|
Recent disputes over the creation of a new Ministry of Justice have demonstrated the need for a better way of making changes to the machinery of government. The consequences of such changes can be far-reaching, and changes can carry significant costs, financial or otherwise. Yet at present the Prime Minister can effectively make almost any change at will. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure that changes are fully considered before implementation, and that the reasoning behind them stands up to scrutiny.
The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 ought to act as a Parliamentary check on the Prime Minister's power. At present, it does not serve that function well. In principle, Parliament has the power to derail a change, even though this might take place after the event. In reality, for the vast majority of changes, Government effectively has the power to decide whether Parliament gets a vote or even a debate. The Government should at the very least undertake to provide timely debates on significant changes to the machinery of government.
However, even with such an undertaking, we do not believe Parliament's current powers would be strong enough. We welcome the advance publication of a paper setting out the rationale for creating a Ministry of Justice, although this paper might usefully have been published as a consultation exercise. More effective, though, would be the prospect of a parliamentary vote. Parliamentary assent would give greater scrutiny, and hence greater legitimacy, to the Government's actions.
This report does not consider the merits or demerits of any particular machinery of government changes—it is for other Select Committees to do that. We do note, though, that the current machinery of government is still fundamentally the product of the Haldane Report, published in 1918. It is time for a fresh look at the entirety of the structure of government. We believe the time is ripe for a new Haldane inquiry.
|
