A conversation with Master Harry Carter

Master Stephen Wooler

---

Master Harry Carter experienced all forms of legal practice before opting for public law and public service. His breadth of expertise and ability to command the confidence of even the most difficult ministers resulted in a summons to No.10 and appointment as the first ever General Counsel to the Prime Minister. Awarded a life peerage by Theresa May, he has now ‘retired’ to the crossbenches of the House of Lords where his straightforward and thorough approach in testing and probing legislation has earned him great respect – significantly improving some of the welter of legislation. Calm in crises, he is the consummate public servant.

What influenced your career path most?

I did not start with any predetermined plan. After graduating from Reading University, I was fortunate in securing a place for post-graduate studies at the European University Centre at Nancy in France and subsequently an attachment to the Human Rights Directorate for Human Rights in the Council of Europe. This period coincided with the Falklands Conflict, and an abiding memory is trying to explain to sceptical European colleagues (particularly the French) why the UK would assemble such a battle fleet and fight over some small islands 8000 miles away.

I then read for the Bar and was called by Gray’s Inn in 1984 – obtaining a pupillage in commercial chambers (1 Brick Court). There, the younger tenants were fast appreciating the growing importance of European law, and this reinforced my fascination. It also whetted my appetite for public law although my first job was in fact elsewhere.

What was your first job?

A semi-legal role in a publishing company that specialised in law for businesses. It was quite well remunerated (and a company car meant a lot to a young man in those days). Although prospects seemed good, it did not offer long term security or the satisfaction of public service. Change beckoned.

Your introduction to the Civil Service?

A false start and a sharp lesson, I am afraid. I applied to what was then the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food – an organisation that regularly handled difficult European issues. I was complacent and underestimated the thoroughness of the process so was underprepared. But that experience stood me in good stead because thereafter preparation and knowing the brief became de rigueur. I was soon to learn that the Home Office Legal Adviser was recruiting. My research showed just how valuable my European and human rights experience could be to the Home Office. I prepared accordingly and the rest is history. The team was small with about 14 lawyers and every one of them was hugely experienced and willing to help me find my feet.

What was your role in the Home Office?

The Home Office responsibilities then were incredibly wide. Although we had specialisms, we all needed to be able to respond across the whole piste. Early on, I was assigned data protection, Northern Ireland and prisons. The first was then a new but fast developing area of law that was to permeate practically all activity in both private and public sector.

My prison work afforded me insights into the problems of sentencing policy and operating a prison service with an aged estate, limited investment and a spiralling population. They inspired a passion that endures. Since retiring I have become a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and lose no opportunity to speak on such matters in the House of Lords. We must achieve honesty and proportionality in sentencing policy. Prisons are essential but achieve nothing if they do not have the capacity to rehabilitate those who are amenable to rehabilitation. 80% of offending is currently reoffending, a shocking indictment of the failure of successive governments to tackle this issue.

What about Northern Ireland?

Home Office legal advisers also advise the Northern Ireland Office. Counter terrorism work was high on the agenda. Much of my work related to the negotiations that led to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in 1998. Mo Mowlem was Northern Ireland Secretary, and I accompanied her to many meetings including direct meetings with the main protagonists. I admired her humanity and resilience. One meeting was particularly memorable because frustration was building. Mo Mowlem started scratching at her head and the next moment a wig went flying across the room revealing her completely bald head – the result of ongoing chemotherapy. It also revealed her commitment in the face of adversity in a way that changed the dynamics of the meeting and progress became easier.

That period was particularly challenging. The Good Friday agreement had to be implemented through legislation – by November 1988, the Northern Ireland Act had received Royal Assent.

Controversy was the watchword throughout this period with the second Bloody Sunday Inquiry always on the radar and the ongoing saga of Private Lee Clegg. Originally convicted of murder in 1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the lethal shooting of a passenger in a stolen car travelling at high speed through a roadblock, Clegg was finally cleared in 2000 and reinstated in his regiment. The current Prime Minister was a junior lawyer in his defence team.

I continue to take an interest in Northern Ireland affairs. The Good Friday agreement was a major breakthrough. The challenge now is to find longer term acceptable arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland accompanied by closure on the Troubles through mechanisms that are compatible with our ECHR commitments. Easier said than done.

What is the secret of working successfully with Ministers?

In short, gaining their trust by showing them that you are on their side. Government lawyers must work with elected politicians of all persuasions. Their role is to assist the implementation of policy within the law. It is important that Ministers know that you are trying to find a proper means to their policy goal (even if your personal view is that the policy is wrong). However, the advice must remain objective. It is easier now to do that by couching advice in terms of the risk of successful challenge attached to a policy or proposed course of action. Tone is also essential. Getting these things right makes it easier to say ‘No, Minister’ when necessary; and one must resist giving advice simply because it is what you think the Minister wants to hear.

The call to 10 Downing Street: how did it happen?

All Prime Ministers build their own team, and nobody works at No.10 except by invitation from the Prime Minister. Shortly after Theresa May succeeded David Cameron, I was asked to go to No.10. On arrival, I found several other Home Office colleagues were already there. I was particularly apprehensive because previously there had been no permanent lawyer post at No.10. Being asked to become her General Counsel was uplifting for the confidence it signalled but left me apprehensive – how might this work given that the Attorney General was the established source of advice to the PM?

How did it work?

