The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has concluded a year-long inquiry into the future of the Civil Service with only one recommendation: that Parliament should establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to sit as a Commission on the future of the Civil Service. It should be constituted within the next few months and report before the end of the Parliament with a comprehensive change programme for Whitehall with a timetable to be implemented over the lifetime of the next Parliament. The Report considers the increased tensions between ministers and officials which have become widely reported, and places the problems in Whitehall in a wider context of a Civil Service built on the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement established in 1853 and the Haldane principles of ministerial accountability set out in 1919. The government's Civil Service Reform Plan lacks strategic coherence and clear leadership from a united team of ministers and officials. The Northcote-Trevelyan Civil Service remains the most effective way of supporting the democratically elected Government and future administrations in the UK. Divided leadership and confused accountabilities in Whitehall have led to problems: a low level of engagement amongst civil servants in some departments and agencies, and a general lack of trust and openness; the Civil Service exhibits the key characteristics of a failing organisation with the leadership are in denial about the scale of the challenge they face. There is a persistent lack of key skills and capabilities across Whitehall and an unacceptably high level of churn of lead officials, which is incompatible with good government.
The House should be given the opportunity to restate its acceptance of the principle behind the proposal that lay members be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Procedure Committee concludes in a report published today. The committee's report responds to the resolution of the House of 2 December last year that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. If that principle is restated, the House should study with care the arguments made for the inclusion of lay members with or without voting rights, and decide whether lay members should be appointed to the committee with full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights protected by rules on quorum and publication of their opinion or advice. A decision in favour of membership with full voting rights would require legislation to be brought forward to put beyond reasonable doubt any question of whether parliamentary privilege applies to the Committee on Standards where it has an element of lay membership. The Procedure Committee recommends that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be split in two, and that lay members should be included only on the committee relating to standards. The committee also makes a number of practical recommendations about the number, appointment and term of office of lay members.
The Government is failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. There is little evidence of co-ordination amongst Government, government agencies and public bodies on communicating climate science, despite various policies at national and regional level to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mandate to act on climate can only be maintained if the electorate are convinced that the Government is acting on the basis of strong scientific evidence. Ministers therefore need to do more to demonstrate that is the case and consistently reflect the Government approach in all their communications, especially with the media. The report also criticises the BBC for its reporting on the issue. It points out that BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. The BBC is called to develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. It is important that climate science is presented separately from any subsequent policy response. Government should work with the learned societies and national academies to develop a source of information on climate science that is discrete from policy delivery, comprehensible to the general public and responsive to both current developments and uncertainties in the science
The Committees report examines parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, focusing on the process for dealing with primary legislation (i.e. the scrutiny of parliamentary bills). This examination is carried out in the light of the Rippon Commission report on the topic (Making the Law produced by the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process) which was published in 1992. Topics discussed include the mechanisms for pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, the growth of legislation, the dissemination of information and ways of gauging public opinion through consultation. Conclusions drawn by the Committee include concern over the growth in the number and complexity of bills being presented to Parliament without adequate expansion in the capacity to deliver effective scrutiny. The report contains a number of proposals designed to help engender a culture shift away from this unsustainable volume of legislation, towards a culture of justification which encourages government to adopt a more disciplined approach to the introduction of bills based on the objective of effectiveness rather than quantity.
A report that considers the broad issue of why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy. It also considers three more specific issues: the debate on strategic priorities; the principles that inform science funding decisions; and, the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government.
This report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HCP 282, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215521675), focuses on regional accountability. The Governance of Britain Green Paper (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021) put forward proposals for improved democractic accountability and scrutiny of the delivery of public services in the English regions. The Committee, in this report, has concluded that there is clear evidence of an accountability gap at regional level. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), although accountable to ministers, still conduct many activities that are not subject to a regular, robust scrutiny, and the Committee believes more should be done to monitor the delivery of services. With this in mind, the Committee recommends the establishment of a system of regional select committees, with one select committee for each of the administrative regions in England, with the exception of London. Further, the Committee recommends that up to two regional grand committee meeting should take place in each session for each of the 8 regions. To avoid an adverse impact on House Members' other commitments, membership of regional committees should consist of 10 Members in total. This report therefore sets out a desirability of establishing new structures within the House of Commons to improve regional accountability and Parliamentary scrutiny.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.