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

Government response to HC 512, session 2010-11 (ISBN 9780215555601)

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 controversy around the Government's handling of flooding last winter showed that arm's-length Government is confused and opaque. Organisational forms and names are inconsistent. Most public bodies answer to Ministers but some are directly accountable to Parliament. There is no agreement on how many types of body exist. There are overlaps and blurring between categories. Accountability arrangements and reforms so far have been ad hoc. The Government has reviewed non-departmental public bodies, but it should review all forms of arm's-length Government, including executive agencies and non-ministerial departments. The Government should establish a clear taxonomy of public bodies: constitutional bodies, independent public interest bodies, departmental sponsored bodies, and executive agencies. All public bodies should sit in one of the categories, so that it is clear how each is to be governed and sponsored. This is essential in order to clarify who is accountable for what. This would promote understanding of what is expected of relationships and explain the rationale for locating functions in particular organisational forms. Up to date, plain English statements of statuses, roles and relationships are needed even if the underlying arrangements are complicated. This is far from the reality in many cases, particularly in the NHS. With a budget of £95.6 billion NHS England is now by far the largest public body in England and its accountability should not be in any doubt, but it is still evolving. There is insufficient understanding across Government about how arms-length Government should work.

Clear disparities exist between notions of representative democracy and political practice in Britain. Alternative models of democracy, however, have their own incongruities in trying to marry representation and democracy. This book analyses the mismatches in democratic theories and between theory and practice in British representative democracy.