The role and powers of the Prime Minister

Written evidence submitted by Sue Pryce, Associate Professor, School of Politics & IR, University of Nottingham

My credentials:

I have written extensively on the issue of the role and powers of the modern Prime Minister (see: Sue Pryce, Presidentializing the Premiership, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997,etc) .

General View

The role and powers of the Prime Minister have evolved so much that they need to be written down and agreed, not least so that any additional accretion of powers can be properly scrutinized and authorized by Parliament.

Answers to your questions:

1.  ‘Is there sufficient clarity as to the Prime Minister’s role and powers?’

The clear answer is ‘no’.

The Cabinet Manual, recently published in draft form and into which this Committee has inquired, demonstrates how vague is the official position of the Prime Minister.

The Cabinet Manual probably amounts to the most detailed official attempt yet to define the role of the Prime Minister, whose powers are spread across various statutes, conventions and codes. Yet it mainly serves to demonstrate just how imprecise the position is.

For instance, paragraph 77 states that:

The Prime Minister has few statutory functions but will usually take the lead on significant matters of state. The Prime Minister has certain prerogatives, for example recommending the appointment of ministers and determining the membership of Cabinet and Cabinet committees. However, in some circumstances the Prime Minister may agree to consult others before exercising those prerogatives. The effect of stipulations of this sort means that the Prime Minister has great flexibility in how he or she exercises the role and with whom he or she may consult in the exercise of the highly malleable powers he or she possesses.

1a. Should the Prime Minister’s role and powers be codified in statute or otherwise?

There is a clear need to codify the role and powers of the Prime Minister, preferably in statute, both to ensure democratic transparency, and to recognise how the office has changed in recent decades, as discussed below. (For an example of a proposal for statutory codification see eg: The Prime Ministership Bill 2001, introduced by the chair of this Committee, Graham Allen MP).

This statute would set out:

a)  How the Prime Minister is appointed, and the respective roles of Parliament and the electorate in this process

b)  The term of office served by the Prime Minister

c)  The functions of the Prime Minister, including those presently often exercised in practice by the premier under the Royal Prerogative, which would be placed on a statutory basis for the first time, and placed under full parliamentary control, including measures for their exercise to be subjective to votes on substantive motions in the Commons. They include:

• the ability to enter into armed conflict;
• the right to appoint ministers;
• the right to make Orders in Council;
• the right to sign or ratify treaties (though some degree of statutory provision for parliamentary oversight has been introduced here, there remains scope for improvement)
• to recognise foreign governments.

d) It would provide the Prime Minisiter with support for a publicly funded team of staff sufficient for his/ her needs.

2. How has the role of the Prime Minister changed in recent years?

The office of Prime Minister, particularly since the time of Harold Wilson in the 1960s, has developed to take on ‘presidential’ characteristics, with the premier behaving more like the single head of government than the collegiate chair of Cabinet. The prime minister has become a president in the eyes of the electorate but remains a prime minister according to the constitution. This change has led in particular to prime ministers gathering around themselves a presidential-style team of advisers at No.10 and the Cabinet Office. These staff are required to bridge the gap that has opened up between the political and constitutional position of the prime minister (see my own book: Sue Pryce 1997,Presidentializing the Premiership, Basingstoke: Macmillan).

The British people at a general election no longer choose an individual MP for the constituency (which itself incidentally creates legitimacy problems for them which I won’t go into here). The general election has become a proxy for the election of a national leader. The Presidentialization of this process has become ever more obvious, at the last general election the electorate could view several Presidential debates, but not yet vote directly for the candidate of their choice. This –unusually for a western democracy-turns the local election process effectively into the election of a Member of an electoral college to select a Prime Minister, rather than the direct election of a Member to the Legislature.

2a. How has this process of change been brought about and controlled?

The main driver of this process has been the rise of personalised electoral politics, which have in turn required prime ministers to recruit a larger number of advisers able to furnish them with party political advice that traditionally is not  on offer from the permanent Civil Service. This process of change has evolved. I don’t believe it has been conscious or deliberate, but it is no less real for that. The lack of any statute, code or constitution has meant there has been no test to overcome to properly question or check further accumulation of power. The accumulation of power has therefore not been controlled by anything built into the structure of British democracy, beyond the self restraint of the incumbent.

3. Are there sufficient checks and balances on the powers of the Prime Minister?

No. 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.

4. What additional or improved checks and balances are required?

See 5.

4a. Is any further change required with regard to specific powers currently exercised under the royal prerogative, by transferring them to statute or otherwise?

See 1a above

5. Should the Prime Minister be directly elected by the British people?

Yes. Given the reality of a presidential prime minister – albeit not yet officially acknowledged – the most satisfactory outcome from the point of view of democratic accountability would be the direct election of the head of the UK executive.

This arrangement would have the dual benefits of creating transparency and accountability for the UK executive, and breaking the link of patronage between the UK executive and legislature, enabling the latter to assume its proper role as an independent partner of the executive. Once local people are enabled to use their vote in a general election to vote for a local MP, and separately to vote for the person they wish to be Prime Minister, then both local MPs and the Prime Minister will have separate authority and legitimacy.

I would be more than happy to expand upon any of these points in writing or to give verbal evidence to the select committee if that was felt appropriate.