Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
McSweeney urges review of ministers’ powers over major decisions
Morgan McSweeney has urged a rethink of ministers’ “quasi-judicial” decision-making powers, arguing they can keep major issues from wider cabinet discussion and prime ministerial input. The former chief of staff also wants the rules and conventions governing prime ministers reviewed, saying some may make it harder for governments to deliver their elected programmes.
He cited decisions such as whether to approve oil and gas fields and a proposed Chinese embassy, which were assigned to individual ministers. McSweeney said rules designed to prevent abuse of power should remain, while others should be justified and assessed for their cumulative effect; he also suggested the prime minister’s powers should be written down. He left Downing Street in February after controversy over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.
In short
- McSweeney wants a review of ministers’ quasi-judicial powers.
- He says some conventions restrict cabinet discussion and government delivery.
- He proposed codifying the prime minister’s powers.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Reviewing these powers could make major decisions more accountable to the elected government as a whole, allowing cabinet and the prime minister to weigh their wider consequences. Clearer written rules could also help distinguish necessary safeguards against abuse from conventions that unnecessarily obstruct delivery of an electoral programme.
The case against
Giving ministers or the prime minister greater scope to revisit decisions assigned to individual ministers could weaken safeguards that protect impartial, consistent decision-making. Existing conventions may also limit concentrated executive power; changing them without careful scrutiny could reduce checks and balances, even when the aim is to make government more effective.
Explained simply
In the UK, ministers can be given authority to make decisions on major applications and projects. Some are described as “quasi-judicial” because ministers must weigh evidence and follow rules intended to ensure decisions are made fairly and without improper influence.
Morgan McSweeney was chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer before leaving Downing Street in February. He has argued that the rules governing ministers and prime ministers should be reviewed, while safeguards against abuse of power remain; examples of decisions made by individual ministers include oil and gas field approvals and a proposed Chinese embassy.
The issue matters because these decisions can have wide effects, while the way responsibilities are divided may limit discussion across government. A review could consider how to balance fair decision-making with cabinet and prime ministerial oversight.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “Morgan McSweeney calls for rethink of cabinet ministers’ ‘quasi-judicial’ powers”.