opaque transparency September 22, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentVia the Guardian, here’s what governmental transparency (and better regulation) looks like:
Police forces with some of the worst records of targeting black people have decided to stop recording the ethnicity of the people their officers stop and ask to account for their movements, the Guardian has learned.
Five out of the 10 forces most likely to use stop-and-account powers disproportionately against black people — West Midlands, Avon and Somerset, Thames Valley, Sussex and Hertfordshire — have halted recording the race of people they have stopped. They have used a government change in the rules introduced in March, which was aimed at cutting bureaucracy.
uk: government or chaos? December 19, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentAfter the student demonstrations, one UK Tory MP who claims to have been an influential adviser to Cameron argues chaos is preferable to planning (I don;t think he meant more demonstrations would be a good thing). Meanwhile, snow causes actual chaos (and cancelled my flight to the UK); and the high court holds that limits on skilled immigrants from outside the EU were adopted without the proper procedures. This doesn’t really sound like good government. The Public Administration Select Committee wrote in 2009 that good government involved:
i. Good people: government needs to recruit and cultivate the right people so that they are able to deploy their skills and abilities effectively to the work of government. This applies equally to government ministers, civil servants and public servants more generally.
ii. Good process: this means ensuring that appropriate structures, systems and procedures are in place for government to run smoothly-whether for the development of sound policies and legislation, successful policy implementation or for competent day-to-day administration of routine government business.
iii. Good accountability: adequate arrangements need to exist to ensure that people within government-both elected and appointed-are held to account for their decisions, actions and performance. One important prerequisite for proper accountability is the existence of defined roles and responsibilities so that it is clear who can be held responsible for what.
iv. Good performance: effective performance assessment within government helps to identify how well public organisations are meeting their objectives, as well as highlighting where improvements could be made, so that government is better able to work towards its desired outcomes.
v. Good standards: high ethical standards in public life are vital to ensuring basic public trust and confidence in governing institutions. Strong ethical regulation and ethical leadership in turn underpin the achievement of high standards.
It would be good to see this.
public bodies bill, fixed term parliaments bill December 16, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentAccording to the Guardian, Lord Judge’s criticisms yesterday of the Henry VIII clauses in the Public Bodies Bill will prompt some rethinking by the government. Meanwhile the House of Lords Constitution Committee criticised the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill:
The speed with which the policy was introduced, with no significant consultation, no green paper and no detailed assessment of the pros and cons of a five year term over a four year term, suggests that short-term considerations were the drivers behind the Bill’s introduction. The Hansard Society argued that “political expediency appears to have taken priority over Parliament’s right to properly scrutinise the executive.”Democratic Audit stressed that “this change is yet another piecemeal alteration, implemented with insufficient consultation, to the UK constitution”.
gory public bodies bill November 4, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentThe Public Bodies Bill (horrible title) is criticized today by the Select Committee on the Constitution:
The Government has not made out the case as to why the vast range and number of statutory bodies affected by this Bill should be abolished, merged or modified by force only of ministerial order, rather than by ordinary legislative amendment and debate in Parliament. As we have said, and as is axiomatic, the ordinary constitutional position in the United Kingdom is that primary legislation is amended or repealed only by Parliament. Further, it is a fundamental principle of the constitution that parliamentary scrutiny of legislation is allowed to be effective. While we acknowledge that exceptions are permitted — as in the case of fast-track legislation, for example — we have also sought to ensure that such exceptions are used only where the need for them is clearly set out and justified. As we have said, the use of Henry VIII powers, while accepted in certain, limited circumstances, remains a departure from constitutional principle. Departures from constitutional principle should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification is provided.
And, if that isn’t enough:
The Public Bodies Bill [HL] strikes at the very heart of our constitutional system, being a type of ‘framework’ or ‘enabling’ legislation that drains the lifeblood of legislative amendment and debate across a very broad range of public arrangements. In particular, it hits directly at the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber.
.. The Public Bodies Bill [HL] is concerned with the design, powers and functions of a vast range of public bodies, the creation of many of which was the product of extensive parliamentary debate and deliberation. We fail to see why such parliamentary debate and deliberation should be denied to proposals now to abolish or to redesign such bodies.
I suppose that if you use the word bodies in a bill title you are just asking for responses invoking blood and guts.
monbiot sizes up the quango hit list October 19, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentHere:
Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed. What the two lists suggest is that the economic crisis is the disaster the Conservatives have been praying for. The government’s programme of cuts looks like a classic example of disaster capitalism: using a crisis to re-shape the economy in the interests of business.
details of the uk quango hit list October 14, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentThe list is here. The press release describes the rationale for the new approach, including the abolition of many arm’s length or non-departmental public bodies as being:
to radically increase the transparency and accountability of all public services.
One might ask how accountability is furthered by bringing functions back into a government which requires the support of people who renege on election pledges to remain in power.
The press release states that bodies which are not abolished are those which perform technical functions, require political impartiality, or need to act independently to establish facts. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy (founded 1992) is safe on grounds of impartiality (?) while National Tenant Voice has to find its own way in the wilderness. There are other examples of undoing what has happened over the last dew years. For example, the Security Industry Authority established under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is disappearing as part of a “Phased transition to new regulatory regime”.
There are to be mergers. For example, the Competition Commission is to merge with the OFT although there seem to be some uncertainties about what happens to consumer protection after the merger (“Government will consult in the New Year on a merger of OFT’s competition functions with the Competition Commission and transfer of consumer and enforcement functions”). And the Gambling Commission, which warns people of the dangers of gambling is to be merged with the National Lottery Commission which doesn’t, except to warn people of scams which pretend to be connected to the (good) National Lottery (“Ensuring a fair Lottery for the nation £25 billion for good causes £37 billion in prizes).
unexpected news story… May 22, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , comments closed… A coalition of police authority leaders and senior officers warns today that the new government’s plans for sweeping reform of the service will make the country’s streets less safe…(headline on the front page, which doesn’t carry over to the actual story is “Tories putting people at risk – police”).
uk government: coalition programme May 20, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , comments closedSome aspects of The Coalition: Our Programme for Government just seem like warmed over versions of the previous government’s rhetoric: no gold-plating of EU regulations, for example, and the rest of the better regulation or smart regulation agenda – perhaps this is more categorical than before, perhaps not. It looks like an agenda for more than 5 years to me, and there is a caveat at the end that deficit reduction takes priority over everything else. So it’s difficult to tell how much of the nice sounding stuff is real. There’s some weird new stuff too, like this one:
We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.
and now the election is happening… April 6, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : governance , comments closed.. UK Government Departments won’t be updating their websites in line with this guidance.
who looks after the public interest ? June 18, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : governance , comments closedGovernmental (and quasi-governmental) statements and actions with respect to regulation are a bit confusing these days. Today, the Commission, in a communication about internet governance, makes the following statement:
It is also important to recognise that public attitudes have changed towards the concept of self-regulation in the wake of the financial crisis. When critical resources are concerned, whether they are banking systems or Internet infrastructure and services, there is now a higher and understandable expectation that governments will be more proactive than they may have been in the past in defending the public interest.
But of course, the public may be disappointed – many of those in charge are the same people who have been (and still are in some contexts) spreading the better regulation gospel.