy.

It is notable that cabinet meetings at local government level have become more transparent with members of the public able to attend and the public and media has more immediate access to the papers. In many cases, including for security or financial reasons, this will not be appropriate at national level, but the principles of transparency and accountability should be adhered to as far as possible.

2025