Government reply to the Committee's first report, HCP 6-I, session 2012-13 (ISBN 9780215045188)

Government response to HC 513-I, session 2010-11 (ISBN 99780215555960)

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.

Response to HCP 694, session 2012-13 (ISBN 9780215055439). Dated July 2013

The Government launched its new horizon scanning programme last July, stating that 'in a tight economic climate, it is more important than ever to have the best possible understanding of the world around us, and how that world is changing'. However, as it stands, the new programme is little more than an echo chamber for Government views. The new bodies that have been created consist entirely of Civil Servants, effectively excluding the vast pool of expertise that exists outside of government. The new programme does not even have a dedicated web presence to keep interested parties informed. The programme's failings are partially attributed to a lack of ministerial oversight. The Government also needs to recognise the potential role to be played in the new programme by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), specifically the Foresight Unit. The relative lack of impact that the Foresight Unit has historically had on policy is largely a result of its non-central location in government. GO-Science is located in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In contrast, the new horizon scanning programme is located in the Cabinet Office. In choosing to situate the new horizon scanning programme in the Cabinet Office, the Government has recognised the importance of location and has thereby acknowledged the strength of this argument. GO-Science should be relocated from BIS to the Cabinet Office, where it can play a more central role in the new programme and more effectively fulfill its role of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government

The risks and benefits of participating in screening programmes, for conditions and diseases like cancer, are not consistently communicated by either the NHS or private health care providers, the Science and Technology Committee has warned in a new report. It is calling on the Government to ensure that a standardised process to produce screening information is introduced and that better communications training is provided to health care professionals. A recently revised breast cancer screening leaflet for the 50-70 age group - with its more explicit focus on helping women make an 'informed choice' about whether screening is right for them - marks a step in the right direction. However, the inquiry found that the principles followed to revise this leaflet have not been applied to the communications developed by other NHS screening programmes. The Committee recommends that steps are immediately taken by the Government's advisor on screening, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), to devise and implement a standard process for producing information that facilitates informed choice. It also recommends a clarification of what 'informed choice' means for potential screening participants so that different screening programmes can be more effectively evaluated on their delivery of it. MPs are also calling on the Office for National Statistics to validate the statistics presented in NHS screening information to resolve disagreement and confusion over their accuracy.

On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary announced the establishment of an Independent Panel Inquiry to consider whether public bodies and non-state institutions had taken seriously their duty to protect children from sexual abuse. Baroness Butler-Sloss, former President of the Family Division of the High Court, was appointed Chair of the panel on 8 July, but she stepped down on 14 July after MPs and survivor groups expressed concerns about the possibility that the inquiry might have to consider decisions taken by her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, as Attorney General in the 1980s. Fiona Woolf CBE JP, the Lord Mayor of London, was appointed Chair on 5 September, but stepped down on 31 October after concerns were raised about her social contacts with Lord and Lady Brittan. On 4 February 2015, the Home Secretary announced plans to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard, a judge of the High Court of New Zealand, as the new Chair of the inquiry. She also announced that she would be dissolving the existing Panel and establishing a new, statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. Prior to the announcement of the new proposed Chair, the Committee took oral evidence about the panel inquiry During those evidence sessions witnesses' views were heard on the Home Office's process for selecting candidates for the new chair. There were well-publicised problems with the appointment of the Panel, which resulted in the early resignation of two previous Chairs. It is important that a Chair is now appointed who will command the confidence of survivors