One of the most significant but largely unnoticed changes to the way we are governed in recent years has been the establishment inside the Cabinet Office of a semi-official 'Department of the Prime Minister' which, at its peak under Tony Blair, employed more than 700 staff. This shift - detailed in our forthcoming book 'Premiership: the development, nature and power of the office of the British Prime Minister' - has entailed a more active role for No.10 in policy, with significant constitutional implications.
First, Cabinet, through which ministers can make important decisions collectively, has been compromised, through being stripped of a significant portion of the institutional support it receives from the Cabinet Office.Second, lines of democratic accountability have been blurred. If parliamentarians wish to investigate a certain programme or set of activities, to whom should they turn? The minister with the relevant portfolio and legal responsibility for action in the area concerned? Or the Prime Minister, who may well, using his 'Department', have had substantial influence on a particular course of action? Parliament tends to concentrate on the former, but the recent enhancements to No.10 have rendered this approach increasingly inadequate.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently looked at this issue, and has reported today.
Is it indeed?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment