Public Administration
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
What the Committee does
The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales and of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service.
Relevant Inquiries and Reports
Below are a selection of the inquiries and reports published by the Committee that relate to the work of Charter 88 and the New Politics Network. For a complete full details of the Committee's work please see its website.
Investigating the Conduct of Ministers
The behavioural guidance (rule book) for Cabinet ministers dates back to the Second World War, when ministers were issued with ad hoc instructions from the Prime Minister. These guidelines were first collected into a single document (known as Questions of Procedure for Ministers, or QPM) by Clement Attlee, the then Prime Minister, who distributed the document to incoming ministers in 1945. Since then, the document has been continuously revised and extended by incoming Prime Ministers.
Originally 65 paragraphs long, QPM had doubled in size to 135 paragraphs by 1997, when it was restyled as the Ministerial Code. By 2005, it had grown to 173 paragraphs and was also published, ever since the decision to do so was taken by John Major as Prime Minister in 1992.
A report was then submitted on the need for an independent investigatory body to examine instances where the code had been broken by ministers. The decision was made that an investigatory body needed to include:
- independence from the executive (including the Prime Minister).
- avoiding the creation of a regulatory office; a post ideally undertaken by an official connected to the House of Commons.
- concern itself only wit establishing the facts of the case
- make its findings available to Parliament and the public
- Prime Ministerial right to judge whether the facts amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code and what the consequences should be.
- avoidance of receiving unnecessary complaints.
The seventh report published by PASC developed the new investigatory role of Independent Advisor (IA) to look at alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code. The IA can investigate breaches of any part of the Code, and not just those sections regarding ministers’ private interests. The Independent Adviser investigates the facts of allegations, and does not determine the penalty if ministers are found to have breached the Code - Prime Ministers are ultimately accountable for who serves in their governments.
The Government has been clear that the IA will only investigate allegations of breaches of the Code if the Prime Minister asks him to. Sir Philip Mawer the current Independent Advisor, had previously held the role of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards – making decisions on whether or not complains should be investigated.
On his new role Sir Mawer said: "I am not going to sit there supine. If I believe that something on the basis of the facts available to me requires investigation, I shall make the view know to the Cabinet Secretary and the PM. I have been brought into this job just to be somebody’s foot stool or patsy."
Key roles in improving the investigatory capacity include:
Securing independence (the role should allow the IA to be able to stand up to the PM if necessary). To achieve a high degree of independence, constitutional watchdogs should:
- have secure legal foundations, so they cannot easily be abolished
- be appointed by resolution of one or both Houses
- be removable only on address from both Houses;
- have secure funding arrangements
- have their own staffing, accommodation and access to the other services and facilities
- have operational autonomy, with freedom to initiate their own inquiries.
Ensuring credibility (Raising public awareness is important, noticeably enough to gain scrutiny over how the Independent Advisor operates).
Independence is a prerequisite of effectiveness for the new post. But it is not the only factor which needs to be considered. Public confidence will not be increased unless the post is also publicly visible and accountable. At the moment, this does not appear to be the case. Establishing a public profile will take some work—a point Sir Philip Mawer acknowledged:
"Drawing on my past experience, what makes for public awareness of your role is when there is a crisis and the newspapers carry your name and then the allegations, and all the rest of it, flood in."
An annual report is set to be published and more active pursuit of publicity is required. At the very least, as Sir Philip acknowledged, his post will have a dedicated website.
Inquiry into Constitutional Renewal Proposals
The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has called two evidence sessions for a first examination in public of proposals put forward in the Government’s Draft Bill and White Paper on Constitutional Renewal.
The Committee will look at those areas which it has covered in the past. The proposals to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing will be a focus. But the Committee will also examine issues around the “prerogative powers”, especially treaties and war powers. The Committee has itself published its own draft legislation in these areas.
Evidence Session 29th April 2008
At a hearing on Tuesday 29th April 2008, the Committee met to discuss the government’s draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. Mr Ed Miliband MP(Minister of State)(Cabinet Office) and Sir Gus O’Donnell KCB gave evidence on the Government’s proposals for the Civil Service, (i.e. to place it on statute, to codify its core values and other related proposals) and discussed its role generally. Mr Michael Wills MP (Minister of State) (Ministry of Justice) then gave evidence on the government’s overall plan for constitutional renewal.
Civil Service
Ed Miliband said that Parliament needed “to be strengthened in relation to the Executive” and Parliament being the centre of debate rather than the media. He said that civil service reform formed “part of an overall approach to constitutional renewal.”
It was his view that it was important to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing and to put its values and systems into legislation as part of the Government’s strategy of renewal. Mr Miliband stressed it was important that this Bill did not try to preserve the civil service “in aspic” and that it is allowed to evolve. He also pointed out that this was a draft Bill and that the Government welcomed input from elsewhere.
Gus O’Donnell said this Bill represented “a very significant moment” and was “very pleased” to see the Civil Service and its Code enshrined in statute.
He asserted that the values of the Civil Service from the time of the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan Report had “endured,” but the Civil Service faced “new challenges” it had to deal with and for one thing it was getting smaller and smaller. He said it was important that the legislation allowed the Civil Service to perform for the twenty-first century and he said to do so, it was important to “keep it simple” and to allow the Civil Service the flexibility to deal with problems over the next 150 years.
He confirmed he was in favour of this Bill and civil service legislation, as long as it was principled and value-focused. Although the Civil Service was not in difficulties at the moment in Mr O’Donnell’s opinion, he confirmed he thought putting the civil service on the statute strengthens it for the future if difficulties did arise.
Dr Wright asked whether Parliament should have the power to make Cabinet appointments. Mr O’Donnell responded that he thought the Prime Minister should have the powers to appoint his cabinet. Mr Miliband said a new party coming to power should be allowed to reorganise government without having to wait a few months. Dr Wright asked whether cabinet appointments should not go before Select Committees for approval. Mr O’Donnell said he had never met a prime minister who would want to, it would not work in practice and that he felt it was important that a prime minister should be able to choose his own team.
Dr Wright asked whether the Bill should have included means to deal with problems of ministers either not listening to civil servants or getting them to do things they should not. Mr O’Donnell responded that there is a Ministerial Code governing what ministers should do and this Bill should be about what civil servants could do.
Mr O’Donnell stated that he did not feel the independence of Civil Service had been compromised in recent years and believed it was very strong. He claimed they attract the best graduates and retain them. He also asserted that it was more professional now, saying they have Professional Finance Directors and a HR service. He also said that where as their Fast Stream used to be made up of a majority of white male Oxbridge graduates, they now have a majority of female Fast-Streamers and are committed to diversity.
He also claimed that they had improved in their primary role, i.e. advising, and were able to analyse evidence much better than during the 1980s, as they had computer systems that much more sophisticated. He also said they have more data to go on and their analysis was much more evidence-based.
In response to the question of why there were exceptions to the principle of fair and open competitions (e.g. in crown and diplomatic appointments), Mr O’Donnell said there were cases where exceptions were needed, and cited the example of Chris Patten as Governor of Hong Kong, saying there were specific political reasons which justified that appointment and similar instances may arise in the future. He pointed out however that 99.5% of diplomatic appointments were exclusively on merit. Ed Miliband said there were only 11 such appointments in the last 40 years. In terms of Royal Household appointments, Mr Miliband said certain people had a particular relationship with the Royal Family.
Addressing the issue of why the Bill was not so focused on merit for promotion as for recruitment, Mr O’Donnell argued that promotion was made on merit, and he also pointed out that the top 200 appointments were made competitively with Commissioner involvement. Referring to the Treasury Capability Review, Gordon Prentice MP pointed out that in that report, only 37% of senior civil servants felt there was a fair system of career progression. Mr O’Donnell said he accepted that those figures were “disappointingly low,” but he argued it was not because of processes but rather that the Treasury has very high turn-over.
In relation to targets on women and ethnic minorities, Mr O’Donnell stressed they could not legally discriminate in favour of those groups, but even so their figures for those groups was much higher than in the private sector.
Regarding why the security services were not covered by the Bill, Mr O’Donnell said they have their own complaints procedure and own (slightly different) codes to the Civil Service. In relation to why civil service commissioners have not been given the powers to initiate inquiries, Mr Miliband pointed out that complaints can be put to commissioners and they can then ask government permission to launch inquiry, but stated that they did not want the commissioner to be politicised or overwhelmed with requests to inquire into whatever the latest political issue was.
Mr Miliband expressed the view that special advisors actually prevented the politicisation of the Civil Service because they could do things that it would be inappropriate for civil servants to do. He rejected the idea that not setting limits on their number could lead to the civil service being flooded with special advisers in the future. As to whether special advisors could become conduits for instructions to civil servants, Mr Miliband said he did not expect special advisors to become part of the Executive. With respect to whether the Freedom of Information Act had affected the relationship between ministers and civil servants, Mr O’Donnell responded that overall the Act had been “unambiguously good” for the public, although he said requests do take a lot of time. He was concerned however over the criterion for something being in the “public interest” and that it was not clear in each instance whether it would apply. Mr Miliband said it was a “positive culture change” that would take time to adapt to. Both rejected the notion that it had led to “sofa-style government” suggested by Mr Charles Walker MP.
Constitutional Renewal
Mr Michael Wills then gave evidence on the government’s proposals on constitutional renewal generally.
Attorney-General’s Advice
In relation to whether an Attorney-General’s legal advice to government should be published, He asserted that the government was the custodian of such advice and that they should always release information to the public, but there were times when it was not in the public interest to do so. He said such advice could be “inhibited in its frankness” if it was to be made public, and suggested that only a summarised version should be released. As to how this would differ materially from the full advice being published, Mr Wills responded that some sections could be seized upon by unscrupulous groups within the media and society, which could damage the public interest. He also said a summarised legal advice would not differ in the legal argument from the full version.
British Statement of Values and Bill of Rights
On the issue of the British statement of values, Mr Wills said there would be two citizens’ summits on this issue. The first would decide on whether there is a need for a statement of values and the second one would consider how a statement of values should be put together. These summits would be demographically representative bodies that would come together and deliberate. They would have power to call witnesses and would present their findings to Parliament, who would have the final say.
Mr Wills asserted that our national identity was important to everyone and invited all members of society to participate in the debate. He said if there was to be a British Bill of Rights then a British Statement of Values would have to first identify what it meant to be British and what our rights should stem from. He claimed the process was “profoundly important” and had been significant in other parts of the world. If the idea of a Bill of Rights was to succeed, Mr Wills suggested, it needed to be owned by the British people. In relation to what kinds of rights would be enshrined in the Bill of Rights, Mr Wills said they were only consulting on that at the moment and they would be publishing a report shortly.
Individual Voter Registration
With respect to the question of voting fraud and the suggestion of individual voter registration, Mr Wills responded that the Government were considering it but were worried it might discourage turnout. He also said the Northern Irish system of voter registration was being studied.
Direct Democracy
Mr Wills said the key thing about constitutional reform was diffusing and redistributing power and that “healthy democracies have power diffused widely.” He claimed the Government were bringing forward devices of direct democracy, but cautiously, and direct democracy should not be seen as a “panacea” for the ills of our democracy. He argued that direct democracy can in fact place power in the hands of the wealthy and powerful and that was something they had to guard against.
Public Involvement
Regarding the suggestion that constitutional reform was not an issue that mattered to the general public, Mr Wills said he understood that this might be the case, but argued that the effects of constitutional reform would be felt long after their political lifetime and would be significant. He also said that people should realise that whilst they are worried about schools and hospitals, the real issue is one step behind and they should have the chance to use the levers of power to affect change in areas that matter to them. He also said whereas historically people had done this through elections, this was no longer satisfactory and that people’s voices need to be heard between elections, through representative democracy. Clarifying what this would mean, he said it would mean citizens juries and similar deliberative devices.
As to whether this would be a “pretend exercise,” Mr Wills insisted it was genuine and radical constitutional reform, which would be sustainable and long-lasting. He rejected the suggestion it was ad-hoc and claimed reform had to happen gradually because you could not change the constitution “after every election.” Asked how long it would take to complete the process of “scoping” for their various proposals for constitutional reform, Mr Wills replied: “as soon as possible.”
Evidence Session 24th April 2008
At the Public Administration Select Committee Hearing on 24th April 2008, evidence was heard from Janet Paraskeva, the First Civil Service Commissioner, Professor Peter Hennessy, Professor Robert Blackburn and Sir Robin Mountfield KCB, regarding the Government’s draft Constitutional Renewal Bill.
Ms Paraskeva was questioned over the provisions of the Bill relating to the Civil Service, including plans to enshrine the Civil Service and its core values in statue, proposals she welcomed. She also answered questions about the structure of the Civil Service, including its recruitment, promotion and management practices. Sir Robin Mountfield, former Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, also welcomed the provisions of the Bill relating to the Civil Service, although he had a number of reservations about them.
Professors Blackburn and Hennessy both welcomed the Government’s proposals on constitutional renewal, but made suggestions for ways they could be improved.
Civil Service
Ms Paraskeva declared that in general the Civil Service welcomed the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill and putting the values of the Civil Service in statute after 150 years. She praised the enshrining of the core value of selection on merit, the requirement for ministers to publish the Civil Service Code, and the setting up of a committee to regulate recruitment and to hear appeals in relation to the Code. However, she raised concerns over the following issues:
- That there was nothing about regulating promotion on merit.
- Over the removal of the regulation of GCHQ from the Bill, which would mean that they would not be governed by the same core values and would not be able to make complaints.
- That senior members of the diplomatic service were excluded from the auspices of the Bill.
- That there is no duty for a minster to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service Code and she feared that civil servants could be asked to do things by ministers that would be inappropriate.
She accepted though that special advisors should be excluded from the Code, given their role.
Ms Paraskeva felt unsure as to whether the Civil Service would have true independence over its own budget and the staff it appoints.
Regarding the possibility of giving commissioners powers to initiate inquiries, Ms Paraskeva was apprehensive about the resource implications of “opening the floodgates” to all sorts of inquiries. Formal power to do this would mean they would be “swamped” by “disgruntled customers” from the public, the media and Parliament. She said the current method of dealing with complaints, i.e. writing to the Head of the Home Civil Service for permission to investigate an issue, had worked “very well indeed.” She did not necessarily consider it a constraint that she needed government agreement to undertake an inquiry, saying there were “other places you could go” if you genuinely felt you had been “thwarted in your job.”
Addressing the issue of why they sometimes make exceptions to their recruitment policy on merit, Ms Paraskeva said there are occasionally short-term business projects that necessitate it and there is a duty to help long-term unemployed and those with disabilities, so she did not want the system to be “too rigid.”
She said the provisions relating to special advisors should help to make the civil service more impartial through the nature of the advice they can give, which is different from the advice given by the Civil Service. She said however they needed to look at the role of special advisors, their relationship with senior civil servants and who can instruct whom, because she was worried special advisors could run a “coach and horses” through the civil service.
Ms Paraskeva said her accountability to the Queen was “out-of-date” and “unworkable.”
Sir Robin Mountfield said he welcomed the Bill but considered it was a “bare-bones” Bill and was “deficient” in a number of areas: in terms of specifying what should be in the Code, in the lack of a requirement on ministers to adhere to the Code, in there being no opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the activity of the Civil Service, in terms of the regulation of special advisors, (i.e. there being no limit on their number and no definition of their role), and he suggested that civil service commissioners should be able to initiate their own inquiries. He also argued that the concept of impartiality needed to be clearly defined.
It was also Sir Robin’s belief that the Civil Service should produce an annual report on the operation of the Code, and Parliament should scrutinise it.
Constitutional Renewal
Professor Hennessy wished to “congratulate the Prime Minister” on bringing the Bill forward and the Committee for investigating the prerogative issue and defining what prerogatives are. However, he stated he was “most interested in war powers”, which he said was the most important aspect of constitutional renewal, claiming the decision to go to war supercedes all others.
He argued that the plans to involve Parliament in making the decision to go to war and to incorporate due process, with rules governing procedure, would be strongly welcomed by the intelligence services, the career civil service and diplomats, who would not want a repeat of the Iraq situation, saying they were “deeply scarred by the abandonment of due process on pretty well every level” by the decision to go to war in Iraq.
He was worried that the Prime Minister would still have control over what information was given to Parliament and in particular questioned the proposal that an attorney-general’s full legal advice would not be given to Parliament. He claimed that if MPs had seen the full advice over Iraq and not the “misleading” shortened version, they may not have voted for the war. He said the White Paper proposed only a summary would be given to Parliament, which he said was “grossly inadequate” in the case of Iraq.
He quoted Lord Bingham in arguing that the public, not the Government, should be seen as the “client” in terms of an attorney-general’s advice, as they would be the ones fighting in wars and suffering the consequences of them. He said asking one person (i.e. the Prime Minister) to decide what advice should be disclosed was asking too much and represented “the single greatest weakness” in the Government’s proposals. If the Government was not prepared to disclose an attorney-general full legal advice, he suggested that Parliament get its own legal staff and its own legal advice.
With regard to a British Statement of Values, he said he subscribed to the “George Formby principle” that “it’s turned out nice again” and nothing more needed to be said on Britishness. He claimed to do so would be “an absurdity.”
The Committee asked Professor Hennessy if he thought Parliament should be pushing itself forward more in bringing forward legislation such as this Bill and he confirmed that he did.
Professor Blackburn also congratulated the government on bringing the Bill forward and in addressing the prerogative powers, but said it did not “comprehensively” address that issue, being rather “ad-hoc.”
He also expressed concern that Parliament should own those powers and the Bill seemed to indicate that the Government and the Crown still owned them, but at least there was now some procedure. He declared that he would have liked to have seen Parliament given powers over its dissolution.
Responding to questions concerning recent conflicts between the Government and the judiciary, Professor Hennessy said that politicians often get where they are by “mobilising prejudice” but argued that judges were “the last guarantors of liberty” when the Cabinet get a “rush of blood to the head.”
In respect of the role of the Civil Service, Sir Robin suggested that the civil service was being “marginalised” and cited Iraq as an example of it not being listened to. Professor Hennessy argued that the Civil Service was not becoming politicised and claimed that even after the Thatcher Government, there were only two politicised senior civil servants.
As to what could be done to address the gulf between the public and Government, supposedly widened following the Iraq War, Professor Hennessy said the election was the stage for the public to express their opinion. He claimed some studies suggested the Iraq War had cost the Government 40 seats in the 2005 General Election. He argued that in relation to Iraq, the public were anxious about ministers and MPs falling below standards over due process.
Discussing prerogatives, Professor Hennessy said it is not clear what these are, but Professor Blackburn claimed prerogatives were any powers which a government needs in order to govern the realm, including keeping the peace, defence and international relations. He said the ultimate authority in our unwritten constitution is the crown and what the common law enables the crown to do.
Professor Blackburn also said he thought there needs to be Parliamentary approval before reorganising government departments.
Inquiry into Lobbying
 Our View Unlock Democracy is a member of Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, a coalition of civil society groups, is calling on the Government to introduce rules that require the disclosure of lobbying activities, allowing greater public scrutiny and improving the accountability of Parliament. The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency is calling for:
Members of ALT have been called to give evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee Inquiry into lobbying. Prof. David Miller and Dr William Dinan of The University of Strathclyde and Spinwatch argue that industry self-regulation is incapable of providing adequate transparency in lobbying and is unlikely to command widespread public confidence. They will draw the Committee’s attention to recent examples of lobbying malpractice, including the charity TOAST (The Obesity Awareness & Solutions Trust), a lobbying group funded by the weight loss industry, which misled MP’s over its sources of funding. Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said: “For many years now we have campaigned on the importance of transparency in party funding, but this is only one way in which lobbyists seek to influence to public sphere. Transparency in lobbying is another important tool for restoring trust in government decision-making, and in making ministers, elected representatives and officials more accountable to the public.” Professor Miller said: “The public has a right to know on whose behalf lobbyists are working, how much money is involved, and the areas of policy they are seeking to influence. Lobbying is much more pervasive than is generally recognised. Lobbying companies are adept at finding ingenious ways to disguise the role of their clients which is why disclosure is so important.” |
PASC is conducting an inquiry into the transparency of the lobbying industry, the effectiveness of recent attempts at self-regulation, and whether the rules for those in Parliament and Government should be changed.
Background
In the 1990s lobbying was at the centre of political scandals. The cash for questions affair, amongst others, tarnished the word with the stain of sleaze. The industry responded by introducing an element of self-regulation and encouraging professionalisation of its work and the Committee on Standards in Public Life produced some recommendations about the role of MPs and lobbyists.
However, lobbying is still viewed with suspicion. It was reported by The Times in September 2006 that a lobby firm was offering clients a party conference package that included dinner and drinks with high ranking members of the government for £5,000.
The Times also revealed that a number of All Party Groups were funded by multi-client lobby firms who did not reveal the names of the clients, leading to an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
A recent discussion paper from The Hansard Society, Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy found that lobbying is more widespread than often assumed by its critics and supporters.
The last Parliamentary report on lobbying was the 1991 report from the Select Committee on Members’ interests. PASC therefore believes that it is appropriate and timely for us to launch this new inquiry.
Issues and Questions
The Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) suggests that there are a number of activities which come under the umbrella term of public affairs, such as strategic communications and political monitoring, including lobbying.
They define lobbying as “helping organisations wanting policy, legislative or regulatory change to understand who the key decision makers are, when to approach them, and how best to make their case”. Although most focus on lobbying rests on the role of multi-client public affairs firms, most large organisations – be they charities, companies or trade associations employ people who conduct some element of lobbying.
The public sector also employs lobbyists for various purposes including to influence funding decisions by central government and the passage of relevant legislation through parliament.
The public, however, seems suspicious of some sorts of lobbying. For example, 79 per cent of respondents to the State of the Nations poll in 2004 stated that they felt large corporations had influence over government policies, while only 34 per cent felt they ought to enjoy such influence. However, Government commitment to consultation as part of the policy making process has recognised the value of the views of interested parties. Indeed, an open and consultative government is considered to be part of a healthy democracy.
Currently, multi-client public affairs companies are not subject to external regulation. The Public Relations Consultants Association was set up in 1969, and maintains a membership directory and various codes of conduct. Additionally, eighty per cent of lobby firms belong to the APPC which was established in response to the ‘cash for questions’ scandal of the early 1990s. This requires organisations to list the names of their clients as well as their consultancy staff. However, some have suggested that firms will only register if it is in their commercial interests to do so. Questions have been raised over the effectiveness of the content of the code. There has also been some criticism that some of the firms employed by public sector bodies are not members of the APPC and do not list their clients names in full.
However, the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life welcomed self-regulation of the industry and its Sixth Report also rejected outside regulation of the industry.
Lobbying has been regulated in the United States for some time. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires those hired to lobby to report on the issues they sought to influence and how much money was spent in doing so. The United States Congress has also been considering further legislation over the past few months following the Abramoff scandal. Proposals passed by the Senate would require lobbyists to provide detailed information about their dealings with law, and prevent lobbyists buying meals and gifts for lawmakers.
Lobbying is also a major issue in other countries, and at the European Union level.
1. What does it mean for an organisation to lobby government or Parliament?
2. Which ways of seeking to influence policy and decision makers are acceptable, and which are unacceptable?
3. What evidence is there of the effect of lobbying on the policy and decision making processes?
4. Do some organisations have more influence over Parliament and Government than others?
5. Is it possible to limit lobbying and yet to ensure that government and Parliament are properly informed?
6. Are the provisions in the APPC’s and PRCA Codes of Conduct appropriate for a self-regulatory system? Why are some multi-client lobbyist firms not members of these Associations?
7. Should lobbyists be regulated by an outside body? If so, what would the focus of such regulation be? Who would enforce the regulation?
8. Are the current transparency requirements placed on the behaviour of public officials, ministers and Members appropriate?
9. Should government organisations lobby? If so, is it appropriate for them to use multi-client public affairs consultancies?
10. Is there anything that the UK can learn from attempts to regulate lobbying in other countries?
Evidence Session on 15th May
On 15th May PASC took evidence from
as part of their inquiry into lobbying.
The committee primarily sought information on two areas: -
1) What role did lobbying play in the overall business activity of the aforementioned witnesses? How do they put forward their message?
2) Would these witnesses welcome increased regulation and transparency in lobbying?
1) Tesco plc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals UK and BAA Ltd all approached the first question in the same fashion. They affirmed that that they were engaged in consultation with Government on the basis of a sharing of information and insisted on using the terminology of “working together” with the relevant departments and individuals. Often the Government would seek the advice of these groups.
- Chris Brinsmead, representing AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals UK stated that because the Government is naturally interested in the work of the pharmaceutical industry, AstraZeneca is often approached by Government departments for consultation on various themes such as trying to find solutions to the shortages in science teachers.
- Similarly, Lucy Neville-Rolfe of Tesco plc said that the Government had sought information on education policy, the affect of minimum wage and climate change.
- Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International stated that their approach to lobbying was one of trying to get the general public engaged, with the hope of spurring them on to lobby the Government. All conceded that whilst they do have access to Government, their influence is marginal compared to the previous private sector interests.
2) Tesco plc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals UK and BAA Ltd did not think there was a problem with the current system of lobbying.
- Mr Brinsmead from AstraZeneca stated that any partner who worked with the company was expected to sign up to the code that existed within the industry. He feared that a register could be excessively bureaucratic and was unclear if every phone conversation would have to be recorded.
