This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

We now need to examine the powers of the UK PM in greater depth. We are going to look into the following areas of the powers of the PM:

1. Fiscal powers (the influence and control the executive holds over the economic matters of state)

2. Powers of patronage (the power to appoint individuals to positions of power)

3. The power relationship between the executive and the other branches of power: the legislature and the judiciary.

By examining these three areas of power we can understand the extent of the executive's influence and power.

Fiscal Powers

Fiscal Powers refers to the influence and control the executive holds over the economic matters of state. This power is primarily exercised through the budget, announced for each financial year. The UK budget is presented as a fait accompli (a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whilst it can be debated within parliament, it cannot be voted upon, or rejected.

This means that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor can be very influential with the executive's economic policy, as they do not need to consult the official opposition (Currently the Labour Party) or any other political parties. Therefore, there is no restriction on the influence of the PM over economic matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak addressed important economic aspects of the British political system in his budget announced in March 2020. He pledged the largest cash increase in public services since the Second World War - an additional £33.9 billion per year by 2024. The Corona virus impacted this particular budget and Sunak responded with an announcement of £12 billion for temporary, timely and targeted measures to provide security and stability for people and businesses.

Fiscal policy is almost exclusively controlled by the UK government. Devolved administrations have had very limited control over their own budgets, which are mostly sustained by block grants from the UK government. Nevertheless, recent legislation has provided more autonomy to the devolved governments over the tax rates. Local authorities (councils) are entitled to raise and set the rate of a domestic property tax (Council Tax). The remaining revenues are transfers from the central government and charges for services provisions. Local authorities also retain 50% of national non-domestic rates (business rates) collected in their jurisdiction. The large majority of tax revenues (95%) are collected by the central UK government and are then redistributed.  The size of the block grants that the UK government allocates to the devolved administrations is based on the long-standing 'Barnett Formula', whereby the devolved administrations are given a proportionate share of spending on devolved functions, given their populations compared to that of England.

This highlights the strong fiscal powers and influence of the UK executive.

Powers of patronage

The Prime Minister may appoint his/her own cabinet, and appointments do not have to be approved by parliament. Thus, they have free will over the higher levels of government, and may place key allies in strong roles so that the PM's influence stretches beyond the individual prime minister. For example, Dominic Raab was appointed foreign secretary and first secretary of state in Boris Johnson's first cabinet in July and remains in post. A staunch Brexiteer, Mr Raab served as a justice minister in 2015, but was sacked by Theresa May when she became prime minister the following year. He made a return as Brexit secretary in July 2018 after the resignation of David Davis, but quit only months later in opposition to Mrs May’s Brexit deal. Raab would later deputise for Johnson following the PM's time spent in intensive care after contracting Covid-19 in April 2020.

The PM's power to appoint and dismiss government ministers particularly at cabinet level, means that he/she is able to exert significant power. In theory, a PM may create a cabinet in their image, rewarding supporters and penalising disloyal MPs.

That said, a PM may wish to appoint ministers from different parts of the country and maintain an ideological balance so that his/her cabinet does not have too many ministers favouring one type of view(Remain/Leave/Thatcherite/One-nationist or in a Labour government: Remain/Leave/democratic socialist/Marxist etc)

The PM is permitted to reshuffle his/her cabinet when they see fit. This could be motivated by a number of things: a desire to freshen up the cabinet or perhaps to rid the party of disloyal or rival ministers.

Collective ministerial responsibility ensures a unified executive. This is the principle that ministers must support cabinet decisions or resign from the government. It means that decisions made in the cabinet are binding & secrecy must be upheld. Formal exceptions to the principle of collective ministerial responsibility exist in relation to voting in referendums, in a coalition government and in relation to free votes (also known as an unwhipped vote - is one in which MPs or members of the Lords are not put under pressure to vote a certain way by their party leaders. Free votes have traditionally been allowed on ethical issues that are seen as a matter of conscience.)

It would seem, therefore that the PM wields enormous power in relation to the powers of patronage.  However, the PM does need the support of cabinet ministers in order to achieve his or her objectives. No PM is able to exercise a monopoly on power - they must work with the ministers.

