Splitting the 91Èȱ¬ Office
Splitting the 91Èȱ¬ Office is, if you believe John Reid, driven by a desire to focus better on counter terrorism.
If you believe the opposition, it is driven by the home secretary's desperation to shed the bits of a department which he dubbed as "not fit for purpose".
Remember though that this idea is far from new. For decades many in politics, particularly on the liberal left of politics, have argued that the minister in charge of administering justice should not be the same person as the minister for locking people up. That's the case in many European countries. The argument is that the prison and probation services are always ignored and under-resourced by home secretaries, who care much more about the police, and fending off charges that they are too soft.
Indeed, more than once in recent years, Tony Blair has made plans to do what he's done today. When the PM hatched the idea of replacing his old boss Lord Irvine with (his old flatmate) Lord Falconer as Lord Chancellor, the original idea was for him to run a Ministry of Justice. Then home secretary David Blunkett and, I believe, Lord Irvine himself fought the idea and won.
I'm 
Comments
Is it just me, or does the Ministry of Justice sound suspiciously like something out of a book?
Can we look forward to the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of Peace?
I'm looking forward to the rebranding of the 91Èȱ¬ Office as the "Ministry of the Interior". Then we can say that we have truly arrived....in the Third World.
Originally, I thought keeping the 91Èȱ¬ Office intact was a good idea but splitting it in two has its advantages. I’ve seen how different organisations have their own identity and don’t seem to make best use of the glue between themselves even when it’s a top priority. Perhaps, some more focus will help here.
Another thing that was on my mind was senior management. I note that nearly a dozen people where dropped or redeployed. I see that as a positive sign that performance is being placed before ego. Making and breaking appointments flexibly, and on the basis of suitability, will raise calibre and boost morale.
So far, on just focus and staff appointments, I see things are looking good. By stripping away the junk and allowing staff to focus on getting the job done, and creating a management layer that’s on the ball, I’m confident things will begin to improve of their own accord, and both government and public will be grateful.
All we need is for them to sing a Peters and Lee duet and we’re done…
This has been on the cards for a long time, and it does make prima facia sense to me. The home office has been such a career-killer because it has tried to do too much.
However, I'm always nervous about what is in some ways constitutional tinkering. It's been happening with discussions of a supreme court and other changes to the justice system. What worries me in particular is a) manuevering based on the politics of the moment with huge and often unpredictable effects on the constitutional process and b) anything that suggests that the US model is superior.
So does this mean that justice in this country will suffer as the new Minister for Justice will be over worked (with all the new duties as well as his existing ones) or does it mean that he is under-employed now?
A Ministry of Justice? Would the "Minister for Justice" be Cabinet rank? If not, there is adager that the very real issues of yobbish behaviour, and non-terrorist crime will become second order. As John Denham said today, people go to bed worrying about crime and disorder not some ill-defined terrorist threat.
Splitting the 91Èȱ¬ Office in two sounds like a good way to let it generate two screw-ups at the same time.
How very efficient our Government is becoming. I'm fully in favour of things that are more efficient.
The problems at the 91Èȱ¬ Office have been made by the politics of New Labour.When there is a problem just make a new law to sort it out.As can be seen by the results,the 91Èȱ¬ Office has been bogged down trying to enact all this Legislation.Splitting it in Two will not sort it out,only for even more Civil Servants ,more form filling,more Quangos and more costly mess.
The problems at the 91Èȱ¬ Office have been made by the politics of New Labour.When there is a problem just make a new law to sort it out.As can be seen by the results,the 91Èȱ¬ Office has been bogged down trying to enact all this Legislation.Splitting it in Two will not sort it out,only for even more Civil Servants ,more form filling,more Quangos and more costly mess.
Looks like Tony's friend, 'cheerful' Charlie Falconer is to have another position in which he can spectacularly fail. (We all remember the Dome and House of Lords reform to name but two) It will be unfortunate for the Country if he is ever given such a sensitive and important position within Government, particularly as he has never been, and most unlikely ever to be, elected.
I think this is a good idea because justice and security are different and sometimes conflicting concepts and I would prefer that each had its own department.
This way we might get more of a debate when our civil liberties are attacked, because it won't all be done under one roof, so there is more likelihood of restraint on the government's part.
Having said that, I hope (probably forlornly) that we don't end up creating two massive and unweildy departments out of one.
"For decades many in politics, particularly on the liberal left of politics, have argued that the minister in charge of administering justice should not be the same person as the minister for locking people up".