- Tom Kelly from BAA was quick to point out that BAA has already been subject to several Governmental reviews, and thus believed that there were sufficient scrutiny mechanisms of company activity already in place. It would be harmful if a mandatory register made it appear that contact with the Government was in any way perverse.
- Lucy Neville-Rolfe of Tesco addressed the issue that any register should not interfere with commercial confidentiality. This meant that private sector companies would not want figures published that could be used by competitors, especially in highly sensitive industries such as pharmaceuticals. Echoing the point of Mr Kelly, Tesco believed that if any code became a disincentive for Government to seek the consultation of business, this would be extremely negative.
- Friends of the Earth spoke of the need for greater transparency to restore public confidence. Whilst the groups accepted that they did present information from one perspective this is in part due to the current levels of secrecy. Therefore, because they don’t know what information the Government has already received from ‘the other side’ it was necessary for them to act in this way, to ensure that the Government would have all side’s viewpoints when making a decision. It was also a myth that a register would place a significant burden on firms. Essentially, most firms already have the information to hand (e.g. the invoice from a hired Public Affairs company) and this can then easily be submitted. A lobbying register should include: -
- The name of the lobbyist
- The area of legislation they are trying to influence
- Disclosure of who is paying what to influence what policy
- This would be supplemented by the Freedom of Information Act
The Committee quizzed the witnesses on whether they felt it was a problem that increasing numbers of former senior civil servants were moving to the private sector?
- Tesco plc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals UK and BAA Ltd all employed former civil servants.
- Tesco also employed former civil servants who were now working in areas from corporate responsibility to climate change. Lucy Neville-Rolfe a former civil servant herself believed a ban on moving into the private sector would act as a disincentive to people wishing to take up careers in the civil service.
- Mr Tom Kelly himself a former communications officer at Downing Street stressed that he was not involved in making policy but in communicating. Nevertheless, the Committee were largely of the view that this would give him (and similar individuals) an advantageous position in relation to contact numbers and access to policy makers.
On this issue the Committee questioned the decision by BAA to attempt to appoint Sir David Roland, a move that was blocked by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
- Amnesty International felt that whilst any group can benefit from someone with governmental experience the problem it when someone who has been intimately involved on a specific governmental policy is then working on behalf of a private sector interest.
The committee was interested in finding out why companies as influential as they are, would employ external lobbying firms to push their agenda?
- AstraZeneca said it was often an issue of capacity and the need for “an extra pair of hands”.
- Tesco said that regional projects required local consultation that was better led by local expertise.
- BAA said that the benefit of external companies is that it gave an extra perspective that was necessary when those internally may not be detached to effectively advise.
Asked whether all groups, charity, micro lobbying groups should be subject to the register the response was: -
- Friends of the Earth- there should be a threshold, based either on time spent lobbing (as in Canada) or expenditure (as in USA). Those groups who fall below this should not have to be listed. The Committee were quick to point out that any threshold based on time would ignore those groups who engage in few yet highly influential meetings.
- Amnesty-Constituency contact should be exempt because these are voluntary and not coordinated interactions.
- Greenpeace-whilst any register would not solve the problem and there will be those who will find loopholes, what it does do is create a fair and manageable system that restores public trust. It would simply enable everyone to see when a group has specifically target a policy area and how the government responded in kind. The Committee highlighted the Governments u-turn on nuclear policy in respect to this.
Evidence Session on 6th March
On 6th March PASC took evidence from
Mr Peter Bingle, Chairman, Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, and Mr Mike Granatt CB, Partner, Luther Pendragon
Mr Richard Schofield, Acting Head of Regulatory Affairs, Law Society and Mr Eben Black, Director and Head of Media, DLA Piper Global Government Relations
as part of their inquiry into lobbying
The Committee focused this session on: -
1) The ethical principles of lobbying. They sought information on:
The overall ethical considerations of the organizations in question.
- Mr Bingle argued that Bell Pottinger does not advocate a view to a minister on a client's behalf; they only encourage dialogue between government and the client. Its principle activity as a public affairs consultancy is to advise clients as to what they must do to achieve their goal. If this involved parliamentary contact then this is a legitimate activity.
The ethical decisions made when choosing whom to represent.
- Mr Bingle stressed that the company does make judgements based on ethical grounds about whether or not to accept offers of representation, and subsequently have rejected offers from Zimbabwe.
Whether it was ethical for former public figures to move into the private sector?
- Mr Granatt, former head of the Government Information and Communications Service and now representing Luther Pendragon believed that there was no problem for a former public figure to later represent private clients so long as if it was done in a proper way. Given that ministers are entitled to take advice from wherever they can, it would be illogical to suggest that an individual should never be allowed to contact them, even if they had a previous association. He acknowledged that the current one year “cooling off period” would help to prevent a situation in which somebody could suddenly award contracts one day and then leave the civil service or the armed services and join the company that won the contract the next day.
The ethical decisions arising from a conflict of interest between clients.
- Mr Bingle stated they will only work with two competing clients if the current client gives the go ahead. Any decision is based on full openness because reputation is paramount. Two separate and distinct account teams would be used so that only allow one account team would have access to that particular client's commercially confidential information.
2) An examination of the current regulatory standards, particularly the objections of the witness’s organisations to the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) code.
- Mr Bingle stated that Bell Pottinger publish 99% of their clients on their website. However, when clients reserve the right not to have their name publicly announced, they respect this choice. He believed that the public do not have a right to full disclosure but when dealing with public officials they will state whom they are calling on behalf off.
- Bell Pottinger and Luther Pendragon objection to the APPC code was based on:
(a)The codes requirement for full disclosure (b)That it had failed, as a regulatory standard because it sought to create almost a closed shop whereby only by membership of the APPC or other bodies is there a label that you are a good, ethical, professional company.
- Mr Black representing DLA Piper said that they had appealed to the Office of Fair Trading over the APPC request that public contracts should only be given to its members. He believed it was problematic that there were no sanctions for non-compliance because it was a voluntary agreement.
- Mr Granatt raised the point that the code doesn’t prevent companies splitting into two and signing one up to the APPC code and guaranteeing full disclosure, whilst the other half carries on without.
- Mr Schofield speaking on behalf of the Regulatory Affairs of the Law Society added that whatever regulatory rules are put in place they will only be as good as the monitoring and enforcement regime you put around them. That is the problem of just having a register or the Association of Professional Political Consultants' code or the other codes; they simply do not have the resources to monitor and enforce them to the same standard of efficacy of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority Code (SRA), which is required by statute to provide the resources to ensure that can be done. That is a weakness of all these voluntary schemes and potentially a statutory code unless it is backed by that kind of regime.
- Mr Bingle confirmed that in place Bell Pottinger was governed by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) code, and also believed in the principles of the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) code.
- Mr Black noted that in the legal sector the SRA code demands client confidentiality.
- Bell Pottinger and Luther Pendragon agreed that if regulation was introduced that required full disclosure, then their organizations would be happy to comply. However, they warned that any legislation requiring this would prompt law firms to increase in-house public affairs consultancy as they would be exempt, which would be attractive to some prospective clients.
3) The effect of regulation in the United States on lobbying activity.
- Bell Pottinger and Luther Pendragon when asked on several occasions were unable to give information of how they felt legislation within the United States had impacted lobbying activity, despite the companies having considerable operations within the US. They argued that foreign affairs where dealt with by a separate arm.
- Mr Schofield pointed out that the Lobbying Disclosure Act in the United States has provisions, which specifically address some of the issues of the law firms. It is very explicit within the Act that anything which constitutes legal advice, is excluded from the definition of lobbying and is therefore not disclosed to ensure there is client confidentiality guaranteed around pure legal advice. Thus whilst the Solicitors' Code in the UK states you can only disclose the name of your client if it is required by law; The Lobbying Disclosure Act means that in the States it is required by law that when you engage in this kind of activity you have to disclose. If a statutory provision was introduced to the UK then it would have to disclose clients for whom you engage in that activity.
- Mr Black did not believe that regulation had a negative impact on lobbying.
4) What a regulatory system should include and who should be subject to it?
- DLA Piper recommended a statutory register of lobbyists and their clients administered by the House of Commons. Also, legislation that prevents organisations representing two competing clients, even when the two clients accept this. This would be in line with current legal rules. They advocated that any interest group, who employ lobbyist should be on the register. When promoted Mr Black did seek to draw a distinction between constituent and a lobbyist and suggested that national organisations should be registered and two of the individuals from within would act as the conduit for the local organisation.
5) Would greater transparency increase public trust?
- As a former industrial editor at The Sun, Mr Black believed that openness would result in fewer press scandals because at present the essence of the story is the alleged or implied secrecy not fact. The impetus of the press would thus be taken away.
