asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Lord President will conduct early consultations with privy counsellors, opposition parties, senior members of the judiciary, chartered bodies, universities and other relevant non-governmental bodies about the proposed plan to abolish the Privy Council Office.
My Lords, changes to the management of the functions within the Privy Council Office were announced yesterday following consultation with the Law Lords, the devolved Administrations and the Palace. From 2 April, the four ministerial private offices will transfer to the Cabinet Office, and the Privy Council secretariat and support for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will transfer to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I remain Lord President of the Council and Leader of this House.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for her reply. Will she recognise that, when the Government’s plans were leaked last weekend, there was considerable concern, not least because not so very long ago the Prime Minister tried to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor by a snap of his fingers, without consulting anybody, even the Queen? Was it not high-handed to plan the abolition of the Privy Council Office without first consulting the professional bodies and universities for which it has responsibility—and without consulting the Opposition, who, Sir Gus O’Donnell said in his memorandum, were also affected? As a matter of common courtesy, should not the noble Baroness have come to the House to explain precisely why she should continue to be paid a salary as Lord President when her office has been abolished?
My Lords, as I made absolutely clear, the Privy Council Office has not been abolished. This is about a change in management structures; that is what the review was about. I hear the majority of Members of this House talk about the need for the Leader of this House to sit in Cabinet. The post of Lord Privy Seal is an historic title and has no departmental functions and is often attached to the role of Leader of this House. So I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord ask about the relationship of that role or the role of the Lord President and my continuing to take a Cabinet salary.
My Lords, in view of the Government’s determination to pursue public sector efficiency savings through the Gershon report, how would the proposals contribute to efficiency savings in the public sector?
My Lords, this is about utilising synergies by moving a very small government department in management terms into two larger government departments. It is also about ensuring improved development for the staff of the Privy Council Office, which will come through their membership of a larger department.
My Lords, is this a move towards a coherent Ministry of Justice, which has long been advocated from these Benches? If so, we welcome it.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be aware that there have been ongoing discussions within government about the possibility of creating a Ministry of Justice. This is not part of those proposals.
My Lords, is not this constant change—this cultural revolution, where ancient bodies are dismantled, despite the efficacy of the work that they do—a sign of a Government who have lost their way in respect of the big problems such as health, education and so on? Will the Minister consider putting on the desk of every member of the Government a notice that says, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it”?
My Lords, this is not a dismantling; I made it absolutely clear that it is a change in management structures. The functions carried out by the Privy Council Secretariat and the supporting office to the Judicial Committee will continue. I suppose that if I had come to this House wearing a hoodie this morning, the noble Lord would have embraced those changes and might even have embraced me.
Oh!
My Lords, this is not about dismantling the Privy Council Office; it is about looking at ways in which we can improve the development of our staff and ensure greater efficiency in the work of our larger departments.
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that over the centuries the Privy Council has always had a fluid structure, taking on staff functions and repatriating them—a bit like a potting shed—wherever appropriate? In particular, will she confirm that the functions of the Privy Council and her own supervisory role will remain unchanged, or that, in the words of the Prime Minister in the Statement, which to my understanding is completely unambiguous:
“The Privy Council and its functions will continue unchanged”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/07; col. 135WS.]?
Is this not simply a sensible readjustment of management support and not, in some grandiloquent sense, an assault on the constitution?
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend, and I advise those who have talked about abolishing the Privy Council Office to look at the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. There has always been flexibility in terms of staff coming into the Privy Council over the years.
My Lords, I have been straining to hear any reasonable justification for this change. The noble Baroness has even accepted that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money will be saved by the proposed change. Why is it that another place was given a Written Statement by the Prime Minister yesterday yet I can find no record of a similar Statement having been made to this House, until the noble Baroness answered the Question a few moments ago? Is it not the truth that this is change for change’s sake, and the sole motive, like the abolition of the Lord Chancellor, is simply to junk tradition?
My Lords, I am surprised at the tone taken by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this issue. This is not change for change’s sake. Every Prime Minister makes changes. The noble Lord will recall that when he was in power the then Prime Ministers made changes to the structure of the Civil Service. It is something that Governments do as a matter of course in looking at ways in which departments can best be managed. That is the case here.
I sent a Written Ministerial Statement through yesterday. I apologise that it did not appear in our Hansard today, but I understand that it will appear tomorrow.