1.  The Governance of Britain paper and the response to our Report show strongly contrasting attitudes to the role of Parliament, which we believe ought to be reconciled. (Paragraph 3)

2.  Transfer of Functions Orders do not provide for effective parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the organisation of the civil service, both for the reasons set out in paragraph 4 above, and because any debate or vote on an order can only take place at the behest of the Government. There have been no debates or votes on such orders for more than 25 years. A different mechanism is required. (Paragraph 6)

3.  Making a written ministerial statement is an important way of providing information to Parliament, but it does not require Government to engage with Parliament in a way that would provide meaningful accountability. (Paragraph 9)

4.  Machinery of government changes should always take place after proper analysis of the consequences. It is not appropriate that Prime Ministers should be able to alter the structure of the civil service departments on a whim, and we do not understand why they should ever need to do so. (Paragraph 10)

5.  If the Government is prepared to allow Parliament a vote on matters as important and urgent as the deployment of the armed forces overseas, we do not understand why it should be resistant to giving Parliament a more effective voice on the reorganisation of civil service departments. (Paragraph 11)

6.  The forthcoming draft bill on constitutional reform is likely to include provisions to put the civil service on a statutory footing. As part of these provisions, we recommend measures to allow Parliament effective scrutiny of changes to the organisation of government itself. (Paragraph 12)