The relationship between the executive and the other branches of power: the legislative branch and the judiciary

The executive and judiciary

The term 'judiciary' refers collectively to all UK judges from lay magistrates and those serving on tribunals right up to the 12 senior justices sitting in the UK Supreme Court. 

In the UK appointments of justices to the Supreme Court are not politicised, ie: they are not political appointments. Judges are appointed by the monarch, on recommendation of the Prime Minister, who is informed by a special commission, of lawyers, political leaders and judges. UK Judges are appointed on merit, with little to no regard for their political affiliation.This means that the Prime Minister's influence over the judiciary is restricted, as they do not make appointments themselves, nor choose candidates, and so their political influence cannot be shown within the Supreme Court. The UK Supreme Court is currently led by Lord Reed, who took his seat in February 2012. Lord Reed is not a political representative of the executive. His powers are separate and distinct from the executive.

Of course, it is impossible to guarantee judicial neutrality.  However, judges are not permitted to take part in any political activity (such as campaigning for a political party), but they can vote. Judges must explain their decisions and their justifications must be rooted in law not personal or political bias.

The executive and the legislative branch

The PM faces scrutiny from Parliament. The Prime Minister and cabinet ministers can be asked to appear before a committee to explain their actions over their actions. The ability to scrutinise the executive via Select Committees is limited in some respects as they cannot compel the executive to do anything.

In 2011, David Cameron was called to appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee to explain his actions regarding UK military operations in Libya. Cameron did not attend as he believed that he had already explained his reasons in Parliament.

The Committee's report published in September 2016 stated that:

'In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.'

While the Committee was damming of the UK executive's actions in Libya, it was only able to report the findings of its investigation and suggest recommendations. The executive was and is not required to follow up on or act upon such reports.

The executive, legislative branch and the judiciary

On 28 August 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II upon the advice of the prime minister, Boris Johnson. The prorogation, or suspension, of Parliament was to be effective from between 9 and 12 September 2019 and last until the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October 2019; following political opposition, Parliament was suspended between 10 September and 24 September. Since Parliament was to be prorogued for five weeks and reconvene just 17 days before the United Kingdom's scheduled departure from the European Union on 31 October 2019, the move was seen by many opposition politicians and political commentators as a controversial and unconstitutional attempt by the prime minister to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans in those final weeks leading up to Brexit. Johnson and his Government defended the prorogation of Parliament as a routine political process that ordinarily follows the selection of a new prime minister and would allow the Government to refocus on a legislative agenda. Watch more here.

On 24 September, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prorogation was both justiciable and unlawful, and therefore null and of no effect. The court cited the Case of Proclamations (1611), in which the High Court of Justice asserted its power to test the existence of limits of prerogative powers, in answering the question of justiciability; in the case of prorogation, use of the Royal Prerogative must have respect for the conventions of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The court ruled that any prorogation would be unlawful "if it has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature"; if this is the case, there would be no need to rule on whether the motives of the executive were lawful.

The court further ruled that the prorogation of Parliament did have the effect of frustrating Parliament's constitutional functions; the court found that the suspension of Parliament in the prelude to the "fundamental [constitutional] change" of Brexit had an "extreme" effect on the "fundamentals of democracy". The court also found that the Government had not provided a justification for the prorogation nor for its length or its effect on the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of any withdrawal agreement under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As a result, the Court quashed the relevant Order in Council, which meant the effect of the royal proclamation of prorogation had the legal effect of "a blank piece of paper" and reverted the 2017–19 Parliament into being in session. Watch more on this here.

This case study highlights the restrictions on the powers of the executive, the ability of the legislative branch (the House of Commons and Lords = UK Parliament) to scrutinise and check the actions of the executive and the judiciaries ability to check that, in this case, the executive was or was not acting ultra vires (From the Latin, meaning 'beyond the authority' or 'beyond one's powers' - basically this means that the judiciary is able to check to see if the executive (and other organisations) is acting beyond the authority granted to them in law.)

Your task is to read the text above and respond to the following question:

“Separation of powers” refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be functionally independent and that no individual should have powers that span these offices. (The principal institutions are usually taken to be the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.)

Do you think there is a distinct separation of powers in the UK system? Provide at least one argument for and one against the idea that the UK system enjoys a total separation of powers. Add your views in the comments below: