8. Framework of Relationship with Government
8.1 The relationship between Non Departmental Public Bodies and their sponsoring Departments can be summarised as "giving the NDPB an appropriate degree of independence while enabling both NDPB and sponsor to discharge their responsibilities for the regularity, propriety and value for money of public expenditure"8
The tension between independence and accountability
8.2 The Royal Commission status of the Commission is the basis for its independence. Although the Royal Warrant does authorise Government Ministers to refer matters to the Commission for inquiry, in practice this power has not been exercised in the last twenty years, the Government having preferred to allow the Commission to study matters of its own choosing. The appointment of the Chairman and Members by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, rather than directly by Departmental Ministers, enhances the perception of independence, which contributes to Commissioners' ability to speak frankly and fearlessly. Our interviews confirmed that the Commission's independence is an important contributor to its ability to command public trust. Commission members have always guarded this independence jealously.8.3 Within Government, we found no evidence of any desire to restrict the Commission's independence. However there is concern to provide means of reassurance about the value of the Commission's work, in order to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer that the resources allocated to the Commission can be justified and represent value for money.
Location of responsibility within Government
8.4 In our interviews, members expressed concern that the government should not be heavy handed in its relationship with the Commission - though there were no complaints that this happened currently. Some members wondered whether any other Department than DETR might be better placed to have responsibility for the Commission, in the sense of potentially having less of a policy agenda of its own to 'sell'. Responsibility has been with DOE/DETR since 1980, when the Civil Service Department was abolished. In 1980, the then Chairman and Members sought and obtained an assurance from the Prime Minister that the transfer to DOE would not have an adverse effect on the Commission's independence. In our interviews, although OST was mentioned speculatively, no-one had a clear proposal about any alternative Department, and we see no advantage in shifting the function away from DETR.8.5 Within DETR responsibility currently lies with the Environmental Protection Strategy Directorate (EPSD) headed by a Grade 3 Director. Specific functions exercised are:
- keeping under review the terms of the Commission's Royal Warrant;
- providing a focal point for liaison with the Secretary and Chairman of the Commission on issues relating to the Commission's plans, studies, and reports, and on management and staffing issues;
- allocating resources from the Departmental Administration Vote, in consultation with FDA Division;
- co-ordinating and making recommendations about appointments to the Commission, including liaising with the Commission, other Government Departments, and Number 10; and
- making provision where necessary for co-ordination of Departmental evidence to studies and responses to Commission reports.
Current roles and relationships
8.6 The respective roles and responsibilities of the sponsor and the Commission have evolved over time, but are nowhere clearly articulated in accessible form. Clear definition of roles and responsibilities is a necessary element in the sponsor division's ability to provide reassurance to the Accounting Officer about the justification for public expenditure. The current arrangements are piecemeal - particular weaknesses include:-
- Insufficient clarity at present about particular responsibilities and procedures, including on audit arrangements, staffing and the use of DETR centrally provided services.
- The Commission Secretary's Statement of Financial Management Responsibilities (SFMR) dated June 1995 which sets out reporting requirements on resource plans and expenditure was due for revision by 1997/8 and is out of date, predating the new public expenditure regime and the move to resource accounting as well as changes in personnel and structure within DETR.
8.7 We recommend that the respective roles and responsibilities of the Department and the Commission should be clarified by establishing an agreed hierarchy of documents, which would make transparent the framework within which the Commission operates. This would provide a basis for reassurance, for the Commission and for the Department, about the Commission's independence as well as its accountability for the use of resources.
The key documents would be:-
- the Royal Warrant, which sets out the Commission's remit;
- a Framework Document, which would set out the functions and responsibilities of the Department in relation to the Commission, as well as the functions and responsibilities of the Commission in relation to the Department;
- the Commission's corporate planning documents, as described in the preceding chapter.
8.8 The following section outlines the rationale for the proposed Framework Document. We then return at the end of the chapter to consider whether changes to the Royal Warrant are needed to reflect the framework proposed.
Framework Document
8.9 Under current guidance, there is a requirement that the relationship between the Department and each of its executive NDPBs should be defined at a strategic level in a published Management Statement. For Next Steps Agencies, the corresponding document setting out the relationship between the sponsor Department and the Agency is known as the Framework Document (a title which we consider more clearly reflects its purpose).8.10 Royal Commissions are not currently covered by central guidance on the framework of their relationship with sponsor Departments (the only central guidance for Royal Commissions is set out in a 'Report of the Departmental Committee on the Procedure of Royal Commissions' dated 1910, which is a responsibility of the Home Office, and which focuses on internal procedures rather than defining the relationship with the sponsor Department).
8.11 We consider that the case for drawing up a Framework Document for the RCEP is as cogent as for the other types of body already covered by central guidance. Indeed the particular need in the case of a Royal Commission for careful management of the tension between independence and accountability makes clear articulation of responsibilities and lines of accountability especially important. The intention would be to set out a succinct and durable statement of the principles which shape the relationship, improving clarity without imposing unnecessary bureaucracy.