Very well in practice. It had always been stressed to me that the AG is the government’s ultimate legal adviser whose view must prevail. So I met the AG and made it clear that my routine in-house advice would not be such as to undermine or gainsay the role of the AG – we would be on the same side. During my 7 years at No.10, I worked closely with successive Attorneys General – there were quite a few – and we always managed a successful modus operandi.

What was the reality of working with Prime Ministers?

Overall, it was very enjoyable albeit punctuated by frequent crises. My working relationship with Theresa May was very close. I had an upstairs office but was frequently summoned down without any idea of the issue. Despite my preference to prepare for such meetings, I usually found the answer came instinctively from years of working across difficult issues. She was diligent and considerate and a pleasure to work for.

Despite this good relationship, it came as a huge surprise when, having been invited down after her resignation to bid farewell, she offered me a life peerage. The formal announcement came later in her resignation honours list.

The time I felt specially sorry for her was seven days after the 2017 General Election. The massive fire at Grenfell Tower was a catastrophe calling for an equally massive response. Under the civil contingencies plan, that responsibility rested with the local authority – the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, probably the best resourced local authority in the UK. But they were just not up to it and it took several days for that to be realised and for central government to take the lead. It was a very damaging start to her second term.

Implementing Brexit was her predominant issue. Having assumed the poisoned chalice, Theresa May was sincere in her approach that any solution should respect the 48% as much as the 52%. It was an admirable aspiration. But in trying to please everyone, no-one was happy, such was the strength of feelings on each side. Ironically, the reset of relations with Europe sought by Kier Starmer looks remarkably like that original agreement which Theresa May negotiated.

Boris Johnson was the complete opposite to Theresa May and my interactions with him more limited. A colourful character with wonderful worldly knowledge (and a great classicist), he did not have the qualities PMs need. I only saw Liz Truss once, in passing in the corridor, although I just had time to get to know her team.

Rishi Sunak to my mind had great potential but no real opportunity to fulfil it. His decision to call the election came as a surprise. He had every quality needed – clever, hardworking, quick to learn and complete integrity. But he had never run a policy department. He compensated by his ability to learn on the job. The small boats crisis was his undoing. However, I had retired in late 2023, enabling me to take my seat in the House of Lords – a role that was incompatible with my previous Civil Service status.

Inside 10 Downing Street; tell me about the culture.

I did not attend the infamous Christmas parties!

But how No.10 performs impacts greatly on the effectiveness of Whitehall as a whole – the more so as government becomes more presidential and less cabinet. A significant part of the problem is the number of Spads (special advisers appointed by ministers on a political basis but not part of the Civil Service). Their focus is politics rather than public service and the public interest, yet in No 10 they sometimes manage those who do have that responsibility. This, combined with their propensity for informal briefing of the media and spin, makes orderly government difficult. And the relationship between Spads and career Civil Servants in No 10 was often tense. That said, there were some incredibly talented Spads with whom I worked closely.

So, who really did rule the roost?

Without a doubt, it was Larry the cat! He went wherever he pleased and did whatever he pleased. I watched him one morning sauntering into a ministerial meeting in the Cabinet Room. Having jumped onto the table he strutted its length and back observing the proceedings with disdain before making his way to the Foreign Secretary and spreading himself out on his papers where he remained. Nobody batted an eyelid or disturbed him!

Tell us what it is like to be a crossbencher.

It is very rewarding – an opportunity to influence and improve legislation for the better. A crossbencher can stand aside from party politics and focus on the public interest. Parliament now faces an unprecedented volume of legislation with some Bills literally the size of a telephone directory. Many are ill-constructed and others, whilst fundamentally sound, lack balance. The Private Member’s Assisted Dying Bill is an example of the former where important issues have not been properly addressed. The Employment Rights Bill and Renters’ Rights Act contain many worthwhile reforms but both lack balance in the distribution of rights.

I find myself free to engage in policy debates hitherto outside my sphere of learning, so I am also broadening my horizons and bringing new perspectives to the debates. I usually speak several times a month.

What was your maiden speech like?

I was nervous. An early opportunity came up to speak on victims and witnesses, an important topic for me, and so I decided to get it done sooner rather than later.

You also work as a consultant for Kingsley Napley?

I am proud to be a consultant to such a great firm. After 34 years as a lawyer in the public sector, it is a privilege to be part of such a highly rated public law team in the private sector.

Do you find much time to participate in Inn activities?

Sadly not. I would love to be more involved and hope there will come a time when I can be.

Explore more from this edition

Is it Time for an Ethical Reset in the Legal Profession?

Professor Richard Moorhead highlighted cultural and ethical failings in the profession, with panelists stressing competence over rule changes and warning that restoring weakened professional integrity is far harder than protecting it.

AGIS Report

The AGIS Report highlights a vibrant year of community and advocacy development, from festive gatherings and extensive mooting opportunities to the lively “Rite of Spring” Ball celebrating student achievement and connection at Gray’s Inn.

Black History Month Panel Event: Black Silk October 2025

Black History Month’s Black Silk at Gray’s Inn honoured Black excellence at the Bar, celebrating inspiring advocates and KCs whose journeys emphasised authenticity, persistence, progress and the power of community.

Evaluating Evidence – Cautionary Tales!

Reflections on two murder cases exposing false confessions and flawed assumptions, and asking whether open minds can ultimately prevent miscarriages of justice.