Memorandum from Better Government Initiative
1. Two years ago almost to the day Robin
Butler, Nick Monck and I gave evidence to this Committee. We told
you of our concerns about the quality of government processes
and their consequences for law and policymaking. Subsequently
we formed the Better Government Initiative to meet the
challenge the Committee posed: what reforms would we recommend.
The Committee has now had our response—50 recommendations
for action—in Governing Well.
2. It is not hard to find examples of new
laws and policies which did not work well:
(a) In my own experience the poll tax and
aspects of rail privatization.
(b) At one level, the Dangerous Dogs' Act,
fining Yobs at cash-points, and providing £15 a pupil for
five culture hours a week in schools.
(c) At another the poll tax indeed, energy
policy over many years and the Iraq War.
3. We are not arguing government was once
perfect. It never was. Besides one cannot go back, even if one
wanted to. Too much has changed in the circumstances in which
government operates. It works within a culture of emails and IT,
subject to the attention of 24/7 media, using modern management
methods and with ministers spending more of their time abroad
or otherwise concerned with Europe and other international relations.
4. Our endeavour in our discussions these
two years with parliamentarians of all parties and others experienced
in government, has been to try to devise a system of governance
that works, that is better able to deliver, to help government
keep its promises. Rather than putting right mundane matters the
media has recently been full of, that we argue is most needed
to restore trust in politics and politicians.
5. Moreover we believe that the principle
for centuries at the heart of the British system of government—the
Accountability of the Executive to Parliament—remains the
key to good British government. It is as important, arguably more
so, for creating pride and confidence in being British than some
other ideas often talked about in this connection. Securing good
government for the UK and its people—and to that end restoring
Parliament to its rightful position as effective scrutiniser of
new laws, new policies and executive performance—is the
objective that underlies all our recommendations. We believe our
approach consistent with the aims expressed in last July's Green
Paper, The Governance of Britain, CM 7170.
6. We are happy to answer questions about
any of our 50 recommendations, but here are a few which in our
judgment are vital, taken out of the order in which they are presented
in Governing Well:
7. If Parliament—and the Executive—are
to do a proper job again, the volume of legislation (Recommendation
17) must be reduced so that it becomes manageable. We believe
that could be achieved by eliminating bills that are:
(a) Declaratory or otherwise Presentational
rather than substantial, for example without definable objectives
or intended results which can be monitored.
(b) Introduced to remedy faults in previous
statutes themselves the product of careless preparation.
(c) Based on a bright idea which has not
been properly thought through.
8. Vital too in our judgment is that Parliament
(Recommendation 6) passes a Resolution laying down in broad
terms the standards the Executive is required to achieve when
presenting bills and other business to Parliament; and (Recommendation
7) that government responds by setting out in sufficient detail
how it intends to meet that Parliamentary Resolution's requirements.
9. Several Recommendations are about how
to ensure bills, other new policies and other matters are complete,
comprehensive and well explained when presented to Parliament
(Recommendations 8-13, 19-22), to facilitate scrutiny and
economise on MPs' time.
10. Other recommendations concern the changes
we believe needed within government to reduce complexity to order
so that the government outputs Parliament receives are better
prepared, (Recommendations 26-32; and 33-35 on overseas policy).
11. Others (Recommendations 36-50)
we see as essential for improving the operational effectiveness
of government and the public sector.
12. The last recommendations, to which I
would draw to your attention, are aimed at improving the already
considerable effectiveness of select committees like your own
(Recommendations 14-18 and 23, 4), again vital, we believe,
because of select committees' supreme importance in our scheme
of things.
13. Many have impressed on us the acute
pressures MPs have on their time. We have already suggested measures
to economise on that time from reducing the volume of legislation
to ensuring its initial completeness and clear explanation. In
addition we would particularly draw your attention to Recommendation
18. We suggest a strong case exists for strengthening select
committees by providing more with the sort of skilled resources
the Scrutiny Unit can provide. For instance we hear the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee did sterling work on the shortcomings
of the Rural Payments Scheme. But it took them a long while given
their staff and powers. We think in such circumstances a committee
should be able to call on expert staff with NAO-style powers,
penetrating but focused, able to complete a rapid investigation.
Another suitable topic might be lost data files.
14. We would also mention the significance
of Recommendations 36 and 38, the damaging consequences
of micro-management for service delivery and policymaking.
15. You may wonder whether we believe that
Turkeys—perhaps particularly in the Executive—will
vote for Christmas. We do not see it like that. We believe that
the general public—and everyone in politics and our system
of government—will gain, not merely in the long run, from
reforms that inspire public confidence. Moreover we believe those
who support reforms designed to improve how government works will
gain credit even before the reforms have been implemented.
April 2008
| 