8.12 A suggested skeleton outline of a Framework Document for RCEP, drawing on examples of other Framework Documents and Management Statements shown to us as examples of good practice, is attached at Annex 8 to provide a starting point for negotiation between the sponsor unit, the Commission and the DETR Finance Divisions (FDA and FSP). Particular issues arising on individual chapters of the Framework Document are also discussed in Annex 8.
8.13 In the case of Next Steps Agencies and executive NDPBs, the Framework Document or Management Statement is often supported by a separate Financial Memorandum. We suggest that in the case of the Royal Commission the necessary arrangements are sufficiently simple for the essential elements of the financial relationship to be incorporated within the Framework Document, with any necessary supporting detail in the Annexes. This would avoid the need either for a Financial Memorandum or for separately updating the SFMR.
8.14 In summary, we recommend that the proposed Framework Document should: -
- set out the status, remit, role and purposes of the Commission;
- clarify the respective responsibilities and accountability of Departmental officials and Commission members and secretariat;
- encompass financial responsibilities and procedures, without recourse to a separate Financial Memorandum or other documentation;
- set out the key purposes and agreed components of the Commission's corporate planning processes, with agreed timescales - replacing the existing resource planning and stewardship documentation;
- replace the existing statement of the Commission Secretary's Financial Management Responsibilities, providing for continuation of the key data requirements through the corporate planning process;
- update the delegations to the Commission;
- clarify the basis on which DETR central services are provided to the Commission;
- give the Commission Secretary responsibility for ensuring internal audit standards are met;
- set out the procedures for appointing the Chairman and Members, and for staffing the Secretariat, as well as clarify the personnel management arrangements.
The Royal Warrant
8.15 The Commission currently operates under the terms of the Royal Warrant, issued in 1970, which set out the Commission's remit and its powers, as well as appointing the first Chairman and Members. In this section we consider whether the Warrant meets today's requirements, and whether there would be advantage in revising it.Match or mismatch between Warrant remit and perceived purposes
8.16 We saw in Chapter 2 above that the Royal Warrant remit 'to advise on matters, both national and international, concerning pollution of the environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment' does not precisely match the perceived purposes of the Commission as expressed to us by interviewees.8.17 On the other hand, the remit is not inconsistent with those purposes, which can be separately articulated in the Framework Document and in the Commission's own strategic planning documents without requiring amendment to the Warrant.
The Commission's title
8.18 We saw also in Chapter 4 that there have been significant changes since 1970 in the context within which the Commission operates. There was a widespread feeling among interviewees that the terminology of 'pollution of the environment' now has a rather narrow and dated ring even though this has not seriously constrained the Commission in its choice of topics.8.19 There was little support for wider recasting of the remit in terms of 'the environment' - as had been proposed in 1992 - or of 'sustainable development' because both of these options were seen as too broad and ill defined.
8.20 However, several people felt that it would be helpful to recast both the remit and the Commission's title in terms of 'environmental protection'. This would legitimise the wider-ranging studies already undertaken by the Commission, without loss of focus, and would also enable the Commission to retain its well known acronym RCEP.
8.21 On the other hand, there was a general reluctance amongst interviewees about making 'tinkering' changes to a formula which seems to be working successfully, and arguably the third leg of the remit (to advise on the future possibilities of danger to the environment) already legitimises studies which range more widely than pollution.
Previous proposed revisions
8.22 In 1992, the Department drew up a revised draft Warrant whose revisions were intended to:-
- permit the Commission to employ staff;
- permit the Commissioners to retain fees;
- clarify the Commission's powers to receive and spend money, including letting contracts; and
- indemnify Commissioners and officers against any personal liability incurred in the discharge of their duties.
The proposed revision was eventually abandoned, apparently because it was felt that changes to the Warrant were not strictly needed to achieve the proposed purposes.
8.23 Since 1992, further changes have been considered to
As with the earlier proposed changes, however, it seems likely that these purposes could be achieved without formally amending the Warrant.
- reflect the desirability of matching duration of appointments to the completion of studies, and
- give guidance on members' performance and responsibilities.
Royal Warrant and Framework Document
8.24 We have given prominence above to the desirability of setting out a clear statement of the Commission's role and responsibilities within a Framework Document agreed with the Department.8.25 We do not see a strong case for amending the Royal Warrant unless the agreements we want to articulate in the Framework Document legally require changes to be made to the Warrant. We suggest that legal advice should be sought when a draft Framework Document has been agreed.
8.26 We consider that, on its own, the case for amending either the remit or the title of the Commission is insufficiently compelling to justify a revision of the warrant - although Home Office advise that the procedure for revising a Warrant is straightforward and quick once the drafting amendments have been settled. We recommend no change to the Royal Warrant unless there are legal reasons for amendment to reflect the content of the Framework Document.
Resource Implications
8.27 Because our corporate planning proposals represent a simplification and rationalisation of current arrangements, we do not believe they will have any significant resource implications for the Commission. Some Secretariat time will be required to set up the proposed Framework Document, although this should be a one-off event, with only minor modifications required thereafter.
7 DETR Sponsorship Handbook - Non Departmental Public Bodies.
8 White Paper "Modernising Government" March 1999.
Published 19 April 2000 / Updated 11 May 2000
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page