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.
All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are groups of Members, from both Houses, who may or may not be supported by outside organisations, and are established for a wide range of purposes. There is a Register of such groups, overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. There has been increasing concern that APPGs pose a reputational risk to the House in several ways: they may provide access for lobbyists; they put pressure on resources; and their output is confused with that of official select committees. But APPGs also provide: forums for cross-party interaction which is not controlled by the whips, interaction between the Members of the Commons and the Lords; and a forum for parliamentarians, academics, business people, the third sector and other interested parties; time and space for policy discussion and debate; and a means for back bench parliamentarians to set the policy agenda. There is a longstanding dilemma about the regulation of APPGs: they are essentially informal groupings, established by individual Members, yet the more restrictions and requirements that are placed on them, the more they appear to be endorsed by the House. The House of Commons Commission has already decided to withdraw the passes of APPG staff. The Committee proposes a package of reforms: ensure that Members' responsibility for APPG activity is clear and accountable; ensure transparency not only about external support, but also about the activities funded by such support; and far greater clarity about the status of the various types of informal work that Members carry out.
Enhancing Parliament's role in relation to human rights Judgments : Fifteenth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written Evidence
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee publishes its own draft parliamentary resolution setting out the process that should be followed to consult Parliament on conflict decisions, to serve as an interim step towards putting Parliament's role in war making decisions on a legal footing. The Committee has repeatedly called on Government to make progress on the Foreign Secretary's commitment in 2011 to "enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action". The key points of the report are as follows: (1) The debate in the House of Commons on 29 August 2013 regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons highlighted the important role Parliament plays in conflict decisions; (2) The Government needs to make a clear statement of how it intends to honour the Foreign Secretary's commitment of 2011, and give a specific Minister responsibility for making progress on this.; (3) A parliamentary resolution would serve as a useful interim step towards enshrining Parliament's role in law, by embedding the current convention and clarifying some of the ambiguities that exist under current arrangements.
Now in its 48th edition, the Handbook is an authoritative annual compendium of Britain, providing an up-to-date account of all the latest policy developments in the UK.
Following on from previous reports published in 1990 and 1999, this publication examines how the services to support the institution of the House of Commons and MPs are governed, managed and delivered. The objective of the report has been to respect the status and character of the House and to preserve the special qualities of the House Service, while seeking to build organisational and executive capacity and to promote effectiveness, accountability and value for money. Amongst the 56 conclusions and recommendations made, the report seeks to highlight the importance of an independent audit facility, including placing the chairmanship of the Audit Committee in the hands of an external Committee member and instituting a rolling programme of NAO value-for-money audits. It also recommends a revamped role for the Office for the Chief Executive, with responsibility for strategic planning; strengthening the position of the Finance and Services Committee to improve scrutiny of spending proposals and to support the governing role of the Commission; a centralised and professional human resources team to develop the House staff as a collective resource and to overcome the inefficiencies of the present personnel structure; and the creation of further joint Departments between the two Houses in the interests of reducing overhead costs and general efficiency.
Following on from a Green Paper (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021) published in July 2007, this consultation document discusses ways of making the executive branch of government more accountable, focusing on two areas: the power to enter into international obligations (treaties) and the power to engage the country in war. Although these are two of the most important powers a government can wield, there is no legal requirement for the House of Commons to have any particular role in these decisions, with the executive traditionally deriving its powers from the ancient prerogatives of the Crown. This consultation paper considers how the role of Parliament can be strengthened in the conduct of diplomacy and armed conflict, whilst balancing this against the need for government to take swift action to protect national security and other national interests, and avoiding undermining operational security and effectiveness. The consultation period ends on 17/01/2008.
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.