Three questions for the Maude review of the Cabinet Office

The government has initiated a review of the Cabinet Office, to be led by Francis Maude, a former minister of that department and strong proponent of civil service reform. In its response to the coronavirus crisis, the government has struggled to translate commitment into action and to anticipate problems. Given these failings, it makes sense that it should consider how it can improve the centre of government. But a review should be driven by how the prime minister wants to use the centre of government and what will work in future – not a search for culprits for recent failings. There are three key questions the review should be asking.

Does the Cabinet Office have the resources to give the right policy advice?

There have been suggestions the Cabinet Office will be converted to a ‘prime minister’s department’. Never mind the name: it already is one. Its own website leaves no ambiguity (‘we support the prime minister’). It also has similar functions to its counterparts in countries with similar systems of government, including those that explicitly call themselves the ‘prime minister’s department’.

But one way in which it has historically differed to similar departments elsewhere is in its policy advice offering. When the Institute previously looked at the support offered to heads of government, it found the Cabinet Office had far fewer civil service policy advisers supporting the prime minister than leaders in Australia, Canada and Germany. The domestic policy secretariats in the Cabinet Office do provide some support, with separate policy advice coming from the policy unit in Number 10, but the prime minister still relies on briefings from staff in other departments, supplemented by a steering brief from the Cabinet Office. In the Australian prime minister’s department, by contrast, a policy team ‘shadows’ every other department and offers the prime minister substantive, independent advice, with a separate secretariat administering the cabinet process.

Policy expertise in a prime minister’s department can offer an independent view. It can also help the prime minister spot problems on the horizon, as well as joining the dots between different departments, as the cabinet secretariats do now. The review should consider whether the Cabinet Office needs more of this capability, or whether it already strikes the appropriate balance.

How much do you want to run from the centre of government?

The Cabinet Office shapeshifts over time – functions come and go according to each prime minister’s interests and their style of running government. Maude and his team should ask the question: just how much do you want to run from the centre? How much is it possible to do well from the centre? What is done better by departments?

This government has already shown an inclination to keep a tight grip on the government machine: special advisers and government communications have both been brought under Number 10’s direction, Dominic Cummings and members of the No 10 policy unit have shifted from the prime minister’s offices in 10 Downing Street to premises occupied by the Cabinet Office, and former associates of key figures such as Michael Gove and Cummings have been appointed to departments’ boards.

In the wake of the A-levels fiasco, the prime minister is said to have been urged by colleagues to take a more ‘hands on’ approach. When things aren’t working as well as hoped, keeping control at the centre might seem like a good idea. But it doesn’t always bear fruit, as the government has found out with its PPE taskforce. It has been run from the Cabinet Office – and accused of being ignorant of needs on the ground. The review needs to test what makes sense to run from the centre, and what is better left to other departments and ministers, who will always have more subject matter expertise and on the ground intelligence at their disposal than the Cabinet Office.

How can the centre help departments to help themselves?

Tony Blair was another prime minister who was dissatisfied with progress on his government’s commitments. His administration reportedly considered a merger between Number 10 and the Cabinet Office to create a ‘prime minister’s department’. In the end, he opted for something else: the prime minister’s delivery unit. At its peak, that unit tracked a small number of top priorities, held ministers to account for performance and offered extra support where necessary. Widely regarded as successful, it has been emulated around the world. But post-2010 successors have lacked its clout. At times, this government has found it difficult to translate commitment into action: testing, contact tracing and PPE are only the most recent examples.

Re-thinking the way the centre monitors and supports delivery of the prime minister’s priorities is one place for Maude’s review to start. Changing the Cabinet Office can change the rest of the Whitehall system. The review needs to focus on big questions that go to its purpose and avoid knee-jerk reactions to recent problems.