6) The effect of the regulation in the legal sector on law firms wishing to engage in lobbying?
- Mr Schofield stated that the introduction of the Legal Services Act would not have a particular impact because lobbying is currently subject to the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. The Legal Services Act is permitting more around the ownership of law firms and who is allowed to be engaged in the management of them.
Evidence Session on 24th January
On 24th January PASC took evidence from
Professor David Miller and Dr William Dinan, Spinwatch, and Mr Peter Facey, Director, Unlock Democracy
as part of their inquiry into lobbying
The Committee was principally concerned with establishing:-
1) Was there a problem with the current system that necessitated tighter regulation?
2) Would increased transparency actually boost public confidence or harm it?
3) Who should be subject to a lobbying register?
1)All the witnesses stressed that they were not against the principle of lobbying. They agreed with the Committee that it was a welcome feature of a healthy democracy. The key argument was the need for greater transparency to highlight political access and influence. The witnesses believed that growing voter apathy and disengagement was characterized by a public perception that they had little influence on government decisions.
- Mr Facey, citing the State of the Nation poll conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, noted 17% thought voters had either a fair amount or a great deal of influence over the political system, and in comparison 67% thought that businesses had a fair or a great deal of influence.
- Dr Dinan noted that whilst one minister will know on a one to one basis the relationship between the lobbied and the lobbyer, this is not necessarily clear to those on the outside. Transparency would quell fears of wrongdoing.
- Professor Miller raised the concern of deceptive lobbying. He highlighted the example involving The Obesity, Awareness and Solutions Trust, who had acted as a front organisation for drugs company LighterLife. Similarly, he noted the involvement of PPS group in the Spodden Valley who had registered domain names similar to that of the opposition campaign to the development of property in the area, as a means of confusing campaigners. He also pointed to the need for regulation to prevent the ‘third-party technique' where words are put into someone else's mouth. He stated that whilst they were members of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, the code does not deal with this question in any real way.
2) All witnesses believed that uncovering any abuses would in the long-term bolster public trust and this would compensate for any short-term cynicism arising from the publication of wrongdoings.
- Mr Facey affirmed that greater transparency concerning the donations to parties has meant that parties have to act more robustly about where they take their money from. He stated that without transparency you couldn’t deal with facts because you do not know, and that is when the conspiracy theory has built up.
- Professor Miller added that an act would help to expose otherwise unknown abuses. He cited the case in the United States involving Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist and businessman who had been at the centre of a number of high profile lobbying scandals.
- Dr Dinan noted that greater transparency in the United States has positively allowed smaller groups a much clearer picture of the political process, about who was trying to influence legislation policy.
3) On who should be subject to a register all the witnesses were in agreement that there should be no distinction between the voluntary and private sector organisations.
- Mr Facey insisted that regulation should take place across the board as to avoid the ideological dialogue about whether you think this sector is good or that sector is bad, and so doesn’t or does warrant regulation.
- Mr Dinan pointed out that in the United States where they did target just commercial consultancies, many businesses, in particular, funnelled money into charities and there was a loophole there and it was exploited.
Nevertheless, they did not welcome regulation that would act as a disincentive to small organisations that would otherwise engage in the political process. Thus, a threshold could be used based on: -
- The amount of time the organisation spends on lobbying activates
- Proportion of money spent on lobbying activities
- Whether professionals were being hired to carry out lobbying activities
- Mr Facey pointed out that the cost of regulation should not exceed the cost of the lobbying activity to a particular actor. Thus, a local community group who raises money to campaign the local council should be exempt.
The Committee were also interested to find out the witnesses views of the “revolving door” affect of former parliamentary officials moving to the private sector?
- Professor Miller believed that there was a need to extend the current one year “cooling off” period so that the vested interests cannot exploit previous contacts or immediate past knowledge.
Finally, the Committee wanted to know what sort of penalties should be introduced for those lobbyists that were judged to have engaged in abusive activity?
- Mr Facey asked if political parties who are voluntary organisations themselves breach the same sort of rules and are subject to criminal proceedings, why should lobbying organisations be exempt?
- Professor Miller stated that in the US there are fines and potential custodial sentences for those kinds of things.
Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry
The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) produced a report “Government by Inquiry” in 2005 in which it proposed that Parliament should be given powers to initiate its own inquiries into important matters involving the conduct and actions of government. The mechanism that PASC suggested for this was the creation of Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry. The Committee investigated the issue of inquiries in 2005, and proposed that there should be a special mechanism, called a Parliamentary Commission, established as the appropriate form of inquiry for certain major political issues involving ministers and their departments.
Evidence Session 3rd April 2008
In its session on 3rd April 2008, the Committee considered the potential for establishing a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the Iraq War. As the Government has resisted setting up such an inquiry for the time being, the session considered how desirable and how viable it would be for Parliament to initiate an inquiry instead.
The session took evidence from Sir Menzies Campbell MP, Plaid Cymru’s Adam Price MP, and former Foreign Secretaries Lord Hurd and Lord Owen, all advocates of an immediate inquiry into the Iraq war.
The session began with all of the above confirming their support for an inquiry into the Iraq War. There was also broad agreement that Parliament should have the power to initiate inquiries. Discussion then centred on the nature and composition of potential inquiry commissions. The session developed into a wider discussion of Parliament’s role and considerable concern was expressed over the power of the Executive and party machinery over Parliament. It was felt that MPs’ inability to express independence of mind in voting was turning people off politics.
Tony Wright MP, introduced the session by stating that the main purpose of the Committee’s session was to ask what Parliament can do when the government says it doesn’t want to hold an inquiry. He said a gap was appearing in setting up inquiries into government affairs where government was reluctant to do so itself and suggested that Parliament could fill that gap. Dr Wright suggested that Iraq was a perfect example of this, in that the government was putting off a decision on whether to hold an inquiry and Parliament should be able to force its hand.
• There was consensus that there should be an inquiry into the Iraq War.
Sir Menzies Campbell said he believed there was a “political imperative” to set up an inquiry.
• There was agreement that Parliament should be given powers to set up inquiries generally, although Lord Owen believed Parliament already had such powers, i.e. a resolution of both houses could establish an inquiry.
• The witnesses appeared to concur that it was a matter for the inquiry as to whether sessions should be held in public or private
• There was disagreement over the choice of chairman. Lord Owen advised against using judges as chairmen, which Sir Menzies Campbel disagreed with.
• Discussion centred on the relative weakness of Parliament vis-à-vis the executive, which the witnesses agreed was reflected in this issue.
Douglas Hurd stated that the “strength of the party inhibits politicians doing what they did as a matter of course in the nineteenth century” in being able to vote with independence of mind.
• There was agreement that the party whips and machinery had too great a level of control over MPs.
Mr Price claimed that “Parliament doesn’t reflect the views of Members of Parliament.”
The chairman then summarised the session by pointing out there was great frustration in that the public want an inquiry into Iraq and he asked why Parliament cannot achieve this. He said this led to broader problems over Parliament’s power and sovereignty.
PASC Hears From New Chairman of Committee on Standards in Public Life
On 10 January 2008, the Select Committee interviewed Sir Christopher Kelly, the new chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, about his suitability and goals for his new job.
Several members of the committee were concerned that Kelly is a “safe pair of hands”, appointed because he will not criticise the government, and asked whether his being appointed and funded by the government limits his independence, and whether, as a career civil servant, he has the necessary experience to critically evaluate government policy. Kelly insisted that he will remain independent and criticise the government when necessary, as he has as the head of the NSPCC, and added that he expects to consult frequently with the Prime Minister, but that the government will not be able to bar the CSPL from looking into particular issues. He said, however, that the CSPL’s job is not to investigate individual cases, but to “monitor” incidents and see if they hold any lessons about how to improve standards in public life, and mentioned several times that most of the CSPL’s past recommendations to the government have been adopted.
Kelly said that the CSPL’s next priority will be ensuring that the “political culture” meets the high standards that the CSPL has set for public life, and that are enforced by a variety of new codes and regulatory bodies. In particular, he mentioned his concern over recent party funding scandals in both the Labour and Conservative parties, and said that neither side had been acting within “the spirit of the law”, despite the public commitment both parties had made to transparent funding. Other priorities will include evaluating whether the Freedom of Information Act has effectively raised standards of public administration, and reviewing standards at new publicly funded bodies, such as foundation hospitals. Kelly added, however, that it is still too early to compile a complete list of his aims for the CSPL, and that he was unsure whether some of the issues members of the Select Committee brought up, such as the question of whether MPs should be able to vote on their own salaries, might fall under his jurisdiction.
