Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
do not have a view on whether some reasons for changing the machinery
of government are by their very nature more legitimate than others.
We do believe, however, that when significant changes are made,
Parliament and the electorate have a right to know the Prime Minister's
reasoning, and judge for themselves the validity of those reasons.
This is particularly important when there is a risk, as after
a general election, that major changes will be rushed through
without full consideration. (Paragraph 11)
2. We are approaching
the centenary of the Haldane Report. It is time for a fresh look
at the structure of government. It may be that the current departmental
structure remains appropriate, but the frequent changes over the
last decade suggest that the time is ripe for a new review. (Paragraph
17)
3. Not all machinery
of government changes are just "minor things". Significant
changes take time to bed in, and services may suffer in the meantime.
The costs are not just financial (although these can be significant);
governments stand to lose expertise, institutional memory and
strategic focus. The benefits may well justify these costs; but
we recommend that any proposals include full and honest consideration
of likely costs before such changes are made. (Paragraph 19)
4. The procedures
set out in the current Ministerial Code are designed to ensure
that proposals for changing the machinery of government receive
a measure of scrutiny within government itself. They do not cover
managerial matters, nor are they concerned with external scrutiny.
We believe there should be some form of external consultation
for major reorganisations. (Paragraph 23)
5. Statutory requirements
for consultation are not always appropriate; they may delay urgently
needed changes, or be an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on a
small change. On the other hand, if the change is of significance,
a requirement to consult may be insufficient; after all, it does
not in practice require the Government to convince anyone that
their proposals are correct. A stronger check is needed—such
as can only be provided by Parliament. (Paragraph 28)
6. Transfer of Functions
Orders are normally laid some time after the changes they effect.
We recommend that the Government should lay Orders in time for
Parliament to have a say before changes are made. (Paragraph 35)
7. We do not expect
the Government to know all the details of how transfers of functions
will operate before they are put into practice. But functions
can be, and often are, transferred in stages over separate orders.
We recommend that Government should lodge preliminary transfer
of functions orders at the time it announces prospective changes.
(Paragraph 36)
8. Transfer of Functions
Orders can only be a check on Government if they are debated.
The Government should undertake that if a Transfer of Functions
Order is prayed against, it will be debated on the floor of the
House. (Paragraph 38)
9. Parliament should
be given the chance to vote on Machinery of Government Changes.
We do not believe requiring primary legislation is proportionate;
Government should not be prevented from acting quickly if it is
in the national interest. But nor do we believe that this is incompatible
with parliamentary approval of such changes. If Government has
a sensible and defensible rationale for changes then it should
have no reason to be wary of debate. If it does not, then the
prospect of debate and division may discourage the change being
made. (Paragraph 45)
10. We recommend that
the Ministers of the Crown Act should be amended so that significant
changes to the Machinery of Government require the assent of both
Houses of Parliament. Government should also be prevented from
assuming that it will have Parliament's support; public money
should not be invested in structural changes until they have been
approved by Parliament. For that, Parliament will require business
cases with cost information for proposed changes. (Paragraph 46)
11. We hope that,
if the Ministers of the Crown Act cannot be amended immediately,
the new Prime Minister will act in this spirit, and invite Parliament
to approve any proposed changes. Adjournment debates could be
timetabled; but it would be better to allow substantive debates
on a motion to affirm the House's support for proposed changes.
(Paragraph 47)
| 
