02 Aug 2017

Power Map. The list of Cabinet committees indicates where influence really lies in Government

211AE3DE-8AF4-4995-A7321396FEAA7DC4.jpg

The Cabinet, like Parliament, is taking a break this August. Even in more normal times, however, it still meets as a body for little more than an hour a week and largely ratifies decisions taken elsewhere. That ‘elsewhere’ is a network of official committees. Although they have existed for many decades, the authority and membership of these committees were not acknowledged openly, indeed were a technical secret, until John Major authorised the publication of their names, remits and composition 25 years ago. It has since become a norm to release the details of them periodically, in most cases after a general election. So, on the last day before the parliamentary recess, this was repeated.

The importance of Cabinet committees can hardly be overstated. They are the inner clockwork of the Whitehall machine. Their decisions are binding on the Cabinet as a whole. They consist mostly of Cabinet members (unsurprisingly) but in some cases more junior ministers can also be members. If they are, though, then they must be Privy Councillors (and thus a ‘Rt Hon.’) because constitutionally the Cabinet itself is a sub-committee of the Privy Council. They are also a crucial source of patronage for the Prime Minister. It is the PM who determines how many committees there are, how many, if any, sub-committees they will have and also which individuals serve on them. No Prime Minister is under any obligation to retain the same structure or individuals. They are, therefore, a power map.

After 2015, David Cameron supplemented the formal system of Cabinet committees with a number of Implementation Taskforces with a more specific brief and, implicitly, more temporary in nature. These do not, crucially, have the same status, in that Cabinet approval for their decisions is needed. The issue areas chosen and the individuals allocated to them is of some interest but of less significance.

What is the structure of Cabinet committees that Theresa May has established?

Under Mrs May there are five committees with a number of sub-committees reporting up to them. These are: the Economic and Industrial Strategy Committee, which has sub-committees dealing with airports, economic affairs and reducing regulation; the European Union Exit and Trade Committee, which has sub-committees focusing on negotiations (arguably the most pivotal entity in Whitehall), international trade and European affairs; the National Security Council, which has sub-committees addressing nuclear deterrence and security, and then threats, hazards, resilience and contingencies, and also strategic defence and security review implementation; the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and, finally, the Social Reform Committee, which has a home affairs sub-committee. She has also created five Implementation Taskforces, which cover housing, digital, tackling modern slavery and people trafficking, immigration, and skills. That makes for twenty committees overall.

This is quite different in a number of regards from the Cameron era. He had economic committees but with no mention of industrial strategy. For understandable reasons he did not have an EU Exit and Trade Committee. He also did not oversee anything called a Social Reform Committee. These are all personal institutional creations of the present Prime Minister. She also abolished outright three major committees that the former Prime Minister established. Namely, the Constitutional Reform Committee (she is not very interested in that subject), the Public Expenditure Committee (yet more evidence of the diminishing standing of deficit elimination) and the Home Affairs Committee (hence removing a constraint for her successor at the Home Office that she had to endure in her tenure). Whereas Mr Cameron set up 10 Implementation Taskforces in 2015, she has cut that back to five and only sits herself (and hence is the Chair) of one, Tackling Modern Slavery and People Trafficking.

What does this tell us about the relative authority of the most senior Cabinet ministers?

Setting aside Damian Green, holder of the somewhat amorphous title of First Secretary of State and often referred to in many media quarters as a ‘de facto Deputy Prime Minister’, of whom more in the next section, the most senior tier of this administration would be assumed to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and, because of current circumstances, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. This is largely confirmed by the list of whom is on what committee or sub-committee but with some intriguing caveats.

Philip Hammond is on 12 of the 15 main bodies, missing from the Economic Affairs and Industrial Strategy Reducing Regulation sub-committee, Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, and the Social Reform Home Affairs sub-committee. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, runs him very close with 11 assignments. She is on the Economic and Industrial Strategy Economic Affairs sub-committee (hardly a necessity in her portfolio) and is one of the six-person strong EU Exit and Trade Negotiations sub-committee, which Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, is not a member of (also significant, surely).

Compared with these two prominent ‘Remainers’, Boris Johnson and David Davis, from the Leave camp, are in a lesser division. The Foreign Secretary is on nine committees and sub-committees but outside of the various overseas affairs and national security bodies (which, allowing for his office, he has to be appointed to) he is only on one other sub-committee. Mr Davis serves on the four entities relating to European Union Exit and Trade (as one would expect) but again only on one other one. It would appear that the influence of the ‘Brexiteer’ ministers beyond Brexit itself is strikingly limited.

So who is really punching above their weight then?

The list suggests that there are three individuals with disproportionate clout within the government. The first, and by far the biggest winner from the post-election reshuffle, is Mr Green, First Secretary of State, who really is the Deputy Prime Minister in all but name. He now sits on 14 of the 15 Cabinet committees and sub-committees and four of the five Implementation Taskforces. Indeed, he is the Chair of the EU Exit and Trade sub-committees on International Trade and European Affairs (despite being an ultra-Remainer), and the National Security Council sub-committee on Threats, Hazards, Resilience and Contingencies, and the Social Reform Home Affairs Sub-Committee. He also leads all four of the Implementation Taskforces on which he serves. These are roles and resources on a par, if not in excess of, Nick Clegg and earlier Michael Heseltine when titled Deputy Prime Minister.

The next, perhaps more surprising, dominant figure is Greg Clark, the Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Secretary. He sits on 13 of the 15 committees and sub-committees and also two of the five Implementation Taskforces. Not only does he have a seat on every Economic and Industrial Strategy Committee and sub-committee (which one would anticipate) but is also on all the EU Exit and Trade Committee and sub-committees, bar Negotiations, and every branch of the National Security Council and the Social Reform Committee and its Home Affairs sub-committee. His only other omission is the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee. He serves on the Implementation Taskforces for housing and on immigration. For a man with quite a low profile, he appears to have a lot of power.

Finally, the authority of Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, is worth noting. He sits on all of the National Security Council committees and sub-committees (logically enough) but also extends to the main Economic and Industrial Strategy Committee and its Economic Affairs sub-committee, the European Union Exit and Trade European Affairs sub-committee and the Social Reform Home Affairs sub-committee. Like Mr Green and Mr Clark, to conclude, he is an individual who is worth knowing.


Tim Hames
Director General, BVCA


×

Update your login details

We updated our website and supporting systems on 12th December. 

If you previously had an account, please reset your password. If it's your first-time logging in, please register to create an account. For assistance, please contact the BVCA Membership Team

Login