It has not taken long for Whitehall to put up the shutters. In early July, Gordon Brown talked of “a new settlement that entrusts Parliament and the people with more power”. But, yesterday, government replies to four reports by the Public Administration Committee of the Commons deftly sidestepped proposals for a greater role for Parliament in scrutinising the executive (apart from an uncontroversial one on skills).

There are lots of warm words, but little of substance is conceded. In their review of ethics regulators, the MPs argued that it is unsatisfactory that the very bodies that regulate government should be appointed and funded by the executive. Instead, these regulators – for the Civil Service, public appointments etc – should be established by statute and should report to Parliament. And they should all come under a new public standards commission.

But, despite having the report since late April, all the Government said yesterday was that it would give “further consideration to the issues raised”, as part of its work to bring in legislation for the Civil Service in this session’s Constitutional Renewal Bill. That is Whitehall fudge, though. When appearing before the MPs last week, Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, said that the door was still open on this issue.

A positive point, however, is the Government’s guarded backing for the existence of the Committee on Standards in Public Life as an “ethical auditor” after all the tensions at the end of Sir Alistair Graham’s chairmanship; and a requirement that the new chairman will, like the other regulators, serve a non-renewable term of five years.

Elsewhere, the Government accepts the MPs’ idea – which Sir Gus floated – for civil servants with access to sensitive information to assign copyright to the Government. This would allow Whitehall to seek profits from unauthorised publication. But ministers have rejected an appeal mechanism, such as an advisory committee on memoirs.

Similarly, Whitehall has posted a formal hands-off notice over the MPs’ proposal that significant changes in the machinery of government should be subject to parliamentary approval. At present, transfer-of-function orders are presented, often several months after a change has been announced. These attract little parliamentary, and no outside, attention. This means that prime ministers can reshape Whitehall, often at great cost and with far-reaching implications, as in late June, without being subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government says that “the prime minister of the day should continue to be able to act quickly to change the structure of the government” and there should not be a requirement to obtain prior parliamentary approval. This is a recipe for the unchecked expansion of prime ministerial patronage and ministerial numbers that has continued under Mr Brown. That is also why we need the active scrutiny of the Public Administration Committee to keep a check on government.

Times Recommends

• We must lead the world to stability
• The recession's a blessing in disguise
• The guilty men who sent mum to Iceland