Several Select Committee members asked why the public’s trust in public institutions has declined. Kelly replied that it was a side effect of higher standards and more transparency in government, as the workings of government are now more exposed to media criticism; he added that the role of CSPL is to raise standards, and that public trust is a bonus, but not an issue the CSPL should address directly.
The Ministerial Code: the case for independent investigation
PASC published its report on the Ministerial Code, the rule book on Ministerial conduct, on 6th September. The report examines the mechanisms by which alleged breaches of the code should be investigated.
Over the last year, David Blunkett, Tessa Jowell and John Prescott have all been the focus of sustained attention for supposed breaches of the Code. In each of these cases, there has been a lack of clarity about the means of establishing the facts, and whose responsibility it should be. The Government's view is that there is no single approach to the investigation of allegations of ministerial misconduct that would be helpful in all cases.
On 23 March 2006, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, as the independent adviser on ministerial interests. However, the Committee remains concerned that Sir John's role is limited; inappropriately weighted in favour of an additional layer of advice over that of Permanent Secretary; and lacks a genuine investigatory dimension.
The Committee argues that an independent investigation would make it easier for Prime Ministers to take more balanced decisions about the fate of colleagues. It would inject a sense of proportionality and indeed common sense into what is often a political and media frenzy and would ensure that ministers are held to account for their actions rather than for what is alleged about them in the media and elsewhere.
It would also promote public confidence in the Ministerial Code as a handbook on propriety.
The Committee proposes that investigatory machinery should:
- be manifestly independent of the Executive;
- not involve the creation of yet a further regulatory office and, ideally, should be undertaken by an official connected to the House;
- concern itself only with establishing the facts of the case;
- make its findings available to Parliament and the public;
- reserve to the Prime Minister the right to judge whether the facts amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code and what the consequences should be;
- avoid the proliferation of frivolous or vexatious complaints.
In addition PASC recommends that instead of being 'advised' to declare their interests as at present, ministers should be under an obligation to do so. Ministers coming into a department should be required to provide their permanent secretaries with a full list in writing of interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. Paragraph 5.3 of the Ministerial Code should be amended accordingly.
Skills for Government Inquiry
Government response published
The Government defends the independence of the Capability Reviews on the basis that the Reviewers are leaders in the private, voluntary and wider public sectors with no invested interest in the results.
A new performance management system for senior civil servants, was recently established by the Government and is based on five key elements.
1. Business delivery objectives 2. Corporate objectives 3. Capability objectives 4. Personal development objectives 5. Leadership behaviours
While accepting the importance of practical experience the Government also defends the scope afforded accredited qualifications, in particular citing the historical lack of professional qualifications for Financial Directors in departments.
The Sector Skills Council for Central Government, set improving the limited evidence base on skills across government as its key priority. Two major surveys show an exceeding of Lord Leitch’s targets with vocational qualifications, with a new refreshed NVQ in public services proposed for 2008.
The National School of Government is outlined as supporting the implementation of the Professional Skills for Government in a cohesive approach to improving skills, through aligning both the business needs of individual departments and the strategies of the centre. Furthermore recruitment of experienced political leaders as associate fellows Sunningdale Institute to improve the evidence base on current and future skills gaps is being considered. Acknowledging the School’s need to measure success against more than revenue alone, the School is currently developing a series of key performance indicators that reflecting this new focus.
Referring to staff complements for personal development the Government promotes the signing of the Skills Pledge committing them as the first national employer to offering time off and training to all staff to gain their first qualification at NVQ level 2. The Government dismisses allegations limited opportunities for lower scale employees quoting 2007 statistics showing 62% of Senior Civil Service posts going to promotees.
External recruits are increasingly being drawn from the voluntary and wider public spectrum, accounting for 47% of all external joiners within the Senior Civil Service in 2004. Within this context the 50% target is suggested to be reviewed. External recruitment is used across all levels of the civil service entailed financial and non-financial benefits in line for value for money to tax payers. Flexibility in terms of pay determination is defended on the grounds of recruiting specialist skills. Senior Civil Service pay is continually monitored and anomalies addressed through pay cycles, whilst a strengthen induction programme for new entrants is to be introduced.
Interchange is very active within Whitehall, with 80% of Senior Civil Servants taking secondment in 2007. Introduction of the Professional Skills for Government has created Interchange Managers and promoted employees to gain a broadening of their experiences. Government supports emphasis on a four year norm rather than a maximum period for broadening experiences as a means to delivering on a specific programme of work while encouraging the refreshment of skills.
In finding the right people for the right jobs at the right time, the restructured Civil Service Capability Group creates a succession plan on the top 200 civil servant jobs and administer the High Potential Development Scheme helping those just below prepare for the most senior jobs. All departments have talent management functions is also a priority to Civil Service Capability Group to establish common frameworks and best practice.
Arrangements for pay and grading have found recent agreement in a civil service wide reward principles which include the need for a new common approach to conditions of employment, Key stakeholders are being consulted on delivering a more consistent reward arrangements for some professional and workforce groups identifies by similar roles, skills and grades. Gershon Efficiency Programme, quoted by the NAO as most serious and systematic attempt at government efficiency, is sought not in headcount targets in isolation but reducing overall administration costs.
Cabinet Office Capability Review identified need for reformed Corporate Development Group, brought them together with the Capability Review team to form the Civil Service Capability Group. This has created a strong evidence base that informs and directs the leadership and people interventions. The Skills Strategy developed by Government Skills supports Civil Service Capability Group’s work on workforce change, competencies and skills, performance management, employee engagement and wellbeing, and leadership.
Government rejects the proposal for a National Performance Office as lacking value in creating additional layers of cost, and emphasis the robustness of the Capability Review cycle. Much of such an organisations work is already covered by the NAO in its the value for money scrutiny of non-financial performance. The Government reassures the committee of its priorities in encouraging a culture of continuous developments. The National School of Government has launched a new Centre for Working with Ministers and Parliament providing training to help civil servants better both respectively. Ministers are regularly consulted by Permanent Secretaries on a department’s performance and advice on improving. The Government reasserts the fact that Ministers and their performance are ultimately judged by Parliament and the electorate.
Report Published
Running parallel to the Civil Service’s own ‘Capability Reviews’, the Public Administration Select Committee published their own report entitled Skills For GovernmentThe report states that government is a complex business and, as such, requires better organisation and strategy to ensure that the right skills are matched up to the right areas. Commenting on the outcome of the Capability Reviews, the report states,
"No department seems to be exactly ‘fit for purpose’ although the Home Office is unique in being ‘well placed’ in none of the categories measured"
Overall, the reviews found the departmental areas were operating as follows:
| Category | Frequency of Occurrence |
|---|---|
| STRONG | 5.3% |
| WELL-PLACED | 29.3% |
| DEVELOPMENT AREA | 38.7% |
| URGENT DEVELOPMENT AREA | 24.7% |
| SERIOUS CONCERNS | 2% |
This translates as ‘relatively capable’ but is a benchmark for improvement across the service.
The report argues that the government’s ‘Professional Skills for Government’ initiative is not being properly implemented and thus there is not as much specialisation as is required. In addition to this, it found that the Cabinet Office, although aware of which civil servants have professional qualifications, they do not know what these are in 25% of cases. Professional qualifications may well help match people to jobs but the role of practical experience must not be overlooked. The report also singled out the National School of Government as performing an excellent role in providing further training to top civil servants. However, the school requires more strategic control whilst ‘in-house’ training must improvement outside of Whitehall.
The Committee did not believe that external recruitment was harming the values of the civil service but that,
"If career civil servants have limited opportunities of getting to the top, the government will not get the benefits of talented people joining lower down the service"
External recruitment should target where there are particular skills gaps but otherwise, there should be more focus on managing career civil servants. Wide-ranging experience should be encouraged but there should be a greater degree of stability for the high fliers. There should also be greater training for incoming ministers so that they can better manage their departments.
Recommendations
- Future reviews of the civil service to be externally managed.
- Skills learnt through experience to be more highly valued.
- More focused strategy for the National School of Government.
- More training opportunities.
- Better-defined career paths and career management.
- External recruitment to be targeted at skills shortages and to occur lower down the chain in order to encourage departments to ‘grow their own talent’.
- Civil Servants to get more experience in other sectors.
- Introduction of a National Performance Office (much like the National Audit Office) to carry out subsequent reviews.
- Greater professional development of ministers.
October 2006
PASC held its first evidence session on 'Skills for Government' on 12 October. An uncorrected transcript can be found here
The Committee questioned Gill Rider (Director General of Leadership and People Strategy) and Anne-Marie Lawlor (Director of Leadership and Development) on whether enough is being done to ensure that the right skills are represented within the civil service.
