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.
There has been concern in the last few years that former Ministers and Crown Servants have inappropriately used knowledge they gained in Government to seek new employment in other sectors. Over two years ago the Committee launched an inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the Business Appointment Rules in ensuring propriety in the future employment of former Ministers and senior Crown servants; and to consider the potential of the Big Society agenda to increase traffic through the "revolving door" between the public sector and business and the voluntary sector. The report "The Business Appointment Rules" was published on 17 July 2012. Some twenty months later, the Government has not responded to the Report. The Committee has raised this matter both through correspondence with the Rt Hon Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, and by way of Parliamentary Questions. The Committee views the Government failure to respond to a Select Committee Report as unacceptable behaviour and in this instance as obstructive and secretive, both showing a cavalier attitude in its responsibilities towards Parliament and thereby deliberately impeding a cross-party scrutiny of Government policy in this area.
At present the Prime Minister can only veto a candidate selected on merit. But new proposals put forward by the Civil Service Commission would give the Prime Minister the power to choose between two candidates considered equally well qualified for the role. This report follows a long-running debate between the Civil Service Commission and the Government on the appointment of lead permanent secretaries - the most senior civil servant in a department. In January 2014 the Civil Service Commission put out to consultation two proposals on expanding ministerial influence on the recruitment process. PASC has concluded that the first option - to formalise the recruitment panel's powers to seek, and take into account, the view of the relevant minister during the appointment process - should be adopted. The Committee has warned that the adoption of the Commission's second option - allowing the Prime Minster or Secretary of State to effectively appoint a permanent secretary by choosing between two candidates 'of equivalent merit' risks the appearance that the choice will be made on grounds other than merit alone
The White Paper aims to set the stage for the upcoming free votes on the composition of a future House of Lords. It has therefore been drafted to reflect arguments in a balanced way and take account of discussions in the Cross-party Working Group on Lords Reform. It also sets out the way a hybrid House (where 50% of the members were elected and 50% appointed) might work. The Paper is organised under the following sections: background; current steps towards reform of the House of Lords; international comparisons; a reformed chamber: principles of composition; a reformed chamber: elected, appointed or hybrid; a reformed chamber: a statutory appointments commission; a reformed chamber: membership; a reformed chamber: transition.
Parliamentary privilege ensures that Members of Parliament are able to speak freely in debates, and protects Parliament's internal affairs from interference from the courts. Following (failed) attempts by some MPs to use parliamentary privilege to avoid prosecution for expenses fraud, the Government felt the time was right for a comprehensive review of the privileges of Parliament. Freedom of speech is arguably the most important privilege: a member must be able to speak or raise a matter without fear of a criminal or civil liability. The Government does not feel it necessary to change the protection of privilege in civil cases, nor in relation to injunctions or super-injunctions. But it is open to question whether parliamentary privilege should ever prevent members being successfully prosecuted for criminal offences. The paper consults on whether privilege should be disapplied in cases of alleged criminality, though not in respect of speeches in Parliament. The second major privilege is that of exclusive cognisance: the right of each House to regulate its own proceedings and internal affairs without interference from any outside body including the courts. This includes the conduct of its Members, and of other participants such as witnesses before select committees. Recent court judgments make clear that statute law on employment, health and safety etc do apply to Parliament providing the law would not interfere with Parliament's core functions. The green paper also consults on extending and strengthening select committee powers. A final section covers other miscellaneous privileges.
This report looks at improving visitor's access to Parliament, and assesses what the focus of Parliament's visitor services should be and who should be the main target audience. The report sets out options for varying scales of visitor facilities and what kind of facilities should be provided, and what proposals for change are required. One part of the strategy is to improve public engagement with Parliament with an upgrade of the Parliamentary website. Also an upgrade of the new visitor route through the Visitor Reception Building and Westminster Hall, along with a better welcome for visitors. Further, initiatives to explain the work of the select committees to the media, along with outreach programmes to schools and the wider public. The Committee is sceptical of the value for money of a full-scale visitor centre, and states that existing strategies, such as improved educational facilities about Parliament and its' working would provide better engagement with the public. School trips to Parliament would be the best means of communicating the work and history of the institution. The Committee recommends improved facilities for the Parliamentary Education Service.
