Morgan McSweeney, who served as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff until earlier this year, has called for a comprehensive review of the quasi-judicial powers currently held by cabinet ministers. McSweeney, who played a pivotal role in bringing Starmer to power, argues that these specific legal processes are limiting broader cabinet discussions and reducing the prime minister’s direct input on matters of national importance.
While McSweeney did not cite a single specific incident as his primary example, he referenced significant decisions made under the current administration. A notable instance involves the determination of the future of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields. Initially, this responsibility fell to Ed Miliband, who served as energy secretary, before the decision was transferred to his successor, Miatta Fahnbulleh. Another example of such powers involved Steve Reed, then housing and local government secretary, who held the authority to approve a new Chinese super-embassy in east London.
Speaking to the House of Lords constitution committee, McSweeney described these quasi-judicial processes as obstacles that obstruct the effective work of the government. He further suggested that the dense network of rules governing the prime minister’s operations needs to be simplified. He noted that Starmer was recently advised against sending letters to cabinet ministers to outline priorities and request progress updates because doing so was considered contrary to established convention.
McSweeney stated that constitutional democracy is currently under pressure from two main sources: the potential for the abuse of power and the failure of governments to implement the policies on which they were elected. He emphasized that while rules preventing abuse of power should remain, the cumulative effect of all conventions must be evaluated rather than examining them in isolation.
According to McSweeney, there are numerous rules governing the prime minister’s powers, and every one of them should be identified, justified, and potentially reduced. He believes that some existing conventions prevent the government from operating at the speed required to carry out its lawful mandate. As a solution, he proposed that the prime minister’s powers should be codified by being formally written down to provide greater clarity and efficiency.
The former No 10 aide highlighted that the issue is not about individual bureaucratic hurdles but rather the accumulation of conventions that hold the prime minister back. This view aligns with comments Starmer has previously made regarding his frustration with being unable to utilize all available levers of power. McSweeney’s remarks come as he continues to reflect on the challenges faced by the new Labour administration since taking office.
McSweeney departed from his role in February, a move attributed to his close involvement in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the US ambassador. In an interview earlier this year, he admitted that the Labour Party had not been sufficiently prepared for the complexities of governing or for the volatile global environment when Starmer assumed leadership.
Despite being widely credited within the party for engineering their significant victory in 2024, McSweeney acknowledged that Labour lacked a clear strategy for making rapid changes for the public. He described himself as the party’s elections guru, yet he recognized a gap in their approach to delivering tangible results quickly for those who wanted change. His current advocacy for constitutional reform stems from a desire to ensure future governments can operate more effectively within the existing democratic framework.
The call for a rethink of these powers suggests a shift in how the relationship between the prime minister and the cabinet is understood. By streamlining the rules and clarifying the boundaries of ministerial authority, McSweeney believes the government can better fulfill its electoral promises. This perspective adds to the ongoing debate about the balance between accountability and executive efficiency in modern constitutional democracy.