Key questions for the inquiry include: whether the civil service operates the right recruitment and training policies to enable it to deliver policies and services effectively; the importance of leadership in the senior civil service; and how poor performance by civil servants is dealt with.
July 2006
On 28 July 2006 PASC launched an inquiry into 'Skills for Government' which will examine the capability of the civil service to perform its role effectively. It will also look at the skills required by ministers.
The Committee will be asking whether the right mechanisms of recruitment, training and career development are in place. The effectiveness of the Cabinet Office fulfilling its core function of 'Strengthening the Civil Service' will also be considered. The inquiry follows PASC's recent work on the way the relationship between politics and administration affects the design and delivery of modern public services.
In particular, the Inquiry will consider:
- Whether the first round of Capability Reviews carried out by the Cabinet Office been successful in identifying successes and failures within departments, and recommending action for change?
- If the right incentive structures and targeted performance management programmes exist to encourage a culture of excellence within the civil service?
- Whether the Civil Service recruitment strategy relates to the skills needed within the civil service?
- If leadership within the Civil Service is of particular importance and whether the current perceptions of a lack of leadership of particular concern?
- If the skills needed by ministers are being effectively cultivated?
An issues and questions paper, outlining the inquiry in more detail, is available on the Committee's website
The Ombudsman in Question
On 28th July 2006 PASC published its report into the constitutional implications of the Government rejecting the findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's investigation on pensions.
As many as 125,000 people lost significant parts of their defined benefit occupational pensions when such schemes wound up between April 1997 and March 2004 without sufficient funds to pay the benefits promised.
In March this year the Parliamentary Ombudsman published a report, Trusting in the pensions promise, which found that Government maladministration had meant that those who suffered loss had not realised the risks they ran, and had been denied the opportunity to reduce them. She recommended that the Government should consider whether it should make arrangements for the restoration of the core pension and non-core benefits of those affected. The Government rejected the findings of maladministration, and her recommendations.
The PASC report supports the Ombudsman's findings but also addresses the constitutional implications of the Government disagreeing with and in effect ignoring the Ombudsman. This is the second time in less than 12 months that the Ombudsman has reported to Parliament that she has found injustice that has not been, or will not be, remedied. Only four such reports have ever been made.
The system established by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 will only work if there is a common understanding between the Ombudsman, Parliament and Government as to what constitutes maladministration, and who has authority in identifying it. The Government has been far too ready to dismiss the Ombudsman's findings of maladministration.
PASC concluded that:
- Once the Government had chosen to give information about the pensions system, that information should have been complete and accurate. Instead, they failed to mention one of the greatest risks. The Ombudsman's finding of maladministration was correct.
- The Government cannot simply abandon people who have lost significant sums of money. It should work with others who share responsibility to find a solution.
- The Government has become far too ready to question the Ombudsman's findings of maladministration. She is Parliament's Ombudsman, and Government must respect her. There is now a threat to the Ombudsman's consitutional position.
Propriety and Honours
Introduction
This has been a major area of work for the committee. In 2004 the committee published ‘Matter of Honour’ which concluded a major inquiry into the honours system. This was followed in 2005 by a wider inquiry into the ethics and standards in public life, and the publications of the ‘Ethics and Standards’ report.
On the 14th March 2006 the ‘cash for honours’ allegations led to a Metropolitan Police investigation. The Committee announced that as a part of the ‘Ethics and Standards’ inquiry they would investigate whether the system of scrutiny for propriety of honours and peerages for political service was satisfactory.
The Committee agreed on a ‘short pause’ to avoid prejudicing the Police’s own investigation, though they sought to explore the policy issues involved.
These policy questions included :
- whether political honours are appropriate,
- the procedures for appointment in the House of Lords and
- the role of the House’s Appointments Committee.
It did not consider the appropriateness or otherwise of the legal framework in respect of the system of honours and peerages.
The Committees ‘Propriety and Honours: Interim Report stated “We will review the law as it affects public life and corruption as a part of a further report, once the police investigation is complete and the lessons from it are available.”
On 20 July 2007 Carmen Dowd, Head of the Special Crime Division at the Crown Prosecution Service, announced no criminal prosecutions would ensue from their investigations, resulting in the publishing of this report.
Report published
The Committee sought to avoid both a re-run of the police investigation and scrutiny of the police’s performance. The scope has been to consider the policy and regulatory issues arising from the investigation in considering the system that allowed such damaging allegations, and make recommendations as to restoring public confidence in the system.
The report addresses:
- the conflation of honours with peerages
- the adequacy of the legal framework for the prevention and detection of offences with respect to the sale of honours, loan to political parties and public sector corruption more generally
- the role of the Electoral Commission in the regulation of political parties
- the effects on political behaviour of donor-based funding
- the patronage powers of party leaders, and
- the appointments process for the House of Lords
Honours and Peerages
One of the Committee’s key recommendations is breaking the link between the honours system and the awarding of seats in the legislature. While honours are a reflection of past achievement, a peerage ought to be an appointment for future service
The Committee recognises that the independence of the honours system has improved since Tony Blair’s commitment, as the then Prime Minister, not to put his own names forward. This has been maintained and the Committee recommends this to be binding on all future Prime Ministers.
The legal framework
Although they accept that the likelihood of ever achieving a conviction is very low, the Committee argues that the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 still serves its purpose in defining unacceptable behaviour. Failure to prosecute in the cash for honours investigation was not a failure in the Act, but a failure to find evidence of any illegality occurring.
The Committee outlines some of the problems in trying to legislate in this area; specifically the problem of proving someone’s motivations. The report recommends subsuming specific laws on abuses around honours and peerages into a new general Corruption Act. The Committee views the Law Commission’s new Bill on bribery as the means to incorporating the behaviors outlawed by the 1925 Act. As the last Corruption Act was in 1916, the report argues that such a modern law is overdue.
Loans and Electoral Administration
The mistake of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in failing to require the declaration of all loans is acknowledged, as is the fact that the Government have now closed this loophole with the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
The Committee adds its voice to those calling for the Electoral Commission to be given additional powers so that it can become a more effective and proactive regulator.
House of Lords Appointments
The report recommends the immediate creation of a Statutory Appointments Commission as part of the second stage of Lords reform.
The Committee commends the robustness of the Commission in respect of those who made undeclared loans to a party being blocked from becoming peers but does not believe that the rules for membership of one half of the legislature should be made by six people.
The Committee agrees with Lord Stevenson on the inappropriateness of non UK tax residents serving in the legislature.
An interim House of Lords Reform Bill
The committee proposes that there should be an interim House of Lords Bill. They do not see this as preventing further reform including an elected second chamber but as way of remedying immediate problems. Whilst not seeking to be prescriptive the Committee recommends that the draft Bill should include provision to:
- give the Appointments Commission the power to both decide who sits in the House (one criteria being residency in the UK for tax purposes) and the equal measure of suitability and propriety to all prospective peers whether partisan or crossbench.
- make the decisions of the Appointments Commission binding rather than advisory, this would mean eliminating the Prime Ministerial veto over the Commission's decisions.
- remove the Prime Ministerial role in appointing members of the Appointments Commission, and the role of the executive in sponsoring and supporting the Commission. The statutory Commission should be entirely accountable to Parliament.
- ensure that the Prime Minister no longer determines the size of the House of Lords and the party balance of the nominated element. The size and the proportion of non-partisan members may be determined in statute. Party balances should be variable along with the prevailing mood of the nation, as a devised by formula, administered by the Appointments Commission.
- remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
Interim Findings
In its report published on 13th July Propriety and Honours: Interim Findings (HC 1119), PASC argues that further steps need to be taken to ensure the propriety of the system for awarding peerages and honours. Furthr evidence will be taken and a full report will be published when the current police investigation into the alleged sale of honours has been completed.
Recommendations include:
- Making it explicit that nominations to the peerage entail appointment to the legislature rather than the award of an honour
- clear party responsibility for the peerage nomination process
- full disclosure of all relevant information about nominees, including loans and any financial support for government programmes. A declaration form, to be signed by the candidate, stating whether or not there are any financial or other connections with a political party which could affect the award of an honour should accompany a 'sounding' letter which makes a conditional offer of an award to an individual.
- The Appointments Commission should be clearly and unequivocally responsible for vetting Prime Ministerial resignation honours lists.