This report presents proposals by the Law Commission for reforms to make it easier to complain if you suffer poor public services. The public services ombudsmen have wide-ranging powers to investigate complaints against health service providers, housing associations and a host of Government departments and agencies. Complaints are dealt with for free and can result in financial compensation and an apology. But the procedures for making a complaint are often outdated and inconsistent. For example, complaints must usually be submitted in writing and in some cases can be made only through an MP. The proposed reforms will help to keep cases out of court: under current rules the ombudsman should not deal with a complaint after court proceedings have begun, even if the complainant was badly advised to go to court. In future, the Law Commission would like courts to transfer appropriate cases to the ombudsman. The consultation focuses on five statutory ombudsmen: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and the Local Government, Health Service and Housing Ombudsmen
The draft Bill and White Paper were included in Cm. 7342-I,II,III (ISBN 9780101734226) which follows the Green paper issued in July 2007, Cm. 7170 (ISBN 9780101717021) and various other Governance of Britain papers
In this report the Committee describes and explains the full range of its work over the course of the 2001-2005 Parliament. The Committee distils from its experience a number of suggestions for consideration by its successor committee and recommendations addressed to the Government, in order to enhance the integration of human rights considerations into the overall policy and legislative process. Chapter 2 explains the background to the Committee's establishment. Chapter 3 covers the legislative scrutiny performed by the Committee. The monitoring of the implementation of the Human Rights Act is the subject of chapter 4, while chapter 5 covers work in relation to institutional support for human rights within the UK. The inquiries into the international treaties to which the UK is a party are dealt with in chapter 6, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The final chapter describes the work undertaken on monitoring action taken by the Government in response to incompatibilities with Convention rights, arising from Strasbourg judgments and declarations of incompatibility by UK courts.
Incorporating HC 1040-i, ii and ii, session 2008-09. About the police search on 27 November 2009 of the Parliamentary offices of Damian Green MP, who had been leaked some restricted papers by a Home Office official
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.
The Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007 and introduced substantial reforms to the official statistical system across the whole of the UK and setting it in statute for the first time. The major stakeholders were consulted on the effectiveness of the Act and overall they felt the Act is meeting its original aims and objectives. There were some areas where it was felt further reforms could strengthen the Act's aims. These include: considering the case for widening the data sharing powers in the Act; managing and where possible minimising the costs incurred by the producers of official statistics in complying with the Code of practice; whether more needs to be done to distinguish official statistics from those that are not; whether more needs to be done to strengthen the internal separation between the statistics producer and regulator roles of the UK Statistics Authority; and how to further raise the profile of the Authority.
From the environment to eating habits, and from the economy to equestrianism, this handbook combines material and detail with coverage of recent policy developments in Britain. Tables, maps, diagrams and colour photographs are used to illuminate a wide range of topics, and to mark the 50th anniversary of the Central Office of Information, there is a section of photographs reflecting life in Britain over the past five decades.
This White Paper contains a three volume set of documents (Cm. 7342-I/II/III, ISBN 9780101734226) and is part of the Governance of Britain series examining constitutional renewal. In July 2007, the Governance of Britain Green Paper was published (ISBN 9780101717021) which set out the Government's vision and proposals for constitutional renewal, calling on the public, Parliament and other organisations to submit views. The result of the consultation is the publication of this White Paper. Volume 1 covers the substantive issues of constitutional renewal, including: the Government's policy proposals; the Attorney General; judicial appointments; treaties; the civil service; war powers; flag flying and other policies, such as the reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee; a wider review of the Royal Perogative; passports; the National Audit Office; public appointments and Church of England appointments. Volume 2, presents the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, with Volume 3, setting out an analysis of the consultations. For specific publications on a number of the issues examined here, see Cm. 7239, War Powers & Treaties - ISBN 9780101723923; Cm. 7210, Judicial Appointments, ISBN 9780101721028; Cm. 7192, Role of the Attorney General, ISBN 9780101719223.
This report considers the case for Parliament to be able to initiate and conduct inquiries into serious and significant matters of public concern. It takes up the recommendationmade by this committiee's predecessor Committee (in the Government by Inquiry Report) that there should be a parliamentary mechanism for initiating inquiries. These would take the form of Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry, composed of parliamentarians and others. In the Report, the committee examines the justification for creating Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry in particular, that they would enable Parliament to hold the Executive to account more effectively. Then it covers some of the practical issues involved in setting up inquiries of this nature: how Parliament could instigate an inquiry, its composition, and its operation and powers. The committee concludes that it is crucial, in constitutional sense, that Parliament has the necessary powers and abilities to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. Proper parliamentary scrutiny should include the ability to establish and undertake inquiries into significant matters of public concern. Parliament has, in the past, conducted investigationsof this kind and as the great forum of the nation, should be expected to do so. The committee's recommendation for Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry would promoteeffective parliamentary accountability by creating a process for Parliament to initiate inquirieswhere it rather than the Executive sees fit.
This Report welcomes and responds to the Government's proposal to involve select committees in public appointments by inviting committees to hold non-binding pre-appointment hearings with nominees for key positions. The Report clarifies the purpose of these hearings: to expose nominees to parliamentary and public scrutiny before the final ministerial decision on the appointment, to increase the likelihood that those appointed will be effective in their accountability to Parliament and the public. The Report also establishes criteria to determine which posts should be subject to these hearings, and identifies major auditors, ombudsmen, regulators and inspectors, as well as those responsible for the appointments system itself; along with appointments normally made on merit but where Ministers have chosen not to follow the usual processes. Finally, the Report responds to concerns about involving select committees in public appointments, including several raised by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and proposes ways of managing the risks identified, largely through a framework of clear protocols to be agreed between the Government and the Liaison Committee, and also by monitoring and reviewing the effect of the hearings on public appointments over time.
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.