Of the many news stories that dropped this week, one particularly drew our attention as being somewhat underestimated in its importance. On Tuesday, Boris Johnson stood before the House of Commons and announced (the story having been thoroughly pre-trailed to the press) the upcoming merger of the Department for International Development into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to form a new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

The cynic would perhaps be suspicious of the timing of the announcement, which took many by surprise. Although it is known to have been a long-term ambition of the Government, most were not expecting it so soon, and it is difficult not to be suspicious when it was dropped on an apparently random Tuesday in the middle of a slew of other highly critical news stories.

Although the media have covered it extensively, it is undeniable that the wave of other stories has meant that it has not come under the same degree of journalistic scrutiny as a major governmental rearrangement usually would.

From a consultation point of view, ‘machinery of government’ changes are rarely consulted on. There is no significant statute or common law that regulates how the government is organised, this mostly being left to the Prime Minister of the day as part of the ‘executive privilege’ that we have seen highlighted so frequently in recent times. That being said, although machinery of government changes are not consulted on, policy changes often are, and the merger of the two departments certainly represents a very fundamental policy shift.

Since 1997 Britain’s international aid efforts, a vital part of the extension of soft power globally have been administered independently of the Foreign Office by DFID. The merger of the two departments reduces the importance of international development aid and effectively renders future aid programmes subject to unrelated foreign policy interests, according to experts. So seismic was the policy shift that it drew immediate criticism from three former prime ministers: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, the last particularly notable because he has been reluctant to publicly criticise his successors.

So if it represents such a fundamental shift of policy, why has that policy change not been consulted upon, and has the ‘machinery of government’ argument merely been used as cover for ignoring the views of interested stakeholders? Interestingly when questioned on the changes by the Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy, the PM insisted that there had been “massive consultation over a long period of time”.  Where this consultation took place is something of a mystery as major international aid groups and development experts subsequently denied any knowledge of consultation.

It is possible the PM was referring to the ongoing integrated review of international policies, which had been expected to report later this year, but has now been paused by the international covid-19 health crisis. The announcement of the merger had originally being expected after this review had concluded, and bringing it forward will only add fuel to the fire of questions over ministerial motives. If the PM was referring to this review with his statements on ‘massive consultation’, then that only raises further questions. Consultors will be well aware of the risks of making decisions before consultees have been fully heard.

In light of the criticism, an urgent question was granted for today, but despite the Foreign Secretary being specifically asked to clarify the PM’s comments about consultation it was perhaps notable that that was the sole part of the question that was entirely ignored. A mere omission? Or an indication that the Government is reluctant to answer questions on this? That remains to be seen.