And, Lord Falconer is in charge of justice and locking people up.
No change there, then.
How low do New Labour get.
This isn't in the public interest at all.
It's about burying the bad bits so as to try and spin some good bits.
Great
Another few thousand trees die as all the letterheads are changed. What are the odds that the costs go up as everyone is regraded, new carpets and corpoate logos are introduced.
And all to buy excuses for ministers when the real underlying state of affairs is revealed later in the year.
"all we need is for them to sing a Peters and Lee duet when they are done" Sorry Charles, I think Flanders & Swan - The Gasman Cometh might be closer to the truth.
A good idea, long overdue I feel. As Nick rightly says, many other (indeed most) countries have separate Ministries of the Interior and Justice. This will bring prisons and convicts permanently to the fore, rather than just when there's a big scandal.
And all this talk about 1984 and sounding like the Ministry of Truth/Peace. Ministry is the title of a government department. Grow up and get over it.
So, who will be complaining about the judges now - Ministry of Justice or the 91Èȱ¬ Office? More likely both.
I smell a threat to the separation of powers looming.
When you start to believe in miracles more then you do in New Labour then it`s time to get rid of New Labour.
For me the issue is academic. Either model can be made to work. The issue, with this government in particular, is it has been poor at implementation.
It is easy to announce new laws and initiatives. What is difficult is dealing with the organisational issues that are causing the problems.
I've never worked at the 91Èȱ¬ Office, so it is difficult to comment on what the specifics of its problems are: Poor systems, confused goals, demotivated staff, incompetent management. A combination of all four?
But these are the issues that need addressing. And it is only in dealing with these problems will improvement occur.
Splitting the 91Èȱ¬ Office in two may or may not help. But turning around any organisation means rolling your sleeves up and getting on with the job. And there is little evidence, in domestic policy anyway, that this government has ever been willing to do that.
A case of 'split for purpose'?
Gesture politics at its worst.
Clueless Government ministers fiddling while Rome burns.
Get on with the job - or get out.
Does this mean that all of the mistakes that are in the pipelne for exposure (and the new ones that are yet to be created) can be brushed aside on the basis that they are "being sorted"?
However, it's pleasant to know that the reorganisation is targeted to assist in the war on terror. *cough*
Lessons to be learnt:
1. Make the failures in office pay a real price, this includes politicians and officials,
2. Moving the chairs around is a good smokescreen for meaningful activity,
3. Weigh up the costs of perpetual reorganisation, then forget the project,
4. Find out whether each new department will have a cost centre against which to charge the other plus VAT.
etc etc
Why should I assume that the division of the 91Èȱ¬ Office isn't just another purposeless gesture designed to create a hopeful headline, and to mislead the public into thinking that there are genuine, demonstrable gains that will result from it? How many times do I need to be hoodwinked by this government before I may consider it appropriate never to take at face value anything it says on any subject?
Whatever the merits of splitting the 91Èȱ¬ Office, it seems a little curious that in a democracy, the Ministry of Justice is likely to be run by an unelected peer.
It's long been said that the 91Èȱ¬ Office was simply too big to be managed as one Ministry. Now there's a coherent split it's exactly what should have been done years ago.
If there's one thing I'm really fed up with it's all these knee-jerk comments about it "all being done for spin" or "jobs for the boys" or whatever. This is too tiresome to keep getting churned out time after time. We heard all this the last time and the time before ad nauseum. If that's all you have to say, please shut up unless you have something constructive to contribute.
Here's a suggestion for Harry (Comment 25).
If you find tiresome the suggestion that the 91Èȱ¬ Office split may be more presentational than effective why don't you provide us with persuasive evidence that the contrary is true. You know, if you don't like something that is said, prove it to be wrong. Don't expect other people to keep quiet about it just so as not to offend your sensitivities.
I suspect that we are in agreement that Government should be an honourable pursuit, free of deceit and misrepresentation. The difference between us perhaps is that in your worldview this is what actually happens, and in mine it isn't.
The main reason, of course, is simply to allow all of the existing mistakes to be the responsibility of a department that no longer exists. Neat, eh?
Well, the whole lot, since 2003's cabinet reshuffle has been a plan hatched along the way, with no mandate, and not in the manifesto. It seems to me that a lot of this is being done to serve the needs of the current administration, particularly at the top, rather than for future benefit of the constitution.
anyhow, im writing my dissertation (llb) on this next year, i'll send it in to the bbc if it ends up being any good!