Accountability
Bodies may also be directly responsible to select committees of Parliament, which are entitled to examine their administration, expenditure, and policies. The chief executive officer typically serves as the accounting officer and may be summoned before the Public Accounts Committee in matters related to finances. This is the usual practice regardless of whether the CEO or the body is responsible for broader policy issues.
Some types of bodies allow for public consultation and responsibility to stakeholders through various mechanisms. The government has published a code of practice on consultation, and the Cabinet Office’s guidance suggests that departments and bodies should actively seek input from stakeholders through questionnaires, meetings, and other forms of consultation to ensure responsiveness to public needs.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has jurisdiction over several agencies, and agencies are subject to financial, management, and policy reviews. These reviews have replaced the previous requirements set by the Treasury and Cabinet Office and now involve an overall assessment of the delivery of outcomes and targets under the Public Services Agreement or Requirement.
Departments are responsible for conducting reviews every five years or more frequently to ensure that the relevant body delivers services efficiently, effectively, and in line with the department’s overall functions. These reviews also include a reassessment of the rationale for the body’s existence as the mechanism for delivering the appropriate service, considering options such as abolition, contracting out, restructuring, and privatization.
Executive agencies are typically staffed directly by civil servants, and over 70% of civil servants now work for these agencies. Chief executives are selected through open selection procedures.
This diversification of the civil service has resulted in potentially different pay and service conditions, in contrast to the previous more centralized and uniform position. The Civil Service Management Functions Act of 1992 grants agencies significant independence in setting terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration. Remuneration may vary based on requirements and the local labor market, rather than adhering to a uniform national pay level.
Bodies are encouraged to establish their own pay structures, largely driven by commercial considerations. Oversight of pay and service conditions by the Treasury has substantially decreased, and departments have greater freedom in recruiting employees below the senior civil service grade within their departments.
The chief executive is accountable to the Department/Minister. The Minister holds policy responsibilities for defining the policy framework for the relevant body and determining strategic objectives, key performance indicators, financial plans, and business plans, including their consideration and approval.
Senior departmental officials serve as liaisons with the relevant agency and act as a point of contact between the Department/Minister and the agency. They provide advice on Strategy Framework Agreements for strategy performance management.
The agency retains primary responsibility for its functions, and Members of Parliament may directly contact and make representations to the agency. However, the Minister has the right to intervene in the agency’s operations if public or parliamentary requirements justify such intervention.
Agencies remain under the ministerial departmental umbrella and remain part of the government. Essentially, they function as outsourced branches with a significant degree of independence.
In practice, agencies have expanded their responsibilities to serve citizens at the grassroots level and also interact with Parliament and Ministers at higher levels, in accordance with the relevant Framework Agreements.
Accountability is achieved through transparency and accountability target setting agreements. There is a strong emphasis on consultation with stakeholders and internal staff involvement in achieving targets.
In the mid-1990s, the so-called Citizens’ Charter sought to establish principles related to the delivery of government services. It aimed to set standards, promote open government, facilitate consultation with end-users, ensure economic efficiency, provide avenues for complaints, and establish remedial procedures.
The Citizens’ Charter principles were embraced by the Labour Government from 1999 to 2010. These principles were applied to various sectors, including public services, local government, central government, education, and nationalized and privatized bodies. They encompassed standards of service, openness and transparency, consultation, access, choice, fair treatment, remediation of wrongdoing, efficient allocation of resources, and innovation.
The Labour Government introduced Public Service Agreements, which outlined service requirements to be delivered. Service Delivery Agreements provided detailed plans on how the targets specified in Public Service Agreements would be met. Performance targets were closely linked to Public Service Agreements. Five-year reviews were replaced by broader business reviews. Guidance was published to facilitate target setting.
Over the past 30 years, many industries have undergone privatization. In most cases, the government has not sought to retain control or influence in these industries. Many of these industries were nationalized in the period following World War II. The government aimed to establish a degree of accountability through reports on capital and major expenditures based on cost-benefit analysis, financial targets, performance indicators, and limitations on debt.
Privatization has generally aimed to achieve greater efficiency, reduce government involvement, promote share ownership, increase public pay bargaining, and alleviate pressure on public deficits. However, the alleged deficit and efficiency gains have faced challenges, as privatization does not always guarantee greater efficiencies. The framework of competition and regulation has been crucial in achieving desired outcomes.
In some cases, the government retained shareholdings and special rights to appoint directors. For utilities, regulatory bodies were established. Beginning in 1984, telecommunications transitioned from being a part of the Post Office into a private monopoly and then British Telecom. The monopoly was abolished, and a regulator was established to safeguard consumer interests, promote efficiency, and encourage competitiveness.
The regulator was empowered to grant licenses, modify terms and conditions of licenses, and refer matters to the Competition Authority (formerly the Mergers and Monopolies Commission). These regulators were equipped with enforcement powers for breaches of duties and the authority to investigate complaints. Prices were subject to approval by the regulator. The Director General of Telecommunications eventually evolved into Oftel.
In line with the Citizens’ Charter, the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act of 1992 expanded the powers of the Director General of Telecommunications. It granted enhanced powers to set performance standards and award compensation for failures. The Competition Act of 1998 vested regulatory powers in the regulator as a competition regulator in this field. Measures to ensure universal access and facilitate it were maintained.
The Communications Act of 2003 transferred these regulatory functions to OFCOM, the Office of Communications, which now holds overall regulatory responsibility.