- Wider party responsibility over the choice of candidates should also help to overcome concerns over MPs announcing their retirement from the Commons in the immediate run up to a general election and being subsequently ennobled in the dissolution honours list. The impression of peerages being offered as inducements in kind, rather than conferred in the expectation of future participation in the legislature, is damaging
- The Appointments Commission has shown that it can scrutinise nominations effectively and stand up to pressure from political parties. Nevertheless, its position should be reinforced by defining the Appointments Commission's role, powers and independence in statute as soon as possible, and certainly as part of any reform of the House of Lords which retains an appointed element of its membership.
Whitehall Confidential?
Government response published
The government response to PASC's report was published on 21st November and can be found here Many of the broad principles outlined by the committee are accepted by the government. The Histories, Openness and Records Unit of the Cabinet Office is currently taking forward plans for the next tranche of official histories and the next version of the Cabinet Office publication Directory of Civil Service Guidance is being updated . The Government asserts that the Ministerial Code, strengthened in 2001 to protect Cabinet Government, clearly states Ministers may not, whilst in office, write and publish on their experiences.
Government identifies special advisers as civil servants and thus subject to the same rules, whereby Civil servants must seek permission of the Head of their former Department, and the Head of the Home Civil Service before entering into a contractual commitment with a publisher. These requirements are to be made clearer in the Civil Service Management Code and the Directory of Civil Service Guidance. The differences in what is appropriate for each group, ministers, civil servants and special advisers, to publish are asserted in the Governments response.
The Government rejects a new approvals system that would involve a three month cap individual cases will depend amongst other things, on the content and complexity of the book, on how much notice is given, availability of appropriate officials and how much discussion is necessary. Furthermore the Government rejects establishing an Advisory Committee on Memoirs as it asserts the need for the ultimate responsibility in deciding on the balance of public interest to rest with the government of the day. Any such Advisory Committee on Memoirs is deemed as diluting the lines of accountability and adding an unnecessary additional layer to the approvals process.
Ministers are already required to sign a document on appointment making clear they understand Radcliffe rules and will abide by them. The ministerial code clarifies drafts of memoirs must be submitted in good time before publication to the Cabinet Secretary and confirm to Radcliffe principles. Any legal challenge under copyright is deemed as a measure of last resort with the Government stating that the current updating of procedures will strengthen existing arrangements and entrench incentives to both government and authors to negotiate properly.
report published
On 24th July PASC published the first ever public review on the publication of political memoirs. Whitehall Confidential? The publication of political memoirs (HC 689) calls for a new approach to the publication of political memoirs.
Representing the most thorough examination of the publication of political memoirs since the Radcliffe report 1976, the inquiry has been prompted by recent difficulties to inspire more confidence in the system.It reviews some of the controversial recent cases (including Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Sir Christopher Meyer and Lance Price) and recommends new guidelines and procedures on publication.
Lord Radcliffe chaired The Committee of Privy Counsellors in 1976 was a response to Richard Crossman’s full account of Cabinet meetings in his diaries. Recent publications from Robin Cook’s 2003 Cabinet Memoirs, 2004’s Clair Short post resignation book, economic advisor Derek Scott, 2005, Lance Price’s A Spin Doctors Diary and Sir Christopher Meyer’s DC Confidential has prompted new concerns into political memoirs. Below outlines the reform recommendations proposed by the Committee.
The Public Interest in Publication & Restraint
Valuing memoirs as providing insights into the processes of Government and the nature of key events, the Committee supports the access and financial incentive for publications. There are, however, concerns over the degree of balance between public interests and the relationship under the traditional doctrines of ministerial and civil service accountability. The current market value for sensational publications requires clearer guidelines to avoid the eroding of the discretion within inter-governmental relations.
Cabinet Confidentiality, Ministers, Civil Servants & Special Advisers
The committee recognises the degree of confidentiality within government and the relationships between politicians. The report highlights the politician’s legitimate wish to give an account of their actions which may involve the workings of government, and including, after an appropriate time, those of Cabinet. As publicly unaccountable and unable to publish accounts, named civil servants should be protected against criticism from former ministers and special advisors, due to their lack in right of reply. Memoirs from special advisors, due to their unique role, are deemed not to undermine the relationship between politicians and officials, though like ministers they should refrain from identifying named officials.
Diaries and the Question of Timing
The Committee identifies the real issues on diaries as being the timing when they are published and what they can properly contain, proposing a general principle that longer the author waits the more they may possibly reveal. Such broad guidelines seek to avoid fixed time periods which are unworkable to the variety of cases and circumstances to publications.
The Principles Governing Publication
The Committee places the basic principles governing the publication of memoirs uniformly for ministers, civil servants and special advisors. Materials that should be restricted from memoirs are defined as those that may cause damage to international relations, national security and the confidential relationships between ministers, between ministers and civil servants, and those inhibiting the free and frank exchange of views and advice within government.
Approvals Process
The Committee proposes an approval process that acknowledges discussions with prospective publishers is required prior to clearance, though contracts will recognise the clearance requirement, prohibiting any detailed drafts prior to clearance. The clearance process will place a burden on government to deal with texts expeditiously, under which a proposed time period is capped at three months.
The new rules will clarify the role of negotiation and significantly propose establishing an appeals mechanism when agreement cannot be reached. An Advisor Committee on Memoirs is suggested, composing of former senior public servants, experienced multi party politicians, and a member of the judiciary, to reflect the weight of public interest. Membership is to be agreed by the Leaders of the political parties, and the appeals process will be annexed in the Ministerial, Civil Service and Special Advisors Code and Diplomatic Service Regulations.
Enforcement/Crown Copyright & Confidentiality Clauses
To improving clarification the Committee seeks to strengthen the present system of advice and voluntary compliance. The Radcliffe Report suggested a system that places the final decision on publishing with the author, which the Committee advocates. Although statue law is seen as too rigid for the complex considerations on confidentiality and public interest, the Report does recommend legal terms to entrench negotiation and consultation over publication of memoirs.
The reform outlined by the Committee seeks to empower the right of government to copyright and pursue profits in cases of unapproved publishing, whilst strengthening the authors’ ability to legally challenge approval decisions or to publish without permission. Not prevent authors publishing what they wish, reform is sought to reduce the incentives to publish ‘spiced up’ memoirs. By allowing government to take legal action to protect confidentiality, reforms place the court responsible to judge on public interest, and if publication overrides other obligations. New legal terms would award remedies and costs accordingly and contain safeguards for both sides where authors publish without consent and where consent is unreasonable withheld.
Reforming the Honours System
On 27th April Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) Chair of PASC, held a Westminster Hall Debate to discuss the Committee's 2004 report on reforming the honours system.
The report recommended that:
- the Government should make it clear that in future honours will not be conferred on a person simply because they hold a particular post;
- there should be no further appointments to the Order of the British Empire. A new Order, the Order of British Excellence, should be founded in its place;
- that the honours selection committees should be replaced by an Honours Commission, which would take over from ministers the task of making recommendations to the Queen for honours. It should be established by statute,following the precedent of the Electoral Commission.
- that explicit criteria, along the lines proposed by the Australian government and reported in the Wilson Review, should be published for each level of award in the Order of British Excellence.
- that the Honours Commission should submit an annual report to Parliament, and that it should be examined by a select committee of this House.
- that recipients of honours should be presented with a modest badge or brooch suitable for wearing with non-formal dress.
Ethics and standards
This was the First Special report of the 2006-2007 session
Government response published
In response to PASC's report on Ethics and Conduct in Public Life the Government asserts that it is committed to maintaining high standards of conduct for those in public life, recently reinforced through the new Ministerial Code published July 2007, and the Civil Service Code published June 2006. Both publications set out the core principles and standards of behaviour expected by Ministers and civil servants when carrying out their duties.
The Government states the Civil Service Commissioners, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Independent Advisor on Ministerial Interests, announced for the first time in the Governance of Britain Green Paper, are independent of the executive. As a part of its work in the Governance of Britain Green Paper, the Government will consider further the Committees recommendations on creating greater independence from the executive.
The scope for independent investigation is being considered by government with its work on civil service legislation. Under the recent publication of both the Ministerial Codes scope has been increases as the Prime Minister may refer an allegation about a breach of the code to the independent advisor on Minister’s interests. The new Civil Service Code allows Civil Service Commissioners to consider complaints from civil servants without internal appeal processes. The Government can invite any of the ethical regulators to look into particular issues of concern and regulators are able to make a request to conduct a specific inquiry.
The Government accepts the committees’ recommendation on appointments and states that all future appointments will consist of a single non-renewable term of five years. The Government is also considering the suitability to pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament. Accepting that the Committee on Standards in Public Life should not only be independent of the executive but of any other body whose work it may have to examine, the Government proposes continuing to review on an ongoing basis its role and work programme.
The Government's response was published on 21st November and can be found