Chapter 7 Answers to quick test questions

Primus inter pares is Latin for ‘first amongst equals’. Consequently, the idea has traditionally been that the Prime Minister was one of a relatively small number of ministers who developed government policy together. However, in recent decades Prime Ministers have accumulated a range of powers which have increased their importance at the expense of their other ministers. These include conducting international relations, security and intelligence issues, and dealing with constitutional matters including managing the relationship that central government has with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

It has also been the case that electorally successful Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair appeared to dominate their governments, deciding government policy after consulting only a select few ministers rather than the full Cabinet. The relevant minister would then be tasked with implementing the policy. Prime Ministers are more likely to pursue this type of government if they are personally popular with the electorate and have secured a large majority. Prime Ministers with smaller majorities such as John Major find that they need to govern more consensually with their ministers to ensure that they maintain the support of their political party.

The ideal of Cabinet Government, as expressed by the Haldane Committee in 1918, is that the Cabinet determines government policy and co-ordinates the work of the various government departments. Whilst the Cabinet Manual continues to describe the Cabinet as the ‘ultimate decision making body of government’, ¹ it is clear that each government is to ‘determine the specific arrangements for collective decision-making’.² This is because the idea that a weekly meeting, attended by ministers who are each responsible for the actions of their own government departments, can effectively operate as the decision-making body of government does not sit with the reality of the demands placed on modern government.

In recent times, increasingly important decisions have effectively been made outside of the Cabinet structure. For example, in 1997 the decision to make the Bank of England fully independent from government was made by the Prime Minister and Chancellor only after consulting the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Should the Prime Minister be unavailable to act, there is no designated deputy as provided for by the constitution. This reflects how the Cabinet as a whole is accountable to Parliament for the conduct of the government, and how the legal powers of government (whether derived from statute or the royal prerogative) are in principle exercised by Secretaries of State. However, politically, there is a hierarchy within the Cabinet, with some ministers of greater experience, and appointed to lead the most important government departments. The Prime Minister can reflect this in the titles they allocate to individual members of their Cabinet. The titles ‘First Secretary of State’ and ‘Deputy Prime Minister’ are sometimes used to indicate seniority, but much depends on the prevailing political circumstances at the time.

Should the Prime Minister all of a sudden become unavailable, then it would be a matter for the Cabinet to decide who would lead the government while the Prime Minister is indisposed. However, they would not be appointed as “acting” Prime Minister, and would not fulfil functions which specifically fall within the remit of the Prime Minister. Clearly, if the absence of the Prime Minister becomes lengthy, and is an obstacle to the conduct of government, then the appointment of a new Prime Minister may be required.

In 2020, as the Prime Minister fell ill with Covid-19, he decided that Dominic Raab should fill in for him if it became necessary. Once the Prime Minister became hospitalized, this advance decision took effect. However, as explained above, Raab did not become “acting” Prime Minister but remained Foreign Secretary. The choice of Raab reflected his political seniority within Cabinet as shown by his appointment as First Secretary of State.

Although often criticised and occasionally involved in scandals, special advisers serve a useful role within government, supporting their minister. They can be described as the ‘alter ego’ of their minister, as they can explain to civil servants the thinking behind a government policy and provide a useful point of contact for interested parties or groups to discuss policies.

Special advisers are different to civil servants in that they serve a particular government minister and can offer political advice that a civil servant is unable to provide. Civil servants are politically impartial and fulfil a broader range of tasks beyond developing government policy. Most civil servants carry out and implement government policy by running government schemes, determining applications according to the criteria laid down in the government’s policy. Other civil servants are required to take on a more managerial role, running large projects such as introducing the new IT systems required to implement new government policy (for example the IT system required to support the introduction of Universal Credit, which is a major reform to the benefits system).

At one level, collective responsibility places an obligation on all ministers to support government policy in public. This has the benefit of enabling government accountability to Parliament, as it allows Parliament to scrutinise government policy more effectively than if government policy was publically debated by ministers. However, there have been occasions when the Prime Minister has expressly set collective responsibility aside to allow ministers to campaign on different sides: during the referendums in 1975 and 2016 over the UK’s membership of the EU, and in the referendum held in 2011 over changing the electoral system to the alternative vote. Other limits on collective responsibility also include leaking, which allows a minister to express their concerns about a policy whilst maintaining the appearance of following collective responsibility. However, a minister’s disagreement with government policy could be so serious that they feel that they have no alternative other than to resign.

As discussed in Question 5, ministers have resigned when they have fundamentally disagreed with government policy. The resignations of Baroness Warsi and Iain Duncan-Smith are two relatively recent examples of this. However, most resignations tend to be for reasons of individual ministerial responsibility. The clearest rule is when ministers have misled Parliament. This most famously occurred when John Profumo misled the House of Commons over his affair with Christine Keeler in 1963.

However, the circumstances of when ministers should resign are difficult to establish from the precedents. Ministers are expected to be responsible for the activities of their department. For example, Lord Carrington resigned in 1982 over the failure of the Foreign Office to monitor Argentina’s intentions regarding the Falkland Islands, even though he was not personally responsible. However, ministers in more recent times have not resigned over equally significant failures within their departments, and other ministers – such as Stephen Byers and Estelle Morris – have resigned more for a series of failures than for any specific reason. Many resignations occur when the minister’s own personal conduct has fallen below the standard expected. This can (but not always) be due to sex scandals, for example with the case of David Mellor, or when the minister has entangled their own personal interests with their ministerial interests, as in the case of Liam Fox. If a breach of the Ministerial Code can be identified then it becomes highly likely that they will be forced to resign.