The first, definitive history of one of Britain's most important political institutions.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee have today published their 4th report of the 2009-10 session on 'The Cabinet Office and the Centre of Government' (HLP 30, ISBN 9780108459320) in which they suggest that power within the cabinet has become increasingly centralised to the Prime Minister and recommend that structures of accountability should be reformed to mirror that change. The Committee expresses support for the principles of collective responsibility but recognise that increasingly the Cabinet Office has become responsible for overseeing the delivery of government policy across departments. They stress that accountability mechanisms within the UK constitution are not set up to reflect this new reality with parliamentary and select committee scrutiny based on individual Ministers reporting to Parliament for activities within their departments. The Committee also considers the role of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and state that the responsibilities of the post are currently poorly defined. They recommend that the Government reassess the functions of the Minister for the Cabinet Office to ensure that the postholder's responsibilities accurately reflect the strategic role the Cabinet Office plays in delivering government policy. The report goes on to consider the approach taken to changes to the machinery of government and the change in the role and function of the Lord Chancellor which took place during Tony Blair's time as Prime Minister. The Committee states that the process of change involved ’wholly inadequate' consultation both within government and with the senior judiciary, and further states that there was "no justification for failure to consult on these important reforms". The Committee recommends that in future the Cabinet Office should play a formal role in investigating any machinery of government changes, particularly those with constitutional implications.

Since its creation in the depths of the Great War in December 1916, the Cabinet Office has retained a uniquely central place in the ever-changing political landscape of the last century. While the revolving door of 10 Downing Street admits and ejects its inhabitants every few years, the Cabinet Office remains a constant, supporting and guiding successive Prime Ministers and their governments, regardless of their political leanings, all the while keeping the British state safe, stable and secure. It has been at the centre of everything – wars, intelligence briefings, spy scandals, disputed elections, political crises – and its eleven Cabinet Secretaries, ever at the right hand of their political masters, have borne witness to them all. The true 'men of secrets', these individuals are granted access to the meetings that determine the course of history, trusted with the most classified information the state possesses. Written with unparalleled access to documents and personnel by acclaimed political historian, commentator and biographer Anthony Seldon, this lavishly illustrated history is the definitive inside account of what has really gone on in the last 100 years of British politics.

On cover: Making government work better

In this memorandum 'Managing government suppliers', the NAO welcomes the fact that the Cabinet Office is now asserting government's position with contractors in way that its scale as a customer merits. Specifically, this has enabled government to get greater value from contracting and has sent signals that government is willing to be tough on underperformance. However, the Cabinet Office still faces a number of challenges in developing a more mature approach. It is currently focused on short-term savings and has adopted a robust approach with departments and suppliers, which has enabled it to report significant savings from contract renegotiations. However, this approach will become harder over time, and risks missing out on achieving longer-term value for money through innovation and investment. There is a balance to be struck between tough negotiations and maintaining relationship with suppliers in the long term, if government is to maintain competition in public sector markets. The Cabinet Office is seeking to reform commercial practice across Government with the development of the Crown Commercial Service. There is a risk that the ambitions are not matched by the right resources, capability and information. It has gaps in commercial experience and expertise below senior levels, while its information on its 40 strategic suppliers is inconsistent and incomplete. A related report 'The role of major contractors in the delivery of public services' (HC 810, session 2013-14, ISBN 9780102987027) sets out some of the benefits that can be achieved through contracting but highlights issues that deserve greater public scrutiny.

The consultation paper published in January 2012 (Cm. 8233, ISBN 9780101823326)

The Capability Review programme was launched in 2005 to assess and compare systematically, for the first time, individual departments' organisational capabilities and ability to deliver their objectives. This National Audit Office report finds that the programme has led to evidence of greater capability in departments, but departments have yet to show that the programme has had an impact on outcomes in delivering public services. Action to tackle weaknesses in capability is now a prominent feature of board business and every department has a board member leading its review response. However, there is some uncertainty in departments about whether, or how, the programme will continue, risking a loss of momentum. The first-round reviews found common weaknesses in board leadership, determining the best way for delivering public services and staff skills. There is now evidence of improved capability, particularly in boards' visibility and cohesion. The report also finds: Capability Reviews are encouraging departments to work together while at the same time sharpening their focus on comparative performance; Capability Reviews focus on departments, but services are often implemented by external agencies which are not covered directly by reviews; and there is no benchmarking of departments' capabilities against external organisations, which might offer examples of best practice.